Green power question

Kaf / Wylie,

Putting it simply, it's your money therefore your choice.

A much smarter move would be to invest your own money into a solar co-generation system that feeds back into the distibution grid......with the subsidies around it's cheaper than you think, plus you are making a *real* contribution to the supply system.

Or you could invest directly in some of those 169 renewable energy suppliers listed on the GreenPower website.

But,if it makes you feel good by all means do it - just like buying dolphin friendly tuna or recycled plastic/paper products. The question you need to ask I suppose, is that other than getting that warm cuddly feeling about the environment.......what is it really achieving other than making a bit more money for the distributor? Like any commercial supply chain the guy at the start gets the least margin. Then again possibly this system allows him to compete in an area that would not be otherwise commercially viable, that in itself surely speaks volumes........:rolleyes:

Electricty comes to you now via a complicated system of supply companies, transmission/distribution companies and generation companies. They used to be kept seperate by legislation (for very good reason)...not quite sure what the go is now

I suppose I'm lucky that I haven't paid for electricty for the last 10 years, can still wash down the concrete when I want to and heck I don't even have to recycle either. Of course when I move to Perth shortly that will all probably change........:eek:

When I have to pay more I will..........but voluntarily......no way Jose.

And of course the pre requisite is that you must believe in the whole global warming caper........I don't.

Further info for those who are interested in how their hip pocket can save the world..........:rolleyes:

http://www.greenpower.gov.au/about.aspx

ciao

Nor
 
Thanks for that Nor - much appreciated advice. That's the toss-up decision, our own solar system or support a more centralised move to solar (by signing up to green power). With the technology changing so quickly I'm wondering if it might be worthwhile supporting a centralised system for a bit rather than putting my own panels up (?).

I'm a bit of a climate change sceptic too but the renewable energy discussion is much older than that. I've grown up in Germany with nuclear energy (which I wasn't happy with, living rather close to a reactor, especially at the time of Chernobyl) so coming here to sunny QLD it just feels wrong not to make use of all that sun...

Cheers

kaf
 
wylie said:
The reason I have been paying it is that I (fingers crossed) believe that my little contribution may be making a difference to the overall environment.
Click to expand...

It *is* making a difference. They are building THE WORLDS LARGEST solar plant in Mildura. All of my extra funds I've been paying for for my 100% solar product have been saving up over the years (whilst I was physically using 99% coal) and is now going to pay for this.

I work for Australia's largest energy company. Our main business is transmission and distribution (i.e. managing the poles and wires) although we do have a small number of generation assets.

Green power costs more because it costs more to produce. Every kw of green energy you purchase one kw must be sourced from green energy and put into the grid. If no green energy is available (as has been the case), the difference in price is to be set aside and used to fund the creation of new green energy sources. Some people think that 'it's a waste' because of this but I don't think so. They think it's useless unless they are actually getting green energy.

It's not just 'extra profit' with energy. I can see how this type of thinking came about though, as it is this way with other products.

For example, cage eggs versus free range eggs or carrots versus organic carrots. A free range egg only costs just a small fraction more than a cage egg, as does an organic carrot over a non-organic carrot, yet market forces have determined the 'cruelty conscious consumer' or 'organic consumer' is willing to pay much more than that difference for the item and the item is therefore priced accordingly. Competition should fix this up though in time if enough people choose these products.

Checkout the 'Coles Organic' range of products. I buy their organic milk and organic tomato sauce. These items are only a few more cents than their non-organic counterparts. Why is the price difference much greater in the branded products? It's not just economies of scale.

So, in the case of many organic 'green' products there is a level of profiteering off peoples consciouses. However, energy price in Australia is regulated and set by the government. Like any system I'm sure it's not perfect but it's more than likely not as bad as many people would think.

It's not perfect but it's a step in the right direction.
 
