Recently I’ve received an offer to switch our electric service to ‘NSTAR Green,’ which offers to supply me with electricity from renewable energy sources, likely at somewhat higher than my current rates. An MIT-educated friend scoffed at the offer, pointing out that “there’s just one grid.” My question for those smarter on these issues than I is whether I’d just be a sap if I sign us up or whether supporting a program like NSTAR Green would help make renewable energy options economically viable and help the environment. If the electricity I would have bought from polluting sources is just sold to someone else with fewer environmental scruples, have I accomplished anything by switching besides paying my electric company more for the same amount of juice? Or, am I helping create the right incentives that over time could eliminate polluting sources?
YES. Enroll in NSTAR Green.
<
p>
<
p>You pay NSTAR for both supply and delivery. NSTAR creates/buys electricity on the suppliers market, just enough to meet the demand of their customers. NSTAR can’t buy electricity from just anyone anywhere — there are limits on pollution and distance, for example. Furthermore, the MA RPS requires that NSTAR supply a certain percent of electricity from renewable resources [wind, solar, small hydro, biomass, etc]. That percent in 2009 is 3.5%; 2010 is 4%, 2011 is 5%, 1% increase each year thereafter.
<
p>So, there is a minimum NSTAR green content of 3.5%, which they’re meeting plus or minus a very very small amount.
<
p>Now, does that mean that 3.5% of the green electrons flow to your house? Of course not. But, 3.5% of NSTAR’s supply is renewable, and that number is growing.
<
p>
<
p>What does this have to do with NSTAR green? Well, if you purchase NSTAR green, that electricity doesn’t count toward the 3.5%. This means that if 10% of customers signed up for 100% green electricity, NSTAR would be required to buy a total of 13.5% green electricity, instead of 3.5%, because NSTAR green does not count toward RPS requirements.
<
p>
<
p>All of this means that for another 10%ish of your electric bill, you can cut your carbon footprint by about one third. It is the easiest, cheapest, single most effective thing you can do to substantially reduce your carbon footprint. It’s roughly equivalent to magically converting your car to getting 100,000 mpg in terms of carbon emissions, or having your house heat and cool itself with rainbows and unicorns. It’s true that there’s “just one grid” but (i) not all power plants are operating at 100% — and if demand for fossil fuel electricity decreases, then each plant will burn less coal/oil/gas, and (ii) the total demand is increasing. Do we want new coal fired power plants, or do we want to add renewable electricity supply to the mix? By explicitly reducing your demand for fossil fuel electricity, you’re helping to reduce the profitability of dirty electricity and helping to increase the profitability of green electricity.
<
p>There’s another reason to do it too. Fossil fuel power plants have lower capital costs and higher operating [fuel] costs. Renewable plants, however, tend to have higher capital costs but lower operating costs, making it a bit harder to get the wind turbine or solar cell installation built in the first place. With tightening credit, it’s even harder. Developers can’t get financing unless they’ve pre-sold the power for a number of years in the future. By buying NSTAR green, it puts NSTAR in the position of being able to buy contracts for future green power, which allows developers to get the loans and build the renewable power plants.
<
p>
<
p>Bottom line: YES. Enroll today.
stomv,
<
p>Do you know if there is a list of what technologies qualify for the Green program? Are they required to use the same for the RPS, or do they have any goofy things in there?
What they actually do is have a contract with the Maple Ridge Wind Farm in upstate NY. So, 100% of the content of the green-e is coming from that wind farm at this time. If the program becomes wildly, wildly successful they’ll have to find a new project.
Just moved to Somerville, I will be signing up for this.
BMG community: I may not say it enough, but I deeply appreciate your collective smarts and passion.
I don’t think NStar creates power. Aren’t they only the owner of the grid now? I know commercial power uses can purchase power from anybody, and NStar delivers it.
<
p>With all that power on the grid commingled, how do I know when I pay for green power NStar is actually buying green power?
<
p>I assume green power is more expensive. How do you ensure you’re getting what you paid for?
<
p>It’s like FedEx charging extra for delivering green products … how can they tell?
