Texas gets "Polution Free" energy

"Green Mountain Introduces New Price Point For "Pollution Free" Power

Green Mountain Energy Company, one of the nation's leading residential providers of cleaner electricity, announced today its introduction of a new product for Texas residential customers - Pollution Freeelectricity from Green Mountain Energy Company.
This new electricity product is made from wind and water generation sources and is 100 percent pollution free. Additionally, the new Pollution Free product is priced at the local incumbent utility's "Price to Beat," so residential customers in Texas' competitive markets can now purchase clean, affordable electricity at no additional cost over the price charged by their local electric utility."

Der Link

If this works it will be a good first step to real economic reform to the energy industry. I wish them luck.

Nice to see that we're getting it here in Texas! We saw one of their windmills being transported when we were on the road yesterday (the vanes of the windmills are SO huge that one fills up a double tractor-trailer unit.

Green Mountain is a fairly large operation (I believe I've invested in their stocks)

We're lagging behind other states in this. California has some extensive wind farms and I've seen them in Hawaii as well.

sounds great, im glad green is finally making its way onto the market

Actually Texas has had wind power since 1995.

www.lcra.org...

Texas law actually requires a certain percentage of their electricity be generated by renewable sources. As a result, wind power has taken off bigtime. Amazingly enough, the law was passed while Dubya was the Gov'nor. Now he rejects having the feds pass a similar law.

Originally posted by pandoras_box
Now he rejects having the feds pass a similar law.

What's good for Texas isn't good for everyone. Being on/close to the Gulf we get quite a lot of wind in this region.

Actually, the law that Texas, and 14 other states, have passed are pretty flexible. The proposal is known as the Renewable Portfolio Standard, and a version has actually made it thru Congress 2x (but has died in conference each time). The versions that have actually been pushed are pretty flexible in terms of what renewables satisfy the requirments (i.e. wind, solar, biomass, geothermal). The only thing most of these proposals do exclude is the development of big hydro-electric power (mainly because it is already established - hydro accounts for 8% US electricity generation, while the rest of the renewables combine for 1-2%.

I used to have my doubts about Green Mountain being a former customer a year ago. After some time having them as my electric provider I realised that what they were advertising at the time was a bit misleading. It turns out that buy bulk power from TXU(nuclear powered) add it to the output of their wind gens, then sell the power at a reduced price. I am glad to see they are keeping their word and are expanding their wind grid! Wind and Nuclear power is definately the future of Texas power.

Originally posted by pandoras_box
Actually, the law that Texas, and 14 other states, have passed are pretty flexible. The proposal is known as the Renewable Portfolio Standard, and a version has actually made it thru Congress 2x (but has died in conference each time). The versions that have actually been pushed are pretty flexible in terms of what renewables satisfy the requirments (i.e. wind, solar, biomass, geothermal). The only thing most of these proposals do exclude is the development of big hydro-electric power (mainly because it is already established - hydro accounts for 8% US electricity generation, while the rest of the renewables combine for 1-2%.

Regardless, renewables take cash. Here in Oklahoma there are tons of hydroelectric dams - probably more than most states. This isn't feasible for everyone though, and you lose a lot anyway when you do that. It's harmful for the natural process of mineral flow and wildlife, nevermind the thousands of people displaced by the water and the states without the places to build the dams.

Wind power is more expensive than coal or nuclear.. it's getting better, but still not there. Besides, you must have wind for this to work.

Solar power sucks - it's there for about 10 hours (if you're lucky and it's a clear sunny day) and anything that comes from the solar plant after that must come from stored energy or other plants.

Biomass? Good luck! If the previous three are too expensive/implausible, this takes the cake.

Geothermal? You're right, I guess about four states can do that. The other 46 are screwed.

So you see, it isn't a clear cut matter. It'd be nice if we could all bask in cleanliness and live in harmony with nature while eating our sweet sweet candy too, but we can't. Passing legislation doesn't change that, it just makes life harder for us and the environment (though you probably wouldn't think of the environment as being harmed by thousands of windmills, huge manmade lakes from dammed rivers, and thousands of square miles of wasteland for solar energy, huh?).

Shbaz:

1. The RPS only mandates at most that 20% of the energy be from renewables by 2020, so there's no need to freak out, it's not the end of fossil fuels.

2. 14 states have already passed these laws.

3. Kyoto ratification and the inevitable demise of fossil fuels means that we need to be prepared for a transition.

4. Never advocated hydro power.

5. Wind power is: (a) close to being competitive, (b) is readily available in lotsa places, and (c) is cheaper when the entire supply chain (such as transporting oil from the Middle East) is considered.

6. Solar power is evolving. Yes, it'll never be the end-all-be-all, but it might be able to contribute a few of the 20 percent in the next 16 years.

7. Biomass - ethanol proves that the costs here are coming down.

8. Geothermal - don't know enough.

9. The point is that it is entirely realistic to imagine a world where there is an increasing, not total, reliance on renewable energy. A renewable portfolio standard is a way to do that.

10. Yes, there are costs but...(a) fossil fuel shortages/disruptions/shocks/etc mean that their costs will inevitably increase, whereas renewable costs can only come down, (b) the RPS proposals allow for credit trading that (1) reduces costs and (2) can make the entire venture extremely profitable by rewarding those leading the way, (3) Kyoto means that there are renewable energy markets emerging that we will not be part of because of our insistence on not acting.