Norwester -cropped just to get my favorite bit said:
A much smarter move would be to invest your own money into a solar co-generation system that feeds back into the distibution grid......with the subsidies around it's cheaper than you think, plus you are making a *real* contribution to the supply system.
....
Nor
Click to expand...
You bet your b**,
giant power generation plants are the most efficient sources there are.
Line losses in distribution from generation plants to users are a large part of the total electric load.
any local generation at or near use is more efficient than such small generators should be. Your neighbours use what you pump into the grid so there are much less losses. Industrial plants that use their waste heat to run generators, (Compol, ACB, Shell, Hoechst) and home owners with solar panels or wind turbines. That power is used where it is made, the infrastructure is already in place. 64w solar panel on the roof of a suburban home might be better than 500w at the generator.

bulk wind generators and solar farms sited miles from nowhere, needing new roads, towers, for a minimal return bite my b**
 
natmarie73 said:
Since people are inherently lazy, and won't usually make a conscious effort to change things I don't see why power companies don't just put everyone on green power at the higher cost and give people the choice to opt out, instead of opt in. Power companies will make more money and there will be a greater demand for renewable energy generation, not to mention the environment will benefit too so everybody wins.

IMO, electricity is way too cheap anyway.
Click to expand...


YAYAYAYAYAYAY!!!!!! finally! i've been soapboxing this idea for ages now! kudos!
 
AlmostBob said:
Green my bum. the polluting is somewhere else, during maunfacture, thats not green or clean
Nuclear energy is the lowest polluting energy source
and if we all glow in the dark we wont need so much lights​
Click to expand...

gold - and so true.

this is what makes nuclear more green than most - however, like you said, the pollution is just at another end of the scale...so what to do with the waste? the world can only handle so many dirty bombs before we're left with a whole lotta...well, radioactive lead.

tidal power is a pretty good source of power if you can stave off the corrosion.

each home should be responsible for it's own power generation. those little whirlybirds could be made into a wind generator AND vent your roof at the same time. add 3 or 4 and you have a quiet and concealable wind generation method. just a thought....
 
I'm tempted to go for solar and am ok with the extra cost (about $200/year) IF - and here is my question - this is really going to increase the generation of renewable energy.
Click to expand...

I think this is the big issue for people willing to pay the extra. To my mind the answer is: no - it doesnt increase the roll out of new renewable infrastructure.

The "Accredited Green Energy" simply means that the renewable source was built after a certain date - 1997 I think.

The govt has 2 main methods to force companies to reduce CO2:

1) Minimum Renewable Energy Target
- must get upto a certain level by 2020.
- I think the target is 20%
- so if 20% of the population is buying 100% green energy (and paying the higher price), the the other 80% of the population can use 100% dirty energy and pay the lower price.
- if less than 20% take up green energy the rest will will get a blended product and pay a slightly more price.
- this is the situation now - thats why most standard plans give you 10-20% green energy at "no extra cost".
- bottom line is people buying 100% green energy are doing nothing but subsidising the people who refuse to switch.

2) Energy Trading scheme
- this will raise the cost of dirty energy
- it will make cleaner sources more cost competitive so you will have less C02 per Kw.
- initailly it will be cleaner fossil fuels rather than renewables which will benefit (Brown Coal > Black Coal > Gas).
- It will be a long time before Renewables stack up on purely a $ basis so you still have the situation above with "people buying 100% green energy are doing nothing but subsidising the people who refuse to switch"

I would be more inclined to take the money and use it on something that makes a genuine difference
- more efficient domestic products
- fuel efficient car, etc


edit: The home grid feed systems (as I understand it) will contribute to the general pool of electricity. Therfore for every green kw a home feeds in, the energy retailesr are excused from bying a green Kw from a big generator. The 20% MRET has not changed. Something to think on.......
 
What the... ?

Having spent the majority of my working life doing engineering and developing in the renewable energy industry I find some of the content of this thread absolutely amazing. Rather than quote everyone I will just make these responses to some of the "points" made by others:

Wind - Has an energy payback of roughly six months for a wind farm to produce the energy it took to build it, including roads, concrete, steel, fibreglass etc. etc. There are a number of detailed independent studies on this available - if you are genuinely interested do a search on sites that aren't funded by anti-wind lobby groups. Raw generation cost in Australia is around 10c/kWh compared to 5c-6c/kWh for coal. The rest of your bill is around 4c for network costs, 3c for retail costs + GST on the lot.