They buy from Canada and NY.:
<
p>
<
p>In NY, there’s Maple Ridge which is a heavily subsidized (i.e. you pay twice) large producer but has distribution troubles and NIMBY troubles. Ever hear of something called “wind turbine syndrome (WTF?)”..
<
p>I guess I second the motion: where’s the audit? NSTAR Green, sounds like a lot of hype but appears to have in-your-face-I-buy-green-you-earth-destroying-monster cache, along the same lines of Prius ownership.
It’s pretty simple. NStar buys electricity. They buy it from coal fired power plants, they buy it from natural gas power plants, from nuclear power plants, from biofuel power plants, from oil power plants, from wind turbine power plants, etc.
<
p>In each and every case, NStar pays the power supplier for some/all of the MWh put on the grid — exactly as much as is delivered to their customers. In each and every case, there are audits to be sure that NStar is getting what NStar is paying for, and I suspect [though don’t know] that the various grid agencies like NEISO also ensure that things are metered correctly. Is it possible that NStar is pulling a fast one? Hypothetically, sure. But, they’re a highly regulated utility. They have to open their books regularly, and it’s pretty hard to hide/conjure power purchasing on the bulk grid. If their books show 1,000 MWh purchased in 2008 under NStar Green an they don’t have 100% green power totaling 1,000 MWh (plus the amount needed for RPS compliance), it’s pretty dang obvious, and they’ll get squished by state regulators and class-action sued by all of us.
<
p>I’m not sure if gary is a healthy skeptic or a cynical FUD spewer, but he’s sure walking the line given that this clearly isn’t an area of his expertise, nor one where he’s willing to read before sharing his concern that everyone is being duped.
<
p>
<
p>Look, here’s the deal. You either get busy cutting your carbon footprint personally, or you don’t. Right wingers love to pick on Al Gore for his big home [even though his carbon footprint is actually quite average], calling him a hypocrite. Then, when we tree huggers start practicing what we preach with our Priuses and our NStar green, we’re part of the in-your-face-I-buy-green-you-earth-destroying-monster cache.
<
p>So gary, give us a break would you? Do a little reading before you share your healthy skepticism/FUD smearing. The fact is that if you enroll in NStar Green, you’re ensuring that 100% of your power is green, not the current legal requirement of 3.5%. You’re doing your part, and as more and more people voluntarily stop spewing so much pollution, the total amount of pollution in the air will decrease. We’re paying more for it, and it’s helping your air get cleaner too. Why would you piss in our cornflakes? It just doesn’t make sense.
Yeah, sorry to burden you with skepticism. If it may work, it must work, right? For my 8% premium on anything, the burden is to show it’s real, not for someone to prove it’s not.
<
p>So apply a little scepticism. I tried costing out a small project. Hmmm…a small project is terribly inefficient. Ok, so small projects have a 20+ year payback. Simply awful without tax breaks. With tax breaks it’s merely also awful. Maybe it’s all in the scale.
<
p>So NStar goes large scale, and offers ‘green’ power from onshore wind farms and the electric bills is more. Yet, Cape Wind says its facility will save money on our electric bills. Yet, with offshore costing double that of onshore, should we be sceptical of Cape Wind?
<
p>Maybe this wind notion is a clean energy source, but it’s just too expensive. You’ve said as much. You’ll pay 5% electrical premium to save the earth, but not 47%. If it turned out that the true cost, excluding all the tax breaks and premiums was 47% would you say don’t build windmills? Solar?
<
p>While we’re at it, let’s look at their sourcing: Maple Ridge. Oops, grid problems. Wonder what it will cost to fix that.
<
p>Or, if you’re willing to Believe that a project funded by municipal bonds, subsidized by property tax TIF breaks and Federal and State production credits is also worth throwing a few extra dollars of your own, well go for it. Your money.
<
p>Maybe Windmills are the new Prius, or visa versa. Sorry to piss in your cornflakes.
Read first, learn a little. Yes, Maple Ridge costs slightly more than the market clearing price, and yes, Cape Wind should cost slightly less. It turns out that the added construction costs for Cape Wind are offset by higher efficiency because the wind has higher quality there than at Maple Ridge.
