Global Winds Harvest of Schenectady, N.Y., in partnership with Acciona Energy North America, is considering installing up to 100 generators, or possibly more in Adams County.
If a wind farm were to get off the ground, it could have a big economic impact on the county. Zellman said a wind farm would create 200 or more construction jobs and 15 to 20 permanent jobs upon completion. These would be high-paying jobs offering between $50,000 and $70,000 a year.
An array of wind turbines would generate significant property tax revenue for local schools and other governmental entities.
Where does this private company get off by NOT spending MILLIONS of taxpayer money investing in something that might work?
Why are there not MILLIONS of taxpayer dollars being spent on studies and engineering fees?
Create 200 or more construction jobs and 15 to 20 permanent jobs upon completion?
Glad it will create tax revenue for our governmental entities so we can piss more money away on our Hydro project.......
.
104 comments:
One 2.5 mw wind turbine will power about 1000 homes. At $4 million apiece we could put up 25 for a total of $100 million.That's about 25000 homes,right? Is that what ONE hydro plant will cost?If my numbers are wrong I apologize.
From The American Wind Energy Association
An average U.S. household uses about 10,655 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity each year. One megawatt of wind energy can generate from 2.4 to more than 3 million kWh annually. Therefore, a megawatt of wind generates about as much electricity as 225 to 300 households use
So, how much electricity will the hydro plant produce?
They have no "real" figures out there but looking at the piece Fire did on the drop of the river there, I would guess about enough to light 300 - 500 string of Christmas lights across the hydro plant.
Whose name will go on it?
Maybe Duesterhydrohouse will get the top job at the damn dam.
Bud Niekamp should be put in charge of spending money. 20-1 says this city would be in better shape.
We got a windy mayor and other upper level managers working in one spot. Put the turbine at 8th and main and let it start generating money.
Use the airport for a wind farm. It is just sitting there going to hell.
Take all the rich people in town and make them share their wealth. Put Socialisim to work in Quincy...
They are already sharing their wealth, it's called taxes.
Who decides what is wealthy? Won't they just move and then you would be in worse shape. Deep Democrat thinking on display.
Anybody got a figure on the output of the hydro?
Hydro will generate about 15MW. Cost is around $81M (not including all additional financing which brings it closer to $100M).
This wind farm is useless. It will not power ANY homes. Simply because the power output is completely unpredictable. As a result, it does not add the baseline production capacity of the grid. Hydro does add to the capacity because it is predictable. Wind/Solar farms are boondoggles being paid for with Federal & State $$ and will only add to your taxes. Wind/Solar only makes economic sense from a consumer viewpoint where it can lower YOUR electric bill.
When the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow you'll still want your electricity and you'll expect to consume just as much as you did before. There are some attempts to try and make wind/solar more grid-friendly by using huge batteries but that is still unpredictable. Ever had several days of cloudiness? Several days of no/low wind? That's the important part.
And let me address some of the points on the orginal blog entry:
"NOT spending millions of taxpayer money" -- all green projects are subsidized by your federal and state government. This company wouldn't be building this farm without those subisidies. You just don't hear about it.
"studies and engineering fees" -- wind farms cost a lot less than dams due to the potential environmental impact. Wind farms are also cookie-cutter operations compared whereas a dam is the exact opposite and must be engineered for every location. Just navigating the permits for a dam is a monstrous task.
"piss away more money" -- yes, there is some upfront cost -- for a long-term benefit and revenue stream for the city.
Commercial entities will let the local government navigate the permits for them, then step in at the last minute and offer to buy it out (which would be short-term wise and long-term foolish for Quincy).
Please address this:
A vertical drop of less than 2 feet (0.61 meters) will probably make a hydroelectric system unfeasible.
Todays differance is 2.09'
If 2 feet were the maximum head seen you would be correct. The dam is not expected to be productive during winter months (when the energy production isn't needed anyways) but moreso during spring/summer (the wet season) when energy needs are highest (due to air conditioning). And the predictability of the river level allows for planning to bring other power plants on-line to make up for it. Something wind/solar cannot do at all.
Minimum usable head is 1.4 meters for the VLH units. So this time of year the dam would be idle.
http://www.vlh-turbine.com/EN/html/The_VLH_Range.htm
Where are you getting your real-time head data? I am having a bit of a problem finding it.
Don't know who asked that question but I can tell you where I got mine at.
If you go to my original post "Watch my Dam Money", I have linked the sites I aquired my data from. It from the COE web site on river levels for 2007.
If you click on the "Spreedsheet 2007 levels" I have calculated the pool minus the tailwater to get the fall or head for the year 2007. In the paragraph following the link I explain what the color codes are.
I have played around and did several other years but have not had a chance to find them and post them.
Check it out.
Thanks for stopping by.
Anon 6a;48 So why exactly is the wind farm useless? The turbine in Griggsville is turning every time I go past and I go past it a lot.As for the time of generation you say is in the spring,around here spring is very windy!I'm all for what works the best for the most people,but all the info on hydro I've seen on the web is blatant propaganda.Can you post some sites that give more/better info?As far as subsidies go I believe you are correct. I don't know of any alternative power plants /farms owned by privates because supposedly there is no real return on investors money??
First off you need to ask "Why do we build a wind/solar plant". The answer is always "it's green energy" which means it should prevent other power plants from running at least some of the time.
In order for any power production system to add to the baseline production capability for the grid it HAS to be predictable -- the longer the better. Having to turn on/off power production plants takes time and $$.
Solar is obviousy NOT predicatable at all. One cloud will almost shut down the solar gain you see at the collector (I've worked with this).
Wind is a bit better -- but not by much. Ever been outside when all of a suddent the wind stopped blowing? Ever notice that at 6 A.M. there is frequently no wind in this area? 6 A.M. happens to be one of the peak energy consumption times (as is early afternoon). That's when everybody is turning on their coffee pots, taking showers, turn the heat up, turn on their computers, etc.
If this lack-of-wind happens at ANY peak energy consumption time then it cannot be added to your baseline power production capability (unless you want to have brownouts and rolling blackouts like they have in California).
The observation of the turbine in Grigsville "always turning" is anecdotal as you well know there are days when the wind isn't blowing. There is also a rather larger difference between the power production at minimum blade speed and max production. Rated speed for most turbines is 25-35 MPH. How often is the wind blowing that fast? And just because the blade is turning doesn't mean it's producing energy. Takes a mininum speed too.