Solar - Has an energy payback of around 3-4 years with current technology and is slowly getting better. On this basis wind is currently more environmentally friendly as creating silicon is very energy intensive. Also, utility scale solar thermal plants are double the cost of wind in Australia. PV panels are around 3 times as expensive again so still get nowhere near competitive either at a power station or on your roof.

Nuclear - No nuclear power station has ever been built without a government guarantee sitting behind it because no private company would take the risk. Roughly the same price as wind on an Australian scale - happy for wind farms to compete on a level playing field with nuclear and that includes the necessary govt guarantee... Nuclear has to run flat out so cannot absorb renewable variations or follow the night-time / day-time loads. It's either nuclear or renewables on a large scale - you can't have both but you can have either. There are stand alone grids in this country that use wind for 50% of their energy use - it is being done for anyone who says it can't be.

MRET - Currently represents around 1% of Australia's energy generation. We have nothing more than an election promise on more at this stage. The "target" of 20% includes the 11% or so that Australia already has of mostly hydro.

Emissions Trading - Will not be of a sufficient price to drive renewable or nuclear investment. It will just switch coal to gas, which is less greenhouse intensive - people have their own views on the merits of that.

Doing it yourself - Lack of "economies of scale" mean householders will spend far more trying to install their own equipment compared to buying a utility product. Utility renewable energy is audited by ORER and the Green Power accreditation scheme. It just means that the utility has to pay someone to generate as much renewable energy as you use - the idea of green electrons is irrelevant.

Please before posting tripe on this subject do at least try to get some facts right. It's hard enough trying to compete with coal rather than putting up with these urban myths... :mad:

Happy to answer questions though for anyone genuinely interested...
 
schweet - thanks for setting me straight on a few things! always good to get to someone in the industry and hear direct - through all the tripe and NIMBY lobbyists.
 
Thanks HiEquity.

Can you give your take on the original question:

I'm tempted to go for solar and am ok with the extra cost (about $200/year) IF - and here is my question - this is really going to increase the generation of renewable energy.
Click to expand...
 
Dis said:
Thanks HiEquity.

Can you give your take on the original question:
Click to expand...

The main govt body overseeing accreditation came out of the NSW govt which originally did it but is now a collaboration of all State govts. More info can be found at:
http://www.greenpower.gov.au/why-you-can-trust-greenpower.aspx
Or on the accreditation process:
http://www.greenpower.gov.au/what-accreditation-means.aspx

There is also the Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator (ORER) for the MRET scheme which is effectively the compulsory scheme. This is a Federal govt body. More info at:
www.orer.gov.au

Having been through the accreditation process down to where the meter is on the power line and who calibrated the meter etc etc etc I can certainly vouch for the rigour and accuracy associated with these schemes.

If you buy "accredited Green Power" with the correct logo you are definitely buying renewable energy that wouldn't otherwise have been generated.

The catch is that you can also buy "non-accreditated" renewable energy. This is, as the name suggests, not renewable energy.

Companies like Jackgreen got into trouble by selling this sort of thing eg buying power from existing (pre 1997) hydro stations. It was the same price as conventional electricity so of course no new renewable energy was actually generated with this product. They get around this now by including 5% accredited renewable energy in their product instead as a minimum (you can pay for more if you like). The other check on all this is that if it doesn't cost more it isn't renewable energy! ;)

As someone else said, it isn't that renewable energy is too expensive - it's that coal is too cheap! After all it's free - all you have to do is dig it out of the ground...
 
Last edited:
AlmostBob said:
Solar panels take longer than their life span to repay the energy cost of their construction.
Wind generators pay off after years, if not hit by lightning, buckled by overdesign wind loads or any of the other failures suffered to date.

Green my bum. the polluting is somewhere else, during maunfacture, thats not green or clean
Click to expand...
This may have been true in the past but in recent years it's false.

