You’re right about the power market.

However, the supplemental charges for green power are used to support the non-cost effective green power sources, that would not otherwise be able to operate profitably in the power market, so I still think it is inaccurate to say that purchasing green power merely nominally changes who gets to claim they are using the green power. The green power surcharges result in the utilities financing green power plants (either through long term contracts or through construction by the utility) that would otherwise not be built or run.

Net metering isn’t the only way that utilities can buy power. Under federal law, utilities must pay for power from independent producers. Net metering is a specific implementation of that, if you will. It’s a customer that is both a producer and a consumer. So, to answer your question, yes, utilities are required by federal law (that’s from the DOE website link I pointed you at) to purchase the power.

In many instances cogeneration can become cost effective because some part of the cost of generation is a sunk cost, whereas if it weren’t, that cost couldn’t otherwise be justified. For example, if you operate a manufacturing plant that requires a certain volume of steam be produced, you could use the heat from that steam to generate electricity instead of just venting it to the atmosphere. Another example might be where the fuel is free, such as if you operate a plant that produces sufficient waste vegetable oil or methane gas that you can then burn to produce energy. Cogeneration has many ways to be cost-effective and has been around longer than the demand for green energy.

Finally, just because a manufacturer produces energy at some cost does not mean the utility has to buy it at that price. So far as I can tell, a utility does not have to pay more than the wholesale price for any energy put onto the grid.

Also, while net metering is a good concept, it is far from the only form of green power (and it isn’t even necessarily green, if I ran a diesel generator and hooked it up to my household power, it would still be covered under net metering). Utilities are definitely not required to buy power from anyone who hooks a power plant into their lines, and they don’t buy power from non-cost effective power providers (such as wind farms, large co-generation plants, and solar plants). Even if there are regulations requiring utilities to buy anyone’s power at fixed retail price, that won’t justify a solar plant being built if the solar plant costs more per unit energy than the retail electricity price.

Green power (particularly the pre-purchased power block type) ensures that the utility will buy power from non-cost effective green power plants that would otherwise not be able to sell power to the utilities at a profit.

PV Systems and Net Metering

Distributed Generation

Distributed generation is a new trend in the generation of heat and electrical power. The Distributed Energy Resources (DER) concept permits “consumers” who are generating heat or electricity for their own needs (like in hydrogen stations and microgeneration) to send surplus electrical power back into the power grid - a process also known as net metering - or share excess heat via a distributed heating grid. Distributed generation systems with Combined Heat and Power (CHP) systems can be very efficient, using up to 90% of the potential energy in the fuel they consume. CHP can also save a lot of money and fuel. Estimates are that CHP has the potential to reduce the energy usage of the USA by up to 40%. A cluster of distributed generation installations is viewed as a Virtual power plant.

The energy would be put on the grid because utilities must buy whatever is made. If I put solar panels in my back yard — nice and green — and grid tied my house, the utility would have to buy it, no matter how much it cost me to produce. My neighbors would then have some nice green electricity flowing into their houses and wouldn’t even know it. The rate the utility pays isn’t set by the producer, but neither can the utility (in all the jurisdictions I’m aware of) refuse to purchase it at some price related to wholesale energy prices.

Some of what you described, like waste methane and hydro, can be byproducts of other activities, such as landfill gas or flare gas, both of which are used to produce electricity, or hydro which is often produced as a byproduct of flood control or reservoir maintenance projects.

It’s an elaborate shell game — he pays his $4 per block for what we all used to get for free, he gets to pat himself on the head and the rest of us are no longer as “green” as we were (shame on us) because instead of having 0.1 percent of our power “Green”, it’s a lot less green.

I think you are wrong about “green” power. Wind power, waste methane, and solar are all currently more expensive than coal, hydro and nuclear, so without the added payment specifically for purchasing green power, the utility would not buy from those sources. They would buy cheaper power from cheaper sources instead.

Where the power plants are owned directly by the utility, the issue becomes more complicated, but there is still a legitimate benefit to paying extra money so that the utility will choose to build clean plants.

Note also that it isn’t simply a higher rate, but that you purchase blocks of power. This is because that is how the utility itself is buying the power. Basically, you are agreeing to pay the difference between the cost to the utility of buying coal power versus the cost of buying wind power.

Obviously, the electricity from green sources doesn’t feed your particular house (as that isn’t how power works), but green power gets bought by the utility, and used by someone as a result of your purchase.

