I just signed up with an alternate energy supplier called Ethical Electric. They buy renewable energy from wind and solar sources in my region and then sell that to my utility (BGE) so that all the energy I use gets sourced from them.

My plan (Silver) will use 100% Wind energy, as opposed to a majority of Non-Renewable Energy sources that are part of the standard service with BGE.


I'll be paying about ~10.5¢ per kWh versus the ~9¢ current rate, which I think is a great deal for getting away from Non-Renewable sources.

Anyone else heard of them, or signed up?

(not looking to discuss the activist side of the company, read: no political discussion thanks.)

Interesting. Our local utility required 'renewable sources', but the provider they were using gave up. The commercial viability factor of renewable sources involves long term payback rates and a distributed plant model that large investors shy away from. Hence the need for governmental incentives.

I'm using a similar service here in nyc. I'm glad I have the option. I'm happy to pay the small increase for sustainable energy.

---

Is there a company where I can pay for 100% nuclear?
I'd sign up for that.

---

Paul F.
-----
A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand. - Lucius Annaeus Seneca c. 5 BC - 65 AD
----
Good is the enemy of Excellent. Talent is not necessary for Excellence.
Persistence is necessary for Excellence. And Persistence is a Decision.
--

--

--
Eureka, CA

Quote
Paul F.
Is there a company where I can pay for 100% nuclear?
I'd sign up for that.

Solar is 100% nuclear.

---

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan

Quote
davester

Quote
Paul F.
Is there a company where I can pay for 100% nuclear?
I'd sign up for that.

Solar is 100% nuclear.

So is wind.

Is there a company where I can pay for 100% nuclear fission?


Better? Or do you want to get into more semantic arguments?

---

Paul F.
-----
A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand. - Lucius Annaeus Seneca c. 5 BC - 65 AD
----
Good is the enemy of Excellent. Talent is not necessary for Excellence.
Persistence is necessary for Excellence. And Persistence is a Decision.
--

--

--
Eureka, CA

Quote
Paul F.
Is there a company where I can pay for 100% nuclear?
I'd sign up for that.

Ditto. The fact that we are burning coal instead of using nuclear power is insane. Even given the pitfalls of nuclear waste disposal it is a heck of a lot better than burning coal. Short term we should be removing coal completely and adding nuclear. Long term goals should be moving completely towards renewable energy and shutting down the nuclear plants.

---

C(-)ris
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Throwback Thursday Signature:

I use a similar option for wind power from Pacific Power. I can specify what percentage of my power comes from wind. The reality is that it all comes from the same source, but it subsidizes wind power to make it more attractive financially.

---

**************************************
MacResource User Map: [www.zeemaps.com]#

I agree that in the near term, continuation of, and perhaps even some expansion of, nuclear fission power generation is necessary because renewables aren't being developed quickly enough. Setting aside the significant economic, safety, waste storage, liability, and proliferation issues associated with fission, uranium still has the same limited supply issue that fossil fuels have, and global expansion of nuclear would get us quickly to a "peak uranium" situation. It's a short term, but not a long-term, solution to the problem of carbon emissions. It's also very expensive, requiring massive subsidies (including disaster liability waivers) from the government, which comes straight out of our taxes.

---

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan

And everybody else is paying for your wind power too. If you want to pay $1.35 per kwh
I will applaud.

Quote
Paul F.
Is there a company where I can pay for 100% nuclear?
I'd sign up for that.

My power comes from the Fermi plant in Monroe, MI. Might lose a bit getting it to your neck of the woods, tho...

Quote
srf1957
And everybody else is paying for your wind power too. If you want to pay $1.35 per kwh
I will applaud.

What does this mean? Are you suggesting that subsidies for wind power are greater than those for coal, nuclear, etc? I think not.

---

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan

100% wind power from 100% Massachusetts wind generators is 4.1 ( or 4.7 ) ¢ surcharge here.

10 or 12 % of my power is renewables by mandate anyway.
and I'll be paying around 2¢ ( probably more ) surcharge when Cape Wind goes online , want it or not.

I agree with Davester's point about nuclear generation being a kind of bridge.

One frustration I have is that the nuclear industry desperately wants to sell their older technology designs and is fighting hard to prevent newer, safer designs. Because of regulatory capture, it is hard to get licenses for some of the newer concepts.

Free markets are not alway free.

been do it for years but need to eat Mexican first.........

---

_____________________________________

I reject your reality and substitute my own!

Quote
NewtonMP2100
been do it for years but need to eat Mexican first.........

Technically, that's not power, it's propulsion ;)

---

Paul F.
-----
A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand. - Lucius Annaeus Seneca c. 5 BC - 65 AD
----
Good is the enemy of Excellent. Talent is not necessary for Excellence.
Persistence is necessary for Excellence. And Persistence is a Decision.
--

--

--
Eureka, CA

This is Pacific Power's version: [www.pacificpower.net]

The biggest problem with Wind Energy is it isn't consistent or reliable. Same with solar. I think that they should convert wind power into stored potential energy of known capacity. Lift ?kg x ?m vertically. Pump ?L x ?m vertically. It doesn't have to be fancy, but at least it would be a known amount of energy that could be tapped for a known amount of time. Drop the weights, open the damn, and collect the kinetic energy. Would it be efficient? No. But who cares? It's not like you're paying for the wind or sunlight.