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics
Energy Payback Time and Energy Returned on Energy Invested

The energy payback time is the time required to produce an amount of energy as great as what was consumed during production. The energy payback time is determined from a life cycle analysis of energy.
Another key indicator of environmental performance, tightly related to the energy payback time, is the ratio of electricity generated divided by the energy required to build and maintain the equipment. This ratio is called the energy returned on energy invested (EROEI). Of course, little is gained if it takes as much energy to produce the modules as they produce in their lifetimes. This should not be confused with the economic return on investment, which varies according to local energy prices, subsidies available and metering techniques.
Life-cycle analyses show that the energy intensity of typical solar photovoltaic technologies is rapidly evolving. In 2000 the energy payback time was estimated as 8 to 11 years[78], but more recent studies suggest that technological progress has reduced this to 1.5 to 3.5 years for crystalline silicon PV systems [77].
Thin film technologies now have energy pay-back times in the range of 1-1.5 years (S.Europe).[77] With lifetimes of such systems of at least 30 years, the EROEI is in the range of 10 to 30. They thus generate enough energy over their lifetimes to reproduce themselves many times (6-31 reproductions, the EROEI is a bit lower) depending on what type of material, balance of system (or BOS), and the geographic location of the system.[79]

another opinion: http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/studies/report-83108.html

Regards
Graeme
 
AlmostBob said:
64w solar panel on the roof of a suburban home might be better than 500w at the generator.

bulk wind generators and solar farms sited miles from nowhere, needing new roads, towers, for a minimal return bite my b**
Click to expand...

This is just plain ill informed - I can't let this go in case someone actually believes it. The impact of generation remote from loads is priced into the market - in a market worth billions of dollars a year don't you think someone might have thought of this? In the NEM (essentially all of Aus except WA and NT) this is priced using Marginal Loss Factors (MLFs) for transmission system and Distribution Loss Factors (DLFs) for lower voltage distribution systems. Your generation essentially gets discounted or added to depending on the losses you cause or save in the transmission system. This recognises that generation in the middle of a city is worth more than at the far end of a long transmission line.

There are some very sophisticated models about that determine these loss factors. For wind farms in remote regions at the end of long lossy transmission lines, it means their energy production can be cut by up to around 10% in the worst case. Anymore losses than this and basic transmission line engineering tells you it will compromise voltage stability and system security so you're not allowed to connect by the network company anyway. The voltages would just fall through the floor because you are trying to pump too much power through a big resistor (the transmission line).

As the power in the wind is proportional to the cube of wind speed, the extra energy gained by going to such areas still makes it worth while. In other words if you double the average wind speed you get eight times the power. It doesn't take much to overcome the 10% impact...

And roughly speaking wind speed varies generally to the power of 1/7 (0.14) with height (ie (h2/h1)^0.14) so a turbine on a 80m tower is going to produce a lot more than one in your backyard at 10m height. As well as the much greater swept area with the large machines (proportional to the square of turbine diameter), the economics of small turbines used locally just gets totally swamped by the physics of large machines.

I should point out in all of this that coal power stations have had the transmission network already built for them over the years before these economic costs were calculated. If you were going to design the network from scratch again wind would have a great advantage because it is located on the coast where the loads generally are. Coal would generally have to pay a lot more (especially NSW / Qld) to get the transmission lines all the way to the mine head power stations.
 
HiEquity said:
Having spent the majority of my working life doing engineering and developing in the renewable energy industry I find some of the content of this thread absolutely amazing. Rather than quote everyone I will just make these responses to some of the "points" made by others:

Wind - Has an energy payback of roughly six months for a wind farm to produce the energy it took to build it, including roads, concrete, steel, fibreglass etc. etc. There are a number of detailed independent studies on this available - if you are genuinely interested do a search on sites that aren't funded by anti-wind lobby groups. Raw generation cost in Australia is around 10c/kWh compared to 5c-6c/kWh for coal. The rest of your bill is around 4c for network costs, 3c for retail costs + GST on the lot.

Solar - Has an energy payback of around 3-4 years with current technology and is slowly getting better. On this basis wind is currently more environmentally friendly as creating silicon is very energy intensive. Also, utility scale solar thermal plants are double the cost of wind in Australia. PV panels are around 3 times as expensive again so still get nowhere near competitive either at a power station or on your roof.