You'll see the wind guys will always talk about "average wind speed" and never address peak energy consumption coverage. The hydro guys at least did that.
The Missouri power plant guy that was at the public hearing on this was the first time I've heard somebody admit that he "won't buy wind/solar because it won't increase my baseline production". But he would buy hydro because it is predictable and produtive during peak season. I've been trying to point this out to people every chance I get.
The wind/solar guys are trying to address their problems with battery storage (there is one HUGE battery system that has been tested). But that's only addresses part of the their problem. So far, the production costs for wind/solar are above everything else -- that's why they have to subisidized otherwise they wouldn't get built.
Now we're getting somewhere!Thank you for the insight.So why don't we have private investors coming forward to move the hydro along faster?
Government entities are best able to navigate all the wickets to get a dam project approved. It's a long drawn-out process.
There has been interest expressed -- but that's a stupid thing to do IMHO -- the only reason a commercial entity would step in is to make money -- thus taking any such profit from the potential revenue stream to the city. Why would we do this? The bonds are going to be revenue bonds -- almost no risk to city (only possibly affecting our bond rating if revenues can't make the bond payments). There is no tax liability at all.
Here's a privite project:
Alton Hydro
Apparently Alton and two others could never pull the trigger to start construction -- I couldn't find any info on what their problem was. Quincy is under the same time constraint. If you don't use the license the FERC gives you then they'll give it to somebody else.
So now all the profits will go to a private company (again the only reason they're interested) and a Canadian one at that. It sounds like The city of Alton will see absolutely NO benefit from when they had the license. They will see some jobs -- but all the profit $$ go over the border.
Personally, I fully support contracting out government services when it makes $$ sense. And I also support municipal projects where there is potential positive revenue as long as it's not direct competition to local business. The hydro project fits the latter. I don't see the advantage to letting private industry do this. I also don't see the harm to private industry if the city does it. If the city does the project it just means lower taxes and they could contract out the operations to a private company for (hopefully) more efficiency. Somebody needs to develop this and I don't see why it shouldn't be the city.
And given the choice between city/private I'd pick they city.
Some aldermen favor a partneship to "share the risk". This is horsepucky. There is no shared risk unless it's very carefully constructed. Just having a partner who ponies up some $$ does not reduce the city's risk at all. The only risk here is if the project is unable to make bond payments due to lack of revenue. This would affect our bond rating. Doens't matter if it's 50/50 split with some other entity -- failure to pay is a threshold. So unless the private entity promises to make the bond payments if needed for some % of the project then they are useless. I would support that type of arrangement too -- I've suggested it already to those in charge and will bring it up again if they try to bring in a private party.
You obviously don't know how government operates. If this were a wholly city project, it would be operated as an enterprise fund (just as the water and sewer funds are operated now). The "profits" generated in an enterprise fund are plowed back into the enterprise, much as a business does. There is no provision for "dividends" to the general operating fund, which is operated mainly on tax revenues. The bulk of the City's property tax rate now goes to fund the police and fire pension plans, the library and general obligation debt service. There are also use-specific taxes to pay for payroll taxes and IMRF. Very little of the City's tax rate actually goes to fund the General Fund as it is, so where is this savings to the "taxpayer" going to come from?
The City has two options for the energy produced - use it internally, or sell it to the grid. Actually, the third option would be to use what the City needs internally for their operations and sell the excess. The greatest use of the City would be the water and waste water treatment plants (which are also enterprise funds). It may help keep water and sewer rates in check, but the City also has a massive backlog of infrastructure projects related to water and sewer, so any savings will be eaten up quickly.
You correctly state that spring/early summer is a peak time. That is also when we typically have high water levels. When the gates are open on the dam, there is no head, and therefore, no power generation. From what I have read, both systems have a considerable amount of down time.
Texas has a considerable portion of their base load coming from wind and yes, they have had some issues when the wind quits blowing. Either way, the bulk of the base load still has to come from other fuels - coal, gas or nuclear. The new Prairie State energy campus in Southern Illinois will generate 1,600 MW - enough to serve 2.5 million homes in 9 states. A big chunk of that power is coming here, as both Ameren and Adams Electric are involved.
I do know how governement operates. You apparently don't know how the hydro project works. They've formed an LLC from which the profits generated will be given to the city as 100% shareholders in the LLC. The LLC cannot sell the energy to the city directly any more due to the LLC. That was one of the ideas before the LLC was formed to take advantage of the new grants.
Water/sewer are break-even opearations as the only profit they can make would be on the backs of the city residents (which is why they charge more for water to non-city residents). Hydro will simply sell to the highest bidder so there is actually a potential profit to be made. This should reflect as general revenue in the city budget.
I seem to remember a number around 50% dead time for hydro. Winter & flood being the worst.
What you forgot to note about Prarie State is that it's coal technology. So that most assuredly adds to the base load production. Since it's not a renewable resource it's a bit of an unfair comparison.
I got too much stuff to do today but I have to jump in here for a bit.
Anon 10:56
It is true that when it floods, we will have ZERO hydro. I can also remember when I was....er...younger going to hogback and the water was extremely low and that too will throttle hydro power. Since the only reason the dam is there is to create a 9' channel for the barges. If the flow becomes too low, the COE will say stop the power generation.
Micheal:
You seem to remember 50%?
That is the #1 answer I can't seem to get out of anyone. We have spent over a million buck so far on this and STILL I can't get these answers:
1. How many days, say on a 10 yr average, will this produce zero power?
2. On the days it does produce power, what will be the efficencies related to the head? Guess I'm looking for a head to efficency chart.
I did find my numbers of a 10 yr average of head levels at L&D 21 and somehow used a min. head of 5.12"?? Don't know where I got this number from but it was not from anyone locally connected to this project. All my inquires to connected people/companys have gone unanswered...
My understanding was that the City formed a corporation to act as the go between, rather than an LLC. The hypothesis stated earlier was theoretical - with the government running it 100%. I agree that a separate corporation would (or at least should) have a profit motive.
I'm guessing that, if the entity is an LLC, that it has filed to be a disregarded entity? If not, it would be taxed as a corporation. If it is, under the IRS guidelines, would the granting agency consider it a separate entity from the City?
Either way, I don't see much tax relief from potential dividends because of the minor (relatively) amount of property tax revenue taken by the general fund. And, as the City would not get the benefit of the lower cost of producing its own power, there wouldn't be any cost savings there.
