Empire State Building to meet electricity needs though wind power

[Mark Maker]

The Empire State Building, which has been undergoing a $20m energy saving retrofit, today announced that it would meet all its electricity needs through wind power.

In a two-year deal, the building will buy 55m kilowatt hours worth of renewable energy certificates a year – the equivalent of its annual energy needs – from the Texas-based Green Mountain Energy Company.(snip)

Some environmental groups have questioned whether renewable energy certificates represent a true reduction in carbon emissions, short of compelling companies to build new wind power plants to meet increased demand.

But Malkin argued there was a strong symbolic value of having the Empire State shift to wind energy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/06/empire-state-building-electricity-wind-power


Talk about your selling of indulgences, I thought Martin Luther put an end to that practice. What a load of codswallop.

[Lasher]

1. Why don't they put a windmill on top?

Must be a strong wind up there most of the time.

[Mark Maker]

2. They tried that, the big monkey kept knocking it down.

Just one more short coming of wind power, it's unreliable when large apes interfere.

[Lasher]

4. Oh man, what if they'd built a big squirrel cage wheel up there?

Then maybe they could have enticed the monkey with bananas to make it go around.

[Ready4Change]

20. Genius!

.

[kristopher]

3. Your derision is what qualifies as "load of codswallop"

RECs are an effective policy for directing funds to renewable energy sources. It allows consumers to bypass the decision-making limitations used by utilities to protect their turf and choose the energy source they want to encourage. Without RECs or similar policies the decisions affecting renewable energy demand are completely in the hands of people who are part of institutions that have a vested interest in shutting out technologies that are a threat to their bottom line.
Is that what you favor, continued control of our energy supply by entrenched energy industries?

You may enjoy informing yourself of the problem this policy is designed to address by reading this example:
http://www.powergenworldwide.com/index/display/articledisplay/321146/articles/cogeneration-and-on-site-power-production/volume-9/issue-1/features/electricity-rates-and-fixed-charges-how-us-utilities-suppress-distributed-generation.html

Electricity rates and fixed charges: how US utilities suppress distributed generation
Jan 1, 2008
We all understand that distributed generation and CHP systems can be more efficient than conventional, centrally generated power as delivered by utilities.

So why don’t more US customers generate their own power? In this issue’s second feature article on distributed generation in the US, Joshua M. Pearce says it is largely to do with the way utilities charge for power.

Until recently most distributed generation technologies were used on a relatively large scale and thus represented a relatively small threat to electric utility dominance. Today, however, an armada of home-scale distributed generation and cogeneration systems is available to the public. These technologies include wind turbines, solar photovoltaic cells, fuel cells, microturbines, Stirling engines, combustion turbines and reciprocating engines.

Historically, electric utilities have used many methods to discourage the use of these technologies, such as double metering (e.g. one meter measures the electricity they sell you at the retail price of 10 cents per kWh and the other measures the electricity they buy from you at their avoidable costs of around 2 cents per kWh). Today, as net metering laws have come into force in a growing number of states, electric utilities have resorted to more insidious attacks, such as quietly increasing unavoidable customer charges to allow for lower avoidable electric rates to compete with distributed generation technologies.

A recent study1 published in Energy Policy found that removing unavoidable electric utility charges by folding them into electric rates would eliminate 44.3 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide and save the entire US residential sector over US $8 billion per year. These reductions would come from increased avoidable costs thus leveraging an increased rate of return on investments in energy efficiency, cogeneration and distributed generation. If the customer charge were eliminated, this could have far-reaching effects on small-scale (home scale) cogeneration and on-site power production...

[physioex]

5. I think it's great.....

I have chosen to pay extra on my bills and purchase renewable energy. Just do my part hoping others will join....

[jpak]

6. Wind power rules the Empire State

too bad for the whiners

yup

:D

[txlibdem]

7. More info about Green Mountain Energy Co.

The company targets environmentally conscious consumers, setting up shop at farmer's markets, street fairs and concerts, approaching building-management companies, and standing outside green-friendly businesses, like Mr. Holland's food co-op. But as environmentally laudable as Green Mountain's products may be, there is a side to the business that is absent from the sales pitch: Green Mountain has long had corporate ties to the fossil fuel industry, and those ties have only gotten closer. Some potential customers will not mind, reasoning that the company will be a good influence on its polluting siblings. But as of this month, those who are uncomfortable about their money ultimately going to a diversified utility conglomerate have a lot more to worry about.

In September, BP and the rest of Green Mountain Energy's owners sold their stakes in the company to NRG Energy, one of the country's largest power plant operators, for $350 million. The deal became final on Nov. 5. In joining NRG, Green Mountain becomes part of a company that derives the vast majority of its electricity -- and its income -- from fossil fuels.

...snip...

And the service Green Mountain offers will not change under NRG: For every watt of energy that customers use, Green Mountain buys an equal amount of power from wind and hydroelectric plants. (Directing power from specific generating plants to specific customers on the local grid, the company emphasizes, is impossible.) The power that Green Mountain buys, spokeswoman Marci Grossman said, will come both from NRG's plants and from independent water and wind plants with which the company already has long-term contracts.

The biggest change -- from the perspective of the environmentally conscious -- seems to be that, as of the acquisition, all of Green Mountain's profits now belong to NRG. That company, of course, can invest them in whichever technology it wants, regardless of environmental impact.

"If a consumer is looking for a company that is conclusively green, obviously NRG is not that," said Mindy Spatt, a spokeswoman for the Utility Reform Network, a California-based ratepayer advocacy group.

