Hacker News Reader

It is not throwing the money away - electricity distributors are required to buy additional portions of renewables for delivery. This increases demand and available investment funds for new renewable projects. Here's a section of the Terms of Service of my provider:

"If you elect to purchase a renewable energy product, we will ensure that the appropriate amount of renewable energy credits (RECs) is retired to authenticate the renewable energy contained in the product."

So here in TX we can actually individually vote with our wallets to make a difference in the makeup of renewable energy demands in the state. Maybe tiny steps at a time, but at least it is possible.

> But in this case, you are simply throwing your money away since the green producers aren't going to produce more energy because you and other consumers are paying them to. They will produce the same amount regardless.

Yes they will. They get more money, so they can afford to invest in more green energy, and there's clearly more demand for clean energy, so it would be prudent to produce more of it. This is how markets work. You vote with your dollars.

You can actually incentivized green energy production in this way. It's also possible for cunning utilities to have a government set target for renewable power which they turn round and sell to consumers as a green tariff.

Google has lots of documents online about how they go about ensuring that their efforts to buy renewable energy actually help the grid get cleaner. "Additionality" is one buzzword that might help you locate them.

Are you trying to tell me that they won't build more windmills if that's what people are paying for?

Are you suggesting the transmission company would refuse the electricity from the wind mills if enough people aren't paying for the clean option?

I'm curious how this works. What happens if you pay for clean and the wind isn't blowing at night? What happens if everyone paying for clean turns on their appliances and the demand outstrips the clean supply?

I highly doubt there are blackouts in these occasions so it seems like someone is getting screwed.

All the electricity produced gets mixed in.

To incentivize renewable energy production, "Renewable Energy Credits" are used for the bookkeeping of what kinds of energy is being generated, and are created when energy is produced by a renewable provider (handwaving a bit here...)

Consumers and businesses can have their electric plan provider purchase these credits per their usage to make sure they are getting the correct portion that actually comes from a renewable source.

So the demand and pricing is adjustable determined by the pricing of the credits.

Or "screwed".

It's pretty likely that the literature describing the plan mentions what happens when they can't buy renewable power.

There is a secondary marketplace of "green energy futures".

edit: Going from memory... The fine print on your electric bill in Texas says something like: "If we, the electricity provider, don't have enough renewable energy to meet your current need, we promise to offset the amount of non-renewable energy we provide to you now with a future purchase of the same amount of renewable energy from an electricity generator." In other words, you get the electricity today, they get the money today, but they have to buy more renewable energy in the future.

If people aren't paying the generators, they don't maintain their windmills and can't send electricity into distribution. In Texas you pay the retail company that's selling you the power. The distribution is a wholesale company that just sells the generator distribution capacity and maintains the lines.

So yes, if people stopped buying from companies selling wind and solar only the companies selling gas and coal would be putting energy into the grid.

> "Are you trying to tell me that they won't build more windmills..."

The tilting at windmills joke comes to mind :-)

Honestly, first off the article says that it seems that gas is less competitive than renewable, so there are already market incentives in Texas to build windmills.

A lot of the money for windmill power simply ends up in General Electric's (the major US vendor for windmills) pockets.

Also, I think ones energy is best put in doing what one can do to minimize energy consumption using LED lights in place of incandescents, using mass transit instead of one's automobile and working with city council in Dallas and other major Texas cities to encourage more production of mass transit.

Also, doing what one can to turn up air conditioning from 72 to 76 or 78 in Dallas will save substantial amount of carbon-based power generation.

There is also the use of microturbine technology that can be used for trigeneration meaning that water chillers for air-conditioning as well as electric power from natural gas. This is very efficient and if it received the same financial incentives and wind and solar probably much more cost effective.

> A lot of the money for windmill power simply ends up in General Electric's (the major US vendor for windmills) pockets.

I actively prefer it if GE (etc.) makes money building windmills.

To switch to renewables, you have to build new infrastructure. That means the people who manufacture the equipment are going to make money. And they should make money! That's their reward for being part of the solution.

Not to mention, it encourages them do more R&D because of the potential for better profits. And it encourages competitors to join in, which is even better.