My point of bringing up prairie State is the size. If a turbine is 2.5MW and the Hydro project will generate 15MW (both at capacity, if I'm not mistaken), then realistically, if the dead time is 35% for wind and 50% for hydro, we're talking real output of about 1.5 MW for wind and 7.5 MW for hydro. that compares to 1,600 MW for the Prairie State project - equal to more than 1,000 windmills and more than 200 times the hydro project.
Yes, it is coal - attached to at least a 20 year supply via a conveyor belt. I'm just saying that, as much as we need the "green" projects like wind and hydro, we also have to keep technologies like coal, gas and nuclear to keep that ever-increasing base-load.
My original post was slightly incorrect.Thanks to everyone who has contributed to the discussion.A later post said the power from wind is unpredictable. I can only assume they mean we don't know when the wind will blow, but we do know when the river will be at head.
In Missouri the power companies are testing wind and solar,but I've seen nothing about hydro. Anyone?
Also,if the wind farms will be down 35% of the time and hydro 50%,wouldn't we get more power from 100 2.5 MW turbines? The cost to build is close,isn't it?
Does anyone know the size of Keokuk's power plant? A friend works there and he says the Quincy facility would be a toy.
On a side note,do we all remember the wind turbine factory that was supposed to go up in Keokuk? The guy with the funds died, and a year later it was scrapped. Siemens in Ft. Madison was going to be involved, now they have work leaving them and going to Kansas City. my guess is the Board of Directors knew it was an altruistic endeavor, and saw the chance to keep their bonuses intact when the big man died.Anyone?
correcting my last post. 25 turbines should be the cost comparison,not 100.But the farm would be 100.
You can read about the dam here:
Lock and Dam 19
I looked up about every item you can google about that dam. Interesting information and it was DESIGNED as a hydro facility and has 38' of head. Even during floods this plants produces.
Thanks to all for stopping by.
You should be able to get an FOIA copy of Mead&Hunt's Progress Report (or at least their Head Duration Curves). They did a multi-year study of all the L&D's under consideration.
They showed these at the public hearing. I distinctly remember 50% was the worst-case production during a wet year. The actual average % of max production capacity was lower. Around 44%. There's a difference between dead time and % of max production.
Yes, Quincy would be a "toy" compared to Keokuk. Much the same as Keouku is a "toy" compared to Hoover Dam. Relative output is not important. Cost efficiency is the only consideration.
The Quincy hydro project is a VLH (Very Low Head) technology. Wasn't even feasible until recently. Quincy's would be the first on the Mississippi and I believe also the first in the U.S.
There is some minor risk as it has not been used in this large a river before with the debris being a concern.
Here's the VLH power charts
http://www.vlh-turbine.com/images/gamme/carcteristique_gamme_PMG_grand.jpg
Here's where my blood pressure jumps up a notch or two.
WTH would I/should I have to fill out A FOIA for a public project funded with MY tax dollars in the city I live in? Is someone hiding some thing?
This "information" should have been posted on some web site, maybe the citys? Along with updates on what is taking place.
They don't put everything on the city website and I don't think they got a softcopy of the report. So, you could just ask, but FOIA seems to be the default answer any more as though that's the only way to ask for something.
The bonds recently issued are General Obligation Bonds. They were issued after selling the City Council on a businessplan with artificially high electricity resale rates, and artificially low borrown rates - its not real. A nuclear plant manager told me they wouldnt bank on selling power at the projected rates. A hydro plant manager told me he's "skeptical." The powers ignored the fact that utilities throughout the state are in layoff mode - because of tremendous pressure on pricing and demand. We've got a long way to go before we see if we even get to the point of issuing GO Bonds.
I meant a long way to go before issuing Revenue Bonds - whats at stake right now is taxpayer pocketbooks, not the viability of the project. We're on the hook.
Good brief and this mail helped me alot in my college assignement. Thank you seeking your information.
The recent wholesale price drop was due to the recession. Once that is over energy prices will start climbing back up again.
I seem to remember we actually got a much better rate on the GO bonds recently done than expected. Those bonds are supposed to be rolled into the revenue bonds -- no current obligations to taxpayers (and if the dam fails for some odd reason than selling the license should pay for them). The most likely reason for the dam to fail is from objections from people who don't have all the facts or who choose a stand on some principle and ignore the future. There is some "betting" on the future here but it does not appear very risky. And, if we get the grant that the LLC was formed for it makes our situation a LOT less risky.
Any time anybody tries to predict you can always say it's "too high" or "too low" -- and you'll be right half the time. They actually did some revenue predictions using some really lousy bond rates. One of the good parts of hydro is that the production months include the most expensive wholesale prices. Namely Jul/Aug when peak energy consumption occurs.
Mike?
Make up your mind.
"The recent wholesale price drop was due to the recession. Once that is over energy prices will start climbing back up again."
Then you state:
"Any time anybody tries to predict you can always say it's "too high" or "too low" -- and you'll be right half the time."
Didn't know you could predect power pricing? Your half right.
LMAO !
The most likely reason for the dam to fail is from objections from people who don't have all the facts or who choose a stand on some principle and ignore the future. There is some "betting" on the future here but it does not appear very risky.
...Who don't have all the facts....Really?
Have many "fact" are out there? I have told everyone that I got ZERO response from all the inquires I sent out and you tell me to FOIA it? Why? It's not MY job to force data into my hands!
From the information I HAVE GATHERED on this project and the mechanics involed along with 10 yrs of river levels....I would not sink one thin dime on the project.
And I think if the major players were playing with "their" money on this project, there would be doubt also.
When your at the poker table with someone elses money, there is no risk.
I was aware of the irony of my saying "half right" and making my own prediction. However, to provide the deductive reasoning: "The law of supply & demand says when demand goes down prices go down. The closing and decreased acitivity of many businesses caused a considerable drop in energy demand thereby causing a considerable drop in energy prices. Once demand goes up again prices will follow". And I'll be more than happy to bet you a dollar this comes true.
I think that's a bit better than just saying "I think".
I'll agree with Quincy Fire that it should be easier to get info...but you do what you have to if you want the info. And FOIA is our best resort when simple queries go unanswered.
To respond to QuincyFire...As for the economic feasbility of the project -- it may be a fact that you don't have all the info you want -- but just because you don't know doesn't make the project infeasable. Have you done an economic analysis of revenue,bond payments, interest, production, O&M, inflation, etc? I have. And it works given even conservative numbers. You can plug in numbers to make it looks worse but that only means the revenue bond bearers don't get paid and our bond rating suffers. There has been talk of partnering with another city to use their bond rating for better interest rates. Any grant money we get will make it better (mainly meaning positive revenue starting a few years earlier).
