• Welcome to the FREE TUGBBS forums! The absolute best place for owners to get help and advice about their timeshares for more than 32 years!

    Join Tens of Thousands of other owners just like you here to get any and all Timeshare questions answered 24 hours a day!
  • TUG started 32 years ago in October 1993 as a group of regular Timeshare owners just like you!

    Read about our 32nd anniversary: Happy 32nd Birthday TUG!
  • TUG has a YouTube Channel to produce weekly short informative videos on popular Timeshare topics!

    All subscribers auto-entered to win all free TUG membership giveaways!

    Visit TUG on Youtube!
  • TUG has now saved timeshare owners more than $24,000,000 dollars just by finding us in time to rescind a new Timeshare purchase! A truly incredible milestone!

    Read more here: TUG saves owners more than $24 Million dollars
  • Wish you could meet up with other TUG members? Well look no further as this annual event has been going on for years in Orlando! How to Attend the TUG January Get-Together!
  • Now through the end of the year you can join or renew your TUG membership at the lowest price ever offered! Learn More!
  • Sign up to get the TUG Newsletter for free!

    Tens of thousands of subscribing owners! A weekly recap of the best Timeshare resort reviews and the most popular topics discussed by owners!
  • Our official "end my sales presentation early" T-shirts are available again! Also come with the option for a free membership extension with purchase to offset the cost!

    All T-shirt options here!
  • A few of the most common links here on the forums for newbies and guests!

New scientific paper: offshore wind turbines alter marine eco-system, could shift ocean currents

I posted a video with an expert from Australia who went through all of that for their system.

You post special interest propaganda from the climate industrial complex like Brett does. At least you usually give sources which he usually does not.
I want what is in the US
You keep making statements about Australia, Germany, England
Then you try to equate these statements to the US

I actually spent an hour on South Australia
Somebody is making a ton of money at the expense of the Citizens of South Australia
Rates are artificially high because of marginal Cost Pricing
Costs are low for the producers the majority of days
But rates are set based on the few days of peak power needs
 
Here is another unfair aspect of the "green energy mandates". One state mandates wind and solar which is produced in another state, but the regional power grid raises the rates of consumers in all states their new power lines cross to help pay for them, including states which are not receiving the power. There is now a bill in Congress to put a stop to that scam, so that if a state wants to mandate wind and solar, they are the ones who pay all the costs associated with it. Fair is Fair. Ratepayers in other states should not be ripped off.

These costs of new transmission lines to remote sites where solar and wind energy are produced are part of the increased system costs of wind and solar and should be borne by those who demand wind and solar, not those who are not even receiving it.

So are you saying that system costs are the cost of transmission lines
Or are there more costs you want to add in as well

You are now entering the world of the "Grid"
The energy bills I have seen lately show line items for a variety of things
One is generally Transmission and Distribution

The costs of the lines, transformers, power poles, etc, etc are usually shown in the Transmission and Distribution line item

The US has underspent for years on our electrical grid
It is why when a storm hits, the lines go down
The bigger the storm, the more lines go down

In the Southeast, States have been hit by serious storms that have devastated regions
These costs are added in to the power bills
They do not add to cost of producing electricity
They do add to the cost of receiving electricity by the end user

If you want to compare apples to apples
fine
But you keep jumping around
 
It looks like you missed the smoking gun. "Massive generation expansion" which is a "reliability response to intermittent renewables." In other words it is one of the "system costs" of backup for unreliable intermittent energy sources like wind and solar.

This crapola from our energy monopoly is also a smoking gun for why we need energy competition, but it needs to be done competently like Germany did, not incompetently like California tried. When Germany introduced competition it cut electric rates until Merkel's Energiewende reversed that.

What is galling is that Duke's excuse for raising rates in North Carolina cites developments in "Duke's territory". or "the southeast". When those drivers are not even in North Carolina, they should not be considered. I am not aware of any data centers in North Carolina, for example. We should not be paying for things in other states. In eastern North Carolina, we are being screwed by the Utilities Commission allowing Duke to purchase and merge with out longtime electric monopoly, Carolina Power and Light. And CP&L would not be gouging us for out of state expenses because they did not operate out of state. When Duke blends all of their opertations together like this, why are they raising rates in NC while cutting them in Florida?????
You are not paying attention to what is happening in North Carolina

These are the data centers planned for North Carolina

Some are already under construction

The MW numbers mean the amount of electricity the Data Center plans to have available for "servers"


North Carolina currently has 7 planned data‑center projects totaling 778 MW of new capacity, making it one of the fastest‑growing AI and hyperscale buildout states in the U.S. cleanview.co Blackridge Research & Consulting



Planned Data Centers in North Carolina (2025–2028 Pipeline)​


Below is a structured breakdown of all major planned projects


ProjectDeveloperCapacityStatusRegion
AWS Richmond CountyAmazonNot disclosedUnder constructionSandhills
Digital Realty CharlotteDigital Realty400 MWPlanningCharlotte
ESS TarboroESS300 MWPermittingEdgecombe
Compass StatesvilleCompass~200 MWPlanningIredell
Microsoft CatawbaMicrosoftN/DUnder constructionCatawba
PowerHouse CharlottePowerHouse300–400 MWUnder constructionCharlotte
ESS KingsboroESS300 MW + BESSAnnouncedEdgecombe
ESS FayettevilleESS300 MW + BESSAnnouncedCumberland

Sources: Cleanview cleanview.co, Blackridge Research Blackridge Research & Consulting
 
I want what is in the US
You keep making statements about Australia, Germany, England
Then you try to equate these statements to the US

I actually spent an hour on South Australia
Somebody is making a ton of money at the expense of the Citizens of South Australia
Rates are artificially high because of marginal Cost Pricing
Costs are low for the producers the majority of days
But rates are set based on the few days of peak power needs
That is what happens with intermittent power when you have to make up supply on the spot market. Texas has seen the same thing.
 
So are you saying that system costs are the cost of transmission lines
Or are there more costs you want to add in as well

You are now entering the world of the "Grid"
The energy bills I have seen lately show line items for a variety of things
One is generally Transmission and Distribution

The costs of the lines, transformers, power poles, etc, etc are usually shown in the Transmission and Distribution line item

The US has underspent for years on our electrical grid
It is why when a storm hits, the lines go down
The bigger the storm, the more lines go down

In the Southeast, States have been hit by serious storms that have devastated regions
These costs are added in to the power bills
They do not add to cost of producing electricity
They do add to the cost of receiving electricity by the end user

If you want to compare apples to apples
fine
But you keep jumping around

Extra transmission lines, needed ONLY because of use of intermittent energy sources would indeed be part of the system costs, along with a lot of other things like battery backup, production backup with peaker plants, etc.

The legislation in Congress I mentioned only applies to transmission lines that are only built because one state demands "green energy" and sources it from another state. State A buys wind / solar produced in state D and transmission lines cross states B and C. State A could buy power closer to themselves but doesn't because of a "portfolio standard" or something similar. None of the actual power is sent to states B or C or even D. This bill would say that state A pays the total cost of that transmission line, not states B, C, and D which are not receiving power from it. Right now, ratepayers in all four are footing the bill.
 
That is what happens with intermittent power when you have to make up supply on the spot market. Texas has seen the same thing.
The question is
How often does it happen

How much is the total cost over a period

Annually would seem to be a good measure

Is the cost savings less than the cost of purchases on the spot market on an annual basis

Then you can tell me if there is a cost or savings using intermittent power
 
Extra transmission lines, needed ONLY because of use of intermittent energy sources would indeed be part of the system costs, along with a lot of other things like battery backup, production backup with peaker plants, etc.

The legislation in Congress I mentioned only applies to transmission lines that are only built because one state demands "green energy" and sources it from another state. State A buys wind / solar produced in state D and transmission lines cross states B and C. State A could buy power closer to themselves but doesn't because of a "portfolio standard" or something similar. None of the actual power is sent to states B or C or even D. This bill would say that state A pays the total cost of that transmission line, not states B, C, and D which are not receiving power from it. Right now, ratepayers in all four are footing the bill.

Who owns the transmission line
The end user pays the costs of moving energy down the line from source to end user

Example:

The Chokecherry and Sierra Wind Farms in Wyoming is a large wind farm project
It will send its' power somewhere else
The cost of the project including Transmission line is being paid by the
The Anschutz Corporation (through its subsidiary TransWest Express LLC)
It is not funded by Wyoming ratepayers.
Utilities in the Southwest (California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah) will eventually pay
capacity‑purchase fees when they contract to use the power from the wind farms

Can you provide an example of where ratepayers are footing the bill for this power line
The line would be part of the Transmission and Distribution rate on a ratepayer's bill
 
Last edited:
The question is
How often does it happen

How much is the total cost over a period

Annually would seem to be a good measure

Is the cost savings less than the cost of purchases on the spot market on an annual basis

Then you can tell me if there is a cost or savings using intermittent power
That varies from place to place with light winds or wind draughts reducing the amount of production. I have posted several graphs on this thread illustrating that.
 
