You may remember previous posts about returning to wind power? Well it worked! The first sailing of a kite powered ship from Germany to Venezuela is complete and was a smashing success. The ship now plans to replace their kite with another sail twice as large, possibly saving them as much as $2,000 a day as the sail replaces 20% of their fuel costs.
posted
That Walmart fluid-cooling system is less wasteful and more efficient than your link's use of "evaporation" may imply. It isn't a swamp cooler. And dry air as found in desert and near-desert climes of the West are ideal for operating such systems.
Start at page74 for the HE.2 system being used in the LasVegas pilot project. Interesting stuff follows, though the pdf is basicly a powerpoint sales presentation so there's a lot less detail than might be desired.
quote: The first ad...compares the challenge of fighting global warming to the invasion of Normandy and the civil rights movement.
That advertisement will start appearing on television Wednesday, according to the Alliance for Climate Protection, a group created by Mr. Gore in 2006. It will be followed by ads tailored to particular audiences and media, including the Internet.
posted
I've read the TIME article DK. I'd say it's 75% dead on. It leaves out a lot, like a real discussion on cellulosic ethanol, farming subsidies and ethanol tariffs that keep Brazilian sugarcane ethanol out of the US and keep us dependent on corn ethanol. It also leaves out that much of ethanol could be grown on land that is currently depleted to most other agriculture and isn't growing foodstuffs at the moment.
But mostly? It's right. Corn based ethanol biofuels are the DEVIL. EVIL! I've been saying that since this thread first started (I'll do a big post later tonight by the way, I haven't done an update in awhile, sorry). The US government is the main culprit as far as I am concerned. Their subsidies are what is screwing with the price of food and what is causing farmers to switch their crops in droves, and I think it is driving the destruction of the Amazon. I think they should cut subsidies, give a lot of funding to research of cellulosic ethanol so that one day a non food crop source of biofuel can become viable, and they need to stop forcing an untenable, wasteful, polluting fuel on us!
[/rant]
Thanks for the link DK. I just want to say that though corn based ethanol is the devil, not all biofuels are bad, and technology is really starting to hit home on some better forms of biofuel that'll be good for us. I expect in the future that biofuel will play a small but important role in our transportation infrastructure, but, in the near term? It's just evil.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
SoCal has a huge new solar movement starting soon. The idea is to cover thousands of roofs in three counties with thin film solar panels. The result? 250 MW of power that will provide energy for 162,000 homes. Thin-Film solar is actually pretty cheap, all things considered, and by putting the panels right on the roofs, you don't have to spend much extra on T&D lines like you sometimes do for renewables. Hopefully we'll see this replicated in more places. They plan to install a MW a week for five years until they reach 250MW.
New York City council approves measures similar to London's congestion plans. What this means? In some of the heavily traveled areas of Manhatten, you'll have to pay $8 for a regular car to drive there between 6am and 6pm. Parking rates and taxi fees will also be increased. $21 for trucks, though only $7 for LEVs. The estimated $491 million in revenue this will bring in will go to improve transit systems in New York, and trust me, they need it. The NYC subway system is crumbling in many places, and the reason it is so slow in many places is because it's too dangerous to have them go as fast as they COULD go. The other benefits should be easing congestion from people choosing to avoid these areas.
quote:The EU report was just the latest in a string of recent warnings about potential clashes over Arctic resources - including a prediction from former U.S. Coast Guard Cmdr. Scott Borgerson of possible armed conflict between the U.S. and Canada over Arctic sovereignty.
"The United States should not underestimate Canadian passions on this issue," Borgerson, a fellow at the influential Council on Foreign Relations, wrote in an article in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs magazine. "Unless Washington leads the way toward a multilateral diplomatic solution, the Arctic could descend into armed conflict."
posted
Some great updates today. I've decided that from now on, for the most part, I'm going to leave out announcements of new solar plants starting up unless they are using some new technology to do so. I read three different announcements today on 500MW+ plants that are newly being planned for various parts of the US, and I think we might be at the point where announcements of plans and financing just isn't big news anymore, we may have reached the point where it's commonplace. We'll see how that works in practice.
Michigan struggles for Wind Power. This is about the hurdles in the way of bringing more wind power to Michigan, specifically to the Great Lakes.