Mike
"economic feasbility of the project ?? "
When did I mention that? I'm just asking one question. WILL IT WORK...AND HOW OFTEN?
I see me and you are on two different sides of the fence here.
When the Hoover salesman comes to your house, you are gathering cash to purchase it as he decribes how well it's gonna work.
When he hits my house, he's gonna clean it...twice, before he see's any cash. Especially when it's MY money!
BTW..Thanks for stopping by and to all else who have commented here. I love a good clean debate !!
OK...the # you're interested in is 44% of maximum production capacity on average.
Since 1.4 meters is the minimum head you need for power production then you need to change your red/yellow/green chart to green wherever it exceeds 4.6 feet.
I figured you were worried about economic feasibility as you're headline on the blog was "spending millions of taxpayer dollars".
You haven't succeeded in defining "won't work". If all you mean is that there are days when it doesn't produce anything then yes...there are such days. But so what? This is true for hydro/wind/solar.
In my world "won't work" means "not worth it". That means economic feasibility and whether or not city taxpayers benefit from it. I think my "won't work" includes your presumed "how much power will it produce".
Do you have a better definition?
According to your own spreadsheet the % of days when head is above 4.6 feet is 54.5% for 2007. You have some problem with that?
I too enjoy an intelligent, spirited, discussion. Can be a good way to learn things.
I'll also add the real crux of the matter is the reserve fund. During the first 10 years or so the interest paymenmts on the bonds is a killer and we are drawing down on reserve funds to make payments. If that reserve fund goes below 0 then we are unable to make payments.
We need some sort of insurance for that possibility -- maybe in the form of a bank or other investor that will step in and either give an immediate loan, or take a % of future profits to allow hydro to make bond (to use the jail term).
That would be the one time I could see using a commercial partner.
I also ran your L&D21 river level spreadsheet against the power production of the largest VLH unit on their website.
I came up with 53.36% of maximum production capacity. Well above the 44% used in the study which showed it feasable.
So my queston remains -- looks like it works to me.
I also ran your L&D21 river level spreadsheet against the power production of the largest VLH unit on their website.
I came up with 53.36% of maximum production capacity. Well above the 44% used in the study which showed it feasable.
So my queston remains -- looks like it works to me.
Quick question for Mike:
Would you by a car that only ran 53.36% of the time?
To respond to your analogy...Because it's a taxi and I make money doing it. I only sell my service when it's running and I don't lose any money when it's not running (other than depreciation and carrying costs).
If it ran only 1% of the time and made a gazillion dollars during that 1% don't you think it would be a good thing to do? We're somewhere below the gazillion mark but the principle is the same -- if we make money doing it then it's a good thing, wouldn't you agree?
There's no power plant that has 100% of maximum power generation. If they did we'd have power outages like mad. So by extension of your logic none of them would be worth doing.
We should be able to agree on this:
#1 A profitable business is a good thing
If we can't agree on that we're not even close to being on the same page. We can continue on if you can agree on this.
Next one would be:
#2 If the city can create a profitable business that doesn't compete with local business that is a good thing.
Then we move to:
#3 Is the hydro plant profitable?
Taxi you say?
Better damned well have a license from the city for that taxi and if you don’t, you can’t take SQUAT as compensation for any rides. Good idea to shut down at midnight too. Wouldn’t want to be open when all those drunks need rides home from the bars…..Ooops. Sorry, went off on a little tangent there.
Back to the subject at hand…taxi. OK.
True. This taxi only makes money when it's running. What I think needs to be added is that this “taxi” is a test taxi. A taxi like this has never been used on a road like this. And the taxi was not paid for in cash. It has a small $81 million dollar payment book that needs paid monthly whether the taxi moves or not. (let’s leave out the “maybe” grants that have not shown up yet, fair enough?) And it has been brought up that if the power output doesn’t quite make it up the level that would be needed to sell on the market, that the power generated would be used to power the waste water and water treatment facility. How’s that going to make payments on the $81 million?
If this taxi ran for one hour at $81 million dollars an hour, that would be a GREAT thing. Even at $41 million dollars and hour and ran for two hours. Yes, I would agree.
Sorry, lost me on next part ??? Hoover dam has 100% of the river goes thru the turbines to generate power. Power is produced by demand and not produced if not needed. Still lost.
So Yes, I agree,:
1. A profitable business is a good thing. Never said it wasn’t.
2. If the city can create a profitable business that doesn't compete with local business that is a good thing.
Here’s one of the major problems I have. These permits weren’t just handed to us by Uncle Sam and said “here, make a go at this”. If I remember right, the previous holder let the permit expire because it wasn’t cost effective to install hydro on these dams? So that leaves me thinking that several power companies could have went for these permits also. Why didn’t they? Ameren owns the Keokuk dam and seems like they would have jumped at a chance for another. Why didn’t they? We seem to act like these permits are golden tickets to profitable enterprises. If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Sorry I’m not a big fan of this project but it’s not like we were the winners of free power from the river and I’m still looking for where the line is forming of private investors and power companies begging to buy power from us. I’ve heard a lot of verbal commitments but not see any signed documents.
Next problem is CAN the city create a profitable business? I seriously doubt that the city could sell ice in the desert and not go bankrupt. The current administration seemed to have no problem shelling out $400 K to settle a improper firing. Medicaid. Post Office. Social Security. Has ANYTHING the government started/ran EVER made a profit? Maybe to some private consulting companies, but not as a whole. I’m guessing that the current administration will either be voted out of office ( go Scott Brown) or taking the early retirement that gets offered every 72 hrs and would care less if the hydro project flies or not. It’s not like it’s their money.
3. Is the hydro plant profitable. I think the real question is WILL the hydro plant be profitable and how long will it take. I’m not an accountant but I do know that on energy saving projects that are done for my company, a 5 year payback almost always gets the green light. Now, I know something a little larger might involve a longer time frame, but still, the faster it is paid off the faster the profits roll in. Hoover dam had a 50yr construction loan on it. I would think since ours would be a “micro toy” as compared to that, the payoff should be fairly quick, wouldn’t you think?
Had to break this into two parts...Damned HTML...
One last thing I want to insert here is that everyone seems to know that the demand for power WILL come back. I am not so sure. My bet is the changeover to CFL and the newer LED technology that is coming out everyday will keep the power levels down. I know of several power companies (sure the hell not ours) that are more or less re-lamping existing buildings for free because it is cheaper for them to do that than add any additional power generating facilities and transmission lines.
