Will Solar Power Outshine Oil in the Near Future?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the potential for solar power to surpass oil as a primary energy source. Participants agree that solar is renewable while oil is not, but the timeline for this transition remains uncertain. Skepticism is expressed regarding new technologies, such as spray-on solar coatings for glass, with questions about their efficiency and practicality in real-world applications like skyscrapers.Key points include the current limitations of solar technology, including the efficiency of solar panels, which produce about 8-10 watts per square foot under optimal conditions. The average U.S. home requires significant solar panel coverage—approximately 670 square feet—to meet daily energy needs. Storage solutions, particularly batteries, are highlighted as crucial for managing energy supply, especially during periods without sunlight. The discussion notes the high costs and logistical challenges associated with battery storage, including the need for extensive infrastructure to support solar energy generation and storage.
  • #541
Physics_Kid said:
everything (EVERYTHING) on Earth is just a "battery" of energy, right? be it uranium, oil, hydro power, agree ??
Uranium is easily available. You can use it to produce net electricity. Hydrogen is not, and the most efficient way to produce it (unless you want to use natural gas) is to use electricity.
Physics_Kid said:
you take H for heating (no more all electric homes)
That wastes about 30% of the energy. Even more if you compare it to thermal pumps. For cars that can be acceptable, but there you have the problem that storing hydrogen in small amounts is problematic.
Physics_Kid said:
30% efficiency ? who cares, just means you either need to cut back on energy use, or harvest much more to meet the demand.
70% (very optimistic). It means everything gets more expensive because you need more power than without the hydrogen detour.
Physics_Kid said:
why? let fossil fuels run dry, it will automagically force people to cut back on energy use.
(a) it is bad for the climate, (b) it is bad for the air quality, (c) the harder the exit the more it will hurt.
Physics_Kid said:
your home electric bill will remain the same, but the amount delivered will be half ;)
You will not be able to simply cut your demand by 50% without any problems. Otherwise you would do that today already and save half the electricity bill. It gets even worse for transportation and industrial processes. They are highly optimized already. You can't magically make them twice as efficient.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #542
cant cut use by 50%? sure we can, just need to do without. and as i mentioned, no oil and no real replacement will force this onto everyone, etc.
what problems would there be? less UPS trucks to my house, less road trips for me, less keeping my house at 74F in summer, less food ? humans will adapt on the downfall just as we did on the rise of oil ;)
 
  • #543
Physics_Kid said:
cant cut use by 50%? sure we can, just need to do without... humans will adapt on the downfall just as we did on the rise of oil ;)
But only if we have to. I try to conserve, but I will maintain a certain standard if I can.
 
  • #544
NTL2009 said:
But only if we have to. I try to conserve, but I will maintain a certain standard if I can.
in reality you have very little control to maintain any use of energy. if its not there then you just can't have it. you get to use/hoard it because its available. when its not available its not available.
 
  • #545
Physics_Kid said:
nuke power for 100yrs, split the water, distribute H, use energy
Can you explain in detail why would you want to do this, and not do the following instead?
'nuke power for 100yrs, use energy'
 
  • Like
Likes NTL2009
  • #546
Physics_Kid said:
cant cut use by 50%? sure we can, just need to do without. and as i mentioned, no oil and no real replacement will force this onto everyone, etc.
what problems would there be? less UPS trucks to my house, less road trips for me, less keeping my house at 74F in summer, less food ? humans will adapt on the downfall just as we did on the rise of oil ;)
The idea is to keep this "downfall" as small as possible. Or maybe eliminate it completely by switching to other energy sources soon enough. That is better for the climate as well.
There are many possible future outcomes, and not everyone is indifferent between them.
 
  • #547
Physics_Kid said:
in reality you have very little control to maintain any use of energy. if its not there then you just can't have it. you get to use/hoard it because its available. when its not available its not available.
To say that I can't use energy if I can't get it is tautological - what does this add to the discussion?

I thought you were saying we should conserve now, in order to stretch our supplies of oil, and (you didn't say this but it fits the thread), maybe use that oil to supplement solar while we develop some storage methods for solar/wind.

Conservation is maybe better discussed in the other thread on solving the energy crisis, I think the topic of this thread is solar, more efficient panels, better storage methods, etc. OK, the first post did discuss solar versus oil, so I guess conservation of oil fits.

But if your saying a 'solution' to the limited and intermittent energy that solar might provide is to use less energy, and don't use it when it's not available, that's a twisted viewpoint, I think. That's a bit like saying that range on an electric car isn't an issue, just never drive longer than its range. It doesn't 'solve' anything, it just redefines the problem, which could be redefined for any energy source.

