Converting to Wind Energy and Green Choices
After watching An Inconvenient Truth, I found myself pushed over the line and looking for the best ways for me change my habits. Part of that effort is why I'm building an electric bike this winter. And, as of this week, that bike, the computer I'm typing, my entertainment center and everything else that sucks down 120V AC electricity in my house will be powered by wind. OK, technically, the electrons won't necessarily be directly coming from the wind turbines.
Xcel Energy, my electrical company, offers a program in Minnesota, wherein subscribers can voluntarily pay the difference in price between the normal price for electricity and wind.
Windsource electricity does not go directly to participants’ homes. Instead, it is available on the Xcel Energy system for use across our service area. When you buy Windsource, you increase the amount of wind energy available, without producing air emissions or using water.
My normal electrical rate is $0.072744 per kilowatt hour. That's $7.27 per 100 kw/h (see I'm no dummy. I can do basic decimal point movement math). The wind surcharge is $2.00 per 100 kw/h, which brings the rate under the program up to $9.27.
Now, I'm going to admit publicly just how much electricity I currently use. I say "admit" because the number is downright humiliating. However, if even my bill changes as little as it will, anyone who has access to this program can do it.
I use 1400 kw/h in a month. To my credit, that's down from 1550 a year ago, so I'm making some progress on the consumption front as well and will keep going forward. I'm swapping out light bulbs and planning for appliance replacement, and all of the other recommended stuff to see if I can get that down under 1000 yet this year.
At any rate, my current bill is $101.78. The new bill for this same month will go to $129.78, a difference of $28 per month. That's $0.90 per day, for me to move my overactive electrical use over to 100% wind. I spend more than that on Coke Zero in a day.
I keep hearing about how "expensive" green energy is. Compared to what?
December 16th, 2006 at 12:56 am
Yay for your electrical company. If mine did the same, I'd pay the extra for sure.
December 16th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
J, You suggest that the extra cost of "green energy" may not be too expensive. Perhaps. But you are sadly missing the point. Buying some wind energy "credits" - you aren't actually running your house on wind-generated electricity - does little more than provide an added revenue stream to companies. Producing more electricity via "green" sources is indeed not cost-effective compared to the same investment in actions, programs and policies which produce real reductions in demand and consumption.
Although it is admirable that you have reduced your residential consumption from 1,550 kWh per month to about 1,400 kWh a month, you must realize at that rate that your annual consumption would be 175% of what the average MN residence consumed in 2003. Instead of succumbing to the feel-good allure of wind energy (some call such purchases "indulgences" - see: http://insidegreentech.com/node/107 , you should use the $325 per year to better insulate your house, install tankless hot water heaters, or other energy efficiency and conservation steps.
December 16th, 2006 at 6:49 pm
As to whether the credits are actually buying kilowatt hours from the wind farm that directly offset my pull on the grid, I'd like to see a more specific breakdown of how the Xcel program fails to match the rhetoric of their marketing.
I've found stuff that points to their program being much more legit than many other programs, including a Sierra Club endorsement of its legitimacy. I've had a pretty difficult time finding information that specifically points out the deficiencies in this actual program.
Additionally, this program is actually available because of a Minnesota law, which regulates the program. I'm not sure that's the case for many of the others.
I'm willing to listen to criticisms, but want to avoid straw man arguments. I don't really care if dozens of other such programs are merely indulgences, if this one isn't. That's because this is the one I'm actually looking at.
As far as my consumption, you'll note in my original post that I am hardly unaware of my current rate in relationship to what it should be. I know that my current rate is WAY too high. Similarly, I knew that 300 pounds was WAY to heavy for a person to be. I've lost 50 pounds. That doesn't change the fact that I have to lose 50 more. Rather, it shows that I'm taking action and making some progress. I specifically stated a goal of 1000 kw/h a month for my next step in the post.
The wind program is not only one thing I'm doing. Your last sentence seems to believe that this is the *only* thing I'm doing and that, by spending the $325 on this, I'm not also looking at doing the rest as well.