11. Don't even try to make environmental harm arguments, especially since I'm not pushing hydro power. What do you got? Birds? Windmills are ugly? Easily refutable claims. Same goes for solar. Without even getting into the specifics, there are a few basic answers: (a) 2020 - tech can/will evolve by then, (b) greenhouse gases and global warming, (c) the developing world - 2/3's of the world's people rely on the burning of wood (which causes a ton of problems - cancer/etc), developing new technology that would allow them to escape this situation would help alleviate the sitaution.

Yes, a switch will be difficult but not impossible. More importantly, it will become increasingly necessary. A law that had a goal of 20% by 2020 would be a useful law to help us make that jump.

I'm readily willing to accept a renewable future - but at best present plans are poorly thought out, and legislation won't fix that, it'll make it worse.

We don't use oil for electricity, so you know, the coal comes from the US. The present means of producing ethanol are not going to cut it, we need to use genetically-engineered micro-organisms and get the fundies to shut up and accept it. Wind power is great, but demands energy storage, the same as solar.

It isn't that I want to keep soot flowing into my air, it's just that I want it to stay gone when it leaves, not to return because the alternative wasn't set up properly in the first place. Also, my point that "what is good for Texas isn't good for everybody" still stands, thus the reason only 14 states have adopted such measures. I have no environmental qualms with wind energy, just with hydro and (sometimes) solar. I want to see power generation brought to the home, not industrialized as it has been. There's no need for it.

Originally posted by Byrd
Nice to see that we're getting it here in Texas! We saw one of their windmills being transported when we were on the road yesterday (the vanes of the windmills are SO huge that one fills up a double tractor-trailer unit.

Big? They're not so big.

Originally posted by shbaz
The present means of producing ethanol are not going to cut it

Maybe because in your country oil doesn't have so much pollution taxes.

www.fb.org...
www.cornandsoybeandigest.com...
www.ucsusa.org...

As you see technology is almost ready for almost completely locally produced renewable energy sources but Dubya's oil industry&big money/corporation buddies are surely against it because it would take away their "milking cow" and power.

Taxing oil won't make land to grow ethanol crops on, sorry to burst your bubble. Ethanol is produced at a 125% energy input/output ratio, which means that 4/5 of the ethanol produced from a crop is needed to grow, ferment, and distill it in the first place (tractors, irrigation, other misc. farm equipment, ethanol production and shipping). There is a way to increase the yield significantly (35%), but because the yeast is bio-engineered and would reak havok on the environment if it escaped this isn't used widely. I've only heard of one factory in Canada.

There isn't enough land to grow all of the crops needed to make ethanol.

Anyone qualified to make a statement on the issue would laugh at the extraordinary claims made by people here.

Just read what engine and fuel engineers are saying about hydrogen, and contrast that with the mundane claim I read here practically every day that hydrogen is all set to take over. Your claims about ethanol are very similar.

EDIT:
Brazil is able to get away with this because comparing the US to Brazil is about like comparing Canada to Mexico.

[edit on 12/14/2004 by shbaz]

Shbaz, I like your style. You make sense, and do it consistently.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Shbaz, I like your style. You make sense, and do it consistently.

Eh, sort of. I could be a lot more clear, because when I say ethanol won't cut it with present methods I don't mean it can't be done. Telling how it can be done would be major digression though, and feed the surreal dream that it can be done instantaniously or even in a decade.

If you read over that, it seems like I'm contradicting myself in places. I'm not though, because my point is that while it can be done, it won't be done properly, especially if it's legislated rather than carried out by the people who know what they're doing and how to do it. That is why the U.S.S.R. fell and I don't want to see it happen here. The Earth will survive the last bit of oil we have, after which capitalism will take over and replace oil properly, without politics getting in the way.

The problem with the legistlation of a renewable portfolio standard is that it would end up causing the opposite of what it is intended to do. If we were to pass an RPS, OPEC will get fearful of their inevitable loss of income, as we are their biggest importer of oil. Due to this fact, they will drastically reduce the prices of oil, which in turn would cause their to be a greater demand for it, then there currently is. This process is known as backstopping. This would, inevitably, cause the situation to worsen than we are in now. Renewables are coming at a reasonable pace now, passing something like a renewable portfolio standard will only make the situation much worse than it is now.

the state in aus i live in (Tasmania) has been using hyrdro for atleast 15 years now.
we also have been putting up wind farms over the last few years, and are soon going to start selling our excess power to other states (that use coal and gas)

Meatball:

What are you talking about?

1. RPS deals with electricity production, not oil, which means OPEC wouldn't be overly concerned. Think oil contributes to 2% of electiricty generation.
2. OPEC states don't have that much spare capacity which means they don't have much room to flood the market with cheap oil.
3. 20 percent by 2020 wouldn't be enough to cause any OPEC member to fear a market loss.
4. Other states, such as China, would still need lots of oil, so even if you are right, you're not right because demand would still be high enough to ensure high oil sales.

Solar power has lots of potential dont count it out yet. The sun beats down with about 1000 watts per sq meter- immense amounts of power. But our current solar cells are only capable of turning about 3.4 percent of this of this energy into usable power, the rest is turned into heat.

Solar cells will become more efficent in the future just imagine if they had oil money behind them now we would have some impressive solar cells. We also have about another 4 billion years worth of light comming from the sun to tap into.

Current photovoltaic cells can be up to 14% efficient, actually..

When using the sun with heat engines (steam, stirling) efficiency probably hasn't topped 40%, but I can't be sure, I'm just guessing from what I know.

I think the only way this is feasible is if we somehow come up with a cheap way to use huge sections of ocean and desert for power generation.