So what are you saying?
 
  • #548
PeterDonis said:
Hydrogen isn't a fuel in the sense you're using the term (a source of net energy) unless you are planning on mining it from Jupiter or someplace like that. The only way to make it from materials available on Earth is by endothermic chemical reactions (such as splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen), which cost more energy than you will get back when the hydrogen is burned.

It's the matter of storage, a concept being pursued is "mining" using sunshine energy, to produce a "clean fuel" such as oxygen or hydrogen. Losses are also opportunities for better efficiency.

The word fuel doesn't at all refer to or imply any kinda of system efficiency.
 
Last edited:
  • #549
NTL2009, you said you are trying to keep a standard. a standard use of energy i presumed. if that's your thought then you'll be in for a shock when oil dies, your standard will be forcibly changed for you, etc. that was my point.

the notion of advocating to conserve is nothing new and obviously does not work. oil will be consumed at crazy rates until it dies no matter how much you advocate conservation. a govt could perhaps control your energy use by mandates.

from what i can see, no matter how you transition, there will be a decline in energy use, no way around that.

my bet is on harvesting hydrogen and it will be the staple source of energy to be consumed by humans when oil begins to dwindle.
anything tied to lithium batts is also a losing bet. batt cars will waiver in favor of H cars, its already happening. the rush to push lithium batt vehicles and massive lithium batt manufacturing is a hype tactic to obtain some $$, its all a short lived adventure, but heck, if you can make $20T in a very short time then so be it, but the solution to the problem is still not solved.
 
  • #550
Physics_Kid said:
NTL2009, you said you are trying to keep a standard. a standard use of energy i presumed. ...

No, I'd like to maintain/enhance my standard of living. I hope to conserve energy as I do that, wherever feasible. IOW, if I could live well on net zero energy, fantastic!

Physics_Kid said:
if that's your thought then you'll be in for a shock when oil dies, your standard will be forcibly changed for you, etc. that was my point. ...

When is oil going to 'die'? Seems like many thought > $100/bbl and > $4.00/gallon gasoline was permanent, it wasn't.

Physics_Kid said:
my bet is on harvesting hydrogen and it will be the staple source of energy to be consumed by humans when oil begins to dwindle. ...
I though this was explained to you. Or maybe start a new thread so as not to further dilute this one. There is essential no hydrogen available to us to 'harvest' to be used as a "source of energy". We can only use it to store/transport energy we create at this time. And there are significant losses associated with that.

If you are thinking in terms of hydrogen as a fuel for cars, I think we may have better luck with refining oil produced by algae. Solar energy and absorbed CO2 becomes a hydrocarbon. Even airplanes could use that.
 
  • #551
Physics_Kid said:
oil will be consumed at crazy rates until it dies no matter how much you advocate conservation.
Oil consumption in Germany is falling
Oil consumption in France is falling
Oil consumption in Italy is falling rapidly
Oil consumption in Spain is falling
Oil consumption in Portugal is falling
Oil consumption in the UK is falling slightly
Oil consumption in Denmark is falling
Oil consumption in the Netherlands has leveled off
The overall European oil consumption starts to fall
North American consumption has stabilized
Many countries reduce their oil consumption now already. The worldwide consumption still goes up, sure, but the increase is slowing down as well.
Physics_Kid said:
from what i can see, no matter how you transition, there will be a decline in energy use, no way around that.
Unless we find suitable alternatives first. That's the point of solar, nuclear, wind and so on.
Physics_Kid said:
my bet is on harvesting hydrogen and it will be the staple source of energy to be consumed by humans when oil begins to dwindle.
There is no hydrogen to harvest, stop repeating this nonsense please.
You can produce it, but then you get a very inefficient resource that you cannot store in large quantities either. Storing hydrogen is expensive. For cars with a storage of a few days that might work, but if you try to propose "produce hydrogen now, use it in 30 years": that doesn't work.
Physics_Kid said:
batt cars will waiver in favor of H cars, its already happening
Where? The number of electric cars increases by ~70%/year, in 2016 (January probably) we had 1.3 million. Here is a graph.
Meanwhile, predictions estimate a total of ~350,000 hydrogen vehicles produced from now to 2027. Even today, every year more new electric cars enter the streets than hydrogen cars will be produced in the next 10 years. In 2018, Tesla alone estimates to produce more electric cars every year than the worldwide production of hydrogen cars in the next 10 years.

Seriously: Please stop make factually wrong claims. It is annoying, and it is against the forum rules.
 
