Slashdot Mirror

Really? Where are you?

NPR says about 11cents for MN average.
http://www.npr.org/sections/mo...
(ok that was 2011)

According to Xcel energy themselves: https://www.xcelenergy.com/sta...

Energy charge per kWh:
On-peak time
June through September $0.20077
October through May $0.16454
October through May with electric space heating $0.10912
Off-peak time:
All months $0.03015

I just love the highly informative content of the message. What does "reasonable solar" mean? Take a look at page 16 of this document. Notice that in September 2011 the array generated 97,178 KWh while in January 2011 it generated 20,083 KWh. According to this the average Minnesotan electricity customer uses on average 802 kilowatt hours a month,. Taking the January low as the minimum the Minneapolis Convention Center could power 25 houses. That array has a 600KW capacity. To power one house with those numbers would require an array with a 24KW capacity. Approximately 10 Watts are produced per square foot of solar array which means that 2400 square feet of solar array would be needed to power the average house in Minnesota in January. I would not consider 2400 square feet of solar panel to be "reasonable".

Fyi, those are the rates for commercial, epa.gov shows more current rates.

The U.S average residential retail price of electricity was 11.53 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2010
Odd, that looks like residential rates. And my bill lines up with it.
And my delivery charge is $.0005/kwh which is quite minimal.
And I happen to know that Xcell has plenty of excess capacity at night so they charge a great deal less. They have been doing this for decades. The same was true back in Illinois.

If you have ANY proof of what you claim, please provide real links (no faux news; no oil companies) to the data.

So is the power plant by my house. They have a huge pile of magic magic rocks piled out side and more arrive by train or barge (not sure which since I never see it happen).

you are mixing up everything in here. Yet, they are all different issues.

I am not mixing things up. To use coal, it has to be mined, burned, then the slag has to disposed of. And that's just the use of coal, not building the power plant, maintaining it, then decommissioning it. All are related to the use of coal as a fuel. Without reprocessing nuclear power has those and other requirements. Natural gas doesn't have all the same requirements but pipelines are needed.

As to using what is 'best', well, Geo-thermal appears to be usable everywhere.

Sure geothermal can be used everywhere, but it does not make economic sense to use it in some places as compared to other energy sources. Otherwise the same can be said about solar and wind.

With enough money solar can be used at the poles, North and South. Alaska, along with much of Canada, has good wind potential. In the 48 contiguous US states the Rocky Mountains from Canada through to northern Texas alone has enough potential wind energy to electrify the US from coast to coast. However that's not the only places with good potential. All along the Pacific coast from British Colombia to southern CA wind potential is good. Actually while there was the energy crisis in California with the rolling blackouts, there was also an idle wind farm capable of producing 10 megawatthours, 240 megawatts per day. Hook an eastward turn in SC and go through AZ, NM, into west Texas. That route has good potential as well. Over on the east, Atlantic, coast from Maine on down to Cape Hatteras is good offshore. Onshore through the Appalachian, Catskills, and other mountain ranges of NY is good too.

For solar there are good places too. California may be the Saudi Arabia of Solar but Nevada may have more potential. Quite simply different energy sources can be used in different places. What ties them all together though is that their use will require a national smart grid. High Voltage Direct Current powerlines running from coast to coast and Canada to Mexico will be needed. Even better, hook up Canada's and Mexico's grid.

Then expand net metering. Originally I wanted to build my own home off the grid, and I may still but right now I'd like to remodel an existing place. If so then I'd like to use geothermal or solar thermal heating, space and water, depending on which may be more effective in my area. I know both are used around here now. I may also install solar PVs.

Falcon

The company that obtains and delivers my electricity does not own the generation methods.

You're in California then? In many places the transmitter is the generator. For instance where I am the power company is Xcel and they own the powerlines and the generators.

Falcon

It seems to me that the best solution (one that gets the objective outcome you want [terrorists cannot destroy power plants or substations] with the least collateral damage) is to instead pass legislation to prevent the internet being used to control any kind of public utility, or any device attached to the public utility that plays an active role in the use of that public utility. (EG, It is illegal to produce such a remote-controlled automation system. Nothing wrong with it "REPORTING" its current status and power consumption, but once it stops being a report and allows you to shut it down or change the current power mode remotely, it becomes in violation.)

