U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-21-2010, 02:40 PM
 
Location: Vermont
5,439 posts, read 14,781,353 times
Reputation: 2630

Advertisements

Here in NJ and NY also, possibly many other states, we can opt to pay more for Wind, hydro and solar power. Here is a quote :

$14 more per 700 KW/h per month from one company, or $0.02 more per KW/H from another company.

I am sure that the merits of this are debatable, but it seems like a good effort. It is probably NOT worse than coal powered electricity.

Thoughts?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-22-2010, 03:07 AM
 
39,476 posts, read 40,787,686 times
Reputation: 16301
It's like the water company dumping expensive bottled water into main supply and thinking you're drinking expensive bottled water from the tap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joe moving View Post
$14 more per 700 KW/h per month from one company, or $0.02 more per KW/H from another company.
This is subsidized and doesn't come anywhere near matching the true rate. The cost to fund such programs is spread very thin across the population. If usage were to go up it will get more expensive in either rates or taxes to support it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2010, 06:45 AM
 
Location: mid wyoming
2,008 posts, read 6,042,519 times
Reputation: 1878
I guess it's a good concept, but I can't see paying more for something that was probably subsidised by me either in tax breaks, government rebates, or raising my prior rates to build the things. And how many people pay for the "cleaner energy" that get to use the coal fired energy anyway because there is not enough "clean energy" to go around. Ha,ha,ha.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2010, 07:05 AM
 
Location: Minnysoda
8,634 posts, read 8,531,441 times
Reputation: 5180
Hard to tell from the Map but I think that area is served by PJM. They serve over 51 million people and have about 32 wind farms but only get about 13% of their energy from wind......If you have a wind farm right next door you might get the energy from it...


PJM - About PJM
http://www.pjm.com/~/media/committee...ng-update.ashx
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2010, 10:07 AM
 
Location: Vermont
5,439 posts, read 14,781,353 times
Reputation: 2630
Like I said I think it is debatable but we decided to go for it. The cost to me is negligible (we are talking $5 a month) and if nothing else it shows interest at the state level. You're right I think if everyone signed up for it, they'd need to do something else. But we need to do something else anyway, don't we.......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2010, 09:36 PM
 
39,476 posts, read 40,787,686 times
Reputation: 16301
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowwalker View Post
I guess it's a good concept, but I can't see paying more for something that was probably subsidised by me...
Not probably, it is. All tose wind farms and solar farms are heavily subsidized by the federal government, state government and in some cases at the local level.

The sad part is all that money is subsidizing production when it could be subsidizing R&D.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2010, 06:17 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,492 posts, read 51,379,395 times
Reputation: 24613
Electrical power created in coal fired facilities is only inexpensive if most of the environmental costs associated with the mining; transport, emissions and ash disposal are externalized and not paid as part of the selling price. If these costs were internalized the coal electricity would cost much more then nuclear.

Cap and Trade legislation was initially designed to internalize these costs but has been morphed into just another casino for the financial speculators. We do not need this new casino but we do need a tax on electricity created by carbon fueled facilities to discourage building any new power plants of this design.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2013, 08:30 AM
 
1 posts, read 2,462 times
Reputation: 10
This is a lot of helpful info. I guess as someone just starting out. The real debate is solar or wind & cost effiancies. I have intrest in both. Living in Alabama though the sun is deffinatily plentifual. Just now considering wind though & sounds good also. Huuuuum I'm thinking solar. Is there a community page or chat so I can get better ideas? Andy T,
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2013, 12:09 PM
 
Location: DC
6,526 posts, read 6,460,121 times
Reputation: 3137
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
It's like the water company dumping expensive bottled water into main supply and thinking you're drinking expensive bottled water from the tap.

This is subsidized and doesn't come anywhere near matching the true rate. The cost to fund such programs is spread very thin across the population. If usage were to go up it will get more expensive in either rates or taxes to support it.
All forms of energy are subsidized. The consumer cares about the cost to him/her. New wind projects are now cost competitive with system power in most cases. That's thanks to the programs that helped lower the cost. The upside is fewer children with asthma cause by coal particulates, few streams with no fish due to coal acid runoff, and mountains that actually have their tops still in place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2013, 01:25 PM
 
Location: Minnesota
5,147 posts, read 6,339,779 times
Reputation: 1561
I think the cleanest energy without a premium price would probably be natural gas and wind power. The alternatives all have greater price or environmental costs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top