Climate Choices in the Northeast by UCS

[skibum1321]

i know that Sunday river, Sugarloaf, and Shawnee Peak all buy 100% green energy credits and claim to be completely "wind powered" more places should seriously consider doing the same at least to offset some of their own impact. For an industry that relies on snow and cold weather for its survival there seems to be a lack of urgency to change their own ways.

I see where you are coming from but they are still polluting the same amount even if they buy credits to offset their impact. The real change will come when resorts and other companies step up and actually change the way they do business. This means actually using alternative energy to run the companies. Offsetting energy usage is the lazy-man's way to say that they are doing something for the environment without actually doing something about it.

 

[tjf67]

Anyone who does not think that there is global warming attributed to our behavior has to pull there heads out of the sand. What can we do about it? Nothing enjoy the warmer weather.

 

[ctenidae]

Enough said.

 

[koreshot]

So can someone explain the whole carbon credits stuff and how it works? And how it is considered environmentally friendly?

I have been buying all my electricity from Community Energy, a company that owns a bunch of wind farms in the north east. My bill still comes from PSE&G, but if I use 500 kilowatts this month, PSE&G is obligated to buy that much from Community Energy. So, indirectly I am buying my energy from the wind farms rather than the neighborhood coal powered plant. Anyone else have experience with something like this? Is carbon credits something different?

 

[tjf67]

So can someone explain the whole carbon credits stuff and how it works? And how it is considered environmentally friendly?

I have been buying all my electricity from Community Energy, a company that owns a bunch of wind farms in the north east. My bill still comes from PSE&G, but if I use 500 kilowatts this month, PSE&G is obligated to buy that much from Community Energy. So, indirectly I am buying my energy from the wind farms rather than the neighborhood coal powered plant. Anyone else have experience with something like this? Is carbon credits something different?

Carbon credits are given to compnaies that have cut emmisons below guidline levels. They then take them and sell them to companies that have not met the guidline credits. It meant to reward companies rather than dictate policy. It seems to have worked to a certain extent
Very basic explanation

 

[ctenidae]

Buying wind power is sort of carbon credits for consumers.

There are a lot of people trying to make markets for trading carbon credits- essentially, if someone is polluting less than their permitted amount, they can sell their excess to someone who is polluting more. The idea is that it'll be cheaper to reduce emmissions in the long run than to keep buying credits.

Nice theory, but the way the markets are running right now, there are way more credits available than there are buyers, so credits are cheaper than running clean. Plus, total emmissions levels are set at 2000 or 2001 levels, and 1997 in some cases, so there's no net reduction in emmissions.

 

[JimG.]

Enough said.

Damned pirates.

 

[koreshot]

Buying wind power is sort of carbon credits for consumers.

Well, its not like I am getting any "carbon credits" for the wind power I am using. I am paying more for it than regular electricity and I don't get any credits or anything I can trade/resell for it. The way I see it, my choices are forcing PSE&G to buy cleaner energy and keeping the cleaner energy company in business... thats about it.

Maybe I'm missing something... I am not a finance/market wizard. Maybe PSE&G gets the carbon credits out of having me use a cleaner energy source and sells them to others. If they do, thats pretty messed up.

 

[tjf67]

Well, its not like I am getting any "carbon credits" for the wind power I am using. I am paying more for it than regular electricity and I don't get any credits or anything I can trade/resell for it. The way I see it, my choices are forcing PSE&G to buy cleaner energy and keeping the cleaner energy company in business... thats about it.

Maybe I'm missing something... I am not a finance/market wizard. Maybe PSE&G gets the carbon credits out of having me use a cleaner energy source and sells them to others. If they do, thats pretty messed up.

I bet it comes out that you are buying dirty energy. All these companies and cunsumers are opting to buy clean energy. I don thingk we can produce enough of it to support the demand.

 

[ctenidae]

I bet it comes out that you are buying dirty energy. All these companies and cunsumers are opting to buy clean energy. I don thingk we can produce enough of it to support the demand.

Electricity is electriity, once it's in the wires. If PSE&G has 10 mw of customers buying wind power, then they will draw 10 mw from wind sources. The environmental benefit is that increasing demand on the clean sources decreasses demand on the dirty sources, hopefully leading to reduced peak demand on the really dirty peak plants. In reality, though, the clean sources sell everything they produce to the grid, regardless, some at the higher "clean" price, the rest at market rates.

 

[koreshot]

I bet it comes out that you are buying dirty energy. All these companies and cunsumers are opting to buy clean energy. I don thingk we can produce enough of it to support the demand.

This reads more like an excuse to not buy clean energy than an actual fact.

 

[tjf67]

This reads more like an excuse to not buy clean energy than an actual fact.

Call it what you will but I'm not buying it. I heat my house via eletric. What do you use?

 

[JimG.]

Dirty energy is expensive. And I don't have to deal with the rip off king of utilities, Con Ed.
Emphasis on the "Con". I get from NYSEG.

Dirty is no longer viewed as good. Clean is now good. More good means more expensive. Clean will cost us all alot more.

Because that's how capitalism works...supply and demand. And it's also a reason why clean energy may not be the solution. Not as long as dirty energy is still available. Which will also increase in cost. But whatever is cheaper, that's what most will buy.

So, as has been mentioned in these threads before, the only true solution is to decrease usage. Which will also be painful for most. But it's the only way.

Unless you're Amish.