That will not work. What is needed is a smart grid, and that needs remote control. If Excel Energy sees more demand for electricity than what is being generated as with Smart Grid City, then Excel could tell ACs in non occupied homes to turn off reducing demand. Or say I'm in my office and log into my home energy monitor at work and I see the electricity my AC is using is costing me more than what I'm willing to pay then I can raise the thermostat turning the AC off. Then when I finish work I can log back in and lower the temperature again.

Falcon

But they're already charging that fee.
The FAQ for xcel's own solar rebate program is here, read question 3.

If you had read the article all the way through, you'd know that Xcel energy is doing this as well. They have a demo installation for creating and storing hydrogen from excess wind and solar, which they then burn in turbines to recover the energy later.

Not just the cheapest possible carbon offsets, but very likely the least likely to actually *do* anything. There's a difference between Ford commissioning El Verde Grande LLC to plant trees in the Nevada desert (questions like "Are the trees even being planted" and "did the seedlings survive long enough to offset any carbon" come to *my* mind immediately) and Wayerhauser actually hiring actual workers to actually plant trees that they actually expect to actually grow to maturity.

While I know that some companies out there (say, Xcel Energy are indeed willing to offset their own emissions by replacing them with green technology (so long as the public is willing), the benefits of say Pearl Jam's CD production offsets, are a wee bit more vague.

Personally, I would prefer to *invest* money (with the expectation of profits and return on investment and all that corporate greed stuff) in a company that directly helps the environment than to "buy carbon offsets". At the very least, I get a nice profit-and-loss sheet and a decent understanding of what they did with my money (even at the risk of, well, you know).

There's only a handful of times each year that all the power plants a utility owns are operating at full capacity. In the U.S., that's a hot summmer day in the late afternoon. Businesses are still open and residents are coming home to crank up the A/C.

V2G would be operated on the same philosophy as Xcel Energy's Savers Switch plan that allows the utility to turn off your A/C for 10 minutes on the hottest summer day in exchange for a lower bill. The drain on your battery will be minimal, infrequent, and generally unnoticeable.

In the aggregate, however, the power company may be able to avoid building a new power plant, so the cost savings are substantial. That's why they're willing to pay you to turn off (or plug in) in this infrequent situation. And why this idea is a brilliant way to help the grid and have zero point-source pollution when you drive.

OK, I didn't realize that there was a minor hydro plant on the upper Mississippi. Thanks for filling me in.

It is a minor plant by comparisonl

http://www.xcelenergy.com/XLWEB/CDA/0,3080,1-1-1_1875_4797_4014-16651-2_171_256-0,00.html
"Power production capability (in-service dates): 12 Mw total
Units 1,2, 3 and 4 (1954); Unit 5 (1955)
The five units produce 2.4 Mw each."
"The dam and falls create 49 feet of "head," or the height from the water surface to the turbines. The amount of electricity generated is determined by the amount of head and volume of water flow. "

This dam is less than 50 feet high and has a total of 5 generators.

How much power is this?

Even a few windmills scattered cross the Eastern side of the state out producte the Mighty Mississippi.

"The Stateline project straddles the Washington-Oregon border between Pasco and Walla Walla. Its first windmills began turning out power in July 2001. When complete later this decade, the wind farm's 400 turbines will be able to generate about 270 megawatts of power at peak capacity, with an average yield of about 100 megawatts."
http://www.pnl.gov/news/2002/02-32.htm

For a comparison of just one of the hydro plants on the Columbia, the largest is the Grand Coulee;
http://dams.org/kbase/studies/us/us_finalscope_sect2.htm
"The Grand Coulee Dam is over five thousand feet long, stands 550 feet tall"
"Grand Coulee Dam's hydroelectric generating facilities include four powerhouses"
"with a total of 24 main generators, three station service generators and six pump/generators. These provide a combined generating capacity of 6,480 megawatts."

At 12 MW to 6,480 MW, it would take 540 dams of the same capacity of the entire generating capacity of the Mississippi river to equal the capacity of just Grand Coulee on the Columbia. We need to work on wind power near the windy city, not build dams.

There is no more water sources to feed any major hydro left in the USA. There are a few places where some very minor plants could be built, but they would be just that, minor.

