State utility regulators made the correct ruling last week in approving Westar Energy’s proposal to produce wind power but denying its request to add 1 percent to its rate of return. Kansas needs to take advantage of its wind energy potential, but Westar stockholders don’t need to make additional profit.
Westar was wise in deciding to proceed with the first phase of its project, and it also should do the second phase. Westar’s stockholders will still make money, and our state and nation will benefit from harnessing the wind.
165 Comments
Yeah, but the CEOs want to charge more so they can bring home a larger paycheck. Does anyone seriously think they’d invest the extra revenue into more wind power? That’s like suggesting deregulation would actually lower prices.
How come Kansas hasn’t passed a net metering law like 38 other states in the country? It would be nice to break Westar’s monopoly.
No WONDER you pull my posts!
WESTAR was correct in stopping future development of windpower in this backward state. Do you think they should deliver new energy sources for FREE?
This negative attitude toward business will be fatal for this state, and the rest of the nation.
It is the making of a buck, which will encourage new energy sources.
It will not come by “pretty please”.
You WANT new energy, but are not willing to PAY for it?
United Socialist States of America.
Brownlee we will experience brown outs with that attitude.
Pat, the cost of wind power is still cheaper than coal but Westar wasn’t trying to coax extra money out of coal power.
I think this says it:
Well I guess Gov Sebelius and the Kansas Corp Commission really are not concerned about GW. Westar Energy has announced that it will hold off indefinately on plans to pursue 200 megawatts of wind generated capacity.
Why? Because the KCC has decided to NOT allow Westar to recoup and recover up to $282 million in construction costs of it’s latest wind power projects.
Kansas we can’t have it both ways. We cannot disapprove new coal plant production and discourage business from pursuing renewable energy production. I guess we can, if we want to experience the brownouts of California and not be progressive toward GW reduction. We also have to stop the opposition to wind energy by the NIMBY lobby.
There is a price to be paid for upgrading to new energy sources. The price includes research, discovery, application, and land purchases.
We either pay the price in higher energy costs, or we will not move forward. Business exists to make money. Windmills will not be built for free.
Posted by: Palm Trees for Sale | December 29, 2007 at 03:14 PM
Hey “Pat”?
I’ve never seen any of your crude and vile posts pulled.
Of course the whole blog knows you are “kansas” who has had many posts pulled.
Where is Westar without customers and a government given monopoly on them?
They NEED to invest in wind. They are making more than enough money.
Yeah “palm trees for shill” is also “kansas”.
We KNOW that.
Question is? Why is a beneficiary of government welfare like “kansas” SO concerned as to corporate profit?
I don’t give a rip about the stockholders and CEOS of Westar anymore than they care about me.
‘Bout time they took a hit to do the right thing.
‘Bout time they took a hit to do the right thing.
Posted by: J R
Therein is the problem. JR you have not a clue what makes a business tick.
Henry Ford didn’t build his model T “so the average man could own an automobile.” He didn’t start paying his workers more money because he loved them.
He did it all to make more money. To make a higher profit.
Anyone expecting WESTAR or any business to operate at a loss, or to lower profits out of the kindness of their hearts, or because “it’s the right thing to do”, is going to be sorely disappointed.
You can’t hold a gun to their head and FORCE them to create new energy efficient sources.
Read the KC Star, today’s issue. WESTAR is s-t-o-p-p-i-n-g new development following the KCC decision.
If you want new energy sources developed NOW for your concern of GW, you better be prepared to pay.
You really can’t have it both ways.Westar Energy, as a utility, pays a higher tax rate than any other type of Commercial business, on all of its property.You say you want wind power, and other alternatives.What you REALLY want is to tear down “evil corporate America”.You really are not living in the real world.Do you envision a bunch of commune living hippies comming up with the money to invest in wind?Do you have an idea, any idea, about what type of organization would ever be able to finance, build and use alternative energy?
Again, you lefties look like rank hypocrites on this one.
Alternative energy is more expensive than coal or nuclear.
You don’t want to pay for it?
You won’t get many alternatives.
Patkansas I will get to you and your corruption as to Henry Ford tomorrow.
If you want new energy sources developed NOW for your concern of GW, you better be prepared to pay.
Posted by: Pat Herron | December 30, 2007 at 01:35 AM
These Socialists Pat, they always want someone ELSE to pay.
Thus the GW supporters tend to be Socialists – lookin to big government to solve the GW problem and pay for the solution, and without ANY personal sacrifice required at all by those who are pushing Global Warming on the rest of us.
And I am as ever on your 6 econ.
You don’t want to pay for it?
You won’t get many alternatives.
Posted by: econ101 | December 30, 2007 at 01:40 AM
They don’t want to pay for anything out of their own pocket Econ.
That’s the beauty of global warming to them, it means more and bigger government programs.
And Max too.
sigh….I’ve better things to do than entertain the late night nic switchers, an fossil fuel shills.
If you are a global warming alarmist and pretend to be one who reduces your Co2 production, what is the temperature in your house right this very minute?
Mine is 62. (70 during the day)
sigh….I’ve better things to do than entertain the late night nic switchers, an fossil fuel shills.
Posted by: J R
JR you get an opinion which disagrees with you and you quit?You are a quitter too?
Al Gore could heat the entire editorial board of the Eagle and the entire WEBLOG list of posters, in the last year with the energy he wastes every year.
You know JR you following me around like a troll all night and accusing me of being Kansas is getting real old.
Take your 5 grand down to the Eagle and shake on your old bet with Kansas. Ask the weblog staff to confirm – Kansas and I are not the same person. (they can do that without revealing our real deal).
And I already know you. YOu will spend an hour or so tomorrow morning looking up HENRY FORD on the internet and somehow twist what I posted all around.
Have fun. I’m happy if I give you such pleasure.
But you either put up – or shut up on calling me Kansas. Take Kansas up on the bet.
PS: And Kansas said I can have his NIC – “if” he ever really does leave.
Oh give it a rest kansas.
I am well aware of how transient IP’s are or can be made to be.
That is why you are still about after being banned.
Oh and I am glad you had to spend your government welfare to do so.
JR you must really suffer from low self esteem. You have no idea who I am in life and would be surprised if you did.
I have much to be thankful for – but food stamps and welfare are not on the list. In fact, if you knew me, you would know I wage holy war against them. And as has been said before, the “free” cheese.
Have a great night. Maybe Max was correct, now you are humping my leg and not his.
Yes I know “kansas”. Though you are on welfare, you oppose it for others.
Apparently you are better….somehow.
If there is no business how can people have jobs?
If a business does not strive to be bigger and better how do they provide jobs to more people?
If people don’t have jobs how will government get it’s money?
If business does not exist how will government get it’s money?
Why do you all beat up on business? If you think it is so easy then go start a business yourself. Take the risks starting a business. Take the risks of owning a business.
Not everyone can handle owning their own business so those people will rely on those that can.
Here’s a thing to note. Tiahrt voted against the energy bill that would have relocated the tax breaks and subsidies for the oil companies towards those companies that invest in wind energy. It would have helped reduce costs associated with wind power and increased the amount of jobs in Kansas.
But Tiahrt receives thousands in donations from oil companies so he did his bosses biding.
Hey, Weststar didn’t pass the law to allow additional profit. The “Great Numb-nut” of the Kansas legislature passed the law.
No WONDER you pull my posts!Posted by: Pat Herron | December 30, 2007 at 01:11 AM
Do they pull a lot of your posts Pat? How many?
Why do you want Kansas’s old nic? Aren’t you bright enough to come up with a clever nic of your own?
I suspect that now that Kansas is gone, if he’s really gone, we will be treated to constant posts by Pat Herron morning, noon, and night. So Pat, will you be posting from work on the company’s time?
The extra $50 million over the next 20 years that Westar stock holders would recieve from a 1% increase is chickenfeed. There’s nothing wrong with investors expecting to make a profit from their investment; that’s why they invest. If there’s no incentive to invest, it won’t happen.
