[Greenbuilding] Wind power question

[Mike O'Brien]

Hi, Art--

Check out Bonneville Environmental Foundation green tags, www.b-e-f.org.

Mike

On Sep 13, 2007, at 9:12 AM, requiredemail1 wrote:

> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Greenbuilding email list
> List info: http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/ 
> greenbuilding_listserv.repp.org
> List email: Greenbuilding at listserv.repp.org
> Managed by BuildingGreen, Inc. http://www.buildinggreen.com
>       publisher of Environmental Building News and GreenSpec(r)
> Hosted and archived by REPP / CREST http://www.crest.org
>

1905 N Alberta Street
Portland OR 97217
503-819-8991 mobile
503-823-5494 office
503-286-3316 home
obrien at hevanet.com