<
p>BTW — the true cost of coal, oil, nat gas, and nuclear is much higher than the nominal cost too. The reason I’d pay my money toward NStar Green and not your project is because per dollar I get more green kWhs. This isn’t complex.
<
p>As for Maple Ridge — yes, I know they’re having distribution problems, but doesn’t effect NStar a whit. NStar is paying for electricity once its already on the grid, and if Maple Ridge has to shut down until they get more distribution power, that doesn’t change NStar’s deal at all.
<
p>So, piss away. It’s strange though, because (a) you don’t have a freaking clue about what you spew with respect to the engineering or the economics, and (b) the net result is cheaper cleaner electricity for you. If you’ve got beef with the gov’t subsidies themselves, that’s for a different thread good sir.
Is that the comparative costs aren’t “apples to apples.” Non-green energy costs us all in terms of the environmental impacts of coal mining, air pollution, climate change, etc. It’s hard to understand what these costs are exactly, but they’re clearly significant, and we all are paying for them or will pay for them eventually, just not as a part of our utility bills. But these costs should be considered if we want to understand the real costs of non-green vs. green alternatives.
That my Prius gets twice the mileage that I got from my previous small SUV – 45-50 mpg in my usual city commute. Driving one isn’t just symbolism.
I’m reminded of the United Fund drives. Employers extort employees to donate to the Fund to reach organizational goals. Some of the beneficiaries of the Fund have goals that are the antithesis of the employees of the employees beliefs. When employees protest they are told they can designate their share to a specific charity. The percentages that the charities receive are not changed however. So did the employee really give his contribution to his designated charity?
<
p>Perhaps, perhaps not.
<
p>Will Nstar give some monies to renewable energy? Sure. Will your drop in the bucket go to that endeavor or just be a part of the whole that feeds all the other costs? I’d bet on the latter until shown the proof otherwise.
<
p>Great marketing campaign, though.
<
p>No, no they won’t. This isn’t a charity. If you sign up, then whatever your bill this month — 110 kWh, 427 kWh, whatever — NSTAR will purchase that much more green electricity than they would have otherwise. Exactly that much.
<
p>
<
p>The proof is in the link I included above — it’s the law. The MA RPS prohibits voluntary programs like NSTAR green from counting toward their requirement. Standard contract law (read the contract!) ensures that NSTAR is obligated to provide you with what’s agreed in the contract.
<
p>In this case, it’s really simple. Every kWh of NSTAR green purchased electricity is one more kWh purchased of renewable energy. When the current renewable energy power plants are operating (and more importantly, selling) at 100%, they can’t sell any more. This means price of renewable energy creeps upward, which provides financial incentive to build more. It’s really straightforward.
But would prefer a different arangement, as noted below:
<
p>
<
p>Not. possible. They might be priced the same but if renewable energy contracts were available for less than fossil fuel energy — even $0.01 per MW — then the market would buy them up until the price cleared. Why would anyone — from the enviro-geek to ExxonMobil’s CEO — pay more for coal derived electricity than renewables derived?
<
p>Before anyone gets into reliability issues here, it’s simply not related. We’re talking about consumer level demand, not steel manufacturing level demand. Reliability issues [time of day, total uptime, etc] are not relevant to the discussion.
<
p>
<
p>Bottom line: your (2) is an economic impossibility by definition.
<
p>As for the rest of it, nobody is going to be interested in signing 10, 15, or 20 year contracts that are worth about $2500 in payments a year. It’s not worth the hassle and overhead. However there is a program that you might be interested in. REnU is right up your alley. Essentially, you rent a bunch of solar cells which generate the amount of electricity you pay in rent. They install them on your home, they own them, they maintain them. You pay them $100/month instead of NSTAR. It’s a forward rental agreement, and a great deal. Essentially, you’re “locking in” your current electricity rate for the next 1, 5, or 25 years.
there’s previous cases where renewable energy companies have secured long term contracts with companies that secured the rates for 20 years. The very likely (but not 100%) outcome is that at the latter years of those 20 years, those companies will be paying less than the market rate for their electricity.