I think KCC blew this one. In my job I deal with Westar a lot. My impression of the company and experience with their people has been very positive. When you’re in a jam, they will get you out of it. They’re very committed people.
Wind power is a next generation power source. It’s a green power source. It’s time that anyone who claims to be Green steps up to the plate and supports Westar’s efforts to help wean us away from the stranglehold foreign oil has on the American consumer.
Personally, I’d rather see an American business like Westar get an additional 1% profit than continue to pour American dollars into the coffers of the oil sheikdoms. After all, how many percent have they increased the cost of energy over the past few years?
So Westar wanted a little extra for it’s investment in a different technology. Big deal. What they requested wasn’t exactly a back breaker for anyone. About half the cost of a pack of cigarettes per month. It’s probably a good thing that there were no organizations like CURB and the KCC around back in the old days when GM decided to charge $600 more for air conditioning in a new car. Perhaps GM should have just eaten that extra cost. Everyone wants “green” but doesn’t want to pay for it. I hope Westar quits the project. Keep those 100 car coal trains a rollin’.
Actually compared to other states, Kansas has a low cost for residential service from the electric companies, so we probably could have afforded the little extra cost for wind energy without it hitting our wallets substantialy.
We rank 38th in cost for service, so its still fairly cheap.
guess we can, if we want to experience the brownouts of California and not be progressive toward GW reductionPat Herron
If I remember right when California was rife with brownouts, the main cause was Cali ran out of money. Because the oil companies were charging for oil not delivered. Were double charging (kinda the same thing, isn’t it?) for oil delivered. And holding back oil already paid for to use in other places.I’m all for giving them their pittance for developing wind farms. It really isn’t alot. And I’ll be truly happy when, 20 years down the road and the cost of development is absorbed, energy costs are dropped 80% since you needn’t keep buying wind. The 20% remaining is to pay the clown to watch the blades spin and pick up the occasional bird too stupid to be in the common gene pool.
If those on the board was regulated like Westar they would lodge a big protest. Those people in business are entitled to a fair profit. Whose opinion makes it a fair profit? For the Wichita Eagle, if you don’t make a fair profit you are out of business. I know darn well your stockholders want more profit. Would you disavow that? We need more energy by what ever source, tell me about it when I lose my electricity for 8 days. Maybe the Queen bee will pay for a windmill in my back yard. Ha!
Well said XXX.
We keep talking about the importance of investing in alternative sources of energy. Well?
Westar’s pockets are deep enough for them to do the right thing.
If utility companies want to continue to have their monopolies enforced and protected by law, then they need to accept regulation of their profits. This is _not_ an issue of “free enterprise,” and any attempts to spin it that way completely miss the point.
As a matter of fact Tom, it is free enterprise. If the investors in Westar Energy cannot make a profit – they will not spend money for new development. I have western resources now westar in my own equity portfolio, and many investors own energy stock.
This isn’t one big CEO making all the money – it’s thousands of Americans in the stock (Western Resources/Westar are DRIP eligible), 401K’s, and mutual funds. You’d be wise to invest in energy stock, and enjoy some return on those “windfall” profits.
But the point is regulators and green people cannot have it both ways. You won’t get wind power generation, without investment. I would not invest in a company that does not provide me a return on my investment.
Green power ain’t free.
Put up your money and pay to be part of the solution or shut up.
Of course Westar’s stockholders have a right to a return on their investment. But one of the reasons utility investments are viable the industry is a monopoly everyone needs. There’s not the same risk involved as when, say, capital invests in a grocery store or high-tech or start-up manufacturing.
Utility executives covet the profits of the telecoms. Staid old Ma Bell was simply another utility back in the day. Then the technology changed and additional services led to huge business opportunities. Electric and gas utilities don’t have a nearly the marketing opportunities. They’re not gonna send you better electricity or better natural gas; they’re like Ma Bell when the phone company merely had to deliver a dial tone.
What’s cynical about Weststar is its audacity to think investing in renewable technology somehow earns them higher profits. They thought they could jump on the renewable resource bandwagon and jack up the price. But their product is just the same stuff going through the wire as coal-powered juice.
For a lot of reasons that don’t have to do with capital and return on investment, wind-generated electricity is superior to coal-generated power. But corporations don’t think in terms of anything but capital and ROI and hoped they could gig us for bigger profits.
Troll-clone,
Telling someone you disagree with to “shut up” shows us all just how tiny your mind is. I’d be embarrassed to take that tiny thing out in public if I were you.
And _YOU_ made the choice to purchase part of a government-protected monopoly. No one forced you to buy WR stock or bonds; no one held a gun to your head and made you put your 401k money into utilities. You invested with eyes open to the fact of regulation, and your whining about it after the fact is annoying at best, dishonest at worst.
Again: Electric generation and delivery is a protected monopoly in almost every jurisdiction in this nation. To have their business protected by government fiat, the price the owners pay is regulation of their profits. It’s _not_ a free enterprise arrangement.
Your name-calling is revealing too Tom. Does nothing for your argument, and just makes you look small.
Regardless on whether the energy source is a monopoly, it will not invest in renewable energy sources without a profit. I have emailed the company as a stock holder in support of their decision to STOP funding wind power generation without a return on my investment. As a consumer of the monopoly’s product, you too Tom, should help fund the move to greener energy sources.
Are you not willing to pay for improvements?
The voters of Kansas, through their duly elected representatives in government, recently said a precedent setting NO to a new coal fire power plant.
Now Westar? Ya gotta get the power you sell us somewhere. You will need to be getting it through means accepted by and friendly to your customers. Nice TRY to pass the cost to them. But thing is? Ultimately WE the people control demand. And we the people are asserting our rights as to supply.Now we know you have been treated for a long time as the master of both ends of the equation. But that just is no longer the case.
So Pat, will you be posting from work on the company’s time?
Posted by: *_* | December 30, 2007 at 08:13 AM
So you work for the Eagle and are a member of the Staff? Otherwise, you have no idea where I’m posting from and are just spouting off.
WE the people control demand. And we the people are asserting our rights as to supply.
You create the demand. The company creates the product to meet the demand. If demand increases, without a corresponding increase in supply, the price of the product goes up.
You will pay more, one way or the other.
Troll-clone,
If I tried, at my own expense, to build a wind generator on rural property I own, and then tried to sell or otherwise distribute the excess power to my neighbors, the State of Kansas would have me shut down and tied up in injunctions and other legal remedies faster than you can say “ohm.”
Since you’re a WR owner, why don’t you direct your company’s lobbyist to work for the removal of the government protection from your monopoly on power generation. That way I and others will have the opportunity to compete in the free market you champion, and find the best and most effective ways to general clean power. If WR isn’t willing to give up the government-protected monopoly you enjoy, then I’m not willing to give up the legal restrictions on the profits you get to take from my pocket.
Demand will be going down. People are every day becoming more energy conscious.
And the people have learned they have a voice as to supply as well.
This isn’t a bad thing. This is as it should be! The utility companies are supposed to be beholden to their customers, not the other way around.
Go back to paranoid “kansas” you are better at it.:)
duly elected representatives in government, recently said a precedent.
I don’t recall the state legislature voting on this. Not sure about setting a precedent either. Maybe not this year, maybe not in five years, but when there is insufficient energy to meet our growing needs, you will pay for more energy plants. It might feel good to win the battle, but the war is far from over. The move to more renewable and cleaner energy sources is going to be a long one.
Every American should be willing to pay for their use of energy, and the move to cleaner resources.
It’s that pesky socialist principle coming back to bite the libs.
It’s that pesky socialist principle coming back to bite the libs.Posted by: Pat Herron | December 30, 2007 at 10:55 AM
I don’t know how to make this more clear. You’re admittedly a part-owner in a government-protected monopoly. The government, with all the legal power it possesses, protects your profit (you know, the money you take out of my pocket) from any and all forms of competition. There’s ZERO risk in your business. You are guaranteed a return on your investment, no matter how high your costs are.