To highlight and explain the goal and struggle for alternative power in Michigan right now, here is what Governor Jennifer Granholm had to say about it in her 2008 State of the State address:
quote:Why alternative energy? Because - to borrow a line from Wayne Gretzky - if you want to win, "don't skate to where the puck is - skate to where the puck is going."
The puck is going to alternative energy.
Any time you pick up a newspaper from here on out and see the terms "climate change" or "global warming," just think: "jobs for Michigan."
Because of the need to reduce global warming and end our dependence on expensive foreign oil, the renewable energy and energy efficiency industries will create millions of good paying jobs.
There's no question that these jobs are coming to our nation. The only question is, where?
I say we will win these jobs for Michigan and replace the lost manufacturing jobs with a whole new, growing sector.
Why us? Because, no other state - indeed few places in the world - have what we have to offer: our wind, our water, our woods - and thanks to the working men and women of Michigan - our skilled workforce.
Look at each of these resources.
The unique geography of our peninsulas makes us windy. Experts have said that we have the second best potential for wind generation and production in the country. In fact, the wind turbines we'd use to capture that power can be built right here in Michigan, because we have what's needed: manufacturing infrastructure; available factory space; a skilled workforce. And water - the Great Lakes - are one of the best ways to ship these huge turbines.
That Pure Michigan water will do even more for us. The natural movement, the waves of our Great Lakes waters, creates enormous energy. We are talking with businesses right now about coming to Michigan to convert water currents into electric currents.
And wood! The wood waste from the pulp and paper industry is being used to produce the next generation of biofuels. Cutting-edge companies like Mascoma, Chemrec, NewPage, and others are turning wood waste into fuel for your vehicles, and they want to come here because of our vast sustainable forests.
Our automotive base is also a huge asset: we are the automotive research capital of the world, and we are building the engines of the future - hybrids, clean diesel, electric, fuel cells, flexfuel - all of that is being, and will continue to be, researched, designed, and produced right here in Michigan.
There may be one or two other states that are sunnier than we are, but we are already a huge player in the solar energy industry. We have in Michigan the world's largest producer of the stuff that makes solar panels work. Polycrystalline silicon. Made by Hemlock Semiconductor right here in Michigan. They are in the middle of a billion dollar expansion, hiring 500 people in the Saginaw area. They have even bigger plans. And just last week, Dow Solar Solutions announced it was locating a new $52 million manufacturing facility in Midland, focusing on solar energy generating building materials. Saginaw Valley can be the Silicon Valley for the alternative energy business!
Even waste is being used: companies are taking household trash in landfills and converting it to green energy - the Lansing Board of Water and Light is doing it right now. Farms are turning animal waste into methane gas. Opportunities are everywhere in Michigan to create green energy.
Michigan must do as any successful business does. To compete, we need to capitalize on our natural advantages. For us, it's our geography and our history. Auto ingenuity. And our solar edge. Wind. Woods. Water. Workforce. Even waste. If we do this right, Michigan can be the alternative energy capital of North America, and create thousands and thousands of jobs.
But, for Michigan to win the race for those high-paying jobs, we have to out-hustle the competition. How?
First, we must commit as a state to use alternative energy to meet our own energy needs.
To understand the connection between renewable energy and jobs, just look at Sweden - a country with striking resemblances to our state: the same size population, similar geography with two-thirds of their land covered by forests, a strong automotive sector. Sweden set high goals for their use of renewable energy. The result? They created over 2,000 businesses and 400,000 jobs in their renewable energy sector. 400,000 jobs!
Alternative energy companies have watched closely as 25 other states have set aggressive goals for their alternative energy use. We have to meet and beat other states' goals here in Michigan if we are going to attract those companies here. That's why I am asking the Legislature to set ambitious alternative energy goals for Michigan - produce 10 percent of our electrical energy from renewable sources by the year 2015 and a full 25 percent by the year 2025. Thank you Sen. Patterson and Representative Accavitti for working to craft the bipartisan legislation that will transform our state.
There is no way to overestimate the importance of setting state renewable energy use goals when it comes to creating jobs.
Tonight, I'm announcing that our state's largest utilities are poised to make one of the world's largest investments in alternative energy and energy efficiency, creating upwards of 17,000 jobs in Michigan.