<
p>I don’t think that’s going to be a continuing trend to get more renewable energy by private companies. However, I could see town electric companies, nonprofits and even the government doing something similar.
this is exactly what NStar did — buy a long term wind contract. They won’t be able to get a rate that beats fossil fuel for the same time period, by definition. But, they might be able to get longer term contracts with renewable since the price of wind doesn’t fluctuate like the price of coal, oil, or gas.
<
p>But, in an apples to apples comparison of contract, you can’t beat fossil fuel with renewable energy, or the market would eat the arbitrage.
but if it is one or the other, I’m sure renewable wins in the long term.
…so the short answer is yes, they’ll “give some monies to renewable energy” – they’ll purchase power from them! And if the folks who are selling green power are anything like other businessmen I know, they’re in it to make a profit – profits they can re-invest in more renewable generating facilities.
<
p>Not only that, but this program is tied in with the Renewable Energy Trust here in Massachusetts – or at least the version I use through National Grid is affiliated with them. The extra money you pay for the green power accumulates in an account for your town at the RET – check this web page to find out what the balance is in your town:
<
p>http://www.masstech.org/CleanE…
<
p>I live in Milford, where 32 households have signed up for the program – currently, there’s a balance of almost $9,000 in our account. I’m working with the Board of Selectmen to form a Renewable Energy Committee so we can begin to take advantage of the funding that we have. The first step will be to try and get more households to sign up – there’s over 10,000 households in town, so 32 enrollees is a paltry ammount. If we get 1,000 households in the program, less than 10% of the total, we’ll have almost $10,000 per month to spend on renewable projects. That would fund solar panels and solar hot water on schools, fire stations, town hall, etc.
<
p>See what you can do in your town!
<
p>I’m almost certain that this is not the case. The RET is very cool — they just put some solar cells on one of our Town’s libraries. But, they (and/or the Mass Energy Consumers Alliance) don’t get funding from the NSTAR green program.
<
p>The NSTAR green program strictly buys green electricity from power plants. That’s it.
…which is the green option available for National Grid customers like me. Looks like it’s National Grid, Massachusetts Electric and Nantucket Electirc who offer programs tied in with the RET. It’s a pity the NStar program isn’t working with them – there’s lots of towns with funds available listed at that page I linked above.
I like the idea of subsidizing local renewable energy programs. It reduces the need for long-range distribution wires, it helps slightly lower [and stabilize] local energy budgets, and it helps produce distributed local jobs.
<
p>But it isn’t free, and frankly, solar power isn’t efficient in Massachusetts without very large subsidies. Wind power, however, is a different story [as is biomass]. That’s cost-competitive within a few cents per kWh now. So, the question is: do you collect money and use it to buy less-financially-efficient solar cells [as well as handle the overhead], or do you use it to get the most renewable kWhours for your buck in the form of large wind projects? Well, both have merits, and both are happening right now.
<
p>Personally, I hope that we can get H3319 passed which will make it easier for cities and towns to form their own municipal power plant. This will keep pressure on NStar and National Grid to keep service up and prices down, and it will allow towns to build/buy their own green energy production, much like Hull has done directly and other communities have done indirectly [by imposing RPS requirements higher than the state requirements on their own community]. Note also that munis have lower electricity rates than NStar or Nat’l Grid offers…
<
p>So, call your Mass congresscritters and tell them to support H3319 to give local communities the chance to control their own electrical infrastructure.
I’ll certainly let my state rep know that I want him to get behind it.
<
p>One minor quibble – when you say “solar power isn’t efficient in Massachusetts without very large subsidies”, I’d point out that a recent study showed Massachusetts as the second most favorable state in the union where solar installations would do the most good – the combination of market price for electricity and annual insolation brought Massachusetts in right behind California. See the report here (PDF):
<
p>http://www.toplinestrategy.com…
<
p>Do we need subsidies to make it more cost effective? Yes, since they would reduce the time when you spend waiting for return on your investment, but the economics are very practical right here in sunny MA…
<
p>
if you measure the efficiency as kWh generated per dollar invested, MA is way behind due to geography. If you figure on the going rate of electricity MA does better — but that’s a function of strange economic markets, not climate change.
<
p>If you’re building solar cell installs due to climate change, put ’em in AZ.
The right measure is the relative cost of solar-generated electricity compared to the price of electricity that it replaces.
