I just bought GREEN electric power for the next 11 months

[Winchester]

Originally posted by: jumpr
. Of those three groups, I'd much rather see windmills, solar panels, agriculture, and landfill gas traps.

I agree with all but windmills. If more people went solar then the technology would be cheaper.

There is also the option of putting electricity generators on the ocean floor.

Linky

Originally posted by: mugs

I don't think that would look so great even without the windmills...

Oh... but it is. The sunrise and sunsets are beautiful and you can see the entire night sky.

Originally posted by: tangent1138

supposedly there are new mini windmills they can put on the sides of buildings that catch the updrafts between skyscrapers.

That would be prefered or each home have it's own like a TV antenna.

 

[Heisenberg]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: Heisenberg
If I could buy pure nuclear power, I would. "Green" power sounds all nice and everything, but nuclear is the only source that can replace fossil fuel plants and not just supplement them IMO.

Have you run across any studies that show what amount of nuclear fuel we will have if we went from the current ~20% to 100% and China did as well (this assumes that prices would be "normal" thus encouraging further mining)?

I haven't seen any published studies, no. I was reading about it somewhere online (which I can't remember now) and that source said that even if we didn't mine any new uranium, between what we already have now and reprocessing of spent fuel it would be enough to power the US for decades. Besides, uranium is actually pretty common so I don't think that supply is really a problem. I'm pretty sure there are people on here that are actually in the industry who may know better than I do though. The problem I see is the initial cost of plants and the fact that when people hear the word "nuclear" they freak out.

 

[Winchester]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Kahleeforneeya has quite a few windmills already...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altamont_Pass

Those are mostly smaller ones, nothing like the ones around here.

BTW: This is what I am talking about. See how they ruined the landscape.

Pic

 

[mugs]

Sorry, I just don't find the sight of windmills to be offensive.

 

[jumpr]

Originally posted by: Winchester

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Kahleeforneeya has quite a few windmills already...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altamont_Pass

Those are mostly smaller ones, nothing like the ones around here.

BTW: This is what I am talking about. See how they ruined the landscape.

Pic

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. If that sight is the cost of clean and renewable energy, then it's well worth the obstruction. I actually think it looks kind of cool, personally.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: Heisenberg

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: Heisenberg
If I could buy pure nuclear power, I would. "Green" power sounds all nice and everything, but nuclear is the only source that can replace fossil fuel plants and not just supplement them IMO.

Have you run across any studies that show what amount of nuclear fuel we will have if we went from the current ~20% to 100% and China did as well (this assumes that prices would be "normal" thus encouraging further mining)?

I haven't seen any published studies, no. I was reading about it somewhere online (which I can't remember now) and that source said that even if we didn't mine any new uranium, between what we already have now and reprocessing of spent fuel it would be enough to power the US for decades. Besides, uranium is actually pretty common so I don't think that supply is really a problem. I'm pretty sure there are people on here that are actually in the industry who may know better than I do though. The problem I see is the initial cost of plants and the fact that when people hear the word "nuclear" they freak out.

There is someone with the same avatar as you that workds in the industry, I am trying to remember who.

IIRC, supply is a problem just as it is with any other resource. The two biggest factors seem to be how accessible the resource is and what the market price is. The easily accessible stuff is being mined now. The price of Uranium also seems to be entirely artificial due to the industry characteristics (regulation).

I have run across a few minor reports saying that we have 200 years at the current rate. If we use 5x what we currently do and THEN add in China, I would expec that number to drop rapidly. Regardless, I simply have not seen any data indicating that we will have an adequate supply.

 

[mobobuff]

I'm all for some Pink Power! Imagine how happy everyone would be. Green is the color of boogers and vomit. Nobody likes boogers and vomit.

 

[Pepsi90919]

Originally posted by: jumpr

Originally posted by: Pepsi90919
um, so how does this work, they come by and attach your drop to another set of lines?

There's nothing "physical" about the switch. It's just a switch in who I pay for my electric service. It'll all be on one bill, but I will be billed monthly for Pepco's procurement of "green" energy. I'll only be paying my regular utility (BGE) for the transmission and maintenance on the electricity infrastructure.

i don't get how your power physically gets switched to 'green' power if you're on the same transmission line everyone else is.

 

[Winchester]

Originally posted by: mugs
Sorry, I just don't find the sight of windmills to be offensive.

That is because you probably dont ever have to see them or see what they did to your environment.

