LOCATION/TYPE

NEWS HOME

[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]



Archive
RSS

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Get weekly updates

WHAT TO DO
when your community is targeted

RSS

RSS feeds and more

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate via Stripe

Donate via Paypal

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links

Alerts

Press Releases

FAQs

Campaign Material

Photos & Graphics

Videos

Allied Groups

Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005.

News Watch Home

Seems city getting raw end of power deal 

Credit:  The State Journal-Register, www.sj-r.com 27 September 2010 ~~

With the recent article here in the SJ-R about CWLP losing more than $3 million in the last six months from its wind power deal, I have to wonder how much money people are willing to lose?

Then there is the issue of how this 10-year contract came up in the first place and how much CWLP, and therefore we the ratepayers, lost from the very beginning.

I have nothing against wind power itself but it seems we are getting the raw end of this deal. CWLP has to buy wind power under contract for $46.60 per megawatt and can only sell the electricity they produce for $22.85 per megawatt.

It is my understanding that CWLP can produce electricity now for less than $46.60 per megawatt and I believe they will be able to produce it cheaper than $46.60 until the end of the contract. So in actuality, how much are we really going to lose by the time this contract is up?

Even with the huge government subsidies associated with wind power I personally don’t think the cost to produce wind power will ever be competitive with coal because they can only produce electricity when the wind is blowing and, it cannot be relied on to meet peak demands. So to add insult to injury we are paying for the subsidies and are losing more money by having to buy the electricity from them.

Now I have read that there are plans to build a wind power project in western Sangamon County that may encompass 50,000 to 75,000 acres.

I don’t know about anyone else but I wonder if the majority of people really think it is going to be such a great idea to most likely lose even more money in the future?

Reggie Davis
Springfield

Source:  The State Journal-Register, www.sj-r.com 27 September 2010

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial educational effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
   Donate via Stripe
(via Stripe)
Donate via Paypal
(via Paypal)

Share:

e-mail X FB LI M TG TS G Share


News Watch Home

Get the Facts
CONTACT DONATE PRIVACY ABOUT SEARCH
© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.

 Follow:

Wind Watch on X Wind Watch on Facebook Wind Watch on Linked In

Wind Watch on Mastodon Wind Watch on Truth Social

Wind Watch on Gab Wind Watch on Bluesky