In fact, I'm actually auditing every electrical appliance in my house via a Kill-a-Watt device (upcoming post on this is actually in the works) to determine exactly what the breakdown is of my current usage.
Rather than abstract speculation, I'm actually doing the math and analysis to make the optimizations most effective first. I'm not going to replace something that isn't really part of the problem.
However, my room full of servers, networking equipment, hydroponic garden, 75 gallon aquarium, etc. are all likely to keep my usage above average even if I get the greenest appliances on the market. As such, the wind program as I've seen it documented made sense.
December 16th, 2006 at 8:02 pm
I applaud your efforts in trying to be environmentally friendly.
As an advocate to save our planet, for future generations (no, we can't be selfish and only think of the moment, of ourselves, but must also be concerned for future generations), I have researhed wind energy, and have seen it used, by others, with positive results.
Congratulations on making the cut into 9rules…I too, am a member, there.
December 17th, 2006 at 7:58 am
J, Good luck in getting a copy of the purchase agreement which Xcel Energy must have with wind energy project owner(s) for their Windsource program. They probably will not publicly release this because they consider it proprietary business information (i.e., confidential).
The Windsource claim that by paying extra for some number of kWh's "you increase the amount of wind energy available" is clearly misleading and erroneous. Think about it; how can purchase from Windsource result in any increase in generation from an existing wind energy facility? Does paying for Windsource electricity create stronger or more sustained breezes to blow where wind turbines are located? Of course not. Unless there is some requirement for your contribution to Xcel's Windsource program to be used to build new wind or other sources of producing renewable energy, the added revenue merely expands their and/or someone else's profits.
As for LorriM's comments that she has "seen" the "positive results" of folks using wind energy, I would be interested in knowing more about this claim. Does she mean the installation of small wind turbines to help power private residences and businesses? I certainly would agree, but that is not what we are talking about here…
December 17th, 2006 at 11:08 am
George, my point is that generic criticisms of wind energy credit programss in general
This program is available according to Minn. Stat. 216B.169, subd. 2(c). Every single link I can find to information on this specific program points to the actual purchase of electricity on behalf of the participant. In addition, should the existing capacity of those sources not be up to the task, additional capacity *is* added to the system to provide the extra energy. The law actually states that if they can't meet the demand under these programs with actual renewable energy, they have to report it to the commission and file a plan to fix it. The credits themselves are required to be traceable, and each kilowatt hour is legally required to only be sold to one person.
At this point, I keep finding more and more facts pointing to the legitimacy of this program, and, despite lots of looking, I can't find anything other than conspiracy theories and generalities criticizing programs "like" this one.
You are the one making the claim that this program isn't what it appears to be. And, as your claims are all couched in generic terms that sound at least a little bit conspiratorial, I'm only asking for someone to point to actual facts that would point to a better course of action.
I'm a big fan of strong opinions, loosely held. I will do a complete 180 on pretty much everything I believe if someone can present evidence. However, "because I said so" isn't evidence. And, that's as far as I can see the evidence against it goes.
December 29th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
Your post didn't make this clear whether the energy sector is privatized in your state. In Houston and several parts of Texas, it is completely privatized and there are several companies providing solely wind power.
The leading wind company was about 5% more expensive than the default carrier. Actually, after some price increases by everybody, the leading company started offering two plans: one for wind only, another for 100% renewables (which includes wind). Basically, the 100% renewables is now on the same price as the default plan, and other company's 100% renewables are even cheaper.
That said, the average price for power in my city has been increasing. Still, I'm cautiously optimistic that it will pay off in the long term.
December 29th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
I assume you know about fluorescent lightbulbs. Here's a good reference guide to saving money on that. Replace those bulbs right now if you haven't.
BTW, I just checked energy rates for my city. Besides finding out that the energy company I'm using has recently increased their rates (making another one seem more attractive), I see the city comparison. Here in Houston, we're paying about 14 cents per kilowatt for 1000kw of pollution-free, (12 cents for polluting plans). A recent NYT article found no real cost differences between cities with competition vs. cities with a single provider. I think this analysis was premature, but still, it makes you think about why there should be such huge differences in cost between regions.