August 3, 2006
The (Green) Power of Choice
So, it’s pretty miserable out there this week, eh? Well, we don’t think it’s because of the heat. We don’t even think it’s the humidity.
It’s the guilt.
Here we sit, in our air conditioned homes and offices, contributing to a record demand for electricity in the Washington area. And we're not just protected from the heat, but contributing to it. The condensers creating all that cool air sit outside our windows, churning out waste heat. Worse yet, in our region, the generation of the electricity to power our air conditioning (and our lights, and our computers...) comes largely from the mining of coal. Despite some advances in “clean” coal technology, it remains a process that contributes greatly to global warming. It’s a lot to take, just knowing that our comfort today may be doing a great deal of harm in the near future, if not already.
Pepco, the energy distributor for D.C. and Maryland, annually negotiates a particular standard fuel mix for its customers, from a number of different energy generators; this year more than half comes from coal, and another third from nuclear. Clean, renewable sources generate only 2.3% of D.C. residents' power. Even the most car-less, energy-conscious person leaves a carbon footprint larger than they’d like.
Thanks to energy deregulation, consumers have a lot more choice these days in where their energy comes from. The company helping D.C. customers negotiate the world of power choice is Pepco Energy Services (PES), a wholly owned and seperately managed subsidiary of Pepco Holdings, Inc (which was formed when Pepco and New Jersey's Connectiv merged). Through PES, you can contract a different fuel mix for your individual house or apartment. While sitting in the comfort of a cool house, you may rest assured that 10% of your power is coming from captured methane escaping from landfills. Or, for a slightly higher rate, a full 100% of your energy could be contracted with a wind power generator.
There are some drawbacks. Since the energy is all distributed through the same grid, you are not actually recieving the power directly from the clean sources, even though your money is directly allocated to the green power provider. Also, as you might expect, the rates for these power sources are higher than the standard rates. Depending on the contract, the rate is 35% to 45% higher per kilowatt-hour, which can range anywhere from $10 to $50 a month, depending on the size of the house and efficiency of your systems. But for those who are more concerned with the cost of continuing our fossil fuel dependence, it could be well worth the premium.
Any readers out there have green power contracts? We’d love to hear about your experiences, and how much of an impact the cost difference makes.
|
You mention that not getting the actual electrons is a "drawback" - there's sort of no way around that, given the nature of an electron.
Think of it as a bucket full of "electricity water". You have a hole in the bottom you drink out of, the utilities pour power into the top. All you can do is pay someone to pour in as much clean water as you take out; you can't flag individual molecules from the bottle to your mouth.
That said, it's legitimately and carefully tracked, and you can be sure they're making as much as you use - there's been more than a few windfarms built to serve this demand. (Ironically, wind power is now substantially cheaper than natural gas in many parts of the country, given the huge recent run-up there; slightly more expensive than coal, but that's coming up, too. (Other resources like landfill gas are also highly compettive, since they're turning a waste product they have to bburn anyway into salable power.) In Colorado, the voluntary green power product was for several months cheaper than the conventional supply product before the utilities got back to their old tricks and got a premium back on it.)
Or, screw the whole system and www.findsolar.com .
Standing by for the bogus and half-understood bird kill / intermittency / cost / energy payback arguments...
1rst I question your understanding of the energy conservation law. However, I interested on how we can generate our own energy and pump it back into the grid. I know there are a few people that have solar cells on their house and during the day the surplus energy created is pumped back into the grid, resulting their meter to run backwards...thus getting a nice credit toward that energy they pull in from the grid. As with all individual energy decisions it rests in the market and answering the question "how much can I save". Intrinsic cost are nice, but are usually first to go when a cost cutting decision is made...I think self creation is an intriguing option as there are tangible results.
I love air conditioning. Its the thing that makes civilization in this part of the country possible. I don't feel guilty about it at all, because in the winter time, my thermostat is set to a balmy 57 degrees, so things sort of balance out.
If your A/C bills are high, get a programmable thermostat. I got one 3 or 4 years ago, and I know I've saved a ton of money. Raise the temp when you are away, and in the middle of the night. Even though I have central A/C, I also have a window unit just in my BR, that I run at night. I got it on Craigs for real cheap, only a year old, electronic controls, and a high EER. Good drapes that block light have a big effect too. When I'm not home, I try to keep the house as dark as possible. Also, landscaping outside your house has an impact too. Little things can make a big difference, and I'm confident I've saved probably $1k bucks in the past 3 years or so since I started these measures. My elect bill is rarely over $100, when it used to regularly approach $200.
I'm cheap and I'm always look for ways to save money. But I will not give up my A/C!
At least on the Maryland side of Eastern and Western Ave., deregulation seems to offer more/better choices for business than residential consumers, so to get more windpower into that "bucket full of 'energy water'", I've been buying blocks of wind power from NewWind Energy. Basically, I'm taxing myself a few bucks a month to force more windpower into the grid, displacing the need for more polluting sources.
Thanks for the tip T. It looks like (from following the links on your link) that DC customers can also tax themselves through PEPCO or WGES to do the same thing. I used to do this in California with a SF based company (although California law mandated certain percentages of all power be renewable) more as a way to offset my other energy consumption -- plane and auto travel. But I had sort of fallen off that wagon since relocating.
wov- one of the biggest problems with wind is that its just not deployable everywhere. There's a finite number of places where deployment of windfarms make sense, so there's an upper bound to how much energy can be produced that way. That upper bound isn't anywhere close to the energy output we need. The same (only far moreso) goes for solar as well. They can both be part of the solution, but only a part. Reclaimed methane has a huge potential that's really only starting to be used. It's not just landfills that produce it, but wastewater treatment as well. Point Loma in San Diego produces all the energy needed for its own operation, plus some excess it can sell onto the market- a peak of nearly 7 megawatts.
In the end though, what I'd like to see are some large scale American tests of tidal force generators. There have been some promising tests in the British Isles, and the east coast of the US has some promising locations, if the environmental impact is adequately studied.
Just a nit.. we don't generate power by mining coal. We generate power by burning coal. And considering that the Mirant Alexandria plant was shut down by the state for a few days last year (and then restarted without permission), we know that it is far from clean.
wov:
I hear your point on the "nature of an electron". But when my wife and I were investigating this, we had a hard time getting around the intangible benefits of the choice, as opposed to buying an efficient appliance. It seems like the day after your contract, you're getting roughly the same thing you did before, but paying more. The macro-scale of the energy market, and the difficulty of seeing incremental change within it, is a mental hurdle you have to clear before appreciating what green contracts can do.
The bucket of water analogy is a good one, though. I'll use that one to help explain this in the future.
On the contrary. I feel as though the de-regulation of utilities only harms the consumer. California's rolling blackouts in summer 2001 are a fine example. The lack of investment on the part of individual utility companies ultimately led to the sort of thing that happens in a) developing countries and b) britain in the early 1970s.
There are certain aspects of government and society that should not be exposed to the faults of the free market: energy, water and health care.
I'm only bitter cuz I have no AC in my little bedsit.All I've got is a tiny fan.
Bill makes a good point: Saving energy saves money. The perceived added cost of buying energy efficient products is what really kills conservationist efforts.
Next week I am having solar energy installed in my house in Park View. I took advantage of DC Renewable enrgy program. On sunny days I'll be pumping electricity back into the grid! Its going to cost me about 14,000 dollars once I deduct the tax rebates and grants I've received, but its still worth it to help our planet...and my electriv bill.
T. Carter - That's great information!
This is the kind of news I like to hear. Despite the possible coal-nature of the droplet I get from the bucket, I'm happy to pay a few bucks to get that container of polluted water diluted.
David,
I agree with your point about "added cost" to a certain degree. I think that there is a lot of room for consumer education, because in a lot of cases it doesn't cost more to make small changes here and there. (conservation, CFL bulbs, energy star appliance, etc.) You just have to be "aware" of what you're using and what you're spending. I think some people are turned off by certain environmentalist messages, but if you can reframe the issue to be about saving money, then they are more receptive.