 

[tjf67]

Electricity is electriity, once it's in the wires. If PSE&G has 10 mw of customers buying wind power, then they will draw 10 mw from wind sources. The environmental benefit is that increasing demand on the clean sources decreasses demand on the dirty sources, hopefully leading to reduced peak demand on the really dirty peak plants. In reality, though, the clean sources sell everything they produce to the grid, regardless, some at the higher "clean" price, the rest at market rates.

Exactly. So no matter what you opt on buying the utilities are obligated to by the clean energy so it is working it way through the grids anyhow. Go ahead pay more if it makes you feel better.

 

[ctenidae]

Exactly. So no matter what you opt on buying the utilities are obligated to by the clean energy so it is working it way through the grids anyhow. Go ahead pay more if it makes you feel better.

The more demand for clean there is, the more clean will be produced, so clean will become cheaper. Theoretically. Until dirty is made more expensive through regulation, though, it's a tough sell.

As JimG said, the only real solution is to reduce demand in general. More specifically, reducing peak demand.

 

[koreshot]

Call it what you will but I'm not buying it. I heat my house via eletric. What do you use?

I use a coal fired furnace to heat my house. I picked it up in China two years ago.

This is a general discussion about how the changing climate is affected the weather and what people can do to help, even if its not much. It is not a competition on who uses less energy.

 

[JimG.]

I use a coal fired furnace to heat my house. I picked it up in China two years ago.

That made me laugh, which is rare in these types of threads.

I have an image of you standing in your basement, blackened with coal dust, with a shovel and a pile of coal and you shoveling a load of coal to stoke the fires every 5 minutes or so.

 

[riverc0il]

Enough said.

Actually, that "proved" nothing other than that you know how to link an in line image into a forum. That is one issue I take with people entering this argument, that they do not operate on a logical platform. Suggesting that some statistics can be manipulated to meet almost any conclusion (which does happen) has no baring on this argument other than to suggest it is a possibility. If you want to refute the statistics scientists are using, please, let us see some data and then Nuff Said.

 

[riverc0il]

Dirty energy is expensive. And I don't have to deal with the rip off king of utilities, Con Ed.
Emphasis on the "Con". I get from NYSEG.

Dirty is no longer viewed as good. Clean is now good. More good means more expensive. Clean will cost us all alot more.

Because that's how capitalism works...supply and demand. And it's also a reason why clean energy may not be the solution. Not as long as dirty energy is still available. Which will also increase in cost. But whatever is cheaper, that's what most will buy.

So, as has been mentioned in these threads before, the only true solution is to decrease usage. Which will also be painful for most. But it's the only way.

Unless you're Amish.

I am a big proponent of an economic view of action. If you make doing the "wrong" thing more expensive and doing the "right" thing cheaper, then people will naturally go with the "greener" option. This works well with the new light bulbs, my favorite example. Appliances that are more optimized for consumption. Windows that lock in heat better. Etc. These are all solutions that use less energy AND cost less. Once gasoline prices reach a certain threshold, then alternative cars such as hybrids will be a better economical deal than a standard car (currently the MPG difference does not make hybrids a better buy due to other costs of ownership, but the gap is closing). Any ways, decreased usage is one way of doing things, but making cost effective options that allow people to continue their lifestyle using less energy is the best way to address human nature.

 

[ctenidae]

Actually, that "proved" nothing other than that you know how to link an in line image into a forum. That is one issue I take with people entering this argument, that they do not operate on a logical platform. Suggesting that some statistics can be manipulated to meet almost any conclusion (which does happen) has no baring on this argument other than to suggest it is a possibility. If you want to refute the statistics scientists are using, please, let us see some data and then Nuff Said.

Statistically speaking, Steve clearly hasn't read anything else I've posted on this subject. That graph was intended to inject a little levity into a topic that often goes down a political path.

I don't refute global warming- it is both a natural function of the Earth's normal climate cycles, and is most likely exacerbated this time around by human activity. The way I see it, arguing over whether it's happening is about as useless as a one-legged man in an ass kicking contest. Arguing over why it's happening is marginally less useless, only because it's important to the question of whether we can do anything to stop it. As for arguing over whether there's anything we can do to stop it, I think we're too far along the cycle to make any real difference at this point, practically speaking. Unless we cut human-centered emmissions of greenhouse gasses to zero by tomorrow, I think the current change cycle has enough momentum to carry us beyond several potential tipping points (melting glaciers and non-forming pack ice are two bits of evidence here).

This is not to say we shouldn't be cutting emmissions. Anything we can do to mitigate the magnitude of our impact on the cycle can only be good in the long run.

The major thing we should be working on, and no one wants to consider this because of the "what if it doesn't happen" risk, is what to do when the Sahara expands into a belt circling the globe from the Tropic of Cancer to the Tropic of Capricorn? What do we do when the Great Plains of the US become ice covered in the north and desert in the south? What do we do wth the massive numbers of people dislodged from the coasts and tropical regions? Some massive "Day After Tomorow" scenario is unlikely, but possible over a longer term. And even if it doesn't happen, the answers to those questions can go a long way towards solving problems that already exist, with African droughts, SE Asian tsunamis, exploding populations, disease epidemics, and a whole host of other real issues that no one wants to tackle because they're "over there."

Hopefully that is a sufficiently logical platform to earn me entry into this discussion despite the Piratical handicap. And I didn't even have to use any statistics.

:beer: