Comments on: Google Backs New Plan For Utility-Supplied Renewable Energy Option

By: Wayne Williamson

Wayne Williamson — Mon, 06 May 2013 23:44:00 +0000

need to change your website from plant to planet…

By: LeeNhan

LeeNhan — Thu, 02 May 2013 06:43:00 +0000

I have one method for solving integrity of energy no storage needed without losing landscape and environment details at http://www.trongdong.weebly.com

the electricity supply ship 30MW

By: Matthew Todd Peffly

Matthew Todd Peffly — Sun, 21 Apr 2013 21:38:00 +0000

The way forward is to have coal start paying it true cost. Add a carbon tax, and any coal exported pays twice the rate per ton of coal that the lowest 5% eff coal plant in this country pays when it burns coal. It is a lie to say coal is cheaper, because they can shift their cost to others.

By: James Wimberley

James Wimberley — Sun, 21 Apr 2013 10:45:00 +0000

Google create problems for their proposal by insisting on additionality: the consumer wants to buy electricity from new capacity that would not have existed before. On the large scale, there is no point to this. Up to existing renewable capacity, the tariff is rearranging chairs; but if it’s successful, marginal demand can only be met by increasing renewable capacity, which is what you want.

A 100% renewable supply contract would place a large premium on the expensive despatchable sources: storage, hydro and geothermal. This is correct, if we are ever to get to 100% renewable overall. The price of solar PV will tend to nothing anyway.

By: Wayne Williamson

Wayne Williamson — Sat, 20 Apr 2013 18:18:00 +0000

Ok LeeNhan, I’ll bite…what is it…

By: Belle13A

Belle13A — Sat, 20 Apr 2013 15:04:00 +0000

As a Rural Utility Customer in MN this may be a great option for me. Currently in MN utilities are forced to buy renewable energy, primarily wind it dos not want and cannot use. That means energy from wind is produced when it can’t be put on the grid so it is dumped or the utility must purchase the wind power at a higher rate when there is no need for it so the utility sells it at a loss. MNRural Electric associations lost 70 million in 2011 and 100 million in 2012 this way. All rural electric customers pick up this tab. A few rural customers opt to pay for a program called Windsong or Windsource on top of already paying for the wind built into their rates. That is their choice. However I have no choice of opting out of paying for the wind I don’t want and canno tuse. I’d love to see this implemented with my rural utility. Only those who want these renewable sources would have to pay for them. That’s how a free market is supposed to work.

By: johnmi

johnmi — Sat, 20 Apr 2013 14:28:00 +0000

they’ve had clean energy tariffs for years in some form. at issue was that they were never designed to be economical to the end user, they weren’t designed to easily interest ratepayers into signing up for them. many programs were an adder on top of the rates people pay/kwhr and never ratebased and consequently they didn’t get that many folks signed up…!

When a utility company purchases fossil fuels or builds a fossil fuel generating plant the power is ratebased, e.g. they cost average the additional power (generally) and this is what they should be doing to encourage more clean energy. I don’t know if this is what google has proposed. Utilities should be promoting more and more clean energy and signing up customers. Renewable energy purchases represent a fraction of overall energy purchases. It’s cleaner, sometimes it’s cheaper than purchasing off the wholesale market. And, it could be much cheaper if fair DG policy considers benefits (with respect to transmission), the feds implement a carbon tax or some other carbon legislation and/or if natural gas goes higher.

By: LeeNhan

LeeNhan — Sat, 20 Apr 2013 01:28:00 +0000

I have one method for solving integrity of energy no storage needed without losing landscape and environment ..I say this is seriously