 

[jumpr]

Originally posted by: Pepsi90919

Originally posted by: jumpr

Originally posted by: Pepsi90919
um, so how does this work, they come by and attach your drop to another set of lines?

There's nothing "physical" about the switch. It's just a switch in who I pay for my electric service. It'll all be on one bill, but I will be billed monthly for Pepco's procurement of "green" energy. I'll only be paying my regular utility (BGE) for the transmission and maintenance on the electricity infrastructure.

i don't get how your power physically gets switched to 'green' power if you're on the same transmission line everyone else is.

Given the way the power grid works, there's no way to do what you're asking. My power will still come from coal fired plants. But the point of switching is that I'm paying Pepco directly, and they will pay green energy suppliers directly, for the amount of power I use each month. Therefore, the money that I used to pay BGE for coal-fired power will no longer go to them - it will be redirected toward the purchase of green power.

The electricity itself is not delivered to my home - but it is generated and transmitted into the regional grid. Given the way supply and demand works, if enough people do what I did, it'll result in increased green energy infrastructure, and - who knows? Maybe it'll end up in a coal power plant closing down one day.

 

[Heisenberg]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
There is someone with the same avatar as you that workds in the industry, I am trying to remember who.

IIRC, supply is a problem just as it is with any other resource. The two biggest factors seem to be how accessible the resource is and what the market price is. The easily accessible stuff is being mined now. The price of Uranium also seems to be entirely artificial due to the industry characteristics (regulation).

I have run across a few minor reports saying that we have 200 years at the current rate. If we use 5x what we currently do and THEN add in China, I would expec that number to drop rapidly. Regardless, I simply have not seen any data indicating that we will have an adequate supply.

Well if you factor powering all of China in, then obviously that makes a big difference. I'm also wondering to what extent those number take reprocessing into account. It'd be nice to talk to somebody who really knows about the supply side of it, because I'm just not familar with it. It was always my impression that there was enough of a world supply for several hundred years, but I could be mistaken.

 

[chuckywang]

:thumbsup:

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Pepsi90919

Originally posted by: jumpr

Originally posted by: Pepsi90919
um, so how does this work, they come by and attach your drop to another set of lines?

There's nothing "physical" about the switch. It's just a switch in who I pay for my electric service. It'll all be on one bill, but I will be billed monthly for Pepco's procurement of "green" energy. I'll only be paying my regular utility (BGE) for the transmission and maintenance on the electricity infrastructure.

i don't get how your power physically gets switched to 'green' power if you're on the same transmission line everyone else is.

It doesn't. But imagine if everyone switched. The green company would be getting all the money for power production while the coal companies wouldn't get anything. Pretty soon all the power would physically be generated by green power sources. Him paying the green company allows them to build more infrastructure.

 

[Queasy]

Question for the OP - Do you actually have a "green" power source servicing your home?

Just asking because when all the hubbub about Gore's house came down it was revealed that the power grid that services Gore's house does not get supplied from a "green" energy source. It was all coal-fired and other energy sources. Seems like a waste to pay that extra money if your grid isn't supplied by a green energy source. JMHO.

 

[futuristicmonkey]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: Heisenberg
If I could buy pure nuclear power, I would. "Green" power sounds all nice and everything, but nuclear is the only source that can replace fossil fuel plants and not just supplement them IMO.

Have you run across any studies that show what amount of nuclear fuel we will have if we went from the current ~20% to 100% and China did as well (this assumes that prices would be "normal" thus encouraging further mining)?

Here's a few numbers:

A fiscal-year 2003 $7USD fuel rod will supply as much energy as a ton of coal, and you're not going to be exhausting mutliple tons of oxides into the atmosphere per each ton of coal (and AFAIK average coal plants need 90,000 tons A DAY). As for fuel supply, right now the estimates are about a 150 year useable supply of natural uranium. New deposits are being found once in a while, sure, but if our retarded governments (Canada and the USA) would allow us to use breeders, we could both reprocess our spent fuel (solving that damned waste issue) AND turn the 97% useless natural uranium into completely useable fuel.

Ignorance is nuclear's biggest issue.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: futuristicmonkey

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: Heisenberg
If I could buy pure nuclear power, I would. "Green" power sounds all nice and everything, but nuclear is the only source that can replace fossil fuel plants and not just supplement them IMO.

Have you run across any studies that show what amount of nuclear fuel we will have if we went from the current ~20% to 100% and China did as well (this assumes that prices would be "normal" thus encouraging further mining)?