That’s not socialism, sir. That’s actually much, much closer to fascism, and you benefit from it financially every time your stock gains value or dividends are distributed.
If I tried, at my own expense, to build a wind generator on rural property I own, and then tried to sell or otherwise distribute the excess power to my neighbors,
I agree with you Tom. Many years ago (1980/1), in a neighboring state, I had a friend who was a Vietnam Vet, back to nature, stock provisions for the nuke war, kind of guy. His family built a electricity generating wind mill. That state was required to buy his excess power. The power generated beyond his home use, was put on the grid and he was paid for it.
I’m all for that. The cost to the power company to collect that excess energy should be compensated for. So you might not get paid for your electrical generation at the same rate as Westar charges it’s residential customers, but you should be paidjust as the company should be paid for their costs in retrieving that excess.
See how that works? Everyone pays and everyone is compensated.
you benefit from it financially every time your stock gains value or dividends are distributed.
Posted by: Tom
And I love it when that happens!(which is almost EVERY quarter of the year.)
So de-regulate the monopoly.
So de-regulate the monopoly.Posted by: Pat Herron | December 30, 2007 at 11:07 AM
Tell it to your company’s lobbyist, and to your co-owners. Giving up the government protected profit is sure to go over really, really well.
And anyway, why do you keep spinning this to seem as though WR wouldn’t get the _exact_ same rate of return from wind generation as from coal, or the nuclear generator WR owns at Wolf Creek? WR gets to keep a percentage above cost. Whatever the wind generators cost to build, maintain, and operate, WR gets the same profit there as they do from Wolf Creek, etc.
It seems pretty damned fair to me.
Why should it be “fair” Tom? Why is government in the business of trying to be fair? The present arrangement obviously isn’t making you very happy. Maybe if we’d had a little competition years ago, we wouldn’t be in the energy mess we are in today.
Look up WR and consider it Tom. Don’t beat me up as an evil owner, I’m just the little guy doing a little dollar cost averaging in this case via a DRIP offered by the company years ago. Although the stock price has been flat of late, it has been quite nice since 2000. But those quarterly dividends are particularly nice.
When you turn that heat up, you can help fund your own investment, instead of just giving it to the man. Don’t forget I’m a consumer too. My heat is on right now. Crank that baby up Tom and help fund my retirement, if not your own!
Actually, Troll-clone, I’m not the one complaining about the current arrangement. YOU are. See upthread where you whine about not getting to pull MORE money out of my pocket?
I think the system is working reasonably well. I get power, you get paid. But again, in exchange for government protection for your paycheck, you don’t get a raise without that very same government giving it to you. And you’ve been told “no.”
Too bad.
Whatever the wind generators cost to build, maintain, and operate, WR gets the same profit there as they do from Wolf Creek, etc.
It’s that “whatever” that is the disagreement. You want them to absorb the “cost to build, maintain, and operate” and settle for the same rate of return on assets developed long ago when costs were cheaper.
SOMEone has to pay the cost to develope new and renewable energy.
That SOMEone should include ALL Americans.
Unless this is another socialist program where democrats decide to create social change – but not on everyone fairly.
equally not fairly.
But I’m done. Spin away. I got your NO. And you got your NO from Westar on building and investing in new energy sources.
Good grief. Are you intentionally ignorant, or does this just come naturally to you?
WR won’t “absorb the cost” of ANYTHING. It will all be paid back by WR’s customers, INCLUDING a nice profit margin equal to that earned on WR’s other assets.
…and settle for the same rate of return on assets developed long ago when costs were cheaper.Posted by: Pat Herron | December 30, 2007 at 11:28 AM
Jesus. It’s not the same rate of return, it’s the same revenue. If you want to speak intelligently about rates of return, you have to address the capital costs and the cost of capital.
The cost of capital is way down from what it was when Wolf Creek was built.
What’s the capital investment? Likely it, too, is WAY down from any new coal or nuke plants.
And you know maintenance of wind would be a pittance compared to either coal (EPA) or nuke (EPA plus nuclear regulation).
It’s very likely that, even without the 1% bump to revenue, Westar’s ROI for wind power would INCREASE it’s consolidated ROI.
My guess is that, given the corporate culture of the Lawrence/Topeka/KC triangle (remember how Westar was under David Wittig??), as a highly regulated public utility monopoly Westar will try to maximize its revenue by appealing to stockholders like Pat Herron, to argue in their behalf before they’ll invest (Pat, you and Max are certainly doing your part here!). But sooner or later, they’ll invest in wind power because the ROI is actually much higher than that of either coal or nuclear.
Name calling again Tom? Call me whatever you want. I am enjoying my WR dividends which you are helping me reap. Who is the ignorant one.
The KCC is not allowing Westar to recoup ALL their construction costs. Only part of them. Further, the company is going to be entitled to higher profits – state LAW allows them to seek up to 2%. They requested 1%.
But it’s like libs are always saying: Increase the price of gas to discourage use and invest the increase in new energy sources. Same thing here. (Like smokers pay more to discourage young people from picking up that habit?)
Anyway, Westar will not build any more wind farms. I have mining stock too Tom, so keep those coal cars coming! How did you put it?
Too bad.
http://www.kansascity.com/business/story/422156.html
“The commission notes it has granted Westar the ownership (of wind farms) it seeks, which provides Westar’s shareholders with an almost 11 percent rate of return,” the commission order said. “Furthermore, Westar’s risk in this venture is effectively mitigated by the commission’s other decisions in this predetermination docket.”
“The commission did give Westar much of what it asked for, including authorization to own its own wind power plants and the right to charge customers $282 million to build wind farms next year, plus future operating expenses.”
Jesus. It’s not the same rate of return, it’s the same revenue.
Posted by: Pedant | December 30, 2007 at 11:39 AM————————————–The company wanted the commission to permit it to earn an additional 1 percent return.
http://www.kansascity.com/business/story/422156.html————————————–
I stand corrected.
“Adding 300 megawatts of wind power — enough to power 90,000 homes — is projected to cost $830 million over the next 20 years.
The Kansas Corporation Commission said that the Topeka-based utility’s plans were prudent and that it would be allowed to recover up to $282 million in construction costs…”
Gee Tom, does that sound like a good investment to put your money in?
Spend 830 million but only recoup $282?
IT would have increased rates only 2 bucks a month. NOT WILLING TO PAY FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY GREENS???????
Interesting, the power generated is tiny compared to overall state demand.
Kansas has much bigger battles to look forward to.
Again, ALL Americans should help pay for lowering GW. What better measure than your own carbon use?
Troll-clone,
You’ve managed to tell two lies with one partial quote.
First: The $282 million is what it gets to recover _next year._ You clipped that from your copy/paste. Intentionally, I presume.
Second: The $830 million is the _total_ cost over 20 years, INCLUDING operating expenses AND Westar’s purchase of power from wind generators owned by others.
They STILL GET their 11% guaranteed, government-protected, risk-free profit.
Tom Troll-clone,
Kansans enjoy some of the lowest costs for energy than many states.It is high time we pay MORE to support lowering GW and upgrading our energy infrastructure to support renewable energy sources.
All of us should pay more, to improve the atmosphere for future generations.
The price should be HIGH for consumers to discourage use. SUV’s and Pickup Trucks should pay an ENERGY TAX. Every vehicle sold should have an ENERGY TAX added to it, based upon MPG. The auto industry will be increasing the cost for those hybrid and hydrogen powered cars – and the consumer will without question pay that price.
Home energy use should be no different.
You do WANT to lower GW gases don’t you?
Gee Tom, does that sound like a good investment to put your money in?
Spend 830 million but only recoup $282?
IT would have increased rates only 2 bucks a month.
Posted by: Pat Herron | December 30, 2007 at 11:51 AM
It’s a state regulated monopoly. It has monopoly claims on ALL future revenues, so if your point is about “payback” then it has all the time in the world to recoup these costs.
