http://www.qando.net/?p=8324

Quote:The controversial Cape Wind project will cost taxpayers and ratepayers more than $2 billion to build – three times its original estimate.

That colossal cost is the driving force behind the sky-high electric rates it plans to charge Massachusetts customers in coming years.

Cape Wind, which wants to build 130 wind turbines off the coast of Cape Cod, and National Grid announced yesterday that they’ve reached an agreement to start charging customers 20.7 cents per kilowatt hour in 2013 – more than double the current rate of electricity from conventional power plants and land-based wind farms.

Under the 15-year National Grid contract, the price of Cape Wind’s electricity would increase 3.5 percent each year, pushing the kilowatt price to about 34.7 cents by the time the contract ends.

Glad I don't live in Massachusetts. And the clown behind this was just on NPR last week talking about how this would not drive up costs at all.

What's the smell? Oh yeah, it's all the bulls*** the "green" movement is spreading.

(05-10-2010 12:58 PM)moe24 Wrote:  Glad I don't live in Massachusetts. And the clown behind this was just on NPR last week talking about how this would not drive up costs at all.

What's the smell? Oh yeah, it's all the bulls*** the "green" movement is spreading.

How much for a nuclear power plant that does not require the wind to blow?

Listening to an interesting debate... the greenies want wind/solar power, but that requires space... and thus long transmission lines to that space... which they are against. Heart in the right place... head not so much

(05-10-2010 12:31 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  http://www.qando.net/?p=8324

Quote:The controversial Cape Wind project will cost taxpayers and ratepayers more than $2 billion to build – three times its original estimate.

That colossal cost is the driving force behind the sky-high electric rates it plans to charge Massachusetts customers in coming years.

Cape Wind, which wants to build 130 wind turbines off the coast of Cape Cod, and National Grid announced yesterday that they’ve reached an agreement to start charging customers 20.7 cents per kilowatt hour in 2013 – more than double the current rate of electricity from conventional power plants and land-based wind farms.

Under the 15-year National Grid contract, the price of Cape Wind’s electricity would increase 3.5 percent each year, pushing the kilowatt price to about 34.7 cents by the time the contract ends.

More than the cost of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico? Idiot.

(05-10-2010 12:58 PM)moe24 Wrote:  Glad I don't live along the Gulf coast. And the clowns behind this was avoiding talking about how this would drive up costs at all.

What's the smell? Oh yeah, it's all the oil that is spreading throughout the Gulf.

Fixed your post. Idiot.

Guess we should have opened up ANWAR instead of offshore, eh??

Whole lot easier to cap a surface well than one in a mile of water.

(05-11-2010 04:01 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(05-10-2010 12:58 PM)moe24 Wrote:  Glad I don't live along the Gulf coast. And the clowns behind this was avoiding talking about how this would drive up costs at all.

What's the smell? Oh yeah, it's all the oil that is spreading throughout the Gulf.

Fixed your post. Idiot.

Idiot???? You ******* liberals kill or tie up every possible way of producing modern energy and then criticize the less modern methods when accidents happen.

(05-11-2010 04:01 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(05-10-2010 12:58 PM)moe24 Wrote:  Glad I don't live along the Gulf coast. And the clowns behind this was avoiding talking about how this would drive up costs at all.

What's the smell? Oh yeah, it's all the oil that is spreading throughout the Gulf.

Fixed your post. Idiot.

Seriously? Do you have any idea how stupid you just made yourself look?

(05-11-2010 12:37 PM)moe24 Wrote:  

(05-11-2010 04:01 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(05-10-2010 12:58 PM)moe24 Wrote:  Glad I don't live along the Gulf coast. And the clowns behind this was avoiding talking about how this would drive up costs at all.

What's the smell? Oh yeah, it's all the oil that is spreading throughout the Gulf.

Fixed your post. Idiot.

Seriously? Do you have any idea how stupid you just made yourself look?

The grammar wasn't the best but I was half asleep when I wrote it. Other than that, looks pretty accurate.

(05-12-2010 01:26 AM)RobertN Wrote:  Other than that, looks pretty accurate.

If by accurate you really mean that you weren't even on subject, then yes.

(05-12-2010 09:37 AM)moe24 Wrote:  

(05-12-2010 01:26 AM)RobertN Wrote:  Other than that, looks pretty accurate.

If by accurate you really mean that you weren't even on subject, then yes.

I was on the subject that you righties want to continue the "drill baby drill" policies and inevitable price rises/oil spills but whine about wind turbine's costs/minimal environmental impacts.

(05-12-2010 12:17 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(05-12-2010 09:37 AM)moe24 Wrote:  

(05-12-2010 01:26 AM)RobertN Wrote:  Other than that, looks pretty accurate.

If by accurate you really mean that you weren't even on subject, then yes.

I was on the subject that you righties want to continue the "drill baby drill" policies and inevitable price rises/oil spills but whine about wind turbine's costs/minimal environmental impacts.

Two different subjects. You keep on going with that bitterness and false assumptions.

(05-12-2010 12:26 PM)moe24 Wrote:  

(05-12-2010 12:17 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(05-12-2010 09:37 AM)moe24 Wrote:  

(05-12-2010 01:26 AM)RobertN Wrote:  Other than that, looks pretty accurate.

If by accurate you really mean that you weren't even on subject, then yes.

I was on the subject that you righties want to continue the "drill baby drill" policies and inevitable price rises/oil spills but whine about wind turbine's costs/minimal environmental impacts.

Two different subjects. You keep on going with that bitterness and false assumptions.