Here's a few numbers:

A fiscal-year 2003 $7USD fuel rod will supply as much energy as a ton of coal, and you're not going to be exhausting mutliple tons of oxides into the atmosphere per each ton of coal. As for fuel supply, right now the estimates are about a 150 year useable supply of natural uranium. New deposits are being found once in a while, sure, but if our retarded governments (Canada and the USA) would allow us to use breeders, we could both reprocess our spent fuel (solving that damned waste issue) AND turn the 97% useless natural uranium into completely useable fuel.

Ignorance is nuclear's biggest issue.

I see those numbers, but I don't see anything that indicates how long of a supply we will have (foreign or domestic) if both the US and China increase their rate of usage.

 

[futuristicmonkey]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: futuristicmonkey

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: Heisenberg
If I could buy pure nuclear power, I would. "Green" power sounds all nice and everything, but nuclear is the only source that can replace fossil fuel plants and not just supplement them IMO.

Have you run across any studies that show what amount of nuclear fuel we will have if we went from the current ~20% to 100% and China did as well (this assumes that prices would be "normal" thus encouraging further mining)?

Here's a few numbers:

A fiscal-year 2003 $7USD fuel rod will supply as much energy as a ton of coal, and you're not going to be exhausting mutliple tons of oxides into the atmosphere per each ton of coal. As for fuel supply, right now the estimates are about a 150 year useable supply of natural uranium. New deposits are being found once in a while, sure, but if our retarded governments (Canada and the USA) would allow us to use breeders, we could both reprocess our spent fuel (solving that damned waste issue) AND turn the 97% useless natural uranium into completely useable fuel.

Ignorance is nuclear's biggest issue.

I see those numbers, but I don't see anything that indicates how long of a supply we will have (foreign or domestic) if both the US and China increase their rate of usage.

If we can breed, the supply is damned-near infinite.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: futuristicmonkey

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: futuristicmonkey

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: Heisenberg
If I could buy pure nuclear power, I would. "Green" power sounds all nice and everything, but nuclear is the only source that can replace fossil fuel plants and not just supplement them IMO.

Have you run across any studies that show what amount of nuclear fuel we will have if we went from the current ~20% to 100% and China did as well (this assumes that prices would be "normal" thus encouraging further mining)?

Here's a few numbers:

A fiscal-year 2003 $7USD fuel rod will supply as much energy as a ton of coal, and you're not going to be exhausting mutliple tons of oxides into the atmosphere per each ton of coal. As for fuel supply, right now the estimates are about a 150 year useable supply of natural uranium. New deposits are being found once in a while, sure, but if our retarded governments (Canada and the USA) would allow us to use breeders, we could both reprocess our spent fuel (solving that damned waste issue) AND turn the 97% useless natural uranium into completely useable fuel.

Ignorance is nuclear's biggest issue.

I see those numbers, but I don't see anything that indicates how long of a supply we will have (foreign or domestic) if both the US and China increase their rate of usage.

If we can breed, the supply is damned-near infinite.

References for that statement?

 

[b0mbrman]

$20 a month is worth it, I think, to be able to tell other people that you have green power

 

[mobobuff]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
$20 a month is worth it, I think, to be able to tell other people that you have green power

Well... you'd be lying... but I suppose...

 

[SoulAssassin]

Originally posted by: Winchester

Originally posted by: mugs
Sorry, I just don't find the sight of windmills to be offensive.

That is because you probably dont ever have to see them or see what they did to your environment.

It's all about the lesser evil. I've seen windmills farms when I was driving from from San Jose to LA and I didn't think they were ugly. I thought it shows a desire for clean energy. I have windmills closer to home in Atlantic City and they are talking about putting a bunch of them off the coast in Delaware which I strongly support.

Would you rather have:

a) coal burning with it's air pollution and contribution to global warming
b) nuclear with it's threat of a meltdown and mass death
c) wind where a couple birds MIGHT get their heads chopped off

 

[BrownTown]

Originally posted by: Queasy
Question for the OP - Do you actually have a "green" power source servicing your home?