As soon as this Legislature acts on a comprehensive energy package, Consumers Energy and DTE will begin to jointly invest up to $6 billion in Michigan - much of it to build wind turbines and wind farms to produce electricity and to help businesses and homeowners install energy saving technologies. $6 billion. 17,000 jobs.
It's not often the Legislature gets to cast a vote that will create that many jobs. But you have that opportunity right now. For the sake of our people, I urge you to get it done.
A renewable energy goal is a powerful tool to attract alternative energy jobs, but there are other tools, too. We are going to create Centers of Excellence across the state to bring alternative energy companies and Michigan universities together to create new products and new jobs. I'm also asking you to pass tax incentives for anchor companies in the alternative energy sector that get their suppliers to also locate in Michigan.
And to make sure that ethanol is made here and sold here and is competitive with gasoline, I'm asking you once again to eliminate the gas tax for fuel purchases of ethanol and biodiesel at gas stations.
If only I could vote for her again.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Recycling wasted energy from polluting power sources. Recycling "junk" energy from coal and other fossil fuel powered plants could supply 20% of the nation's power! The term coined for this non-green power source is "grey" power. Hey, it's available today and it could cut back on the need for more coal power plants, so I'm board as a temporary fix to our problems.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A small separate post for the Volt, if you please. This won't be quite as cool as I was hoping because apparently the audio links aren't working on autobloggreen, so you can't hear any of what I'm sure are very cool interviews with the tech people:
Here is some news on the development of the battery systems for the Volt.
It seems they are progressing on schedule with this thing, and we might actually see it for sale in two and a half years. I don't have a prayer of being able to afford one, even if they do come in at their $30,000 target, for several years, but as soon as I get the money I'd love to get one, assuming it's reasonably comfortable and performs to spec.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
OLEDs are still a very, very new technology. They are a leap ahead of LEDs in technology, and LEDs aren't even close to being standard yet. I think we have a good 10 to 20 years before you start seeing houses and offices built with integrated OLED technology in mind. But you'll see them in use in smaller applications like computer and other screens very soon, because they can be wafer thin and use considerably less energy than traditional displays, and yet still offer HD quality.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
The Kansas Senate has overridden Governor Sebelius's veto to block expansion of the Holcomb coal-power plant. The House has yet to do their political act, and I have no idea what that entails. Bets are on the side of the electric company, in this case. It's too bad...
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not set in stone yet. The override vote in the House hasn't happened, and until recently no one thought they had the votes for it. But it might go through. The majority leader thinks he has the votes for the override later this week (tomorrow actually I think).
There were some competing compromises floating around. Sebelius said she would sign a bill for one power plant if the rest of the energy came from wind, but the Republicans said no. The utility originally said they'd capture half of the million tons of carbon by using algae to sequester it, but Republicans said that was too expensive, and that the technology was too new and nixed that too.
It looks like at this point it's likely to pass. It could end up costing them quite a bit in the long run if the worldwide price of coal goes up and the next Administration in the White House gets CO2 regulation legislation passed.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Try http://www.mercurynews.com/raiders/ci_8479963 for the sugar-fed algae. Something's misfiring in the original address. The article's gotta be a missing point or two. Feeding a (derivative from a) food crop to algae doesn't make sense.
And $6to$10 for one CFL? Been getting mine for less than $3 apiece in Costco 8packs, and that's including the sales tax. Admittedly it's been a couple of years since I've bought any. Darn CFLs, won't burn out so I can stay current on prices.
posted
Tsk tsk! First off, at least GM and Ford have serious hydrogen fuel cell cars ready to go. I haven't been posting them, but I've read articles lately about some American auto execs pushing for a hyrdogen infrastructure because they want to be selling these cars in ten years. But even more so, plucking a random excessively wasteful American car out of a large lineup of cars, and plucking a randomly futuristic hydrogen Japanese car out of a large lineup of cars is vastly unfair. Japanese car companies make big trucks and SUVs that are wasteful and old school, and American car companies are scrapping plans to make V8's in favor of smaller sedans and all of them are bringing over subcompacts from Europe to the American market. And despite Japanese reluctance and naysaying, GM is still surging forth with Plug in Electric technology, even with Honda and Toyota badmouthing them the whole way. You paint a one sided picture.
The point wasn't the fuel cell cars: the page contained a link specificly citing US automakers participation in developing the technology. The point was how problems are approached.
Not enough hydrogen refilling stations to make mass auto sales feasible? Honda develops home-based hydrogen generators. Not a particularly good idea -- unless in conjunction of cogeneration -- but nonetheless a way to get over the hump of "...there ain't enough refilling stations to sell cars cuz there ain't enough cars to financially justify the building of refilling stations cuz..."
GM has problems selling a Cadillac model cuz it's fuddy duddy. Instead of going the "luxury means cutting edge engineering" route, GM executives decide to waste the same amount of money to fake luxury by splashing on a few random gew gaws.
posted
BTW: Honda's hydrogen-powered FCX Clarity is going to become available to the public this summer. Betcha that people will be buying homes in the test region just to get their hands on the car.
And the WorldBank is pretending that it cares about famine. Conveniently ignoring the fact that it has spent the entirety of its existence encouraging governments to kick subsistance farmers off their land so that the land could be "better" used to produce cash crops such as cotton, cocoa, coffee, flowers, shrimp, cocaine, heroin, etc for the FirstWorld instead of food for the ThirdWorld.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In a demonstration of their faith in magic, the Greens are screwing up Germany's ability to meet Kyoto goals by replacing nuclear powerplants with coal-fired powerplants to produce even more power for increased future demand. What's funny about this is that Japan, Germany, the UK, etc are all vastly increasing and/or intending to vastly increase the amount of coal they are burning to produce electricity. And are condemning the US for failure to sign the KyotoAccords.....while the US has been decreasing its use of coal.
Nice thing about magic: all ya hafta do is mutter a few words, and reality ceases to be a barrier to achieving ones desires.
Showing solidarity with that belief in magic, EuropeanUnion ministers are insisting that EU members must go ahead with their plans to make biofuel out of food to meet the Kyoto carbon emissions goals.....even though such biofuel production will cause greater greenhouse gas production through destruction of carbon-storing forests/etc to create more farmland. Then again, knowing European history, they might just be counting on a die-off of ThirdWorlders through artificially induced famine.
posted
Interesting tidbit from the Kansas Executive branch of government...
This came to me via an instructor, who received it from someone in the Kansas Department of Education. Most of us are following the wind energy saga in Kansas with unique interest. After months of preparation, preceeded by years of planning and conniving, the Meridian Way wind farm held it's symbolic ground-breaking.
Once completed, this farm will have the largest wind turbines in the United States (or perhaps North America...) and it will also be the largest collection of these turbines. There's rumor and discussion of possible expansion. With plenty of land, community support, and (maybe) some government incentive, that could happen.
I *might* be able to provide pictures of this, eventually, given that it's happening practically in my backyard.
On to the news!
quote: The following is by Lieutenant Governor Mark Parkinson:
The New Harvest
Scientists have long debated climate change. Now the debate has shifted course. Whether or not climate change is real is no longer the question.
The question we now face is: what can we do to combat it?
Farmers have always relied on the sun for the energy to grow their crop. Now farmers can rely on wind. Wind energy is lucrative, accessible and can bring an economic renaissance for rural America.
With growing concerns over climate change and the Environmental Protection Agency’s forthcoming greenhouse gas regulation, states have been setting their sights on the future through cleaner natural resources for power.
In fact, of all the renewable resources, wind has proven to be the clear breadwinner. And it’s only getting better.
Several Midwest states have already taken advantage of wind resources. In the past, Kansas has lagged behind other states – but we’re catching up. When Governor Kathleen Sebelius and I teamed up two years ago only 3% of our state’s energy came from wind. By the end of this year we will be only the seventh state in the nation with over 1,000 megawatts (MW) of wind online - 10% of the total electricity produced in Kansas.
We’ll be the only state to have accomplished this without a government mandate. The Governor has accomplished this with voluntary agreements from utilities.
Like every emerging industry, realizing the economic benefits takes time. In Kansas, the time for wind has come. National wind mapping estimates show that Kansas has the potential to be a leader in wind production as the third windiest state in America.