<
p>Travis Bradford explains this quite nicely in his book.
<
p>The reality is that we have high electricity prices. It’s a function of geography, economics, history, and a bunch of other factors. So we (counter-intuitively) will reach grid-parity before other regions.
If my goal is to be a savvy investor, the price of electricity matters.
<
p>If I’ve got this solar cell in my back pocket and my goal is to generate the most electricity, Arizona it is.
<
p>If I’ve got this solar cell in my back pocket and my goal is to minimize climate impact, then it’s something “like” Arizona on a local grid which is mostly coal. Probably [a guess!] something like Louisianna or perhaps even something like WV or KY.
<
p>Since MA uses relatively little coal or oil to generate electricity, you may have a sound financial investment in MA but you’re not displacing very much carbon emissions relative to Ohio, Kentucky, etc.
From what you’re saying, it appears you’re dismissing it out of hand. You do yourself and your position a disservice if that’s what you’re doing.
and it goes right along with what I posted two up.
<
p>
<
p>Note the word economical. So, by economic efficiency, it’s #2. But, if you’re interested in kWh generated per dollar invested [not dollars returned per dollar invested] MA is way behind thanks to latitude and cloud cover.
<
p>The claim that “The right measure is the relative cost of solar-generated electricity compared to the price of electricity that it replaces.” is entirely subjective. If you’re a financial investor, that’s a key question [as is subsidies, price of land, taxes, etc]. But, that’s not the only measure because different folks have different goals. Oh, and by the way — he’s not exactly right even if you’re looking for financial returns, because you can’t use the current price as a very good estimate of future prices 10 years out. It’s entirely possible [in fact, I think, likely] that MA rates will fall relative to the rest of the country over the next 10 years, because (a) our RPS standard will keep variable rates low when other states pay more due to a carbon tax, (b) we don’t expect much growth in demand in MA due to stagnant population, whereas other states’ utilities will have to make large investments in infrastructure like transmission lines, and (c) it’s even possible that we’ll pass H3319 which may lead to some communities getting lower rates due to competition. Combine that with (d) the investment MA is putting in now with public funds in solar generation, and I expect our rates to decline relative to other states, making investments in solar cells in MA more risky because the ROI calculations will overestimate the return in future years.
<
p>
<
p>Yeah, yeah I read it. If you want to know where solar is a good investment, follow the money — or the recent activity of installation. Two states are getting the action: CA and NJ, thanks to their combination of high retail prices and large subsidies. My college buddy who arranges the multi-million dollar financing deals told me all the details last month when we had lunch in Manhattan.
AZ makes perfect sense for solar, not so sure around here (we have winters, and although not Seattle, know that we have significant spells of how you say gloomy weather). Same goes for all electric cars: makes sense where you have warm weather; given that batteries die off in cold, I sure as heck wouldn’t want to be caught in one of those 4 hour drives home in the snow in a plugin (where you could effectively cut your range in half due to temperature).
Since MA uses relatively little coal or oil to generate electricity, you may have a sound financial investment in MA but you’re not displacing very much carbon emissions relative to Ohio, Kentucky, etc.
<
p>Which option would attract more capital? Which would result in more installed capacity and thus greater emissions avoidance?
<
p>Who’s walking around with solar cells in their back pocket? Can I have some?
Like I wrote earlier, nearly all the investment grade capital is going to NJ and CA. It would be very unlikely that there’d be “best” returns in more than a handful of states — there’s cheap real estate everywhere [roofs], the only questions are state rebate and state prices — and NJ and CA are beating MA right now.
<
p>As for “back pocket” — the back pocket is where one’s home happens to be. It’s people who are going to consider installing solar cells at their home not to maximize financial returns, but because they want to live more green… and therefore the value of their decision involves both ROI and displaced C.
H3319, An Act to regulate the establishment of municipal lighting plants, was the number of the bill last session– it’ll have a different bill number this session. The bill will be sponsored by Rep. Kaufman in the House and Sen. O’Leary in the Senate.
with GreenUp through National Grid. Some percentage of the revenue for new renewable energy is contributed to Mass Technology Collaborative, which in turn makes grants for renewable energy projects in communities. I believe that there are two types of grants: those that go to low-income communities and those to communities that pass a particular threshold of partipation in the program. The problem with the NGrid program is that it’s very cumbersome — we have only been able to get signups in the 100’s in Worcester despite massive efforts. I don’t know anything about the NSTAR program.