In this case the $2 per month would be paid to investors, not the government (using your gas tax example). I’d support your stand if we “nationalized” ownership of Westar, so that all Kansans could participate in the windfall revenue Westar wants here. Of course, I don’t think you want that (and neither do I).
Again, I think it’s very likely that the wind farm programs will increase Westar’s ROI, even without the 1% they wanted baked in. It’s not like Westar is getting a bad deal here.
Does being anti-green mean that you demand a premium before you’ll support energy independence?
I did not lie Tom.
The rate of return provides the company with measured return. The cost of services to provide any return is a measured value. Increasing land, windmills, operational costs, etc.. WILL increase the cost for services. They are ADDING service not decreasing any existing services. Hopefully, the cost of the new more efficient renewable sources will be a lower RATE than existing. BUT IT WILL BE ADDITIONAL costs to existing.
And no the $282 does NOT cover all development and fielding costs.
But keep on dreaming and blaming the big evil CEO’s. It will not help us overcome our dependency on coal/gas, and will not get us moving quickly to reduce green house emmissions and protecting our environment.
You gotta pay. We ALL have to pay.
being anti-green mean that you demand a premium before you’ll support energy independence?
Posted by: Pedant
Never said I was anti-green. Where you getting that? Read my posts last night and today.
It’s not a “premium”. To encourage conservation of existing resources, and rapidly fund development of NEW resources – someone has to pay.
I’m saying all of us have to pay, it is not BIG OIL, or the BIG POWER bad guys who are going to bring our nation closer to energy independence.
It will take the consumers. Regardless of national energy policy which mandates 35 MPG by 2022 – it is the guy like ME driving a 2004 Honda Civid Hybrid making 44 MPG who is setting the trend for industry to match.
Here our local company too a beating when they proposed Coal and lost. So moving in the direction toward wind (which is a tiny part of any solution), we again tell them no.
So what does the company do? Announce they will cease all exploration of alternative energy sources.
You think you won. But we all really lost. (Being an equity holder just complicates my position, but as I said there are many invested in energy – I’m not alone. But I must admit, when I see my higher energy bill each month, I feel better knowing I will reap dividends.)
You think you won.
Posted by: Pat Herron | December 30, 2007 at 12:19 PM
No. I take your point about time (time to market), and it gives me pause because I too think energy independence just can’t come fast enough.
The problem for me is that Westar is a monopoly. Monopolies should and do get treated differently, and for excellent reasons.
Where you may have swayed me comes when you argue that Westar should be de-regulated, but only if by deregulation you mean that they should lose their monopoly. Then my objection goes away, at least in principle.
I may doubt the computer skills — or not — to dermine is “Pat Herron” is “Kansas” or “Kahn” or any number of pseudonyms. It really doesn’t matter who’s posting what “Pat Herron” has offered.
But when “Pat Herron” offers up: “You gotta pay. We ALL have to pay,” and yet insists on increased profits for kilowatt hours if they’re generated by renewable energy as opposed to coal or nukes… ya just gotta shake your head and wonder. If, in fact, “We ALL have to pay,” perhaps the stockholders of Westar should accept a bit less return on their guaranteed income.
That’s “Pat Herron’s” latest argument which, unfortunately counters all of “Pat Herron’s” previous arguments.
Sounds like “Kansas” to me
:-)
SOMEone has to pay the cost to develope new and renewable energy.That SOMEone should include ALL Americans.Posted by: Pat Herron | December 30, 2007 at 11:28 AM
And I love it when that [dividend distribution] happens!(which is almost EVERY quarter of the year.)Posted by: Pat Herron | December 30, 2007 at 11:07 AM
Socialize the costs. Privatize the profits. Fascism is on the march.
Monkeyhawk,
A troll by any other name…
Can’t you just see it: Electric Utilities:”We HAVE to meet the governors request to have 25% of renewable energy by 2025, so we HAVE to build new transmission lines and pass the cost to consumers”.
Fact: contracting with proposed sites in Geary, Riley and Morris county companies requires NO NEW TRANSMISSION LINES or ‘invasion of the Tall Grass ‘Prestine’” Prairie that the governor said was off limits. The Highway defining of the prairie allows the electric utilities to go ahead with these developments.They were asked to use “voluntary restraint” for development. These three sites are NOT PRESTINE PRAIRIE and thus able to be developed. A little courage is needed from the Utilities. Consumers need to let electric utilities know that this less expensive alternative is preferred.Bill Morris et al with Westar must have $omething el$e to gain by not following their data from their Bunker Hill met tower data (in Wabaunsee Co). It’s politics, not practicallity, that runs electric generation from wind in eastern Kansas
Liberals would support “carbon” taxes, controlled by the government. That money would be spent the way that the government wants to spend that money.
Liberals do not support higher costs or fees, if that money is controlled by private, for profit businesses.
In other words, in the liberal mind, some government official will always have a better idea about how to produce, transport and bill for energy, than anyone who actually WORKS in the energy or utility field.
This is also why liberals want the government to run out health care system.
Liberals always, always know best.—-A concession, in part:
Having electric meters “run backwards” would be ok with me, for those who put up their own, private windmills.
I think that the dollar amount per kilowatt hour, or unit thereof, should be the same, up to the amount of net energy used, by the consumer.
However, after that break even point is reached, I think the “consumer” should only get back a fraction of that regulated kilowatt hour charge.
Why?
The utility pays utility property tax rates. The individual or the non utility commercial property owner might not even place the wind mill on the tax rolls, at all. If the non utility windmill does make it onto the tax rolls, it certainly will not be taxed at utility rates.
Also, the individual, non-utility generator should have to pay something for transmission and transportation costs. The individual should contribute to the “grid” maintenance.
…still stinks of troll.
Here’s something interesting to note. Previously the argument for more coal was so Kansas could sell the energy to Oklahoma and Colorado. The problem is that Colorado is greatly expanding the amount of alternative energy and laws prohibit to purchase of additional dirty energy so they won’t buy our coal power. That just leaves Oklahoma and how much power can they consume?
However there are plenty of markets for wind power. If Kansas doesn’t develop the wind power then we can’t compete with other states who want to meet benchmarks for higher percentages of clean energy.
Either develop it here or they’ll build it elsewhere and take the jobs and revenue with them.
Another sad thing is Kansas, especially Wichita, has the infrastructure for constructing the windmills but that hasn’t been exploited thanks to horse and buggy politicians like Tiahrt.
Think further down the road and with more reliance on coal power will mean higher energy costs should a carbon tax ever be implemented. Wind power will be cheaper but we’ll shoot ourselves in the foot with higher energy prices.
The more we invest in wind and solar now the greater the return on the investment in the future. However that’s liberal economics, the kind that brings balanced budgets and profits.
“The individual or the non utility commercial property owner might not even place the wind mill on the tax rolls, at all.”
Alternative energy (wind/solar, etc.) are not subject to property tax for residences or commercial. So Westar won’t have to pay taxes on their windmills just like I wouldn’t have to. However the current law is that I have to pay more for wind power from Westar but if I produce it they buy it from me at a discount.
DougYou are completely, totally wrong.Utilities must pay Utility tax rates on all property that they own, even the power lines.Westar, (or another utility), is usually the top taxpayer in every taxing district in Kansas, and in every “tax unit” a utility will be the top taxpayer.
Has the law changed?
http://www.dsireusa.org/documents/Incentives/KS79201.htm
Econ,
79-201Chapter 79.–TAXATIONArticle 2.–PROPERTY EXEMPT FROM TAXATION
79-201. Property exempt from taxation; religious, educational, literary, scientific, benevolent, alumni association, veterans’ organization or charitable purposes; parsonages; community service organizations providing humanitarian services; landfill gas and production property. The following described property, to the extent herein specified, shall be and is hereby exempt from all property or ad valorem taxes levied under the laws of the state of Kansas:
…Eleventh. For all taxable years commencing after December 31, 1998, all property actually and regularly used predominantly to produce and generate electricity utilizing renewable energy resources or technologies. For purposes of this section, “renewable energy resources or technologies” shall include wind, solar, thermal, photovoltaic, biomass, hydropower, geothermal and landfill gas resources or technologies.