No false assumptions here. You righties want to continue witrh "drill baby drill" becasue you care more about $$$ than you do the environment.

I agree, RObert. Obamas decision to open up more offshore leases but keep ANWAR closed looks pretty stupid now, doesn't it. I mean, if this had happened on land, we'd have it stopped and cleaned up in hours. Little tougher to do in 5,000 feet of water.

I'm not saying it isn't a disaster... but the people who will pay for it are the people who should pay for it.

The PROBLEM is, you don't offer another alternative. EVERY SINGLE megawatt of "wind" energy will cost a multiple of what other power costs... yet this cost is a one-time... or at least rare occurrence. You don't divide the cost of this mess over the amount of oil lost... you divide it by the amount of oil produced by the same means. The cost per barrell, even of a disaster like this... STILL makes it lightyears cheaper than wind.

Your apparent contention that the right WANTS to ruin the environment is poorly placed. If we could go back and invent something other than electricity that travels over wires and genrators and cars and engines that run on oil/gas it would be great... but that isn't where we are... and you don't offer a solution.... you just complain and point fingers.

How'd you get to work this morning, and did you have hot water. lights and A/C at home or in your office?? How was that power supplied?? We are where we are. Where do we go from here?

What does money mean anymore? This is such a small spec in the deficit. Why not pass the penny-a-day increase onto the next generation.

(05-12-2010 03:11 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I agree, RObert. Obamas decision to open up more offshore leases but keep ANWAR closed looks pretty stupid now, doesn't it. I mean, if this had happened on land, we'd have it stopped and cleaned up in hours. Little tougher to do in 5,000 feet of water.

I'm not saying it isn't a disaster... but the people who will pay for it are the people who should pay for it.

The PROBLEM is, you don't offer another alternative. EVERY SINGLE megawatt of "wind" energy will cost a multiple of what other power costs... yet this cost is a one-time... or at least rare occurrence. You don't divide the cost of this mess over the amount of oil lost... you divide it by the amount of oil produced by the same means. The cost per barrell, even of a disaster like this... STILL makes it lightyears cheaper than wind.

Your apparent contention that the right WANTS to ruin the environment is poorly placed. If we could go back and invent something other than electricity that travels over wires and genrators and cars and engines that run on oil/gas it would be great... but that isn't where we are... and you don't offer a solution.... you just complain and point fingers.

How'd you get to work this morning, and did you have hot water. lights and A/C at home or in your office?? How was that power supplied?? We are where we are. Where do we go from here?

This may be a rare occurrence but it's way worse than any accident that could occur from wind or solar. We're not where we need to be with alternative energies yet - while oil and coal are required now in large quantities we need to stop paying lip service to alternative energies and concentrate on research for improving alternate energy sources, otherwise we'll be in exactly the same situation 20 years from now. That research is a lot easier to fund or subsidize when the price of oil isn't held artificially low.

(05-12-2010 12:17 PM)RobertN Wrote:  I was on the subject that you righties want to continue the "drill baby drill" policies and inevitable price rises/oil spills but whine about wind turbine's costs/minimal environmental impacts.

And you liberals want to "tax baby tax" and "spend baby spend" but care not one iota on how hard us little folks, or the big ones, have to work to come up with the $$$ to subsidize your socialist, liberal, enverionmental spending spree.

(05-12-2010 05:31 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  This may be a rare occurrence but it's way worse than any accident that could occur from wind or solar. We're not where we need to be with alternative energies yet - while oil and coal are required now in large quantities we need to stop paying lip service to alternative energies and concentrate on research for improving alternate energy sources, otherwise we'll be in exactly the same situation 20 years from now. That research is a lot easier to fund or subsidize when the price of oil isn't held artificially low.

You missed the point NIU. Wind and solar don't need accidents to be expensive. They are expensive anyway. Even when you factor in the cost of this horrible accident to the cost of oil, it doesn't make it nearly as expensive as wind and solar. I'm not happy that this is the case, because I'd LOVE to not be dependent on foriegn oil... but it is unfortunately the case.

I'm interested in how/why/who you think is artificially keeping the price of oil down?

(05-12-2010 08:00 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-12-2010 05:31 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  This may be a rare occurrence but it's way worse than any accident that could occur from wind or solar. We're not where we need to be with alternative energies yet - while oil and coal are required now in large quantities we need to stop paying lip service to alternative energies and concentrate on research for improving alternate energy sources, otherwise we'll be in exactly the same situation 20 years from now. That research is a lot easier to fund or subsidize when the price of oil isn't held artificially low.

You missed the point NIU. Wind and solar don't need accidents to be expensive. They are expensive anyway. Even when you factor in the cost of this horrible accident to the cost of oil, it doesn't make it nearly as expensive as wind and solar. I'm not happy that this is the case, because I'd LOVE to not be dependent on foriegn oil... but it is unfortunately the case.

I'm interested in how/why/who you think is artificially keeping the price of oil down?

Here are some of the who & how - I bet there's more too. I imagine the why is the same as all the others - concentrated benefits for a few & diffuse costs for the many.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6103RM20100201

Quote:The industry tax breaks that would be lost include: deductions for certain drilling costs, tax credits for low-volume oil and gas wells and a manufacturing tax deduction for oil and gas companies....

The changes would take effect on January 1, 2011, and save $36.5 billion over 10 years, according to the budget proposal.

Another thing I've seen pointed out is limiting the liablity of oil companies for spills to $75 million dollars instead of the actual damages (they do have to pay the full cost of containment & clean up).