Landowners with wind turbines on their property receive lease payments in the thousands, millions of construction dollars energize local economies, and hundreds of new skilled jobs have emerged. Roads are revitalized and new transmission lines are built to support future growth.
This is Kansas wind, clean and plentiful, and we are already on our way.
posted
Good stuff Tstorm! Hopefully Kansas can be a great model for what other nearby plains states, and states with high wind potential in general can accomplish if they want to.
McCain calls for summer break from gas tax. I'm sure you all know how I feel about this. It's a tiny bit of money, and the result will be that more people will drive instead of cutting back on their summer driving. It's an irresponsible move that will raise the deficit cause more oil to be used.
posted
Bipartisan? Anything with Lieberman's name on it is a reflection of Dubya's fondest dreams, like Lieberman's "compromise" on SupremeCourt nominees.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah I saw that article on The Hill yesterday.
But S2191 is still the toughest measure to date, it has mandatory caps, a trade system, will result in a massive reduction in carbon in emissions and a huge boost to renewable energy production.
It seems to focus pretty heavily on the changeover from regular coal to "advance coal with carbon capture" but it takes into account that this tech won't be read for 20 years. I've read some of the document above in the last day. Frankly I think it's too progressive to get passed by the Republicans in Congress, but it was written by a solid Conservative and a Conservative pseudo Democrat. But this is the first cap & trade bill that will make it out of Committee in the Senate. That alone is pretty amazing. It's pretty comprehensive too, though I don't really get all the details, the language is too much and the analysis leaves out some details that makes the other details understandable.
The bill won't get passed until after Pres. Bush is out of office either way, because there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of him signing it, but that kind of opposition is part of what makes me like it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:McCain calls for summer break from gas tax. I'm sure you all know how I feel about this. It's a tiny bit of money, and the result will be that more people will drive instead of cutting back on their summer driving. It's an irresponsible move that will raise the deficit cause more oil to be used.
Not to mention that the gas tax is arguably the fairest tax in our system. Gas taxes go exclusively to paying for roads. Cutting the gas tax will either mean neglecting maintenance of roads that are already in serious trouble (remember the bridge in MN last summer), or passing the cost of driving on to someone else.
This is just one of those election year "bribes" for the voters that shows you exactly how wrong it is to think of the current incarnation of the republican party as fiscally responsible.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would say that now is the time to come out with more funding for battery research for electric cars and more funding for non-food crop biofuels, but I've been reading a lot of news lately out of the NREL and the DOE and DOA that says we're actually doing fairly well on that front recently. I guess more money never hurts, but, I can't say the government is doing nothing on that front. Plus the Senate passed the RTC. Gas prices being high is the best time to introduce all those things, but it looks like McCain got beat to the punch every time. I still wonder why he thinks oil companies need billions in tax breaks though.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Probably more like the expectation that a piece of those billions will make it back to their own campaign coffers. Don't get me wrong, Democrats take money from oil companies too, but you can hardly say they seriously represent oil interests, or that their oil money will make or break their campaign.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:"As of Feb. 29, Obama's presidential campaign had received nearly $214,000 from oil and gas industry employees and their families, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Clinton had received nearly $307,000 from industry workers and their families and Republican Sen. John McCain, the likely GOP presidential nominee, received nearly $394,000, according to the center's totals." And two of Obama's fundraisers are oil company executives: Robert Cavnar, the chairman and chief executive of Houston-based Mission Resources Corp., and George Kaiser, the president and CEO of Tulsa-based Kaiser-Francis Oil Co.
posted
I think the second part, having oil company executives as fundraisers, is potentially a matter of influence and seems a bit hypocritical. But the first part I just don't get what the issue is - individual donations from people who work in a certain industry are not the same as taking money from lobbyists or a PAC. I donated money to Obama's campaign, so by that standard he's accepted money from bed industry employees.
I see a huge difference between that and when I worked for a certain long distance company that had a PAC they strongly encouraged employees to give money to, and they flat-out told us the funds were given to politicians who supported regulation or deregulation that benefited the company. If I gave money through the PAC it definitely had strings attached, but if I donated individually to a candidate it was not on behalf of the phone company.
posted
Solar City offers residents chance to get solar panels installed on homes with no money down. This is a residential version of a commercial idea. They install and own the panels on your home, and you pay a greatly reduced electricity bill, the difference of which pays the lease on your system, and you get a small kickback for yourself. The installer gets to sell excess energy to the grid (sometimes) but otherwise they become your primary energy distributor at a locked in lower rate, and they get to collect some nice tax incentives from the state and federal government.