Just asking because when all the hubbub about Gore's house came down it was revealed that the power grid that services Gore's house does not get supplied from a "green" energy source. It was all coal-fired and other energy sources. Seems like a waste to pay that extra money if your grid isn't supplied by a green energy source. JMHO.

wtf are you talking about? Gore gets his power from NES, NES buys 100% of its power from TVA, TVA has ~20 different green power generation sites including by far the largest windfarm in the southeast. If you are taling about the fact that "green power" is not delivered directly to his house then this is obvious, it is physically impossible to determine where the power actually flows along the grid, the only way to provide him with 100% green power would be to bring in a high voltage line 200 miles from buffalo mountain and tie it directly into his house. Then of course you would also need another 200 mile high voltage line running from the Allen steam plant in Memphis where they burn landfill gas to back up the wind power when it isn't running. So yeah, for about 200 million dollars he could assure that he gets only green power. But thats the most retarded idea ever, so the way EVERY green power program works is that when you switch the MONEY goes from the coal powered generation group to the green power group. When the green power group gets enough money they build MORE green power, thats the idea.

Also, I would like the state that ~50 miles from Nashville is the Hartsville site where TVA had planned to buidl the largest nuuclear plant in the world, in fact for awhile it was the single largest construction site in the entire world, but after several years and 8 billion dollars the enviromentalists got it canceled, good job for them, so anyways, they built the two largest coal units in the world instead which is where Nashville gets its pwoer from now, good job Gore.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: BrownTown

Originally posted by: Queasy
Question for the OP - Do you actually have a "green" power source servicing your home?

Just asking because when all the hubbub about Gore's house came down it was revealed that the power grid that services Gore's house does not get supplied from a "green" energy source. It was all coal-fired and other energy sources. Seems like a waste to pay that extra money if your grid isn't supplied by a green energy source. JMHO.

wtf are you talking about? Gore gets his power from NES, NES buys 100% of its power from TVA, TVA has ~20 different green power generation sites including by far the largest windfarm in the southeast. If you are taling about the fact that "green power" is not delivered directly to his house then this is obvious, it is physically impossible to determine where the power actually flows along the grid, the only way to provide him with 100% green power would be to bring in a high voltage line 200 miles from buffalo mountain and tie it directly into his house. Then of course you would also need another 200 mile high voltage line running from the Allen steam plant in Memphis where they burn landfill gas to back up the wind power when it isn't running. So yeah, for about 200 million dollars he could assure that he gets only green power. But thats the most retarded idea ever, so the way EVERY green power program works is that when you switch the MONEY goes from the coal powered generation group to the green power group. When the green power group gets enough money they build MORE green power, thats the idea.

Also, I would like the state that ~50 miles from Nashville is the Hartsville site where TVA had planned to buidl the largest nuuclear plant in the world, in fact for awhile it was the single largest construction site in the entire world, but after several years and 8 billion dollars the enviromentalists got it canceled, good job for them, so anyways, they built the two largest coal units in the world instead which is where Nashville gets its pwoer from now, good job Gore.

That was the point I was making. You can't tell where the energy is coming from. It is a good bet that almost ~100% of the energy supplying Gore's home comes from those coal plants though. You can't really say you are on "green energy" unless you know for a fact that there is a nearby "green" power source. The best you can say is that you are paying a little extra to subsidize the building of "green" energy plants by the power companies.

 

[allies]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Winchester

Originally posted by: jumpr
But I don't feel so bad running my computers 24/7 now that I know they're powered by someone else's trash and a windy day.

Yeah, but what you dont see is how they destroyed the landscape and environment in our area for windmills to produce electricity that we dont even get to use. It all goes to other states (CA) or big cities. Because we are in a rural area no one gives a crap that they made our hills and mountains look like crap. There are now hundreds of windmills on what used to be our wonderful horizon.

:thumbsup: for ignorance. Not flaming the OP, I just find this highly annoying. To me put the windmills all over CA, make it look ugly. I would still be annoyed if we were getting free electricity from the wind farms.


Pic from what can be considered Round 1.

I don't think that would look so great even without the windmills...

QFT

 

[BrownTown]

Originally posted by: Queasy
That was the point I was making. You can't tell where the energy is coming from. It is a good bet that almost ~100% of the energy supplying Gore's home comes from those coal plants though. You can't really say you are on "green energy" unless you know for a fact that there is a nearby "green" power source. The best you can say is that you are paying a little extra to subsidize the building of "green" energy plants by the power companies.

Its a silly distinction made by partisans and people who don't understand electricity. In the end though you save just as much CO2 by building a windfarm next to your house and getting power from it as you do by paying for a windfarm somewhere else (where there is actually good wind) and having that power peoples houses in Oak Ridge instead of Nashville.

Also, it should be noted alot of these green power programs are actually just PR moves, the companies actually LOSE money everytime someone signs up because green power costs considerably more. The increase in cost is just to try to make sure only a small number of people actually buy green power, it doesn't come clsoe to actually making up the difference in terms of cost.