---

**************************************
MacResource User Map: [www.zeemaps.com]#

Is you electricity marked so you know it is from wind power?
here is a Seattle Times article about a plan to store wind power.
Times Wind power storage

I looked into solar panels one time. Where I live we have no installer though. I called several installers in the Seattle area but they wanted to install $20,000 systems to come to my city. It seems like it should be easier.

---

Ukulele music I couldn't find anywhere else.
[colquhoun.info]

Quote
bruceko
Is you electricity marked so you know it is from wind power?
here is a Seattle Times article about a plan to store wind power.
Times Wind power storage

They're already doing the compressed air storage in Iowa. It only works in specific areas that have unique type of porous rock.

Iowa Stored Energy Park
[www.isepa.com]

---

**************************************
MacResource User Map: [www.zeemaps.com]#

Quote
ztirffritz
The biggest problem with Wind Energy is it isn't consistent or reliable. Same with solar.

I think you mean that it isn't constant. Wind and solar energy is certainly reliable, and is relatively consistent and predictable in much of the US. The constancy of generation is not really relevant for grid-tied solar or wind until an area gets up to a very high fraction of the total energy portfolio (we're talking 20% to 50% here) because it is blended with electricity from other sources. In fact, for solar, peak generation for cooling climates (i.e. where AC is used) coincides with maximum electricity use, so solar gives the grid significant insurance against brown outs associated with peak demands and thus actually improves the reliability of grid power.

---

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan

Sailboats have engines because the wind ( and even sails) is not reliable.
Calling it anything else is spinning wheels.


The only way you're gonna get just wind power or solar is to go off the grid. Otherwise you're paying for whatever you prefer to pay for but you're getting the exact same power as your neighbor. Nothing wrong with that.
If I'm going to pay more I'm buying my own panels or generator and selling the surplus back.
Who pays what for it won't be my concern nor choice.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/30/2013 07:24PM by billb.

"Ethical" Electric... Hmm. How so? The rest of us aren't "ethical" if we don't subscribe?

>>The only way you're gonna get just wind power or solar is to go off the grid. Otherwise you're paying for whatever you prefer to pay for but you're getting the exact same power as your neighbor.

Am I supposed to be concerned that the electrons flowing through my outlets were piped directly from the wind? Thats naive.

Heck, AC electrons just alternate back and forth! And they charge for it! What a rip off!

---

They cancelled a similar plan here. Totally messed up. I should be able to be 100% net wind in my neck of the woods.

Quote
davester

Quote
srf1957
And everybody else is paying for your wind power too. If you want to pay $1.35 per kwh
I will applaud.

What does this mean? Are you suggesting that subsidies for wind power are greater than those for coal, nuclear, etc? I think not.

Yes I am. Forbes
The power produced in Oregon is shipped to Idaho and California so we get to subsidize others states guilt trip for renewable energy mandates. The local wind farm has maybe 6 or 7 employees. They wanted to build anther 2 in area but it was voted out because they wanted even more subsidies from the local county to put them in.

Quote
srf1957

Quote
davester

Quote
srf1957
And everybody else is paying for your wind power too. If you want to pay $1.35 per kwh
I will applaud.

What does this mean? Are you suggesting that subsidies for wind power are greater than those for coal, nuclear, etc? I think not.

Yes I am. Forbes
...

I didn't read through the text at your link but I just wanted to point out that it's an Op/Ed (opinion piece). And I have been seeing a lot of long-winded () Op-Eds at Forbes lately.

Quote
srf1957

Quote
davester
Are you suggesting that subsidies for wind power are greater than those for coal, nuclear, etc? I think not.

Yes I am. Forbes

That opinion piece doesn't support your contention in the slightest. Perhaps you didn't understand the question. There is no disagreement that renewables are getting subsidies. That's how the government should support emerging beneficial technologies that are competing against other government subsidized industries (oil, coal, nuclear, etc). The bigger question is why are mature, profitable, and harmful industries getting far greater subsidies.

---

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan

isn't all this just dust in the WIND......???

---

_____________________________________

I reject your reality and substitute my own!

Quote
ztirffritz
This is Pacific Power's version: [www.pacificpower.net]

The biggest problem with Wind Energy is it isn't consistent or reliable. Same with solar. I think that they should convert wind power into stored potential energy of known capacity. Lift ?kg x ?m vertically. Pump ?L x ?m vertically. It doesn't have to be fancy, but at least it would be a known amount of energy that could be tapped for a known amount of time. Drop the weights, open the damn, and collect the kinetic energy. Would it be efficient? No. But who cares? It's not like you're paying for the wind or sunlight.

Convert the solar power to hydrogen which can be stored underground. No need for direct wind-to-grid generation, just dedicate your turbines to always convert water to hydrogen. Then your hydrogen powered generator can run continuously with a known supply of fuel. Not much different than natgas except without the CO2 problems.

