I Freeped the power company... (vanity)

I just got a call from someone on behalf of the local power company. The guy wanted to let me know that we now have options for how our power is generated. He proceeded to say that most of our current power comes from old technologies like coal and nuclear and "we all know how bad that is for the environment."

At that point I interrupted him and said nuclear was an excellent choice for the environment. He admitted it is a clean source of energy but that disposing of nuclear waste is a problem. I told him that it didn't have to be and that other countries like France actually re-use the waste. He said he didn't know of any plants in the country that do that and I said that's because it's illegal in the U.S. due to concerns about creating weapons grade plutonium that could be stolen. I didn't remember all the details but I got all the info from an article I had read on FreeRepublic a year or two ago.

Then he went on to say that now we can choose to use renewable energy sources like wind turbines which is much better for the environment. I told him wind turbines actually kill a lot of birds (thanks to another study -- masters thesis -- I had read on FR). I didn't want to get into efficiency or total land coverage issues for wind power as I couldn't remember any stats. He admitted that was true but that they've now redesigned them to be less attractive to birds and that more birds die flying into windows than into windmill power installations.

He proceeded to say that I could elect to receive power generated from more environmentally friendly technology like wind for only a few more dollars per month. For my family size, it would supposedly average about $12 more per month. I told him I was not interested in raising my electric bill and hung up. But at least I was pretty informed on the issue thanks to multiple articles I had read on FreeRepublic and I let him know it.

>> Their pitch works pretty well with dumb liberals

They do the same thing here in Eugene. For a higher rate, you can buy "green power" wind generated power from somewhere in the Rockies. But it's a gimmick like you say. The electrons that come down the hose are the same ones that always circulate up to the nearest transformer (a minor, but I believe accurate, technical point), and the power is just power from the grid.

Eugene's government owned utility used to be famous for it's low rates. Back when we were paying $0.02611 per KWH, PC types infiltrated the board and started doing some stupid things. For one, they wanted to be more "self reliant", they said, and contracted to buy all the output from a then newly buily hydro plant in the Idaho panhandle, at (get this) $0.06 per KWH. Those with a third grade level of math understand that .06 is a larger number than .02611, and when this fact was mentioned in media discussions, they rationalized by saying that it was really a good deal because at some future time we would be paying .06 anyway.

I don't know about that. Eugene's utility was contracted to buy from the BPA at it's best rate for all it needed at the time. Bypassing that in favor of the power from the new project actually lowered our quota from BPA, and that power now goes to places like California at the preferred rate. I rather think California should have been buying the .06 power and we should have kept the .02 power, but what do I know?

And yeah, I suppose they were right all along, because as of the time of the great California power crisis, out rates were jacked and we are now paying the .06 and then some. And really, there's no reason our power cost should be a penny more than it historically has been. In essence, I pay for power at the rates they should be, plus subsidize power for someone in California.

We have to realize there is a limit to the amount of water that flows down the Columbia River, but that project was built for this region, and this region payed for the construction over time. Now that it is mature, California is reaping the benefit.

But if I wanted to, I could get away from all of that by buying the green power for something like .08 (makes sense, huh?).

dave in Eugene

Green power surcharges are actually quite brilliant. Believe it or not, we conservatives have been instrumental in their birth.

It is based on the same theory as the "extra tax" or "reduce the deficit" voluntary tax funds. Green People are the loudest opponents of all energy usage, yet they are the ones who are least likely to turn down their thermostats.

This surcharge is a challenge to all the green people who protest so loudly. California for instance, gets about 1% of its power from wind generators. In order for the "Earth People" to prove they really care more about the environment than they care about their wallets or their comfort, 1% of all the customers in California need to sign up for the "Green" electricity.

Theoretically, wind generators can be added to meet demand as more people are sold on Wind Power. But, it is highly unlikely they would ever get past 4-5% subscribing. It will be quantitative proof that the "environmental" movement is weak, at best.

The sad thing is that we're all subsidizing green power now anyway, even if we don't sign up with one of those providers. They get massive tax breaks which other power producers do not.

I don't know why anybody signs up to get power from them. You could stay with your current power company and just send the green company a donation of $50 a month or so. The electrons will never know the difference.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.