Those Living In Missouri Might Be Paying More For Electric

A place to rant about politics, life, or just anything you damn well feel like telling others.
Post Reply
User avatar
Apoptosis
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 33941
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 8:45 pm
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
Contact:

Those Living In Missouri Might Be Paying More For Electric

Post by Apoptosis »

http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics ... 07200.html

A very interesting read!
Some Missouri residents and businesses soon could see a new charge on their electric bills — a fee for using less energy.

Though it might seem illogical, the new energy efficiency charge has support from utilities, most lawmakers, the governor, environmentalists and even the state’s official utility consumer advocate. The charge covers the cost of utilities’ efforts to promote energy efficiency and cut power use.
Find us on Facebook to discover the faces behind the names!
Follow Me on Twitter!
User avatar
Sporg
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 1200
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 10:22 am
Location: Kansas City Area
Contact:

Re: Those Living In Missouri Might Be Paying More For Electric

Post by Sporg »

Kooky, I don't get it.

Funny, where I live (on the KS side) our sewer bill is usually higher than our water bill, go figure that one out.
I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong.
~Bertrand Russell
User avatar
Skippman
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 2082
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:16 am
Location: St. Louis, MO USA
Contact:

Re: Those Living In Missouri Might Be Paying More For Electric

Post by Skippman »

I see. Further evidence we've lost our darn minds as a country.
User avatar
Sporg
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 1200
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 10:22 am
Location: Kansas City Area
Contact:

Re: Those Living In Missouri Might Be Paying More For Electric

Post by Sporg »

I just can't get past it. So those who are doing their part to lower their usage are getting "punished." I really am trying to understand...but it just isn't sinking in...
I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong.
~Bertrand Russell
Nobahar
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 459
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 9:09 am

Re: Those Living In Missouri Might Be Paying More For Electric

Post by Nobahar »

It helps to read the rest of the article to see what this fee is used for.
One of the company’s more popular energy-saving initiatives has provided free programmable thermostats to about 34,000 residential customers in Missouri and Kansas. KCP&L can remotely control the devices to reduce the frequency at which air conditioners run during peak demand times. The power company overrode customers’ air conditioners four times last year and twice so far this summer, Caisley said.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that energy-saving programs offered by utilities will add about 3 percent to the average electricity rates. But it says customers who participate in the programs could save 10 percent to 20 percent on their energy bills, and even those who don’t participate might save if utilities don’t have to buy more energy or build new power plants.
Seems like Missourians would be paying less for electric, even with this fee.
User avatar
Sporg
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 1200
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 10:22 am
Location: Kansas City Area
Contact:

Re: Those Living In Missouri Might Be Paying More For Electric

Post by Sporg »

Oh I read it all. I still don't get the fee.
I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong.
~Bertrand Russell
User avatar
InspectahACE
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 1776
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 8:25 pm
Location: Las Vegas

Re: Those Living In Missouri Might Be Paying More For Electric

Post by InspectahACE »

So you get a free thermostat, only so you lose total control over how you use your a/c? And peak time is when it is hottest/coldest out normally. This is telling me that they can and will shut you off during the time when YOU need it most, and your bill goes higher slightly because of it. Nice. I understand giving credits to those who cut down use, but giving the power company to override someone's needs(health needs too) is BS in my opinion. I don't know how hot/cold it gets out there, but I know in a Vegas summer, seeing a 10-20% saving on my bill, is not worth giving them control of my a/c so they can shut it off in 110+ degree heat which is damn well Peak Time lol
i9-9900k | ASUS Maximus XI Hero | ASUS Strix RTX 2070 Super | 32GB G.Skill Trident RGB DDR4-3600 | Cooler Master ML360L AIO | Seagate Firecuda 510 1TB NVME SSD | Tt ToughPower RGB 850W PSU | Sound Blaster Z | LL PC-O11 Dynamic | ASUS Gladius II Mouse | ASUS Strix Scope RX| ASUS VG259QMM 24" 240hz monitor | Windows 11 Pro
User avatar
Sporg
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 1200
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 10:22 am
Location: Kansas City Area
Contact:

Re: Those Living In Missouri Might Be Paying More For Electric

Post by Sporg »

Well, I'd imagine that my temps are very comparable to what Nate and Co. in Missouri feel. The hot stuff is upper 90's to lower 100's with humidity in the 80-90% range somewhere. Yeah, I was thinking the same thing about giving some computer total control of my house temps.
I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong.
~Bertrand Russell
User avatar
Illuminati
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2378
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2003 8:48 am
Location: Wright City, Missouri, USA
Contact:

Re: Those Living In Missouri Might Be Paying More For Electric

Post by Illuminati »

I'm pretty sure the electric company is not going to adjust the temp your thermostat is set at, just reduce the frequency that it will turn on to maintain that temp. So you might have a 2-3 degree fluctuation instead of <1 degree fluctuation. Not a big deal IMO even in 100 degree heat... you save $$ and get a free thermostat that is probably programmable!
Justin West
Server Admin & Forum Moderator
Follow me on Twitter | Find us on Facebook
User avatar
Skippman
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 2082
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:16 am
Location: St. Louis, MO USA
Contact:

Re: Those Living In Missouri Might Be Paying More For Electric

Post by Skippman »

They've tried this already with places like Best Buy who have thier thermostats controlled by thier corporate offices. It's always either to hot or to cold in there. I'm tired of everyone telling me what to do!

Did I pay my electric bill?

Yes?

Then don't touch my stuff. If I wanna run my AC 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year and I can afford the bill then leave me alone. I can see that in about 2 years Obama will make it manditory that all Americans have remote controlled thermostats. Why not? He's already pushing for the Cap and Trade bill which is basically in place for ecological reasons anyway.
Nobahar
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 459
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 9:09 am

Re: Those Living In Missouri Might Be Paying More For Electric

Post by Nobahar »

Most of these energy-saving initiatives are just modified California provisions. I wouldn't worry too much about cap and trade, it's getting voted down in the senate by several democrats.

Cap and trade is a modified Euro Union provision. Obama is essentially pushing for ideas that work in other countries (or areas of this country) to help create a clean energy economy. There are costs to such large-scale economic changes, but there are eventual costs of the environmental effects of taking no action as well (energy/oil dependence on foreign nations, global warming/pollution, etc.)

I feel myself mildly supportive to lower from our oil dependence, which has been a major factor in the deteriorating consumer economy since people have less money to spend when it goes to fuel their car, homes, etc. Then again, I think Obama is highly optimistic if he thinks a European Union provision will work in America.

I mean, America care about the consequences of their actions? We only care about our paychecks.
User avatar
Illuminati
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2378
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2003 8:48 am
Location: Wright City, Missouri, USA
Contact:

Re: Those Living In Missouri Might Be Paying More For Electric

Post by Illuminati »

I'm looking at it this way... if I lived in the KC area and I was given the choice to install a thermostat that allowed the utility to adjust how frequently my AC turned on or be subject to scheduled blackouts like LA, I'd rather have my temp fluctuate 2-3 degrees than have a few hours in the heat of the day with no power at all. The grid can only handle so much load and they are actually trying to save you money during peak usage which typically has a x2 to x3 higher rate anyway.

This is just one of many technical advances coming down the pipe for utilities to be more efficient with their grids and stepping into the age of the 'smart home'.

I understand there is opposition to any type of change, but I just want to point out there are pro's to this particular technology as well.
Justin West
Server Admin & Forum Moderator
Follow me on Twitter | Find us on Facebook
User avatar
Skippman
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 2082
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:16 am
Location: St. Louis, MO USA
Contact:

Re: Those Living In Missouri Might Be Paying More For Electric

Post by Skippman »

I'm not debating that there could be pro's to this kind of technology, nor am I a neo-luddite. That's one of the reasons I'm on the forum here.

My point is we keep talking about enviromentalism this and green that. Solar power is great, so is wind. I love the huge wind farms that sweep across Kansas along highway 70, they're breathtaking. But the fact of the matter is we need larger quantaties of energy than can reasonably be produced by those technologies.

What we need is to get over our ignorance and embrace nuclear power again and learn to recycle our nuclear waste like France does. Compared to coal, oil, and natrual gas - nuclear power is the cleanest, cheapest, most reliable form of energy we have. Plus we can obtain the resources nessicary to power it here in our own country.
User avatar
Illuminati
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2378
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2003 8:48 am
Location: Wright City, Missouri, USA
Contact:

Re: Those Living In Missouri Might Be Paying More For Electric

Post by Illuminati »

Skippman wrote:What we need is to get over our ignorance and embrace nuclear power again and learn to recycle our nuclear waste like France does. Compared to coal, oil, and natrual gas - nuclear power is the cleanest, cheapest, most reliable form of energy we have. Plus we can obtain the resources nessicary to power it here in our own country.
Amen to that!
Justin West
Server Admin & Forum Moderator
Follow me on Twitter | Find us on Facebook
Nobahar
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 459
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 9:09 am

Re: Those Living In Missouri Might Be Paying More For Electric

Post by Nobahar »