Doug,
What the hell is it with so-called “conservatives” these days that there isn’t a fact that goes by that can be ignored for the sake of a talking point?
Don’t they realize how ridiculous they look?
TomThanksI was wrong on that one, obviously.My apologies on that. However, the transmission lines from the generation site?A utility still gets taxed on transmission lines, at a very high rate.
Hey Westar?
Friends of power plants?
Here’s a fun little activity I invite others to try.
Pick a nice spring day. Then, go around your home and unplug everything. Go outside once in awhile to take a look at your electric meter. Watch the little wheel turn slower and slower and you sending Westar less money in the meantime.
Last? Unplug your refrigerator. Now you will see the little wheel has stopped. Then you are paying Westar nothing.
Then, go back and plug in your refrigerator. Next go around and decide what else you absolutely must have plugged in. Does your microwave REALLY need to have the wrong time blinking on it all the time? It takes only a few seconds to set your clock radio at night. Leave it unplugged til then.
Every little bit helps to send Westar the message. WE control demand. WE will also regulate how you do supply. WE are the customer and you serve US.
You can BET that if the state started building or even threatening to build wind turbines on the best sites that Westar would be screaming to build them first. I say let’s stick the pig and make it squeal.
Paul should just realize that liberals are always right, or that he is always wrong. The conservatives were whining about how expensive it would be to stop spewing sulphur dioxide every where, yet it ended up costing them practically nothing.
It’s just that they are lazy.
Paul, any charges on their utility lines (which they have to develop if they built a coal plant) will be included in the cost to the consumer. So they aren’t really paying any property tax, their customers are so it’s a moot point.
Econ,
And that tax is passed on to the ratepayers, who pay cost-plus-11% under current Kansas law.
Reiterating my earlier point: Westar makes 11%, no matter how much it costs to make it.
Damn Tom, quit pwning Paul exactly when I do. It’s kinda weird.
::wink::
The differential in tax treatment remains:The utility is taxed on the transmission lines, up to the commercial or residential property.The property owner is not taxed on those lines, if the property owner is not a utility.As far as generation in concerned, the utility, it appears, will not be taxed on the windmill, but the transformers and transmission lines from the generation facility? Yes, they will be.
Also, please note, I already made the point that the commercial or residential property owner would probably NOT pay utility rates on that property. I was correct on that, if only by accident.—-I proposed a dollar for dollar payment, up to the amount of actual energy used by the end user, up to a “break even” point.
After that point, I think that the end user would have to “pay” for transmission costs, in some way.
Do you have a problem with that idea?
DougSo then, you agree, corporations do not “pay taxes” only the customers or end users do?Gosh, we conservatives have been telling you that for years.
Econ,
I don’t have a big problem with the current system. It seems to work fairly well. My lights come on, Westar gets paid.
Should it be public policy to pay, or discount prices, for consumers to co-generate “green” power? That’s a completely different issue from this blog topic, which is: Does Westar deserve a higher margin of profit just for doing what they’re already getting paid to do?
TomWell gosh, it was not my idea to go “off topic” — and I am not sure that I did.Someone else brought up the whole “reverse meter” idea, not me.Also, now that we have been made aware of the “exempt” status of renewalble energy property, why haven’t more commercial businesses been installing their own windmills?It would appear that wind energy is not terribly competitive, just yet.
“DougSo then, you agree, corporations do not “pay taxes” only the customers or end users do?Gosh, we conservatives have been telling you that for years.”
So you shouldn’t complain if the government raises the amount of taxes a corporation has to pay. When the taxes are raised the corporation has the choice of passing the costs onto the consumer and being less competitive or cutting back on CEO pay and stock bonuses. Corporate taxes are passed on as consumption taxes so only those who want the services have to pay. As it is now with lower corporate taxes there are more taxes on labor so the more you work the more you have to pay regardless of whether or not you buy anything.
Sorry bub, there’s still a difference and what you fail to recognize is that your preferred tax system encourages more companies to move jobs overseas.
Just a thought:Wichita is the indusrial center of Kansas.I am guessing that, perhaps, tall structures around our aircraft plants and airports are not a good idea?What is it that is keeping our heavy energy users from jumping on this idea?Also, our ethanol plants and our chemical plants and refineries use lots of electricity.What gives?Why haven’t they tried to take advantage of this property tax break?I am asking honest questions here.I believe in tax breaks.
Perhaps, when the Feds come in with MORE tax breaks, the combination of Federal income tax breaks and State property tax breaks will “tip the balance” in favor of wind?
I don’t know.
All I am stating is that, with the tax exempt status of wind, currently, it seems odd to me that heavy users of electricty, in Kansas, have not jumped on this idea.
Could it be the cost issue? The issue that Westar was worried about?
“why haven’t more commercial businesses been installing their own windmills?”
Paul, perhaps you ignored the point about Westar having a monopoly? Any power produced has to be sold to Westar at a discount so the opportunity to reclaim money on your investment is reduced while Westar profits from your investment. Perhaps you should study up on the net metering issue.
Doug”Sorry bub, there’s still a difference and what you fail to recognize is that your preferred tax system encourages more companies to move jobs overseas.
Posted by: Doug | December 30, 2007 at 01:24 PM
—-Not exactly:
http://www.kpmg.de/library/pdf/070625_KPMGsCorporate_and_Indirect_Tax_Rate_Survey07.pdf
The corporate tax rates, in the USA, are not very competitive. Our corporate income tax rates are part of the reason for jobs being “outsourced” overseas.
DougThe commercial companies will not have to “sell” what they use, themselves.Those rules, those economies, are not relevant.I am talking, specifically, about the HIGH USE commercial businesses.
They could produce enough to meet their own needs, and not have a care in the world about what Westar might, or might not,
“pay” for that energy.
Econ,
It’s more of a scale and delivery issue.
Power companies have a mix of generating techniques.
Some, like hydro, aren’t adjustable to meet varying demand loads. The water flows at the rate it’s going to flow, and it’s either use-it-or-lose-it on the amount of power it can generate.
Nuclear is somewhat the same; it’s hard to start and stop a reactor, or adjust the amount of electricity it generates. And even if you try to “turn down” the power, the nuclear fuel still “burns” (decays) at pretty much the same rate whether it’s generating power or not.
Hydro and nuclear make great baseline generators – you know, that part of the power that’s always “on.”
Oil, gas and coal fired generators, on the other hand, are very easy to turn on, off, and adjust. They’re great for meeting high electricity demand at peak times, and when shut off, you’re not watching fuel go over the dam or decay into DU.
In Kansas, every KW of windpower generated comes directly out of what would have been generated by burning coal or natural gas. The windier it is at any given time, the less carbon-based fuel has to be burned at that moment. The impact on carbon pollution is direct and immediate.
So. To answer your question about why businesses don’t build wind generators and use them: Because the power source isn’t _stable._ It’s less about cost per kw hour than it is about availability. Plus, as Doug just pointed out, they can’t sell their excess power to their neighbors. Imagine if Boeing could power their aluminum smelters with wind power during the day when they’re working, and sell the extra wind power to neighborhood residences and businesses at night. Perhaps then, we’d see more of what you’re proposing.
Again, why arent HIGH USE commercial and industrial companies putting up more windmills?
“Our corporate income tax rates are part of the reason for jobs being “outsourced” overseas.”
SOME might see it that way. Others see it as greedy companies that do not want to pay their dues in the country that let them build what they have.
Oh and there are ways to address it too. Can ya say tarriffs?
Maybe the government ought to make some noises about getting into the energy biz. That’d get the utilities feeling REAL cooperative.
Econ,
Because to be efficient, those windmills have to be generating power, and a return on their investment, 24/7. That power can’t be stored – it has to be _delivered,_ whether the business is actually at work or not. If they can’t sell their excess power, the windmill sits there, aging and depreciating, and requiring the same amount of maintenance as one that moves power 24/7.