I do have to take issue with the “They don’t create as much light” because I’ve found just the opposite — that if I replace a 60w incandescent with a 60w “equivalent” CFL, that I might well wind up with a lot more light than what I had before. Indeed, I might even wind up with more than I want. The key, though, is to see how much light it takes and make sure you aren’t using less. And if you aren’t getting enough light, go up a size. My vanity light used to take 360 watts and it now takes 84 watts and is just as bright as before. But if that wasn’t enough, i could double the wattage and still be saving power, at which point I’d have more light than in my entire garage …

I suspect a bit of Clintoning. They buy a little green power; the rest is ordinary juice. That’s just a guess, though.

Well, I’m glad you got that guess in the open. I’m glad your guess, which is based on absolutely no evidence, is so important to you that you bring it out to oppose Gore. Color me convinced.

Second of all, you know there is a significant amount of power usage required for his security detail because he’s, you know, the former Vice President of the United Fucking States. Just a guess.

But your right, he should fire his entire security detail, sell all his houses and move to a studio apartment. Otherwise, global warming doesn’t exist.

I continue to believe that harping on what Al Gore does is a little bit like trying to figure out George Bush’s sincerity in pushing religion based on whether he personally goes to church. It’s a nanodetail in the larger picture. The real issue isn’t so much Al Gore personally as it is the expectation of both individuals and the culture they live in that if they have money, of course, they’re going to have a big house, maybe even two houses, and so on. As a person who lives well below my means in terms of both house and car, I see this as the real affliction, and it doesn’t surprise me that Al Gore exhibits it, so does most of so-called Hollywood royalty, Bono, Brangelina and the rest of their ilk. While it might be fun to make fun of them, and I’m not going to put words in anyone’s mouth, I hazard a guess that a call for EVERYONE, and not just Al Gore, to reduce their energy consumption would be met with a lot of disdain, as in, how dare you attack the American lifestyle. Over time, I expect that it will be more and more obvious that this is in fact the real problem.

If there were (just as an example) 1 megawatt being produced that’s not green, and 1 kilowatt that is, we’d all be getting our 0.1 percent of green power (more or less — ignore rounding, okay). Instead, Gore pays for the privilege of patting himself on the head, and now the rest of us are no longer “getting” our 0.1 percent of green power, we’re now getting something less.

It’s an elaborate shell game — he pays his $4 per block for what we all used to get for free, he gets to pat himself on the head and the rest of us are no longer as “green” as we were (shame on us) because instead of having 0.1 percent of our power “Green”, it’s a lot less green.

Meanwhile, if y’all are serious about greening up your house, I suggest you look into replacing all of your incandescent lamps with compact fluorescent lights, and replacing your thermostat with a programmable one. Those two changes alone can make a significant dent in your electric consumption.

I don’t understand why people can’t see offsets.

If you drive behind Mr. Gore’s SUV or drive past Mr. Gore’s 20 room home, you will have no way to be aware of his purchase of offsets.

Gore did tell a staff writer for Grist magazine in August 2006 that he “does in fact take advantage of the green power options his utility offers.” So I don’t think you can conclude that he’s only done it for the last three months for which the Tennessean has reviewed the bills.

Also, according to the Green Power Switch website, the green power is billed via a line item on the monthly bill, so I’m wondering whether that was taken into account by those reporting on the annual cost.

I don’t think there are enough facts to conclude that Gore is somehow lying about purchasing 100% green power. You do. I suppose we just disagree. Imagine that.

Gore purchased 108 blocks of “green power” for each of the past three months, according to a summary of the bills.

That means he purchased 16,200 kilowatt hours of green power for each month. Using the 191,000 kWh per year number, he used about 15, 917 kWh per month.

Gore’s paying 7.5 cents, but with the green power initiative thingie he should be paying a little more than 10 cents. See the CD post at the trackback. I’ll refrain from posting the link again. Electrons aren’t free. :P

So the question then becomes, is $24,106.66 too cheap for 221,000 kilowatts of non-green power from the Tennessee Valley Authority in 2006? I don’t know that it is.

Gore advocates decreasing your carbon footprint, and the first word of his instructions for doing so is “Reduce”. YMMV as to what that means; it seems clear to me.

I know what green power is; I don’t know what the specifics of Gore’s power company’s green power arrangement are. I’m not sure where the shameful part comes into play. If I have to have perfect information before making a post, I’ll have a very quiet blog life.

I’m glad you mentioned it, though. I’ve looked at the figures subsequently, and someone is playing silly buggers. There’s no way Gore is buying 100% green electricity - his bill isn’t high enough. I’ll have to do some research and do another post over at CD.