How do you recycle nuclear waste? You can recycle parts of it for use in irradiating food, or nuclear medicine, but there's still a significant chunk that needs to be disposed of. If the half-time of decay wasn't so long it wouldn't be a problem, but most of the cost is associated with building a nuclear power plant
User avatar
InspectahACE
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 1776
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 8:25 pm
Location: Las Vegas

Re: Those Living In Missouri Might Be Paying More For Electric

Post by InspectahACE »

I'm all for nuclear energy if it lowers my power bills significantly...just keep that crap from coming within 500 miles of my house and I'm ok with it
i9-9900k | ASUS Maximus XI Hero | ASUS Strix RTX 2070 Super | 32GB G.Skill Trident RGB DDR4-3600 | Cooler Master ML360L AIO | Seagate Firecuda 510 1TB NVME SSD | Tt ToughPower RGB 850W PSU | Sound Blaster Z | LL PC-O11 Dynamic | ASUS Gladius II Mouse | ASUS Strix Scope RX| ASUS VG259QMM 24" 240hz monitor | Windows 11 Pro
User avatar
Skippman
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 2082
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:16 am
Location: St. Louis, MO USA
Contact:

Re: Those Living In Missouri Might Be Paying More For Electric

Post by Skippman »

Nobahar wrote:How do you recycle nuclear waste? You can recycle parts of it for use in irradiating food, or nuclear medicine, but there's still a significant chunk that needs to be disposed of. If the half-time of decay wasn't so long it wouldn't be a problem, but most of the cost is associated with building a nuclear power plant
Here:
There have been proposals for reactors that consume nuclear waste and transmute it to other, less-harmful nuclear waste. In particular, the Integral Fast Reactor was a proposed nuclear reactor with a nuclear fuel cycle that produced no transuranic waste and in fact, could consume transuranic waste. It proceeded as far as large-scale tests but was then canceled by the U.S. Government. Another approach, considered safer but requiring more development, is to dedicate subcritical reactors to the transmutation of the left-over transuranic elements.

An isotope that is found in nuclear waste and that represents a concern in terms of proliferation is Pu-239. The estimated world total of plutonium in the year 2000 was of 1,645 MT, of which 210 MT had been separated by reprocessing. The large stock of plutonium is a result of its production inside uranium-fueled reactors and of the reprocessing of weapons-grade plutonium during the weapons program. An option for getting rid of this plutonium is to use it as a fuel in a traditional Light Water Reactor (LWR). Several fuel types with differing plutonium destruction efficiencies are under study. See Nuclear transmutation.

Transmutation was banned in the United States on April 1977 by President Carter due to the danger of plutonium proliferation,[44] but President Reagan rescinded the ban in 1981.[45] Due to the economic losses and risks, construction of reprocessing plants during this time did not resume. Due to high energy demand, work on the method has continued in the EU. This has resulted in a practical nuclear research reactor called Myrrha in which transmutation is possible. Additionally, a new research program called ACTINET has been started in the EU to make transmutation possible on a large, industrial scale. According to President Bush's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) of 2007, the United States is now actively promoting research on transmutation technologies needed to markedly reduce the problem of nuclear waste treatment.[46]

There have also been theoretical studies involving the use of fusion reactors as so called "actinide burners" where a fusion reactor plasma such as in a tokamak, could be "doped" with a small amount of the "minor" transuranic atoms which would be transmuted (meaning fissioned in the actinide case) to lighter elements upon their successive bombardment by the very high energy neutrons produced by the fusion of deuterium and tritium in the reactor. It was recently found by a study done at MIT, that only 2 or 3 fusion reactors with parameters similar to that of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) could transmute the entire annual minor actinide production from all of the light water reactors presently operating in the United States fleet while simultaneously generating approximately 1 gigawatt of power from each reactor[4].
The technology exists and is being developed. The age of steam and coal has passed us by and we need to focus on more scientifically viable means of energy production, not just for this planet but for the next one. If we ever want to start seriously considering building colonies on other celestial bodies we need to move away from fossil fuel dependent energy production because, quite simply, there ain't no air in space.
User avatar
DMB2000uk
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 7095
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:36 pm
Location: UK

Re: Those Living In Missouri Might Be Paying More For Electric

Post by DMB2000uk »

Skippman wrote:The technology exists and is being developed. The age of steam and coal has passed us by and we need to focus on more scientifically viable means of energy production, not just for this planet but for the next one. If we ever want to start seriously considering building colonies on other celestial bodies we need to move away from fossil fuel dependent energy production because, quite simply, there ain't no air in space.
I don't think man as a species will ever get their act together enough to colonise other planets. :P

In fact I'd bet large sums of money on it :finga:

Dan
Image (<- Clickable)
Post Reply