Sorry if there are more spelling errors (than normal) I love a good solid debate but have been very busy lately.
Thanks for stopping by !!
Since I started this thing,I have one last question.What are the job descriptions/qualifications for the dam workers?
For anonymous: Check out http://www.tva.gov/employment/ops_maint/index.htm for training programs that describe jobs around a dam.
For QF:
Hoover dam does not produce 100% power 100% of the time. True, it does produce 100% of the time -- but that's what a full-head dam does. Try to get one of those approved on the Mississippi now -- not!!!
Theses projects will have a reserve fund to make payments in the early years. That's where the risk is. If you don't make enough money to keep the reserve fund from going below 0 you may end up being unable to make the bond payments -- but that's primarily the risk to to the bond holders. Our bond rating would take a hit but other than that there's no cost to Quincy.
Quincy can no longer benefit directly from the power generated. That's because of the LLC set up to take advantage of the federal grant. Shareholders are one of the exceptions to "benefit" so that's our only $$ that can come from this place any more. The LLC would be prevented from selling power to Quincy at anything other than market rates. And since those sales are "top bidder" and not "bottom bidder" it's a fair competition.
The reason nobody ever did this before is becuase there has never been any technology to do it until recently. VLH technology is relatively new that can take advantage of the low head levels along the Mississippi.
We do not have contracts for power because companies don't buy power that far in advance.
The LLC will operate the dam and sub out the work -- not the city. So there won't be any city workers involved (other than on the board for starters). I would agree that letting the city run it would be a bad idea. Even though this kind of business is pretty simple to run as you have no marketing risk.
Actual profitability comes somewhere around year 13. Definitely not as good as a 5-year payback but still good when it's a 50-year project.
Unless people stop breeding power usage will increase. And just wait until plug-in hybrids start coming on-line. Good grief, those things will suck more amperage than your 200 amp service can handle -- I don't care how many light bulbs you replace. Some idiot has come up with technology that would allow 15-minute charging or such. No household can generate that much amperage. And people will probably start asking their companies to provide hitching posts for their cars. Which the "green" movement will demand. So any energy saved by CFL/LED will be more than taken up by electric vehicles.
So we seem to agree that hydro would be a good thing to do if it can make money, right? I found out that we expect to generate power at 3 feet of head. So the 53.65% of max power becomes 62.06% (runtime of 66.3%) for your example year. How high does that have to be to make you happy? And don't say 100% as that would eliminate all wind & solar projects too.
OK now I am hating on electric hybrids,unless they have a separate meter or "filling" station that will charge them extra to cover the extra costs.
The Chevy Volt has an 8KWH usable battery system. In 12 hours it would use 666 watts per hour to charge that 8KWH (like a small space heater).
Assuming you run your house 16 hours per day, 8KWH would power five 100 Watt light bulbs for the entire 16-hour day or eight 60 Watt bulbs.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/electricity_faqs.asp
According to DOE total residential lighting is about 15% of total electricity consumption at 215 billion kilowatt-hours. At today's population of 308.5M people that would be 1.9KW per day per person. Average household size in 2000 was 2.59 people. So if that household eliminated ALL their residential lighting they would save 4.9KW -- not enough to charge their Chevy Volt for the day even once.
Not everyone will drive a Chevy Volt.
Now I'm REALLY hating on the electric cars.
So it's all a waste of taxpayers' money?
Wind is a bit better then solar, hydro a lot better than wind.
Think of it like this:
#1 You have a projected amount of power you have to supply to your customers.
#2 You keep a safety margin above that to absorb unforseen circumstances.
#3 If you start getting in to your safety margin you need more power to bump up your margin. This can happen quickly (like the northeast power outage where it all occurred in a matter of seconds is a bit odd -- I don't know the exact stats but you should have most situations covered with around 30 minutes or more of time to bring backup power online).
Power is bought on futures contracts. Peak demand times (summer) and short-term contracts (tomorrow and right now for example) are the most expensive. It's all a big gambling game of "how much power do I buy to ensure I can serve all my customers without spending too much and waste my $$ on too much power". You have to be able to predict solar radiance, temperatures, special events (like when everybody turns on their big screen TV for the super bowl), then guess how much power you'll need. It's not a super-accurate science.
So...when you start running in to your saftey margin you have to bring other power on-line RIGHT NOW. And the power has to be there GUARANTEED, otherwise you'll have blackouts or have to start rolling brownouts.
In Florida we had a program where you could hook up your water heater with a device that would allow the power company to turn it off. That's the other way -- reduce demand IMMEDIATELY.
Solar can NEVER guarantee to be there -- one cloud and it's dead. Wind is a bit better -- generally if the wind is blowing it won't change dramatically in the short term. But then again, it may not be there when you need it -- and that's a spot decision -- can't predict it very well.
Hydro can be predicted days in advance -- so those producers can gaurantee a minimum production to fill short term power needs. Thus satisfying the short-term market which is where you make the most money. Hydro would not be good at long term predictions. That's where nuclear/coal/gas production has to step in to absolutely GUARANTEE you have power when you need it.
Michael,In the interest of full disclosure,do you have any connection to the firm that has done engineering or studies for the city concerning the Hydro project?
For all you keeping score at home:
Quincy 12.36
L&D 21 11.77
Total head .59
Were not making squat.
Hey Fire,could we get rid of the "work from home" scam posts?
I am not sure of the source of some of the info below? The interest rate assumptions from the study are falsely low. They are counting on the Feds to fill the gap between market rates and what the forecasted rate is. Thats a large amount of money. And there is also an assumption from leadership that Cap and Trade will pass, enhancing the value of the output. Not worth the risk in my book, especially since every penny obliged so far is General Obligation Bonds.
Full disclosure:
I have nothing to do with anybody in the hydro project. I've just been milking all my contacts to get as much information as possible. I was initially opposed to it, and changed my mind after doing a LOT of research. I worked years ago on doing power consumption prediction using artificial intelligence which we sold to another company. So this project has tweaked my interest.
I'm generally opposed to government spending any money.
I ran my numbers on 6% interest on the revenue bonds. Makes for about a $63/MWh reserve-never-goes-negative-break-even-point with the 1603 Treasury grant of $24M. Not bad at all. That compares to $84/MWh with the $7.5M tax credit that we'll lose if we get the grant.