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-11-23-how-green-is-green-mountain-energy

There are a large number of truly "green" energy companies. Apparently, Green Mountain is not one of them. It should be noted that both their "President of residential services" and their CEO are former BP employees. If it were me, I'd look elsewhere for my "green cred," Empire State Building.

[kristopher]

8. So power plant operator buys nuclear, you say "Yeaaa"...

...but when they trade in a product PROVEN to ENCOURAGE renewable energy in a cost effective fashion, and you say it's tainted because the plant operator is involved?

What a load of horsepucky.

The issue is what happens when people buy the RECs. The money is channeled to renewable energy sources and creates demand to encourage the industry. Someone has to manage and profit from the trade, just like they manage and profit from every other transaction in the business world.

Unless you have evidence that the company does more than aggressively market a product that is extremely beneficial to society, you have nothing but....

wait for it...


wait for it...

YET ANOTHER ATTEMPT AT SPIN THAT IS TOTALLY FALSE; BEING DESIGNED SOLELY TO DISCREDIT THE DISTRIBUTED ENERGY SYSTEM POSING AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT TO THE ENTRENCHED ENERGY CABAL OF PETROLEUM, COAL, AND NUCLEAR.

[txlibdem]

9. You didn't read the article I linked to apparently

"As of Sept. 15, natural gas, coal and oil accounted for 22,820 megawatts of NRG's power generation -- about 93 percent. Wind and solar power, meanwhile, represented just under two percent of the company's power generation. Moreover, in 2009, NRG plants around the world produced 59 million tons of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. About 8 million tons of that total were emitted in East Coast states, including New York, according to NRG's 2009 annual report."
--quote from the above mentioned article

There's an old saying: when you sleep with dogs you wake up with fleas.

As I clearly stated in my previous comment, which you apparently also failed to actually read, there are plenty of "real" green companies to buy power from. There is no need to enrich the coal industry any further. Profits matter: they determine what technologies and what companies live or die. More profits for the companies we do not want means less profits for the companies we do want --companies which are honestly focused on getting us off of fossil fuels. Too bad you can't see that simple equation.

[kristopher]

10. I was dead on target.

You would applaud NRG if they announced they were going to build a nuclear plant; but when they *aggressively* engage in a financial business that is not only legitimate but is one of the most successful policy drivers of renewable energy you suddenly decide to pitch a snit?

Get real.

[txlibdem]

11. Gas, Coal and Oil accounted for 93% of NRG's energy --who are you defending?

Is the Natural Gas industry?

Is it the Oil industry?

Is it the Coal industry?

If by "get real" you mean that I should end my opposition to all three of those devastating, toxic, destructive industries then I decline.

How about you "get real" and join the rest of Humanity in working to get away from deadly fossil fuels and end the domination of the coal industry in our lifetime.

[bananas]

12. "the service Green Mountain offers will not change under NRG"

The program still phases out fossil fuel - we need more of this:
"And the service Green Mountain offers will not change under NRG: For every watt of energy that customers use, Green Mountain buys an equal amount of power from wind and hydroelectric plants."
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-11-23-how-green-is-green-mountain-energy

[txlibdem]

14. So it's up to consumers: have you told your power company you want it 100% renewables? I have.

I get my electricity from Texas wind power and it's only a couple of cents more per kWh, an amount I'll gladly pay to make even the slightest reduction in Coal use in my state. If you wait for the "gubmint" to do it you'll be waiting a long, long time. We, the American Consumer, need to stand up and demand it: vote with your wallet!

I call on all Americans to do the same (unless you are economically unable at this time - just switch it when you can).

[joshcryer]

13. You know why it's not 100% of their portfolio? Renewables allow them to get tax breaks...

...on top of the externalized subsidies that they receive. It's obscene really.

[txlibdem]

15. Gas, Coal and Oil still get obscene amounts of subsidies -- OUR tax dollars

And practically free access to millions of square miles of public lands to treat as their own private toxic waste dump / cesspool in search of natural resources that rightfully belong to you and me, not to them.

[kristopher]

17. Is that really the way you want to respond?

I'd say we only have one area of disagreement and that's nuclear power. I'd suggest that as you observe more what is behind the things you think are true regarding nuclear power, the less you will be inclined to consider it a credible route to a carbon-free energy infrastructure.

By get real, I meant you need to learn more about what works and what doesn't. I've been working on a transition away from carbon for nearly 10 years now, and I am absolutely certain you've never read anything by me that in any way supports any spending on any fossil carbon energy source except that of natural gas - which I do endorse for its critical role in the transition.

What *you* didn't do in your response was answer the point I made where I said you would embrace it if NRG were to announce they were going to build a nuclear plant; yet you condemned them for being active in promoting a great tool for investment in renewable energy sources. I suspect you didn't hold a full appreciation for the role of the REC policy and were more focused on the undercurrent of mistrust associated with carbon trading strategies that are largely a product of the right wing attack on responding to climate change.

Truce?

[joshcryer]

18. Conventional gas in the US appears to have peaked, shale gas is growing at 50 billion cf every 6...

...months. You are directly supporting the expansion of shale gas industry, and the fracking that goes along with it. Good for you.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nederland]

16. Really?

I was unaware of the fact that the Empire State Building went without electricity 70% of the time.

The things I learn here...

[GreenPartyVoter]

21. That's gotta suck for the people riding the elevators.