---

Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.

Quote
Speedy
Convert the solar power to hydrogen which can be stored underground. No need for direct wind-to-grid generation, just dedicate your turbines to always convert water to hydrogen. Then your hydrogen powered generator can run continuously with a known supply of fuel. Not much different than natgas except without the CO2 problems.

The problem with that is that those conversions are extremely inefficient. I doubt that you'd get more than 10% of the energy put into the process. Also, hydrogen storage is quite difficult and is one of the big issues in creating a so-called hydrogen economy. In contrast, the grid is almost 100% efficient as a storage medium, and balances the load to accommodate wild fluctuations in solar/wind generation. It has a huge capacity to do this that would not start to break down until we were generating about 10 times more wind and 1000s of times more solar energy than we are now.

---

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan

Quote
davester

Quote
Speedy
Convert the solar power to hydrogen which can be stored underground. No need for direct wind-to-grid generation, just dedicate your turbines to always convert water to hydrogen. Then your hydrogen powered generator can run continuously with a known supply of fuel. Not much different than natgas except without the CO2 problems.

The problem with that is that those conversions are extremely inefficient. I doubt that you'd get more than 10% of the energy put into the process. Also, hydrogen storage is quite difficult and is one of the big issues in creating a so-called hydrogen economy. In contrast, the grid is almost 100% efficient as a storage medium, and balances the load to accommodate wild fluctuations in solar/wind generation. It has a huge capacity to do this that would not start to break down until we were generating about 10 times more wind and 1000s of times more solar energy than we are now.

That was why I suggested lifting weights or pumping water uphill. Once the potential 'battery' is charged it just sits there until tapped. Once tapped you know exactly how much energy it will provide and for how long. The only thing similar that I've seen are the solar collectors that store molten salts underground (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_tower). They use the concentrated solar energy to create steam for generators and to heat a lump of sodium during the day then it remains hot enough to drive turbines with steam throughout the night.

---

**************************************
MacResource User Map: [www.zeemaps.com]#

Quote
ztirffritz

Quote
davester

Quote
Speedy
Convert the solar power to hydrogen which can be stored underground. No need for direct wind-to-grid generation, just dedicate your turbines to always convert water to hydrogen. Then your hydrogen powered generator can run continuously with a known supply of fuel. Not much different than natgas except without the CO2 problems.

The problem with that is that those conversions are extremely inefficient. I doubt that you'd get more than 10% of the energy put into the process. Also, hydrogen storage is quite difficult and is one of the big issues in creating a so-called hydrogen economy. In contrast, the grid is almost 100% efficient as a storage medium, and balances the load to accommodate wild fluctuations in solar/wind generation. It has a huge capacity to do this that would not start to break down until we were generating about 10 times more wind and 1000s of times more solar energy than we are now.

That was why I suggested lifting weights or pumping water uphill. Once the potential 'battery' is charged it just sits there until tapped. Once tapped you know exactly how much energy it will provide and for how long. The only thing similar that I've seen are the solar collectors that store molten salts underground (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_tower). They use the concentrated solar energy to create steam for generators and to heat a lump of sodium during the day then it remains hot enough to drive turbines with steam throughout the night.

There was a company that was exploring massive battery houses to store energy for use during peak hours using Li-Ion batteries but I think the obstacles for that were just too big.

---

**************************************
MacResource User Map: [www.zeemaps.com]#

There seems to be some misunderstanding about how I will be getting 100% wind power. No, the wires to my house will not be hooked up directly to the wind turbines. So when the wind stops I will still have power from the grid, but when it comes down to billing the amount of energy I used will get purchased from the wind supplier. This ensures the resources generated by the wind turbines are being used. If enough people were to switch to the wind option for their service then this segment of the grid would expand (along with solar, which is an option) and the other less environmentally friendly sources would decline.

If all we had were wind turbines then of course there would be blackouts all the time. Solar is a good supplement but both should be paired with a means for storing excess power than can then feed the grid when the sun/wind sources are not available.

......did I ever tell you you're my hero.......?

............'cause you are the WIND....beneath my wings....

---

_____________________________________

I reject your reality and substitute my own!

Quote
mattkime
>>The only way you're gonna get just wind power or solar is to go off the grid. Otherwise you're paying for whatever you prefer to pay for but you're getting the exact same power as your neighbor.

Am I supposed to be concerned that the electrons flowing through my outlets were piped directly from the wind? Thats naive.

It's not naive, it's logical. If someone says all their power comes from X, when really it comes from Y, that doesn't make any sense. It's like the gas powered cars rolling around with stickers that say they're "carbon neutral" because they purchased offsets. It doesn't actually mean the cars don't produce carbon.

---

Help MacInTouch: Buy from Amazon? use this link [amazon.com]
Mac News & Info: [macintouch.com] [macnn.com] [tuaw.com]
Mac Benchmarks: [barefeats.com]
Used Mac Stuff [FS/T]: LowEndMac Swap List
Mac Software Updates: [macupdate.com]
Fonts: [dafont.com] [fontspace.com]
Online Computer Store With Mac Support: [macsales.com]