For anonymous who noted that the head today is low....it'll be like that 40% of the time or so. Your point is irrelevant. Much the same as noting the wind doesn't blow once-in-a-while. I'll bet you don't make money on weekends either, eh? So I guess you shouldn't work at all?
One more number to consider. At 6% interest for the bonds and $63/MWh this project will generate about $55M in profit over 50 years in today's dollars (this takes into account all costs).
Anything better than $63 will bump this number up considerably.
Now I'll admit that this isn't what one would call stellar performance -- but compared to other tax-spending projects stands to be a winner.
The big problem comes out around year 10-15 when the bond payments are still high -- if we don't have enough revenue we can go negative on the reserve -- that would not be good. Not disastrous...but not good. Once the bonds get past that point it's all gravy.
It was extremely interesting for me to read that article. Thanks the author for it. I like such themes and anything that is connected to them. I would like to read a bit more on that blog soon.
I hope "interesting to read that article" wasn't referring the theinvestblog.com -- that thing's a ponzi scheme. The more money you put in the more you make ON A DAILY BASIS of like 2.1%???? Gimme' a break.
Work from home removed.
Sorry.
Michael
What I would like to see is the city get out of the venture all together and get someone with Hydro experience in here for a better evaluation. If we need to pay him and hire him, fine. Money well spent. AND someone that would be a third party, no finical interest in this and have knowledge of Hydro.
This thing has stunk from the word go. The ONLY guarantee of anyone making ANY money on this is Klingners. They are in a win-win position. They get their money up front and first. Whether this thing flies or not, they will get paid. And who brought this to the city councils attention ? Klingners of course. Seems kinda strange to me. Seems like pay me to see if this will work. If they say “No” the money supply stops. SO what do you think they will keep saying? It won’t work? Don’t think so Sally. Who do we have watching them? Since you have such access to this insider info, just how much in fees has Klingners ran up so far on this Hydro project and just what information has been gained so far? Why the big secret of information? If this is such a breakthrough new technology success, wouldn’t you want to share it?
With that off my chest, the city has not gained my trust either in any activity they have done with the hydro project. From the no-bid bonds, the appointment of the LLC committee members and the hiring the alderman’s brother to set up the corporation just reeks of incompetence. Members that are on this committee have how much business and hydro electric experience ? Zero would be correct. Who on this committee would know if the city was getting screwed or not. My guess, none. This is the best people the mayor could come up with to watch over spending 80+ million dollars?
There is no experience in the U.S. in VLH hydro. I tend to agree a bit on the appearance of impropriety, but in a small town you'll run into that a lot. Unfortunately the mayor has carte blanche for "professional services". I think that should be changed, but until it is we need to live with it. Nobody else has jumped up to say they want to bid on the work. Klingner is the only engineering firm in town. They subbed some of the work to Mead&Hunt for their experience in hydro. http://www.meadhunt.com/
This isn't rocket science to get this done -- just some firm engineering to add the turbine "bins" at the spillway. These are fairly well-known construction costs that will be bid out. Selling power to the grid is a no-brainer to the highest bidder.
And yes, you pay people for their work. It wasn't Klingner who started this. It was a 1983 report from the USACE Rock Island District. It wasn't until these VLH turbines came along that this became financially feasible.
There have been public hearings where you were free to ask whatever you wanted...were you there? I was....
The city is getting better at publishing information. You have to be careful that you're not giving some other company $$$ worth of info (what you would call proprietary info). FOIA rules would apply there.
It's pretty obvious to me that having some other company do this wouldn't benefit the city much at all. We would see less revenue from it over the lifetime. Less risk to us up-front, yes. But that's water under the bridge at this point. Once we convert to revenue bonds there's little risk to us at all. And if done right, no risk (providing for some insurance in case the reserve goes negative).
Mike,
Going with your rosey assumption that this thing is going to take off and fly with no problems 6x% of the time AND pay it self off in 13 yrs....
What happens to the money that it makes after the bills are paid?
Remind you that the risk and bills were paid for by the city taxpayers 13 yrs ago...
If the LLC holds then future profits will go to the shareholders -- that's 100% to the city of Quincy as the sole shareholder.
Then the 2nd 50 years should be cheaper yet as all the up-front engineering and some of the construction will have been done and won't cost 100% to upgrade.
And I don't think we've spent a whole lot of money considering we're looking at $50M+ in todays dollars coming back. The current bonds have no payments -- they'll be rolled over to the revenue bonds. So it's just the early engineering we've paid for with tax money. I think that's less then $1M so far, but I'm not sure of the exact amount.
The city would make enough money to cover the bond repayments for 50 and provide power for city services and residents. Repaying the bonds could cost $2.6 if one plant was built and $8.5 million if three plants were built.
"When we looked at this in 1983, there wasn't the public support for it," Klingner said. "Now we have interest from the utilities to buy power from us. We looked at windpower, but the utilities weren't interested and that's why it wasn't feasible."
Repaying the bonds over a 50 year period would cut into the gross revenues, which could reach $13 million annually.
Each plant will has $675,000 in operational, management and maintenance costs built in. Alderman Steve Duesterhaus, (D-2nd Ward), asked if the hydropower plants would be a major permanent job creator for the city, besides the jobs created in building the facilities.
"I don't think it's too soon to talk about how we hold this asset," Duesterhaus said.
“Those two (Clarksville and Winfield) have even greater potential because they have much more drop (in water elevation) than the ones we’ve been entertaining,” he said. That could translate into even more production of electricity.
For Gods' sake what's with the frakken ads?
working to correct them/delete them...
L&D 21 was the only one that came out economically feasible. The others had problems that reduced the # of power units you could put in, making them unattractive.
Anonymous missed a zero...cost for L&D 21 is around $105M for the bond issue (that includes the reserve fund).
The $13M annually is in then-year dollars at 50 years out (with inflation). In today's dollars it's about $4M/year. The $13M is important when you look at repaying the bonds. They don't inflate. But when you look at how much revenue the city sees -- it's important to keep it in today's dollars as the city budget WILL inflate, so you can look at the $4M as a % of today's budget to see the effect (about 10% of expenditures or about 100% of the general tax levy). Wouldn't you like to see your city property tax go to zero?
Michael,
The comment about Prop taxes going to zero is wrong. You fail to take in to account the rising trend of City expeditures,the City budget grows, in dollars, roughly 2 to 4 million a year, depending on raises etc. If Hydro would, thats a big if, produce revenues at the levels you cite, the only effect would be a stagnation of property tax, not a reduction. Additionally, to service the increases in the spending trend in the following years, and no reductions in spending come about, an additional broad based tax of some sort will be raised or a new tax implemented. Additionally, the residents of Quincy and the area will NEVER directly see the power from this project reduce their energy bills, as you stated, the only benefit to the taxpayer is a hope that tax rates can be maintained or slower to grow as a result of revenues from the project.
