Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (362369)	5/3/2010 7:05:05 AM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793843

That's right Nadine, energy does have transportation costs, such as the line losses I mentioned. The point I was making is that the price should not be a function of the cost of production but the demand. Suppose there are 4 production facilities next door to each other - 1 hydro, 1 nukular, 1 geothermal, 1 oil, 1 Orimulsion, 1 coal, and 1 windfarm [turned out to be more than 4]. Each has a different cost to produce the electricity. Some can store the energy better than others. Wind can't be stored at all [unless it's used to pump water uphill or something]. Hydro can easily be stored by shutting the water flow. Oil, Orimulsion and coal can be slowed down by cutting the fuel input. Geothermal steam output can be shut. But the buyers will pay the same price to each because the buyers don't care how much a kilowatt-hour costs to produce, or how it is produced. They will just pay whatever price is on offer. If the hydro is free to produce because of the particular situation, without even having to build a dam or tunnel, the electricity from it will still be charged at the same price as the most expensive source of electricity because that's the value to the buyer. A sensible seller will sell at the price the market will bear. Mqurice