<
p>Thank you, stomv, for the best explanation I’ve seen yet on how the law works to ensure that the signups do increase the pool of renewable energy.
This explanation was very helpful. I just signed up (or attempted to, I am occasionally behind in my bills…),
<
p>I believe those that can should do our part and that’s why I signed up. But in the long run, I don’t think voluntary programs like this will solve the problem. It will take big public incentives and investment to do it.
<
p>Just goes to show that an MIT education doesn’t ensure perceptiveness… i’m not sure what it is, but I’ve noticed a definite tendency towards squirrliness and sometimes downright flakiness, whenever the subject of eco-consciousness is raised. It’s kind of a ‘green derangement syndrome.’ I’ve heard of people who’ve refuse purchase of a Prius because it ‘really’ only gets on average 47 mpg… and have gone on to purchase other cars advertised at 30mpg (which ‘really’ only get about 23 mpg…) There’s some strong juju surrounding the entire subject such that seems to be an extremely potent neuronal suppressant…
<
p>Consider for a moment rationally: If there was ‘just one grid’, any problem on any part of the grid would have deleterious effects upon all other parts of the grid. But that’s not even an answer to the problem: The problem is not delivery, but purchase.
<
p>What your friend is getting at, and what worries you, is the notion that the power that is bought from green sources gets to your location. It may or it may not. Power is not tagged and once it gets into the grid it’s fairly inseparable, except on the broadest of levels, from power purchased elsewhere. This isn’t anything to worry about… at least any more than worrying that your bank might actually pass you money that was once used in a drug transaction… Or that the bank got the money in a loan transaction with a trans-national company of whose practices you disapprove… Somethings are just not worth worrying about.
<
p>The win here is that the amounts of power purchased from green sources will not then have to be purchased from dirty sources, since there’s a more or less fixed (though slightly fluctuating) demand. The power company can route power to your general area, and in certain circumstances directly to your home, but that’s neither guaranteed nor what you’re paying for… you’re paying for them to purchase from a different source. If you want to know that all the power you’re paying for came directly from green sources, and no other, then this is not the program for you. You’re better off installing solar panels and a wind turbine ’cause that is the only way you’ll have that assurance. But if you’re interested that the company purchases more of their energy from green sources and is building the infrastructure to better accomplish this, then you should absolutely sign up.
NStar Green is an economic program, not an engineering one.
<
p>Its purpose is to cause renewables to be built and operated, not to deliver specially green-colored electrons to your personal electric meter.
<
p>It does this using (a) the regulatory regime we have for buying electric power and (b) that grid your buddy is so fixated on.
Here’s an even shorter version: Demand stimulates supply. Signing up for NStar Green creates demand.
I can buy a 10 Kw windmill for about $24,000.
<
p>Probably, I have the necessary equipment and know-how to install it so the installation costs won’t be so bad. Also, I already have a inhouse 750 gallon storage tank which I use for heating the house and for household water. That tank will serve to deal with the annoying “the wind is blowing but I don’t need the power just right now”. I’ll use the windmill to preheat water, and keep the hot water in the tank. It keeps water hot for a week or so, therefore the wind-power won’t go to waste. I guess I could sell electricity back to the Grid, but I’m not sure if National Grid has that program right now. We can talk.
<
p>So here’s the deal. National Grid with delivery fees is charging about $.175 per kWh. Wind power where I live is kinda lousy, but there’s a hillside I own where it’s not bad, you know in the 12 to 15 mph range, in the fall through end of spring. Summer’s not so great. I’ve done some back-of-the-envelope stuff that suggests I’ll get about 9000 to 12000 kWh per year. That’s a payback of about 12 years, assuming the .175 will hold. My guess is that it will drop in April.
<
p>Bottom line is that 12 years payback is pretty lousy. Even worse, what if they invent some alternative thing and I’m stuck with the rotating white elephant?