I also think you are wrong on how the bonding works for the project. Yes, the bonds for the next phase will all be rolled into revenue bonds when the project goes to construction, however if the project is shelved before construction the current bonds are a general obilgation for the taxpayer to be paid from a tax increase or general funds. Also, if the revenue projections fall short and the project is closed after construction, all of the revenue bonds would, in reality, revert to a GO bond type structure. The investment from those buying the bonds would not evaporate simply because they are called revenue bonds. The reason revenue bonds are called that is that the project has been looked at so hard and long that the revenue projections are as close to a sure thing as they can be, that mitiaqtes the risk that the revenue will support the bond payments. Sadly, I feel that the projections in this project are not a sure as we are led to believe and in the end the taxpayer bears a majority, if not all, of the risk. Also, I believe that the amount spent to date for the project is closer to 5 million. That's 5 miilion gone if the project is not completed. I am uncomforatable that the Council and future Council's may be heald hostage to a staement like " we can't afford not to complete the Hydro project, look at the money we will have lost". I would hate for this Council or future Councils make a decision like this and commit massive amounts of taxpayer dollars while being held hostage to that type of thinking. That, to me, is not good government, good governing or a way to get good results for the taxpayers.
My point was that $4M in profit would be equal to the current revenue from the general levy, that's all. That's an oppurtunity to reduce the generaly levy and (hopefully) NOT raise expenditures.
I said $1M because that's about how much was spent BEFORE the bonds -- that came directly out of taxpayers pockets. Current expenditures are being rolled over so do not come of the city budget.
According to info I can find revenue bonds, both interest and principal, are backed by the project revenue. So they can NOT be converted to GO. It would kill the city's bond rating though.
There has been no indication that this project can not go forward. True, it's always a risk. There's no such thing as 100% risk free. But I've not seen any indication that this isn't feasible or can't be started. We have to start construction this year if we want to be eligible for the section 1603 30% grant from the feds.
That was the whole idea behind our $10M bond was that this thing is going forward.
Michael,
Michael, Michael, Michael.
I'm starting to NOT believe you in your full disclosure. You sound like someone who is an engineer closely tied to this project rather than an insurance agent assessing risk factors. It is true that life itself is a risk but you seem to ignore the risk factors here in search of the all might kilowatt.
You state “I've not seen any indication that this isn't feasible or can't be started”? I believe that. No one seen any indication that the Tacoma Narrows Bridge would fail. Titanic wasn’t suposta sink either. Engineers tend to think of the billfold as full of cash while others see it half empty. No one has a higher risk in this than the taxpaying citizens of Quincy.
Furthermore you state that no one else has tried this in the US. I looked and you are correct. Also no one has tried this on the Mississippi river. Correct again. And we can’t find a experienced Manager to run this operation because there aren’t any projects like this. If all this doesn’t give you a indication that there just might be a wee bit of risk here, you must be an engineer.
BTW, while surfing the net in search of information, I went to see other dams, rivers or lakes that might be using this new low head technology and did not find one. The only one like this installed is their test one in Millau, France. I have a serious problems with mechanical devices that have serial numbers under the number 10.
Other Anons can argue the bonding issues here because, I will admit, I have NO knowledge in that field. I just know that there is frequent mentioning of grants and loans that would-of, should-of, could-of be showing up and we have yet to see anything that would help take a huge chuck of $$ off the cost and construction of this.
Nope -- not closely tied at all...I've just been to every meeting and asked questions of everybody involve. I've run my own spreadsheets on cost. Initially was skeptical but feel more assurred the more I researched.
We're not building a bridge, nor a huge ship. We are duplicating existing technology 30-fold (30 turbines systems at 500MW each for L&D21). Yes, the turbines are in Europe. That's where they went to investigate them.
Yes...I am an engineer -- primarily software-type but also hardware (man of many talents). I do a lot of research and projects involving physics, statistics, and mechanics. I used to run multi-million dollar projects in the USAF.
This is NOT a big technology reach at all. Debris is one relatively "new" problem from the Mississippi but they are addressing that. Other than that there's nothing different that what is in Europe now. Guarantees from the manufacturer on power output and warranty will be in place. We've built tons of dam structures -- nothing new there.
Feel free to attend the next public hearing and ask any question you want. Others have already done this for you.
Correction on turbine power output...it's 500KW at 30 each for 15MW total at L&D21. Got too used to writing down MW.
Michael said...
There is no experience in the U.S. in VLH hydro.
We are duplicating existing technology.
Love the spin Mike.
To hell with all this green energy,I say we go nuclear. We can deal with it.
From the order (docket P-12724):
The proposed project would use the existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Mississippi Lock and Dam No. 21, and consist of: (1) a proposed powerhouse containing 16 generating units with an installed capacity of 17.70 megawatts; (2) a proposed 12-mile-long, 69-kilovolt, or a proposed 1/4-mile-long, 34.5-kilovolt, or a proposed 3⁄4-mile-long, 138-kilovolt transmission line; and (3) appurtenant facilities. The average annual generation is estimated to be 69,185 megawatt hours.
anon 1:13/2010- "One megawatt of wind energy can generate from 2.4 to more than 3 million kWh annually".
anon 1:30/2010-Hydro project "The average annual generation is estimated to be 69,185 megawatt hours."O.K.Michael do your stuff.
Spin??? You do realize we live in a WORLD of technology and not just U.S. don't you? We aren't the center of the universe here. Using technology from Europe is the same as using it from the U.S. (well...almost the same...they just generally have more requirements than us -- especially for green stuff -- like lead-free soldering). I've had to use overseas technology before when the thing I needed wasn't built in the U.S. (one in particular was a crypto device I used on an NSA project -- hillarious IMHO).
The docket P-14724 was an early estimate. It has changed considerably to 30 units at 500KW rated capacity each. Units generally spit out a bit more as it is 500KW minimum. But 500KW is what is used for estimates.
As for the 1MW of wind energy -- what's the point? I've never heard of "1MW of water energy" -- but I'll guarantee you that on a regular dam 1MW of water energy would produce almost 100% of the time. Whereas wind won't even come close. Illinois, at best, is Class 4 wind capable. Meaning there are very few areas in the state that meet even the minimum requirements for large wind turbines (which is Class 4). Which also means they will RARELY produce at 100% capacity.
http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/maps_template.asp?stateab=il
The only things that makes wind feasible is that is subsized and there are "mandates" to buy their power (i.e. green power).
