GreenPower won't be so green any more?

[David L. Jones]

For those, like me, currently paying a premium for 100% Green Power in some
form, this is depressing news:
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/global-warming/green-electricity-purchases-in-vain-choice-20090309-8sxz.html

So I'll now be paying FOR big business, with no additonal gain in green
power generation? :-(

Although I guess if you think the whole carbon thing is a load of bunk, and
just want your power from a renewable source, that extra energy must still
be generated into the grid under the current acceditation scheme (as before,
depending upon which GreenPower scheme you are on). So, for example, all
things being equal, if the carbon targets are all met, and the green power
sources are maxed out - paying extra for 100% new Green Power should still
mean additional new green power delivered onto the grid? Unless they plan on
chaning the GreenPower guidelines too?

It's hard to make heads or tails of this mess.

Dave.

 

[Mauried]

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:53:38 +1100, "David L. Jones"
<altzone@gmail.com> wrote:

For those, like me, currently paying a premium for 100% Green Power in some
form, this is depressing news:
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/global-warming/green-electricity-purchases-in-vain-choice-20090309-8sxz.html

So I'll now be paying FOR big business, with no additonal gain in green
power generation? :-(

Although I guess if you think the whole carbon thing is a load of bunk, and
just want your power from a renewable source, that extra energy must still
be generated into the grid under the current acceditation scheme (as before,
depending upon which GreenPower scheme you are on). So, for example, all
things being equal, if the carbon targets are all met, and the green power
sources are maxed out - paying extra for 100% new Green Power should still
mean additional new green power delivered onto the grid? Unless they plan on
chaning the GreenPower guidelines too?

It's hard to make heads or tails of this mess.

Dave.

The real mess is in fact whether the green power scheme is a
legitimate scheme or a scam.
You really need to know exactly where the extra money you are paying
for green power actually goes.
For example does it really go into helping promote the prodution of
green energy, or does it simply go into driving up the profits of
existing producers of green power.

 

[David L. Jones]

"Mauried" <mauried@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:49c2e82a.7323937@news.tpg.com.au...

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:53:38 +1100, "David L. Jones"
altzone@gmail.com> wrote:

For those, like me, currently paying a premium for 100% Green Power in
some
form, this is depressing news:
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/global-warming/green-electricity-purchases-in-vain-choice-20090309-8sxz.html

So I'll now be paying FOR big business, with no additonal gain in green
power generation? :-(

Although I guess if you think the whole carbon thing is a load of bunk,
and
just want your power from a renewable source, that extra energy must still
be generated into the grid under the current acceditation scheme (as
before,
depending upon which GreenPower scheme you are on). So, for example, all
things being equal, if the carbon targets are all met, and the green power
sources are maxed out - paying extra for 100% new Green Power should still
mean additional new green power delivered onto the grid? Unless they plan
on
chaning the GreenPower guidelines too?

It's hard to make heads or tails of this mess.

Dave.



The real mess is in fact whether the green power scheme is a
legitimate scheme or a scam.
You really need to know exactly where the extra money you are paying
for green power actually goes.
For example does it really go into helping promote the prodution of
green energy, or does it simply go into driving up the profits of
existing producers of green power.

Yes, you have to be careful.
See:
http://www.alternatezone.com/files/GreenPower1.jpg
http://www.alternatezone.com/files/GreenPower2.jpg

The Origin Energy GreenEarth Solar/Wind plans consistently come out #1 in
all audits, and also came out as the best in my own (actually my wife who
knows the in's and out's of these things) investgations, so I've been with
Origin Energy 100% Wind scheme from day one.

One of the original "pioneers" of Green Power in Australia, Jack Green, is
one of the worst offenders. A lot of poeple signed up to them thinking they
are making a difference.

Dave.

 

[terryc]

On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:54:31 +0000, Mauried wrote:

For example does it really go into helping promote the prodution of
green energy, or does it simply go into driving up the profits of
existing producers of green power.

Isn't that how it works anyway?
As demand rises, the existing producers increase their profits until more
pople decide it is worth investing money in green power generation
infrastructure to get their hands on a share of the profits.

 

[David L. Jones]

"terryc" <newssevenspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:49c31730$0$79321$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...

On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:54:31 +0000, Mauried wrote:


For example does it really go into helping promote the prodution of
green energy, or does it simply go into driving up the profits of
existing producers of green power.

Isn't that how it works anyway?