TomI still think we will have some trouble with windmills around airports. Maybe these new, cone shaped windmills, that are not as tall, might work?Anyway, if there is no property tax on the windmill, if they produced only enough wind energy to handle ALL of their needs on “non-peek” load times, what would be the risk?Why havent they done this, already?
Econ,
I keep explaining. I don’t think you’re understanding.
For those expensive, high-tech wind turbines to be efficient and competitive, they have to have a customer any time the wind blows, whether the business that owns them needs that power at that moment or not. An idle wind turbine is a money-loser.
It’ll take too long to give Paul a lesson on economics and I just don’t have the time right now as I have a job to go to. Needless to say Paul has been proven wrong so many times and I’ll just be repeating myself as I’m sure I explained all of it to him before. JR hinted at the big word, tariffs. U.S. companies will report loses in America (higher tax rate) and bigger profits in China (lower tax rate) and pay less taxes. Paul apparently hasn’t heard of loopholes and deductions but there is a lot he doesn’t know about, and this one thread is proof of that.
Tarrifs?
The “Smoot Hauley” trade tarrifs caused the Great Depression!
Trade wars are terrible things, they cause real, shooting wars, starvation and economic chaos.
TomI am talking about large companies that have huge demands, even at non-peek load times.
You are talking past my question, not addressing it directly.
The refineries have lots of lights on, and run 24 hours a day, pretty much.
Same with the Ethanol plants.
Same with many meat packing plants.
All of these places heat or cool their buildings and run electric lighting, even when they are closed for business.
Their needs, even at “non peek” times, are huge.
Why don’t they put up windmills?
DougAnyone who took a “loss” on overseas operations and fraudulently transfered said “loss” to American operations would go to jail for such fraud.
Why don’t they put up windmills?Posted by: econ101 | December 30, 2007 at 01:57 PM
Let’s see…you named industries that aren’t operating as government-protected, government-enforced monopolies with government-guaranteed profit margins. I’m gonna take a wild stab at a guess, and say that’s probably the reason.
DougI did not know about the Kansas statute exempting windmills from Kansas property tax.So what?That error was beside the point.
My point remains that utility companies have higher expenses than non utility companies, when transmission costs are figured in, and that utility transmission lines are taxed at very high, utility rates.
The large users of electricity would not only have NO property tax on their own windmills, they would have NO transmission costs on energy they used, themselves.
If individuals sometimes see the benefit of their own windmills, how come businesses have not jumped on this idea?
Maybe, maybe the individuals are doing the windmill thing for status or ego reasons, and not economics?
TomSo, you admit that wind power is “risky”?
Where is the risk, for a company that uses hundreds of kilowatts, even on low peek demand time?
Westar, as a regulated monopoly, should be allowed a ‘reasonable’ profit on their generating capacity. Wind has enough of a track record that its risk/benefit character is well understood. So, there is no reason for any sort of ‘premium’ for wind as opposed to other power sources.
In fact, wind may actually be LESS risky than other energy sources. There is no nuclear waste to dispose of. There will be no fuel cost escalations to deal with. There IS a large up-front capital outlay; however you don’t have to ‘feed’ it.
Econ,
Why are you making up “quotes” I didn’t say? I said it’s not cost effective.
Do you know that, depending on consumption, businesses pay as little as 1/4 the rate that residential customers pay per KW hour?
Why would a business increase its cost to generate power when it can get volume discounts from Westar?
“… even on low peek demand time?”
Posted by: econ101 | December 30, 2007 at 02:04 PM
Is that when fewer people are looking (peeking) at them?
Mike “Herroni”:
Pat “Herron” last night bragged about being the Troll’s replacement/new nic embodiment. Why would I want to take that honor from him by calling him something other than “Troll?”
And “beat the crap out of”? Huh? There was a fistfight somewhere, and I missed it?
Stupid sock-puppets.
“Mike Herroni”,
Your writing style, both content and layout, are identical to the troll formerly known as “Kansas.”
Nice try. Didn’t you promise to leave and never come back? How can we miss you if you won’t go away?
Stupid sock-puppet.
Gee what blog you reading there “Mike”? All “Pat” did was chase her own tail. Probably because no one else will.
peek peak tweek tweak
Lots of people make typos and spelling errors.
You would make a great secretary or a great editor.
Author or executive?
Not sure.
It is unfortunate that a topic that could have intelligent discussion ends up like this.
“Mike Herroni”, Tom didn’t take a beating on this blog today. Let alone have the crap beaten out of him. Tom used logic and won on almost every point.
BenAgreed.Left and right should try a New Years Resolution.
“Avoid personal attacks”
Hey Westar?
I live close enough to a store, I am thinking about doing without a refrigerator. Especially during the winter, I really don’t need it.
Oh and I am working on a bicycle power washing machine. And I haven’t used the clothes dryer more than a few minutes this year.
I’m cutting my demand. Most people are if not to the degree I am. They do this because they want to.
Ya see Westar, I just don’t feel you are that friendly to me or the environment yet. Now if you could do something to convince me I’m wrong and not expect me to pay for it? Well we’ll see.
“Avoid personal attacks”Posted by: econ101 | December 30, 2007 at 02:50 PM
Econ,
You and I have managed to have a reasonably civil exchange today. But honestly, when one of the Troll’s sock puppets gets on my case, I’m going to give it right back.
Ya gotta know Westar has people watching discussions like this. They know that in the end, they are accountable to their customers.
This is probably as good a place as any for others to post energy saving tips. Get Westar feeling not so high and mighty ya know?
I am asking all of the nics, on the right, to try and be civil.
Why are you here?
Speaking for myself:
I like to argue.
More to the point: that is really the ONLY way that I learn much of anything. I say what I think to be true, and I invite others to poke holes in it. Then I evaluate those responses.
Kind of like “scientific theory” you know? Hypothesis, test, evaluation?
Anyway, I also like debate and I like to sway opinion.
I also really try to understand other people.
None of those goals is achieved by using personal attacks.
I do not care if my opponent is gay, 3 foot tall, smells bad, writes bad checks every now and then, is a bad speller and spits on the sidewalk.
If my opponent makes a valid point, I think I should have the good grace to admit it.
Fellow conservatives, you should do the same.
Also, do not forget that political newcommers watch this Blog all the time.
Name calling and personal attacks do nothing for the “cause” — so why persist in such counter productive behavior?
And, just because the left might do it, on this Blog, is no real excuse — unless you find you must defend yourself. But do so out of legitimate self defense. Not out of revenge or spite.
We have the opportunity to make the WEBLOG one of the leading debate Blogs in the Country.
We can become something bigger than our own petty disagreements.
Lets give it a try, in 2008, ok?
Fellow Conservatives, let us try to outclass the libs.
And if libs beat us at that game?
Well, honestly, that might not be a bad thing, huh?
Hey Ben I have a question.
Would large scale, I mean really large scale use of wind turbines have any effect on local or regional weather?
I asked that of one of the meteorologists at Exploration Place and he said the effect would be negligible compared to what more traditional sources of energy do to influence the climate.
Your thoughts?
And to the Westar haters:
Westar shows higher energy use, on its books, each and every year.
That will always be the case.
Get a grip, nothing you do, individually, amounts to anything.
I think it would be negligible. When you compare our energy use to the total energy budget of the planet it is fairly small. So, if we could capture a good fraction of the total solar input and use that as it ‘cycles through’ it would not effect the overall balance.
That said, I WOULD want to see it monitored. ‘Just in case’
Oh I disagree there “econ”.
I am interested. Why are you opposed to trying? Personal stake in greater use of energy? Speaking through your portfolio maybe?
See that is where I am at Ben.
The whole thing about a butterfly changing the weather on the other side of the planet bit.
What little I know, turbines would use lower level and surface winds. Those I don’t THINK are major weather makers. Still it would be wise to be sure.