I guess you could say that I'm sort of an incrementalist. I have employed lots of little changes on an ongoing basis that have helped save me money over the long run. I recently had to get a new water heater. I would have liked to go tankless, but for me and my budget, it just doesn't make sense right now. So maybe in 8-10 yrs when it's time for another water heater, I'll reconsider. My washer is probably ready to quit in the next year or 2, so I'll go with a front loader, but not until it quits. In spite of rising natural gas, electricity, and water bills, I've managed to keep mine somewhat constant and stable.
My house has an unobsructed southeastern orientation, and a flat roof that would eventually be very amenable to some solar solutions (and possible green roof). I'm willing to consider things when prices come down and the market is right, but I can't throw down 14 grand like Cliff did.
The rolling blackouts in California were not a direct result of deregulation (although it didn't help) but has a lot more to do with disinvestment PRIOR to deregulation. New plants take years to come online and are staunchly opposed by neighbors. California has and did have a hodgepodge of laws in regard to planning for development. Compound that by the astronomical growth of California for 20 years -- 300,000K new residents and up -- and the increase in demand from the growth in the least temperate parts of California -- the Central and Sacramento Valleys -- as well as the increase in computers and server farms (that are poorly regulated for energy consumption) and you had (and still have) demand that far outstrips supply. Even all these years later, California has removed more generating capacity then it has brought on line. Only better management and fear of the PR sh*tstorm that happened last time, prevented a repeat of the rolling black outs from before.
I grew up in Illinois, and we had extremely regulated utilities, a lot of city owned utility markets and high usage of nuclear energy and every summer demand outstripped supply. Brown outs were just part of July. Bad management is bad management.
Jeez, DC1974, can't you go one post without mentioning ILLINOIS???
The tidal barrage or wave power (were you thinking Pelamis?) potential of the US is very, very severely constrained by site specificity, environmental requirements, and transmission - much moreso than wind or solar. Not to mention that those technologies are rather nascent (and you missed the hometown player - Arlington's Verdant Power and their East River watermills!)
Wind is effectively transmission-limited in the US, not resource limited; in fact, the limitation there would likely be fundamental operational constraints on an AC grid, that would only come into play at 25%+ levels, (and perhaps not then, depending on the evolution of utility SCADA over the next several years.)
Alternately, if they get their carbon fiber / composite blades, plus some gearbox tech figured out (and that's a
predictable near-term tech progression, in part paid for by people buying green power, etc.) they can move into Resource Class 2 or 3 areas closer to transmission that should be good for several tens to hundreds of gigawatts.
Solar is even less space limited; 100 x 100 miles would power the entire US electrical demand, roughly. If that seems like a lot of area (and to be fair, it is,) look out the window next time you fly into a sprawling SW city...see anywhere it could go? Navigant / Energy Foundation actually just completed a detailed roofspace, parking lot space, etc., study you can Google for for a more hardcore breakdown on the math.
Now, again, you're not going to actually *do* 100% of demand from solar, but reasonable estimates say we could hit 10 - 15% of demand, again, near term. Especially peaking daytime demand. Given that the global PV industry is now 16 times the size it was in the late 90s, ($12b annual sales last year,) it's a good bet we'll see a 1 - 2 order of magnitude increase there in our lifetimes.
So, 25% wind, 15% solar, 20% hydro, 20% nukes, we're up to 80% zero carbon electricity if we get serious as a country. And that's without developing any really new technologies.
or, hell, just go to terrapass.com and buy yourself some offsets...
wov,
No biomass or captured methane in your breakdown? Is this because you count them as new technologies?
If San Francisco is spending $100 million on a voter approved initiative to cover the city in PV panels, and Chicago is doing the same thing with green roofs, what role does the DC government have to play in this? Is anyone aware of a municipal renewable power idea in the works?
Jeff..see my prior post, DC has one of the best renewable energy incentives in the country.
Cliff,
Yeah, DC and MD have some of the best green incentive programs in the country. But I'm wondering about specifically coordinated municipal efforts (i.e. a mandate to get all of the city buildings running on x% renewables, or to get a certain kW capacity of solar on city or commercial buildings). Some individual companies or residents (like you) are taking advantage of incentives, but the effort is piecemeal and uncoordinated, it seems. Is some group trying to change that?