No. Read the article I provided in a previous post.
To be fully greenpower accedited there are bunch of requirements you have to
meet, including:
"the renewable energy supplied must not be part of the retailer's mandatory
renewable energy supply component."
and
"the supply must meet the customers energy demands"

This is the case with the higher priced energy plans, but there are many
plans that advertise as being "green" but don't meet these criteria. I don't
believe there are any laws stopping this, provided it's all in the fine
print somewhere.
So if you pay the extra and sign up for a 100% green plan then your energy
*must* come from "new" infrastructure (build after 1997) that is outside of
what they are required to provide. If there is not sufficient capacity then
the providers *must* build or source.
So at the moment you can actually effect change by buying 100% power, but
this may change under this new proposed scheme.

Dave.

 

[David L. Jones]

"terryc" <newssevenspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:49c31730$0$79321$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...

On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:54:31 +0000, Mauried wrote:


For example does it really go into helping promote the prodution of
green energy, or does it simply go into driving up the profits of
existing producers of green power.

Isn't that how it works anyway?

No. Read the article I provided in a previous post.
To be fully greenpower accedited there are bunch of requirements you have to
meet, including:
"the renewable energy supplied must not be part of the retailer's mandatory
renewable energy supply component."
and
"the supply must meet the customers energy demands"

This is the case with the higher priced energy plans, but there are many
plans that advertise as being "green" but don't meet these criteria. I don't
believe there are any laws stopping this, provided it's all in the fine
print somewhere.
So if you pay the extra and sign up for a 100% green plan then your energy
*must* come from "new" infrastructure (build after 1997) that is outside of
what they are required to provide. If there is not sufficient capacity then
the providers *must* build or source.
So at the moment you can actually effect change by buying 100% power, but
this may change under this new proposed scheme.

Dave.

 

[Eeyore]

"David L. Jones" wrote:

For those, like me, currently paying a premium for 100% Green Power in some
form, this is depressing news:
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/global-warming/green-electricity-purchases-in-vain-choice-20090309-8sxz.html

So I'll now be paying FOR big business, with no additonal gain in green
power generation? :-(

You're assuming that there's anything 'green' about it. Suggest you re-think.

Graham

 

[David L. Jones]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:49C3C03A.A0FDA82@hotmail.com...

"David L. Jones" wrote:

For those, like me, currently paying a premium for 100% Green Power in
some
form, this is depressing news:
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/global-warming/green-electricity-purchases-in-vain-choice-20090309-8sxz.html

So I'll now be paying FOR big business, with no additonal gain in green
power generation? :-(

You're assuming that there's anything 'green' about it. Suggest you
re-think.

I don't need to, thanks.
I like knowing my extra money is currently going toward wind power
generation.

Dave.

 

[MisterE]

It's hard to make heads or tails of this mess.

Its simple: You either tax ALL fossil fuels at their source, or you don't.
Emission 'trading' is just another way to for the goverment to intercept a
portion of commerce and recreate more needless regulation and new goverment
departments.

 

[Mauried]

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 07:47:51 +1000, "MisterE" <mistere@nigma.net>
wrote:

It's hard to make heads or tails of this mess.

Its simple: You either tax ALL fossil fuels at their source, or you don't.
Emission 'trading' is just another way to for the goverment to intercept a
portion of commerce and recreate more needless regulation and new goverment
departments.


Basically correct, except that its political suicide.

Taxing coal for example would mean that we wouldnt be able to export
any as no one would buy it as it would be too expensive compared with
other countries who dont tax it.
No coal exports wipes out the State of queesland and would hit NSW
very hard as well.

 

[terryc]

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 11:52:44 +0000, Mauried wrote:

Basically correct, except that its political suicide. Taxing coal for
example would mean that we wouldnt be able to export any as no one would
buy it as it would be too expensive compared with other countries who
dont tax it.

The information I have heard is that the greatest competition Australian
coal exporters face is each other. The tax(royalty on coal is miniscule,
about 20c/ton(?) and it does not cover the cost of infrastructure to ship
it out.

 

[Davo]

terryc wrote:

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 11:52:44 +0000, Mauried wrote:


Basically correct, except that its political suicide. Taxing coal for
example would mean that we wouldnt be able to export any as no one would
buy it as it would be too expensive compared with other countries who
dont tax it.

The information I have heard is that the greatest competition Australian
coal exporters face is each other. The tax(royalty on coal is miniscule,
about 20c/ton(?) and it does not cover the cost of infrastructure to ship
it out.

That probably explains why ships were queuing a year or so ago, the

mining companies were waiting for the taxpayer to build bigger ports,
and it didn't happen.