 AbBaZaBbAPremium
join:2002-07-10
Wildomar, CA
kudos:4 | well I say they take all the $$$ they spend on the pr to try and convince people to conserve energy and use it to build more power plants. |
|
| said by AbBaZaBbA:I say they take all the $$$ they spend on the pr to try and convince people to conserve energy and use it to build more power plants. It's actually cheaper to conserve power than build new power plants. I heard the term "negawatt" coined to describe a megawatt of power that was conserved rather than consumed. Negawatts are cheaper than megawatts from newly built power plants. |
|
| said by rf_engineer: It's actually cheaper to conserve power than build new power plants. OK, Mr Obvious. It's always cheaper to do nothing than to do something productive. |
|
|
|
| said by footballdude: said by rf_engineer: It's actually cheaper to conserve power than build new power plants. OK, Mr Obvious. It's always cheaper to do nothing than to do something productive. {sigh} You're missing my point. Capacity on an older plant costs $X/megawatthour while it costs $Y/megawatthour on a new plant. If you spend money to reduce your consumption and stay within the $X/megawatthour range, you can save money if the conservation money spent per conserved megawatthour does not exceed the $Y/megawatthour rate.
Doing nothing in this instance means exceeding the capacity of existing plants. I think California did that two years ago? |
|
| said by rf_engineer:Doing nothing in this instance means exceeding the capacity of existing plants. I think California did that two years ago? I think CA has been doing that for more than two years. They've been buying power from Texas (and some other states) for a number of years.
I'm all for turning out the lights when you leave the room, but the population is growing. Eventually we'll need more power. Why wait until the last minute? |
|