<
p>So, here’s the deal. You send me a check for $9300, and that will drop my payback to 7 years. That’s not so great, but maybe worth it. Or, send me a check for $110 per month for 7 years and I guarantee I’ll crank out green energy, plus send you a photo ever so often of the turbine. What do you think?
<
p>
One point is that all this investment in future green technology reduces the demand for current green technology — especially if the ROI takes over a decade to materialize.
Did you include the value of tax credits and RECs?
<
p>What do you think National Grid electricity is going to cost in 10 years? 20?
You pay for the tax credits. If you’re not willing to pay me for using Green power, then why would you pay for me to get tax credits?
<
p>Also, I have no idea what NG electricity will cost in 10 years so what better estimate than today’s price?
Maybe the fact that US residential electrical prices are 24% higher than they were a decade ago?
<
p>How do you know whether I’m willing to pay you for using green power if you’re not selling RECs?
but you’re glossing over a key point. When NStar green signs a contract with a wind farm, NStar gets the electricity. So, unless you’re offering to give me loads of hot water for that $9300, it’s a half-witted comparison.
You’re paying a premium to NStar Green. I’m saying just give me the premium, and I’ll guarantee to start up a new Green power source. Plus give you a picture of a wind turbine and blonde babe as an extra.
<
p>Electricity = power = hot water = … it’s just a matter of how you choose to store it.
I get that there’s a premium. But, the premium for electricity is on the order of 5% of the total price of that electricity. In short, if somebody is going to pay a premium to help stimulate the construction of more carbon-free energy capture/generation, they might as well do it in a way that generates the most carbon-free energy per dollar paid in premium.
<
p>That ain’t you.
<
p>The point isn’t to spend money to be green. The point is to invest wisely to get the most green for the bucks.
<
p>That ain’t you.
You mean, all these well intentioned tax credits, for wind or solar, would be wasted on me?
Nah. The most efficient use of tax credit? Probably not.
<
p>I wonder: how much in tax credits/rebates goes to homeowners, and how much goes to developers a la large scale wind farm operators?
I’ve crunched some numbers. To get the payback to 8-9 years for my home windmill, I’ll have to get $.25 per kWh. You telling me you’ll pay a 5% premium, but not a 47% (17 Cents v. 25 Cents) to save the planet?
<
p>BTW, how do you figure that NSTAR is only charging 5% premium? I think there’s some serious tax subsidies going on here, else NSTAR or its supplier is eating some costs.
<
p>I recall that Cape Wind generation price is 34 Cents. My project is more efficient than freakin’ Cape Wind because I’m giving you free labor (and for a limited time, free pictures. Operators are standing by)
<
p>years kWh x .25 (24,000)
<
p>0 12,000 3,000 3,000 (NPV of Cash @ 5%)
1 12,000 3,000 2,857
2 12,000 3,000 2,721
3 12,000 3,000 2,592
4 12,000 3,000 2,468
5 12,000 3,000 2,351
6 12,000 3,000 2,239
7 12,000 3,000 2,132 …
Where’d you get the $0.34/kWh for Cape Wind? Bill Koch?
<
p>(Actually, as of 2006 even Koch’s numbers were under $0.20/kWh)
link
but it ignores a number of things.
<
p>1. There’s subsidies for all kinds of power generation, not just wind. If we simply got rid of the subsidies for coal, oil, and nuke, the price of electricity would be so high that wind power would be a slam dunk.
<
p>2. The 34 cents figure, therefore, is nonsense because it’s comparing the non-subsidized Cape Wind power with subsidized competition.
<
p>3. The study also ignores the premium that will be paid for green power, both voluntarily [a la NStar green] and through regulations like RPS — regulations which already exist and utilities are already abiding by. 3.5% in 2009, 4% in 2010, 5% in 2011, etc. The electricity rates will go up to sustain the RPS requirements, and Cape Wind by offering more RPS-eligible supply will help bring them back down again. Once again, the gripe is in the wrong place.
