[Greenbuilding] Wind power question

[requiredemail1]

This question might be slightly off topic for this list, but I'm pretty sure
that there are some like minded individuals out there who have thought about
this question.  

I just learned that I can buy "100% wind power" from one of the local
competitve energy suppliers for my residential energy usage.  The price is
13.86 cents per kWh for an 11-month term.  This cost is for energy
generation and transmission only.  The distribution costs from my local
electric company are extra.  This 13.85-cent price is about 45-50% more than
than per-kWh cost for generation and transmission that I currently pay
through my local electric company.  The total cost difference for me based
on about 4000-4200 khW annually is about $250-300.

I would switch providers and pay the extra cost if I thought that my choice
would affect, even in a miniscule, statistically-insignifcant way, the
amount of fossil fuel burned for power generation in the US.  Or put another
way, I would switch if I thought that my choice, along with 999,999 other
residential customers making the same choice, would make a difference.  

The competitive energy supplier says in their marketing materials that "Wind
energy is guaranteed to be placed on the grid in an amount equal to your
purchase size, thereby matching your power consumption with clean, renewable
wind energy generation."  

I understand that energy generated from all different sources in put into
the power grid "pool," and that when I purchase 100% wind energy, I'm just
ensuring that the amount of my purchase is placed into the "pool."  But I
guess my concern is that all I'm really doing is paying 50% more for energy
that's already in the pool.  I mean, the wind turbines that are supplying
the pool have already been built, probably based on projections about demand
for wind power from residential customers, but they're up an running
regardless of what me and my 999,999 friends actually do.  

Furthermore, I could be wrong about this point, but one would assume that
those existing turbines are currently supplying 100% of their capacity to
the pool because the majority of the costs to operate the turbine are fixed
costs (the cost of the wind-farm land and the turbines).  Thus, I would
assume that the turbine operator would run the turbines at full capacity
whether he's getting 4 cents or 7 cents per wholesale kWh.  Naturally, the
operator might not be able to turn a profit at 4 cents and, therefore, might
not operate indefinitely or might not invest in additional turbines in the
future.  

So maybe the best that I could say is that by paying 50% more for "100% wind
power," I'm making it more profitable to operate wind turbines, which might
mean that operators would invest in bringing online more wind turbines in
the future than they otherwise would.  In this way, my choice wouldn't
affect the balance of energy sources used today but might affect the balance
of sources used in the future.  

On the other hand, maybe I, and other residential energy customers, should
use our $250-300 per year in a way that has more direct effects on fossil
fuel emissions.  

Thoughts?   

Thanks.

Art.