I rather like them; they have saved me quite a bit of electricity. All I use electricity for is a refrigerator, lighting, and a couple of PCs, so they saved me about $5 monthly on a $28 bill. I don't really see what people complain about with poor quality light coming from these - they all seem fine to me. As for disposal, just visit http://www.lamprecycle.org/ for assistance. Also, Xcel Energy has some coupons to make disposal a bit cheaper. Yes, I know people are going to bitch about having to pay extra to dispose of them, but for me, they've already more than paid for themselves.

I just checked my local power company's website. Here is what they have to say at http://www.xcelenergy.com/XLWEB/CDA/0,3080,1-1-1_3 5439-1368-0_0_0-0,00.html:


What Information is Shared

Xcel Energy has a strong policy regarding the disclosure of customer information. In general Xcel Energy does not sell or share individual customer data. Xcel Energy will not sell, rent or give away your personal information to other companies for use in selling others products or services. When we contract with another company to market or advertise products for Xcel Energy, we ask that those companies also protect your information. We will share data in limited circumstances such as:

1. As required by any necessary laws, regulations or other governmental requests with customer authorization appropriate to the situation. This includes law enforcement personnel upon receipt of a court order or proof of an emergency situation.

2. Current or prospective customers and real estate agents requesting residential energy consumption averages for a specific real estate transaction.

3. At the express written authorization of a customer to share information with a third party. For example, sharing information concerning an elderly parents billing arrangement with an adult caregiver.

4. For the business purposes of Xcel Energy.

It doesn't look like they will tell anyone, but they will share it with prospective buyers of a property (my guess is that you could easily pretend to be a prospective buyer, and count on them not checking if said property is actually for sale). Of course, number 4 there is pretty wide open to different interpetations too.

typically 15 years payback - 40 years lifetime
1-30 yearback, typically 5 years; 40 year lifetime.
some more from Xcelenergy that will help you get past your mistakes

Interesting that you are paying 9K for your system. There is a LOT more rebates for install and yearly from both XcellEnergy and the Feds. But, if you really live in Colorado, then you would be aware of that (colorado voted on this).

Gasoline cars in the U.S. are cleaner than electric power plants.

I subscribe to my power company's optional wind power program. This means that the electricity I use at home was sourced from a windfarm.

How is that not cleaner than burning gasoline? I'd love to be able to plug my next car in overnight and never have to visit a gas station again - and knowing that my day-to-day energy use was 100% sustainable.

Although admittedly the power company wouldn't have the capacity for this if everyone had an electic car, their windpower allotment is already currently full. But stuff like this is a start.

According to my research, industrial non-peak electricity only costs $.03/kilowatthour, which works out to about $42 per hour to run the thing at 1.4 MW. That's less than a plumber's wage. Residential electricity costs much more, especially during peak hours, but even then it's only like $200 per hour at very most.

BTW, I found this at:
http://www.xcelenergy.com/docs/corpcomm/Me_Section _5.pdf

Ok, it's good for areas that has no power yet and it's good on the environment but, how much does it cost? What is the ROI?
I spend $30 on electricity every month and if it costs $2000 and saves me $10 a month that's 200 months...

If you say no ROI at all it's just environment friendly I would rather buy Wind Energy from the local Power company.
Here in MN, Excel energy sells wind energy for $4 a month...
http://www.xcelenergy.com/XLWEB/CDA/0,2914,1-1-2_7 35_3857-3320-5_406_664-0,00.html/

In Minnesota, XCEL Energy allows customers to elect to purchase a percentage of their electricity from wind-powered technologies. Now that my financial situation is a bit better, I'm considering paying 100% of our electricity bill on wind power.

Austin, TX has a similar program. Excel does it in Colorado, too. If you believe in this stuff, put your money where your mouth is! It's just a few dollars.***

* OTOH, it sucks - they need more capacity, and I think wind is the cheapest new capacity they can build. So why am I subsidizing it? Oh well, if that's what it takes.

** Let's not get into the "dude, your house isn't powered by wind, all the electricity is mixed together" discussion - yes, I know. But if I use 700kWh/month, and I pay to put 700kWh/month of new wind power online, I will happily say that my house is wind powered.

*** Actually when I signed up in Austin, I got a -refund- because that was the summer when power was insanely expensive (thank you Enron!) and the wind generated power turned out to be -cheaper-!