Hydro, on the other hand, will produce at 100% capacity fairly often. And you'll know several days in advance when that will happen, which means other power producers can off-line their plants, which means their costs go down, yada-yada-yada....
The only real technical difference between VLH and other dams is...lemme' think...almost NOTHING. In both cases you are putting a turbine in the water. The difference is the relative head which means some turbines won't work at all and you need something that can still turn at low heads. This is NOT a huge technical difference at all. These turbines are easily removed and replaced -- so if they don't meet the warranties they will have to be replaced with something that does -- at the manufacturer's cost.
Where's the risk? Mainly that mother nature is unpredictable. Same problem that wind/solar have. So our hydro is in the same boat as them. Only we can see farther up-river then they can (finally...a applicable metaphor...)
The "public hearings" on this hydro project are more or less 90 min infomercials. Your only allowed one question and 6 people there are allowed to ramble on for minutes NOT giving a answer. I attended one and it was a joke. Speak no evil is the best I came away with.
Yes Spin.
Spin is defined as:
The techniques of spin include selectively presenting facts and quotes that support one's position (cherry picking), the so-called "non-denial," phrasing in a way that assumes unproven truths, euphemisms for drawing attention away from items considered distasteful, and ambiguity in public statements. Another spin technique involves careful choice of timing in the release of certain news so it can take advantage of prominent events in the news.
Kinda like what is going on with the posts here.
Fact check.
Units generally spit out a bit more as it is 500KW minimum.
OEM page only gets one model, 4000, close at 496.
The model I picked that will work the best is not that one. The 5600 mm turbine. It maxs out at 486.
http://www.vlh-turbine.com/EN/html/The_VLH_Range.htm
Fact check:
Hydro, on the other hand, will produce at 100% capacity fairly often.
Fact.
This is true if you agree that it will NOT produce fairly often too.
Have modified my 10 year spreedsheet and, I will have to admit, I am a bit more optimistic about this project but not as much as Micheal. The days of 100% are about as equal as non producing days.
Using OEM specs on the largest 5600mm turbine shows more output over a shorter head range. Bad news is that it takes more CFM and adding a new tab to the sheet shows that the best days for high head are also the worst days for flow. Its a double edged sword.
The only real technical difference between VLH and other dams is...lemme' think...almost NOTHING.
Think harder.
This dam is/was not designed to be a VLH dam. It was designed to maintain a 9 ft channel in the Mississippi. Nothing else. It was built to assist river levels for navagation. Look it up.
Hoover dam on the other hand was designed AS a hydro dam. It has no navagational designs. The level in lake Mead in 2003 dropped 60 ft. Think the COE will let us do that?
Kentucy lake was designed as a lake WITH navagation locks. It has about 75' of head. Those people were thinking when they designed this.
Thank you Michael and Fire.You guys are earning your keep.
Thanks JDH...
....but I'm not getting PAID for this.
Maybe some stimulis money???
Where's the risk?
Theres NONE if it's not YOUR money.
It's like the taxi example but easier. We have the data on river levels and flow.
Either the taxi pays for it self in a acceptable amount of time and the profits return to the taxpayers or not.
Where's all that data???
(data not speculation)
Michael???
Sorry one more.
This makes 100.
If anyone wants to see the modified spreedsheet, Let me know. I will post it or email it.
Please do post your new sheet -- have you done other years too? Looks like 2007 was a good year for hydro compared to most.
It sounds almost like you have some "magic number" where if the % output meets it you'll be happy. But without knowning the break-even point how can you do that? The % run-time is not the important factor here. It's the reserve fund -- that's the ONLY thing that matters. And that depends on turbine efficiency, % run-time, $/MWh, O&M costs, bond interest rate, reserve interest rate, repayment schedule, inflation, grants, and subsidies. As you can see, there's a bit more than just "how often is it running at 100%"
And to re-emphasize -- you're still talking about taxpayer dollars -- the revenue bonds are NOT taxpayer dollars -- there won't be one dime of tax revenue that goes to this. It's all funded by the project itself. The only risk to taxpayers is if the reserve fund can't sustain bond repayments. Then we'll take a hit on our bond rating. But that's the ONLY risk I've seen so far to taxpayers.
Micheal:
"have you done other years too? Looks like 2007 was a good year for hydro compared to most."
Do you see your "spin"?
Why not 1998? It sucked for hydro power?
I'm not cherry picking numbers at all. Just kind of hard to put them all down. Ask away and I'll try and answer...
The initial USACE reconnaisance studies (in the 80's) used river data from 1912-1976. But that used the DesMoines river gauge. Mead & Hunt did 1936-2006 using the headwater/tailwater gauges at L&D 21 and showed the wet (1997), dry (1988), and average head duration curves. I think that beats anything QuincyFire or I have done. Given the units generate power with as little as 3 feet of head that means that , on average, they will be generating SOME power over 70% of the time. They will be generating at 100% capacity right around 50% of the time. On good years that'll jump to 70% of the time or so, on bad years close to 40% of the time. That's right in-line with what QuincyFire and I have computed with 2007 being a somewhat good year.
I don't have all the river data -- though it sounds like QuincyFire has the last 10 years or so.
Michael.
I'm working on it but don't have the time right now. Have to work a job to pay my taxes so we can build this hydro project.
Maybe you can engineer up some software to take the last 30 yrs of electric prices and take the best and worst prices and figure out when the bills will get paid ???? If your not busy....
Just to be accurate...I don't believe ANY of your tax money is currently being spent...or will be spent...on hydro. Money has been spent in the past. All money now will be coming from the bonds -- rolled into the revenue bonds -- again...no taxpayer money being spend on the current GO bonds....payments are all deferred.
As for electric prices here's a good reference for total revenue from http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_2.html
Shows from 1995-2008 there was an annual average increase of 4.49% per year in revenue. You can forget all the "spot market" pricess and such -- that's completely irrelevant as that is not the market we will be in.
2009 year is incomplete as of today. 2009 year-to-date is 3.35% above 2007 and 2.69% below 2008.
So 2009 is the only year since 1995 where electricity revenue dollars have decreased...and not by much compared to the annual 4.49% increase. If 2009 continues on this track the average annual increase since 1995 would be 3.98%
Post a Comment