<
p>4. This statement is absolutely asinine:
<
p>NStar doesn’t own Cape Wind, nor does National Grid. Cape Wind will be a wholesaler, and will sell electricity on the open market. If the going rate isn’t enough to pay the bonds, one of two things will happen: (1) the banks will write it off as a bad loan, seize control of the assets, and maintain them since generating some income is better than no income, or (2) they’ll dismantle it and sell the turbines to someone else to try and recover some of their loan. In either case, the financial losers are the Cape Wind investors and developers, but not ratepayers because the rates are determined by a regulatory agency which doesn’t favor making sure privately owned power plants break even or turn a profit. Once Cape Wind is online, the price of electricity will go down because there’ll be more supply with a marginal cost of damn near $0.00 since wind is free. Without a doubt, Glenn Wattley is flat wrong.
And if it weren’t for the increasing supply of renewable energy, I am sure it would be higher than that.
<
p>As for the tax credits, consider what the tax revenue would be if the windfarm were not built.
The APNS has repeatedly shown themselves to… spin an good story.
<
p>I don’t know enough about the DEIS yet to say that their press release is in fact false or highly misleading, but I have my suspcions.
<
p>(Of course, the APNS is a significant source of cost in this project)
<
p>I still don’t see anything like $0.34/kWh…
What I’m telling you is that per dollar I can stimulate far more green electricity through NStar Green than through gary-green. I get more good per buck, so you’re out of luck.
<
p>As for cross subsidies, there are some. The Feds pay out 1 to 2 cents per kWh (depending on the year), but that’s it. As for financing, it’s actually getting cheaper to build a wind farm because interest rates are low — this, of course, assumes you can line up long term contracts so that the loan is super-low-risk.
<
p>As for NStar green: Basic rate — supply and delivery — is $0.19913 per kWh for dirty electricity. The cost for 100% green-e is in additional $0.01396. That’s a 7% premium.
<
p>As for the price of Cape Wind, it’s $900 million for 420 MW. The 34 cents figure you cite has me scratching my head since I have no idea what you’re referring to. The very fact that you think your free labor makes your project more efficient per kWh than Cape Wind shows, to be blunt, that you have no idea about what you’re writing.
<
p>Cost for 10 kW is $24K. The cost to install is about $15K-$20K which I can do myself because I have the equipment to do so. Savings of $15 – $20 plus free maintence makes it more efficient, but still costly.
<
p>You simply can’t reply when disagreed with without a personal slam can you?
It’s not about rational disagreement. I disagree with people around here all the time and we lay it all out. Thep roblem is your disdain for honest discourse. In this particular case, you don’t know your stuff, you spew it anyway, and all it serves to do is muddy the waters.
<
p>As for your project, the kW is the maximum rating. That’s how much it can generate per unit time when the winds are perfect. However, winds aren’t perfect — and they’re more or less perfect as a function of threespace location of the turbine.
<
p>Microturbines installed on land even 30m in the air don’t have anywhere near the efficiency per dollar of equipment that large turbines do, especially ones on ridge lines or at the Shoal. If they did, developers would be building the small ones instead. Even if you can cut the cost of the project in half, you don’t come close to the MWh per dollar returns that the big boys are getting. Add that to the fact that you have no experience as a wind turbine installer, no credibility for your wind turbine projects, and no assurances that your wind turbine will be maintained properly over the long run, and it shouldn’t be surprising that a professional install done by experienced engineers at a site-specific location using advanced technology outperforms your backyard science experiment.
I’m actually certified with respect to two manufactured turbines, which combined with decades long experience as an arborist, gave me the equipment and the skill to install. I’ve done 2. Both 10 kW
Those 2 turbines: their payoffs suck.
All of a sudden wind farms are coming on line in New England. So on your bill the percentage of what power
comes from where will show wind power. They are probably
going to charge for printing that percent on disclosures
for people who sign up for Green. Once power is in the
grid it doesn’t say “Hey I’m wind power” when it gets to
your house. Another thing is these utilities are trying
to get in the game in advance…so they can continue to
rip off consumers. It does my heart good to see private
wind turbines going up. I am installing a grid tied solar system on my home it will drop my bill to between $15 to
$30 a month. the meter deducts the power I produce by running backwards. A freind has a stand alone system and
he pays nothing to any electric company. He has a battery
bank and generator back-up. So go green but go on your own
if possible. The more people who do this, the less demand
the less justification for continued increases for new
plant construction.