Nuclear - No nuclear power station has ever been built without a government guarantee sitting behind it because no private company would take the risk. Roughly the same price as wind on an Australian scale - happy for wind farms to compete on a level playing field with nuclear and that includes the necessary govt guarantee... Nuclear has to run flat out so cannot absorb renewable variations or follow the night-time / day-time loads. It's either nuclear or renewables on a large scale - you can't have both but you can have either. There are stand alone grids in this country that use wind for 50% of their energy use - it is being done for anyone who says it can't be.

MRET - Currently represents around 1% of Australia's energy generation. We have nothing more than an election promise on more at this stage. The "target" of 20% includes the 11% or so that Australia already has of mostly hydro.

Emissions Trading - Will not be of a sufficient price to drive renewable or nuclear investment. It will just switch coal to gas, which is less greenhouse intensive - people have their own views on the merits of that.

Doing it yourself - Lack of "economies of scale" mean householders will spend far more trying to install their own equipment compared to buying a utility product. Utility renewable energy is audited by ORER and the Green Power accreditation scheme. It just means that the utility has to pay someone to generate as much renewable energy as you use - the idea of green electrons is irrelevant.

Please before posting tripe on this subject do at least try to get some facts right. It's hard enough trying to compete with coal rather than putting up with these urban myths... :mad:

Happy to answer questions though for anyone genuinely interested...
Click to expand...

Hi Equity,


Finally found the wind power generator on the net, I'd seen on TV a few years back,
see below



Home wind power, any thoughts on these type of units





We've waited years for an efficient home version of the wind powered turbine generator and here, new all over again

This compact little wind turbine that can is the product of scaled down design, fit for urban environments. Quiet as an air conditioning unit, with adjustable height capability and an innovative vertical axis design, it can be mounted on roof tops or the side of any building. Like a glistening wind chime, it can even spring from your garden.

The vertical curved blades allow it to catch wind from any direction including updrafts generated by high rise buildings, which is why it has been selected for installation at "Freedom Tower", the new World Trade Center in New York and the new JET Stadium.

Currently, in selected trials it has proven reliable and efficient by reducing home electric costs as much as two-thirds. The technology includes a permanent connection to the grid, when power consumption in the household is low, excess electricity generated is fed back into the system and home owners receive a credit on their bill. In the future, a stand-alone version will be available for off grid locations.

While the unit is not available on the market just yet, the company plans to start commercial sales distribution within the year. The estimated price is $10,000 to $15,000 ; however, that price is expected to fall substantially as production increases.
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • Wind Power.jpg
    Wind Power.jpg
    15.9 KB · Views: 56
You need reliable wind for a home wind power system - you might notice that normal places that people live aren't windy very often. Abnormal places like where I live are insanely windy all the freakin time, but that's probably why they have just built 100 wind turbines down the road from my house. I don't have a wind generator myself because of the expense of putting up a tower for it to go on - if I try to put it on the house or something it would break the house. Heck, my tv aerial was too much of a burden for the chimney, the wind sheared the dynabolts holding it on, much the same way that the wind recently took down a part of my fence by shearing off the posts just above the cement.

wylie said:
My youngest son (and sometimes the 16 year old) sometimes asks me if the things I make them do as a family (short showers, turning off lights etc) make any difference if nobody else does it.
Click to expand...
I have 1 foot of water left in my rainwater tank. Short showers are critical. My neighbours have already run out of all but drinking water and can't wash (yes, they smell terrible). If everyone lived on rainwater tanks there'd be no wasted water.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Hot Water System
Replies
5
Views
1K
rambada1
R
T
Question on my potential borrowing power
Replies
5
Views
2K
Peter_Tersteeg
Peter_Tersteeg
D.T.
Western Power issues
Replies
11
Views
2K
Ausprop
A
kathryn d
Old Kind of Green
Replies
13
Views
5K
Ergophobia
E
N
Solar system question?
Replies
9
Views
1K
fisherman
F
Back
Top