I’ve long noticed liberals tend to look at evidence and reach conclusions while conservatives tend to reach conclusions and search for evidence.
We’ve seen it work out in today’s thread.
“econ101″ categorically believes in laissez-faire corporate profiteering and is willing even to make up evidence to support his prejudice. Remember when he asserted:”You are completely, totally wrong. Utilities must pay Utility tax rates on all property that they own, even the power lines”?
A cut-and-paste of black-letter law proved “econ101″ categorically specifically wrong. It even shamed “econ101″ into admitting it.
But that didn’t stop “econ101″ from desperately looking for some scrap of evidence that might support his pre-supposed conclusions.
We see this mindest among conservatives on nearly every issue. They assume “America has the best healthcare system in the world” and cook the stats to support for-profit insurance corporations. Liberals, on the other hand, investigate the facts first and reach the conclusion we’re something like 38th in the world by all healthcare metrics.
Cons are bought and owned by fossil fuel corporations so scramble to find some strange measure that might convince people there’s no Global Warming. Liberals look at melting ice caps and starving polar bears and severe climate changes and, after observing the evidence, work for solutions.
At the risk of being accused of a personal attack, I’ve observed that “econ101″ might have been a more relevant participant in this forum had he taken Econ 102 and a little more economics. His high school level arguments keep showing up on WE Blog with no depth of understand or nuance, only the boilerplate of “conservative” dogma and attempts to find some sort of convoluted data to support his preconceptions.
“J R” asks:
“Would large scale, I mean really large scale use of wind turbines have any effect on local or regional weather?”
It’s a legitimate theoretical question, but considering most wind turbines are a hundred or so feet off the ground and the atmosphere’s what, 10 miles or so, the “large scale use of wind turbines” would have to be really, really “large-scale.”
The Butterfly Effect is a facinating philosophical question, and its possible permutations are probably worth considering. But we’re nowhere near worrying about “large-scale” wind-generating turbines really affecting climate patterns.
There are so many village idiots on this blog I am wasting my time even looking for intelligent discussion here.Bottom line, the State may think they have won something with the Westar denial but they haven’t. Westar will continue to manage their company to their advantage profit wise, and the Libs. and Greenies will end up doing with less wind power until Westar gets what they think they need to take the risk. Westar will end up building more conventonal plants also as they are necessary to back up wind turbines when the wind doesn’t blow. Ya can’t store the power or that wind stuff, or do you Libs. and Greenies not even know that. They will probably be coal plants too as they are the least expensive to operate and the U.S. is bless with great coal reserves. I think this is all a big laugh that the State has simply slowed down what they think they want. Westar will be the longterm winner.The best solution would be to try and generate electricity burning all the hot foul gas coming out of you Libs on this blog.
I bet ya took the nix on the Holcomb coal plant real hard too didn’t ya wes?
Conservation and alternatives are the in thing now wes. Hey you can invest it those too. What do you care where your money makes money?
I don’t care anything about the Holcomb plant one way or another J.R., Sorry to disappoint you that it didn’t upset me.It was a foolish decision though, all based on shallow politics. And it hurt those western KS folks economically. Probably be overturned in court.Going alone with the crowd, doing the “in thing now” is just what I would expect out of you whether it makes any sense or not. Kind of like the proverbial lemmings all going over the cliff together. They’re all so convinced, self-satisfied and happy until they’re dead. Serves them right I guess, they need to think a little more.Why the heck would I ever want to invest in “Conservation and alternatives” as you put it with lame brains like you agreeing with not allowing a company to profit from the risk they are taking on it. No I’ll just take my Westar dividends from gas and coal for now.Hope your lights don’t go out in the future there J.R.
MonkeyI said POWER LINES, did I not?So how was that “totally wrong”?
The utility must pay for transformers and power lines, on the tax rolls, and these are very large expenses.
If we force the utility to pay consumers, for “excess” electricity, then, the individual or commercial windmill owner should not be able to transmit HIS production with no such cost consderations.
My underlying point remains.
The value of transmission lines is huge. As much, or more, than the windmills, themselves, depending on the distance served.
I’ve not heard off any power shortages or blackouts there Wes.
Well except that is for those caused by energy brokers in the Western states. And THAT wasn’t for lack of power. It was playing with the grid for fun and mostly profit.
Oh and Wes? Are you the last person on Earth who still uses the old lemmings myth?
Here, let me help. Go to wikipedia and look up lemmings. You know, so you don’t embarrass yourself in future.
Oh and THANK YOU for admitting that your opinions here are based on your choice of investment. YOU are the first person who is at least honest enough to admit it.
Folks? I’m younger than most folks here. My generation was the first to be really taught about environmental responsibility. That generation is beginning to make the decisions now. And the generation coming up will be even more Earth friendly, because they know they have to be. Fighting the future can be an alluring thing. You are saving the past. But ya can’t live in it.
Actually, going back to the worship of nature is regressing, it is not progress, at all.
Sun Gods, Gods of the Sea, Earth, Wind, Fire, etc.
The Global Warming Alarmists worship the Earth.
They hope, if the give enough, in way of sacrificial offerings, that “Mother Nature” will not erupt or hurt them.
Pall,”Actually, going back to the worship of nature is regressing, it is not progress, at all.”
Sorry, didn’t mean to catch you on your knees before the almighty dollar.
Oh now you don’t want to make it about religion paulthecon.
Because it won’t help your soulless cause.
I WELCOME the growing number of Christians who are practicing what is preached about stewardship.
“Actually, going back to the worship of nature is regressing, it is not progress, at all.”
No it is coming back to common sense. Even a dog knows not to mess its own bed. And a thoughtful person knows that we have a responsibility to leave the Earth at least as good if not in better condition than we inherited it.
“It’s only ours to borrow.” I’ll post more as to that when I can properly attribute it.
Ah it was “Alabama”
Now we all oughta feel just a little bit guiltyWhen we look into the eyes of our kids’Cause brothers it’s a fact, if we take and don’t put backThey’ll have to pay for all we did
So let’s leave some blue up above usLet’s leave some green on the groundIt’s only ours to borrow, let’s save some for tomorrowLeave it and pass it on down.”
Great words those.
“The Global Warming Alarmists worship the Earth.”
No Paul, we just understand what is happening. I don’t worship gravity either but that doesn’t stop me from ‘believing’ in it.
Speak for yourself, “Ben, PhD LG” –
*I* worship gravity! If it hadn’t been for gravity I’d never have caught that foul ball in Fenway Park!
J.R. please take time to read your own suggested reference before commenting, it will save you embarrassment if that’s possible.From Wikipedia:”The behavior of lemmings is much the same as that of many other rodents. While many people believe that lemmings commit mass suicide when they migrate, this is not the case. Driven by strong biological urges, they will migrate in large groups when population density becomes too great. Large migrating groups will reach a cliff overlooking the ocean. They will stop until the urge to press on causes them to jump off the cliff and start swimming, sometimes to exhaustion and death. Lemmings are also often pushed into the sea as more and more lemmings arrive at the shore.”No JR, I will stand by my original statement. You remind me of a small rodent that gets in a ‘group think’, because you can’t think on your own, and you simply follow the crowd wherever that takes you, even to harm. The myth you refer to, of the lemmings committing suicide, is not something I was thinking of….although (?).
Rememebr, gravity is only a theory.
Oh yea – GO RED SOX!
Many a wasted afternoon out ib the ‘cheap seats’; I lived in walking distance when I was in college back there.
Oh now come on Wes. You learned something today. You COULD just say thank you. And you STILL aren’t getting it. Lemmings do….what they do out of a desire to survive. It isn’t “group think” unless you suggest lemmings are telepathic or have some sort of language we don’t know about. It is a large number of individuals doing what they think they need to to survive.
I don’t mind being compared to a lemming at all. Better than being compared to….
Huh, I can’t think of an animal that willfully trashes its environment for profit.
It’s better than being you.
Ah it was “Alabama”, by J.R.
