Mikey......get your even fatter ass in here.

[smackaholic]

Sorry, no Billy Strings videos, just would like to get your take on total cost of birdkillers,

The articles I see which do a poor job of hiding their prejudice put up numbers that say these things break even in 7 or 8 months, on both accounts.

IF that were true, why are their tax breaks?

I mean, it seems to me that if it is such an open and shut case economically, there'd be no need to coerce anyone to do it.

I realize the "reason" has more to do with politics and government graft and it sure as hell isn't limited to birdkillers.

I'd like to see all of it go away.

But in the end, there is only one way to do that. It is for DC to get out of the business of shaping policies by promising $$$$.

The feds should run a military, a post office (and prolly farm that out to Amazon) handle diplomatic affairs and not really a whole lot beyond that.

If bird killers and magic shade trees make sense, people will build them. I think both do...in some places.

[Kierland]

Fuck off traitor.

[Mikey]

Not sure what you mean here by "break even" which usually implies some sort of simple payback calculation when replacing one piece of equipment (or system) with another.

A better way of comparing would be the Levelized Cost of Electricity, which accounts for capital cost for new construction, O&M, transmission cost, etc. over the lifetime of the equipment.

I don't know exactly what the situation is today, but found this report in EIA, which projects the LCOE for new plants entering service in 2026. You can assume a 4 or 5 year requirement for construction and licensing, so those would be plants in planning today.

Tax Credits for wind generation have already been substantially reduced, and scheduled to be phased out by 2026. So you can see from this table that even without any tax credit that wind generation (onshore) is expected to be cheaper than any other technology except standalone solar, which would still be cheapest without the tax credit.

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/el ... ration.pdf

You probably think that the EIA is biased, but you think anything that doesn't fit your pre-conceptions must be biased. Read through the entire report and then show me a more relevant analysis. You likely won't be able to because your guy Rush is officially dead. Might try Tucker, though.

[smackaholic]

Not sure what you mean here by "break even" which usually implies some sort of simple payback calculation when replacing one piece of equipment (or system) with another.

A better way of comparing would be the Levelized Cost of Electricity, which accounts for capital cost for new construction, O&M, transmission cost, etc. over the lifetime of the equipment.

I don't know exactly what the situation is today, but found this report in EIA, which projects the LCOE for new plants entering service in 2026. You can assume a 4 or 5 year requirement for construction and licensing, so those would be plants in planning today.

Tax Credits for wind generation have already been substantially reduced, and scheduled to be phased out by 2026. So you can see from this table that even without any tax credit that wind generation (onshore) is expected to be cheaper than any other technology except standalone solar, which would still be cheapest without the tax credit.

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/el ... ration.pdf

You probably think that the EIA is biased, but you think anything that doesn't fit your pre-conceptions must be biased. Read through the entire report and then show me a more relevant analysis. You likely won't be able to because your guy Rush is officially dead. Might try Tucker, though.

Look at the attitude on you! Sheeesh.

Not as miserable as the runt lawyer, I guess. You should look into medicinal weed or something.

Believe it or not, Limbaugh was never really high on my list of people to turn to for technical explanations of things. I thought he was a very good entertainer and generally right about things big picture wise, but more than once I found myself thinking he sounded

As for whether or not all them numbers and stuff you posted mean much, my pea-brain can't stay focused long enough to figure it out on my own.

I like to keep shit simple. If it makes sense to do it, it will get done without feds mandating/subsidizing it.

[Kierland]

Fuck off traitor.

[Mikey]

Look at the attitude on you! Sheeesh.

Not as miserable as the runt lawyer, I guess. You should look into medicinal weed or something.

Believe it or not, Limbaugh was never really high on my list of people to turn to for technical explanations of things. I thought he was a very good entertainer and generally right about things big picture wise, but more than once I found myself thinking he sounded

As for whether or not all them numbers and stuff you posted mean much, my pea-brain can't stay focused long enough to figure it out on my own.

I like to keep shit simple. If it makes sense to do it, it will get done without feds mandating/subsidizing it.

My attitude? You pretty much stated in your first post that anybody who disagrees with your POV is "prejudiced." But when I imply that maybe it's you who are biased, you get all offended and take the typical conservatard crybaby victimization attitude. Ponderous.

You asked my take on the "total cost of birdkillers," but when I provided an actual analysis you clam to be too dumb to get it. So let me try and simplify it. The total cost of producing electricity for the various technologies is in the far right column of the table.

The cost for onshore wind power (WITH NO SUBSIDY) is
$36.93/MWh, or $0.03693/kWh

For combined cycle gas turbine it's:
$37.11/MWh, or $0.03711/kWh

For coal it's:
$72.78/MWh or $0.07278/kWh

Solar is actually the cheapest (though also most intermittent) at:
$30.43/MWh (including $2.35 assumed tax credit)
The cost assumes that it's paired with storage.

Funny that in your rant against direct subsidies to renewable generation you conveniently leave out the huge indirect subsidies that go to fossil fuel generators by not forcing them to pay for the extensive environmental consequences that they have and continue to produce. That's also true for renewables to some degree, but not nearly as extensive.

[Bill in Houston]

Look at the attitude on you! Sheeesh.

Not as miserable as the runt lawyer, I guess. You should look into medicinal weed or something.

Believe it or not, Limbaugh was never really high on my list of people to turn to for technical explanations of things. I thought he was a very good entertainer and generally right about things big picture wise, but more than once I found myself thinking he sounded

As for whether or not all them numbers and stuff you posted mean much, my pea-brain can't stay focused long enough to figure it out on my own.

I like to keep shit simple. If it makes sense to do it, it will get done without feds mandating/subsidizing it.

My attitude? You pretty much stated in your first post that anybody who disagrees with your POV is "prejudiced." But when I imply that maybe it's you who are biased, you get all offended and take the typical conservatard crybaby victimization attitude. Ponderous.

You asked my take on the "total cost of birdkillers," but when I provided an actual analysis you clam to be too dumb to get it. So let me try and simplify it. The total cost of producing electricity for the various technologies is in the far right column of the table.

The cost for onshore wind power (WITH NO SUBSIDY) is
$36.93/MWh, or $0.03693/kWh

For combined cycle gas turbine it's:
$37.11/MWh, or $0.03711/kWh

For coal it's:
$72.78/MWh or $0.07278/kWh

Solar is actually the cheapest (though also most intermittent) at:
$30.43/MWh (including $2.35 assumed tax credit)
The cost assumes that it's paired with storage.

Funny that in your rant against direct subsidies to renewable generation you conveniently leave out the huge indirect subsidies that go to fossil fuel generators by not forcing them to pay for the extensive environmental consequences that they have and continue to produce. That's also true for renewables to some degree, but not nearly as extensive.

Uhh, yeah. That’s gonna WAY over the head of Simpletonholic.

[Bill in Houston]

What a meltdown, you fat fuck.

[Mikey]

Buttsy used to be funny sometimes.
Nothing left in the tank apparently.

[Bill in Houston]

The pork chops have now completely halted all blood flow above his neck.

[Bill in Houston]

Buttsy used to be funny

Link??

Take your time

[Kierland]

Fuck off traitor.