[XCSSA] Solar and Green events in SA

[xcssa@xcssa.org]

>
> Ahh.. kind of like the "Prius Effect" eh Charles.. ;)

Actually, TCO of my Prius was quite low.  It cost less than the fully  
loaded Camry I would have bought otherwise.  I got a higher  
percentage trade in.  I saved lots of gas.  And I never paid a cent  
for repairs.  In 2006, with 83,000 miles, I traded it in for an even  
cooler 2006 Prius.

2006 has touchless RF key system (you get used to that), backup  
camera, iPod plug-in, tire air-pressure sensor, high speed stability  
control, and many other cool features.  Very quiet, no gear  
shifting.  Big as a Camry, hatchback design, good acceleration, and  
even better mileage than the 2001.

Sure, TCO would be lower with a Corolla.  But this is way cooler.   
IMO, coolest cars on the planet.  I get thumbs up all the time.  Just  
like a gas hog sportscar (I owned one of those once) everybody wants  
to ride in it.


>
> What's up with that.
> When I first heard about it.. it sounded like a type of bond  
> system... a kind
> of "buy into Windtricity, and buy into our future".. where if I  
> bought into
> building out the infrastructure, that I would get a lower price (in  
> the
> future) once we're all wind powered.. But in reality.. I'm just  
> lining some
> banker and marketer's pockets with the $$ of my good conscience.   
> Not cool..

CPS has promised to add buy-in features soon (such as, to "lock in"  
an existing rate schedule).  Austin did that from the beginning, and  
their "green power" program cost far less.  But it sold out quickly,  
and they haven't opened it up for any more ratepayers.  I bet Austin  
Power lost money on their program.  CPS is being far more  
conservative, and yet they've gone from one windfarm to two.

>
> As my Grandma used to say.. "If you can't eat it, wear it or spend  
> it, you
> don't need it..."  heh...

I find that very funny coming from you Tweeks.  What percentage of  
your income do you spend on food and clothing?  And don't you have  
selfless concerns that you devote some of your resources to?  I have  
selfless concerns too, like what's going to happen to this planet and  
its inhabitants in the future.


>
> Really though, I spoke with a high power engineer recently about  
> this.. and it
> all seems to be a shell game between the state, west texas power  
> big business
> and CPS.  Although I am always open to hear more about it... at  
> this stage..
> the very idea of my subsidizing the building out of wind powered
> infrastructure because the state it too cheap to...with nothing but  
> a "clean
> conscience" to show for it.. wreaks of marketing and "green fad"
> profiteering.. No?

  Personally, I'd like to see a nationwide mandatory renewable  
standard, something like 20% in 2015, and up from there.  IMO we  
ought to be buildiing renewable systems as fast as we can, while  
there's still "cheap" energy that enables us to do so.

But many could argue, "Why should people who don't care about saving  
the planet (or don't believe in this stuff, etc.) pay for it?"

Windtricity and REC's generally are a voluntary free market system.   
I would think you would like it for that reason.  If you don't like  
it, you don't have to pay for it.

Personally, I don't believe voluntary measures will ever take us  
where we need to go.  However, since I'd want everybody to be pay for  
it, I can't argue that I wouldn't be willing to pay for it, so I do.   
I put my money where my mouth is.  I would have thought you'd give me  
some respect for that.  Most people I meet do.


>
>
>>  Then you are
>> subsidizing wind power somewhere in the country, even if not in your
>> own hometown.
>
> "Somewhere"... That doesn't exactly sound "accountable" to me Charles.


There are accrediting agencies to make sure it's real, not oversold,  
etc.  Even the DOE is in on acrediiting REC's, and even (especially?)  
under Bush they promote them (partly as an alternative to tougher  
mandatory standards).

You can find lots of companies in this business now with a google  
search.

Most countries now are subsidizing renewable power.  Arguably, it  
would be better to tax coal power (etc.) for the environmental damage  
it is causing instead.  If it were taxed properly, renewable energy  
would be even more competitive than it is.  But that isn't happening  
now, so meanwhile you can choose either to light a candle, curse the  
darkness, or sit back and watch the problem get worse.


>
> I can touch my PV Solar panel.. I can't even reach a human when
> calling "windtricity'.


When I call Windtricity I get an operator right away.  Actually, it  
might be better if the line was typically busy with all the new  
people signing up.



>
> FYI.. Those new compact fluorescents contain gaseous mercury...  
> Highly toxic.
> Trade CO2 for heavy metals leeching from landfills. ;)


Tradeoffs.  There has been progress in reducing the amount of mercury  
in fluorescents.  You also have to remember that most of your  
electricity (and none of mine, haha) comes from coal plants that toss  
the mercury and other deadly stuff right into the atmosphere where  
you're breathing it right now.  Coal plants release lots of foul  
stuff, not just CO2.  Theoretically, fluorescent lamps are supposed  
to handled as toxic waste and put in special landfills with no  
leakage to groundwater.  In some cities they have special procedures  
for that.

Most environmental analysts have concluded that the tradeoffs favor  
the fluorescent lights, on balance.

Charles