Nothing wrong with Alabama’s message and sentiment as expressed in their song but this sure helps explain your juvenile lack of reason and sophistication.You get your perspective on life from a Rock Group instead of your own experiences. That’ll change, ha!Now, don’t get to thinking you’ve won any discussion here if I don’t get back to you on this thread. You see I’ve decided as my ‘New Years Resolution’ to try and be kinder to dumb liberals. I’ve decided they can’t help their warped situation in life any more than a skunk can help that it smells bad. It’s not for you liberals benefit so much as my own. You see there’s no use getting myself worked up over trying to reason with….well, a lemming.
I didn’t mean to humiliate you so badly there Wes. I’d much rather have you on my side when you can be less emotional and defensive. I am glad I was able to dispel a little bit of wrong thinking on your part. Walt Disney gave the lemmings a bad rap.
They are at least smart enough to act in the interest of their own survival. Happy end of the 4th quarter there anyway.
Wes has a point in his argument, actually.
As to the other poster”"Lemmings do….what they do out of a desire to survive. It isn’t “group think”
The “desire to survive” motivates the natives to toss virgins into the volcano, as well. That does not make it rational!
“I am glad I was able to dispel a little bit of wrong thinking on your part. Walt Disney gave the lemmings a bad rap.”
JR, you are absolutely incorrigible. Did you even read Wikipedia before you referred to it? It stated that lemmings do in fact push themselves over a cliff or into water during migrations, even to destruction. “They are at least smart enough to act in the interest of their own survival.” No, they are driven by urges or instinct and not by reason. And, that ’smart’ gets them killed. That sounds like a liberal to me.But whatever, “Happy end of the 4th quarter there anyway”, and the same to you. And, I truly do mean it. I hope the new year brings you much happiness, success and hopefully a little more smarts. You’re gone’a need it kid.Happy New Year!PS: See, I’m working on that New Year Resolution attitude.
Yes well Wes.
Make it another resolution to just admit when you are wrong instead of getting defensive about it. Hey it is ok. The lemming myth is very pervasive. The truth surprised me too. No need to be embarrassed.
Now paul I KNOW the growing movement of Christians toward environmental stewardship must trouble you. But let’s not attack religion here. Not even ancient ones that have less relevance as to this matter than you do.
The “lemming myth” JR only refers to them committing suicide, not to the analogy of their recognized and documented group behavior leading to their great harm.My analogy to them was not in reference to the suicide myth, but to their irrational behavior. Quite similar to yours. Now isn’t it well past your bedtime?
Again, why arent HIGH USE commercial and industrial companies putting up more windmills?
Posted by: econ101 | December 30, 2007 at 01:38 PM
One word, Econ….
Zoning.
Maybe we need a lemmings thread to better explore these misunderstood but oft cited little creatures.
How is their behavior irrational Wes? They get too numerous, food gets low, they move. WHILE they move, their large numbers consume the available food along the way. So they keep moving. Eventually they run out of room but they TRY to keep moving/surviving.
If they just sat in one place and kept doing the same thing as paulecon and unfortunately you embrace, they would perish. Would they not?
xxxIt is hard for me to believe that refineries and chemical companies and manufacturers are not in “industrial” zones.
If the “move” off a cliff, they perish EVEN FASTER!
Ben, I’m curious…what does the “LG” stand for?
Longtime Guru?
Likes Granola?
Just kidding Ben.
What does it mean?
You are new as far as I know to this forum Wes. I’ve been posting here since this forum started. USUALLY I am better at being welcome. In you I see some promise. Even if we did start at odds.
Perhaps if you knew me better? I refer you to this post on Sunday’s Open thread. I am sorry I cannot give you a direct link. Find the post and follow the link. Then you will know me better before we go at each other.
‘Our Pale Blue Dot’http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M
Posted by: cosmos | December 30, 2007 at 10:19 PM
Demand will be going down. People are every day becoming more energy consciousBy JR
I remember the energy crunch of the 70s. Yes, people started conserving, and the power companies raised their rates since they weren’t bringing in as much per units serviced.
I don’t know If it’s changed in the last 30 some years, but there was a farmer in Kansas installed a wind powered generator. The power company charged him some monster installation fee for a device to monitor how much power he dumped into the grid, charged an additional monthly rental rate on it, and was paying him something like 40 cents on the dollar for everything he put back into the grid. He finally got rid of the wind generator because everything else became too expensive.
“Licensed Geologist” – I am pretty sure.
assuming that you are correct…thanks Steven
xxxIt is hard for me to believe that refineries and chemical companies and manufacturers are not in “industrial” zones.
Posted by: econ101 | December 30, 2007 at 11:03 PM
Econ,What makes you think they’re the “big users”? Do a little research. Refineries and chemical companies and manufacturers are being over-taken. There’s a new player on the block. And they’re not located in industrial parks.
While working at a plant in California that used steam from boilers as a heating source in manufacturing, I did a study which revealed we were using only 40% of the boilers capability. The boiler would run at 100% most of the time, even after insulating all steam pipes, as they like to do.
We decided to install a steam driven generator to assist in plant power needs. During times of low power usage, we were able to sell electricity back to SDG&E, and reclaimed to cost of the generator in about 2 years.
That’s just one way industrial plants can help. I think when a manufacturing company applies for a license to build, they should be required to offset their power usage in some way by either co-generation, wind power, or using all available energy reduction devices known at that time. They should be stewards of the land, as well as users of it.
The energy consumed by data center servers, cooling equipment, and related infrastructure more than doubled in the United States and worldwide between 2000 and 2005, according to a new study.
A jump in the number of servers–especially lower-end servers costing less than $25,000–accounts for 90% of the additional power consumption, says the study’s author, Jonathan Koomey, a consulting professor at Stanford University and a staff scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The study was commissioned by Advanced Micro Devices, which is touting its energy-efficient processors. Only 5% to 8% of the increase in data center electricity consumption is attributed to power use per unit.
Driving the server proliferation is the insatiable appetite for Web content, such as video on demand, music downloads, and Internet telephony, Koomey says.
The total electricity bill to operate data center servers and related infrastructure equipment in the United States was $2.7 billion in 2005, compared with $1.3 billion in 2000. Worldwide, the total bill was $7.2 billion in 2005, compared with $3.2 billion in 2000.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=197006830
This issue is huge from a power consumption standpoint. And it’s starting to have an impact all over the country. In the Washington DC area, decisions are having to be made whether to supply data centers or new housing with power.
In an information age, Data management and storage will become huge factors in allocation of energy.
XXXWe are not in a contest over who uses the most electricity, are we?
I have never said that data centers don’t use quite a bit of electricity.
However, the question I originally asked, still stands:
“Why haven’t the large users of electricity (especially those who are in commercial zones) NOT used more wind power?”
Good question Paul. Maybe companies are resistant to such ideas. I know the company I work for is, somewhat. I remember an idea that was submitted that would have run every fluorescent lamp in the building on solar power (we run a LOT of lamps). Boy, did that ever get shot down.
I’m pretty sure a lot of the resistance has to do with initial cost.
Paul – zoning issues stand in the way. However, I agree with you that we should move forward in that direction. Another problem is that LOCALLY the wind is variable. We deal with that variability by averaging over a geographical area (wind farm) but a factory cannot do that.
Another promising application is “Community Wind” where an area (typically rural) can set up their own turbines. This could be modeled after the Co-ops they have now; using either sub-chapter S or K for tax purposes.
Love Box used to generate its own power with a windmill. What happened too expensive, zoning?
They may have gotten a varience or grandfather. That said, it IS a good idea and that location should be ideal. In fact, creating a sort of wind farm in an industrial park makes a LOT of sense. Link them together to even out wind fluctuations over a square mile or so. In effect, an industrial version of ‘community wind’
http://www.windustry.com/communitywind
K State is looking at this sort of development with their ag extension.
Ben,What’s needed is not a few huge expensive windmills way out in the flint hills, but small, cheap mass produced ones that can be mounted on damn near every building and utility pole. Somebody needs to get busy designing.