That varies from place to place with light winds or wind draughts reducing the amount of production. I have posted several graphs on this thread illustrating that.
I was researching North Carolina utilities for about 10 minutes last night
The research I found says the average rate for electricity to the retail consumer is 13 to 16 cents a KWH
What was interesting is it said that retail rates do not break out grid costs in your state
 
Who owns the transmission line
The end user pays the costs of moving energy down the line from source to end user

Example:

The Chokecherry and Sierra Wind Farms in Wyoming is a large wind farm project
It will send its' power somewhere else
The cost of the project including Transmission line is being paid by the
The Anschutz Corporation (through its subsidiary TransWest Express LLC)
It is not funded by Wyoming ratepayers.
Utilities in the Southwest (California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah) will eventually pay
capacity‑purchase fees when they contract to use the power from the wind farms

Can you provide an example of where ratepayers are footing the bill for this power line
The line would be part of the Transmission and Distribution rate on a ratepayer's bill

The article above gives some general information, but you may want to contact the member of Congress who introduced the legislation to prohibit this practice, who is identified in the article, and I am sure would have more detailed information.

Another area where these wind / solar operations rip off local people will again vary by state, but is definitely in effect in North Carolina thanks to some sleazy lobbyists. The wind and solar freeloaders by state statute are exempt from paying county ad valorem property taxes on solar panel projects and wind turbines. Many county commissioners are really steamed about this and they should be. They have to provide services to these deadbeats but cannot tax them. If a utility built a conventional power plant, they would be taxed on it, but not the wind and solar freeloaders. Elderly people on fixed incomes are among those who have to pay higher taxes to make up for the solar deadbeats.

Fortunately only one of these big solar farms sneaked in before our commissioners got their solar ordinance in place to discourage them. That one is owned by a company from up north, which according to research from some of the outraged residents of the area who protested it, is owned by Russians. So they get a free ride on taxes and local people have to pay more.
 
Last edited:
I posted a Wall Street Journal article earlier on how wind and solar were driving up electric rates in Europe. Now here is a similar editorial on New York and the cost of the green agenda there from the Washington Post. You can enter your email to read it free

I cannot read the Washington Post
I was a subscriber and have since cancelled
They will not let me back in without paying for a subscription
Same with WSJ and NYT
 
Here is an article from October of 2025 that shows how difficult the political climate is in New York State and New York City for Hochul

The current administration is certainly making it more difficult for New York State as they reverse grants for Green Energy on partial projects

 
Want a new gas fired electrical power plant to go with your planned Data Center
Wait times are longer than you feared
Costs are certainly higher than you wished for


New electrical generation power plants cannot be built by overnight

Large Scale Nuclear Plants will take 6 to 8 years to come online (MIT report posted earlier)

Small Scale Nuclear Plants are all UNTESTED

Small Scale Nuclear Plants DO NOT HAVE PILOT PLANTS BUILT YET

Nuclear Fusion plants are still just a dream

The latest and best designed Geothermal plant is about to come online in Utah
After 9 years
New geothermal plants will involve "fracking"
And it is unknown how long it will take to get the next one built
Let alone a fleet of these plants

Data Centers are being built and demanding electricity at a rate unforseen 5 years ago

Local opposition to the placement of wind and solar farms is growing
The same people complaining about rising electrical rates

But let's blame it all on wind and solar and climate goals
 
More spam, there, Brett???? How many times have you posted this repeatedly???? I posted an article that refutes your "subsidy" claim, BTW.

It is not true that if you repeat BS often enough it makes it the truth.
 
Your article on subsidies proved nothing

The National Center for Energy Analytics
Author of the study you posted on Subsidies

Certainly, has a distinguished of group Oil Industry Lobbyists on its Board

Founded by the Texas Public Policy Foundation in 2024

There is absolutely no question
These are the go-to group of individuals when you need to spread the propaganda of the oil and gas industry
 
Last edited:
More spam, there, Brett???? How many times have you posted this repeatedly???? I posted an article that refutes your "subsidy" claim, BTW.
What new subsides are included in the OBBB for oil and gas

Short answer: The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB) does add new subsidies for oil and gas,
but most of the financial value comes from expanding existing fossil‑fuel‑friendly tax credits
and rolling back costs that the industry would otherwise face.
The biggest new subsidy is the massive expansion of 45Q credit values,
which now pays oil producers far more for CO₂ used in enhanced oil recovery (EOR).
A separate analysis finds the OBBB results in ~$40 billion in new fossil‑fuel subsidies over the next decade.

From Yale University Analysis
 
Top