Canada may be first country to label Bisphenol A as a toxic substance. BPA is a product used in water bottles, baby bottles, and hundreds of other products. The fear stems from recent studies that show that chemicals leech from the plastics, and BPA, one of these chemicals, can cause severe developmental issues in youth and possibly cancer in older people. I heard a report about it on NPR today, and it appears the jury is still out, but many aren't taking the risk.
President Bush today gave a big speech on climate change and his plans to fight it. I won't comment much or break it down, as frankly I don't think it's worth my time. Suffice to say he isn't going to get the job done. You can find the text yourself and read it if you want.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Dag had a pretty good point. Sure, McCain got twice as much oil money as Obama, but we're still only talking hundreds of thousands out of their multiple millions of dollars. That can't be a very tight string around the candidates.
I'm going to gripe a moment about the potato article.
quote: As we move toward a reality where there simply isn't enough food to feed the world,
If I learned anything in Archaeology, it's that mankind only innovates when it has a need. Folks in marginal zones are the most likely to come up with something new because they have enough that they don't spend all their time subsistance farming but they aren't so well off that they don't need more. As we use more food, someone is going to come up with a breakthrough new farming technique, crop hybrid, miracle fertilizer, something. I seriously doubt we're going to run out of food.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing I wish would happen: fuel companies should be required to compute an efficiency number based on the square feet of a residence, the amount of fuel used, and the number of degree days in a year. Then homeowners would have a number they could compare, like comparing gas mileage and such.
This in partly in response to the fact that several of my neighbors are only just now realizing that their houses were built in the 1950's without a shred of insulation. I can't understand how they made it through the 1970's without insulating.
It's also partly in response to my recent discovery that gas and electric companies have apparently stopped performing energy audits on homes. It's not really worth doing, because it's expensive, and you don't come out with any more information than you could get by asking someone if their house is insulated over the phone.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't seen anything specific, but, you might see something like that in the next 10 years. If we do get emissions legislation with the next Congress, they'll need to eke out every percent of emissions reduction they can get through efficiency, and with the rise in heating costs, they'll have stickers on them the way cars do with efficiency ratings and estimated energy costs per year. I'm betting that as the cost of energy rises more and more, such a regulation, after a couple years of haggling over the formula they'd use to actually produce it, might become something you see so home buyers have a real gauge to compare with. I'm betting that is still a ways off though.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a question for the green news watchers. The other day on NPR I heard a brief story about "feed-in tariffs" in some european countries and the push to do something similar here. Basically it's a law saying that if you're producing solar or wind power in your home and feeding it into the grid, the power company has to pay you for the electricity. Opponents to passing that kind of law here say that it results in higher energy prices for everyone else because the power company pays the micro-producer far more than it costs to generate the power at the power plant. In Germany they said it was seven times more.
So the question is, why not pass the feed-in tariff but just have the amount paid for feed-in power be the same or nearly the same as what the power company charges consumers for the power? Why would it have to be paying home producers more than what the end consumer is paying for it?
quote: GREENSBURG, Kansas (CNN) -- There are still piles of bricks and rubble on countless streets in Greensburg, Kansas, a year after a tornado demolished more than 90 percent of the town.
Yet what is happening in the city's rebuilding process may not only re-invent Greensburg but provide a model for "green" building everywhere.
quote:So the question is, why not pass the feed-in tariff but just have the amount paid for feed-in power be the same or nearly the same as what the power company charges consumers for the power? Why would it have to be paying home producers more than what the end consumer is paying for it?
As I understand it, when you feed into the grid, your electric meter runs backwards. The electric company can't distinguish between someone who consumes 80% from the grid and feeds in 20%, from someone who feeds in 80% and consumes 20%. In order to do so, you'd have to feed out on one set of lines, and in on another, with two different meters.
Consequently, if you feed in to the grid, the power company only charges you for the consumption that shows on the meter, which means that when the meter runs backwards, you are actually being paid at the same rate the power company charges its regular customers.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