  • Like
Likes mheslep, russ_watters, NTL2009 and 1 other person
  • #552
perhaps i am confused.
solar is an energy source, H is not?? coal is a energy source, H is not?? makes no sense.
they are all just carriers of energy. coal does nothing by itself, solar does nothing by itself, nothing does anything by itself ? some process has to convert that energy into usable energy. or, one must build a process that does work of whatever the input is (electric from batts, H, goop, whatever).

how efficient solar vs H doesn't really matter, you need to find something that we can consume, and water is a source and it has H for us to extract (aka harvest), ...

whats so hard about the word "harvest", its the same as "organ harvesting", as in "to go in and extract". to harvest H means to go into the water and get H out.

...and there's lots of it. how you get it is the same problem like how to get electric from solar, or how to get gas from fracking, or how do you make a motor drive a wheel using electric w/o any cords. you still need a intermediate process to be able to use any energy. for electric cars its a battery, for say home heating and cars H can be used.

so now its Musk vs Toyota and others. if H is so dead then why does Toyota make a Mirai that can be recharged in 5min and go ~315mi on one tank? that's very comparable to Tesla Model3. the Mirai will go longer distance, but if you needed to say drive 400mi the Mirai will be there much much sooner than the Model3 ! Mirai and Model3 both carry relatively dangerous materials, Lithium vs H, but Lithium eventually becomes an environmental nightmare, H does not. Mirai base vs Model3 base is way more $$, but H types are just coming into maturity.

none of the Tesla/Musk hype seems to show A-Z for each process. follow every step, including mining lithium and making batts. the starting line is sun rays and water, the finish line is two cars crossing that 300mi stripe. all of the in-between needs energy just to make the vehicle go.

where is "get lithium" and "make battery" in this chart ?

Hydrogen-vs-EV-redlight.jpg


just because you may have access to a form of energy that is plentiful that doesn't mean its very useful if you have to wait 8hrs after every 10min of use (exaggeration to make a point).

so let me ask, Toyota and others are building H cars because why? for the fun of it? if batt based vehicles are the future then i simply don't understand why anyone would be building H cars.

and yes, i see a ton of article bashing H, here's one

“Producing the hydrogen to power FCVs can generate GHGs, depending on the production method, but much less than that emitted by conventional gasoline and diesel vehicles.”

yet nothing about the pollution a lithium harvesting and batt making process does ?

is lithium a viable source of material to carry charge??

here, do the math.

Telsa 85 kWh battery pack weighs 1,200 lb
3.6V nominal 2 Ah 18650 cell = 7.2 Wh =~ 0.6 gram of Lithium
~46g per 18650 package
According to USGS, Bolivia's Uyuni Desert has 5.4 million tonnes of lithium. In the United States, lithium is recovered from brine pools in Nevada. However, half the world's known reserves are located in Bolivia along the central eastern slope of the Andes.

The US publisher Ward's, estimates that as of 2010 there were 1.015 billion motor vehicles in use in the world.

is that enough lithium?.
1.015billion x ~16.744lbs = ?
you'll need way more than 16lbs(lithium):1200lb batt to power UPS and FredX trucks

take trip issue with lithium.

4k mi trip, H and Tesla can go 400mi per tank. H takes 5min to fill, lithium take 8hrs. same speed.
4k/400 = 10 tanks
10*8hrs = 3.333 days !
10*5min = less than 1hr

so to make the trip you must have ~3.5 days of downtime to use your lithium. to me, this is not so efficient, now is it.

so if UPS uses lithium and FredX uses H, UPS goes chap 11.so how wonderful solar can make electric, and even if it powers the grid, looks like other problems will make all electric things not very useful. nice to have 1x10^63636363 kVA waiting to be used, but if you can't use it, what's the point?

where you get energy and how efficient that harvest is, is only half the problem.
 
Last edited:
  • #553
Physics_Kid said:
perhaps i am confused.

Yes, you are.

Physics_Kid said:
solar is an energy source, H is not?? coal is a energy source, H is not??

Correct.

Physics_Kid said:
they are all just carriers of energy

In one sense, yes. But that is not relevant to whether or not they are energy sources in the sense you're using the term. See below.

Physics_Kid said:
H is a source, and there's lots of it.

No, there isn't. There is no hydrogen sitting around on Earth the way natural gas or coal or oil is just sitting in the ground, or the way sunshine is just coming in for free. There are chemical compounds that contain hydrogen, but getting hydrogen from those compounds costs more energy than you get back when you use the hydrogen as fuel.

Physics_Kid said:
how you get it is the same problem like how to get electric from solar, or how to get gas from fracking

No, H is not the same as all these other things. When you get electric from solar, or gas from fracking, or coal from mining, or oil from a well,, the energy you get out (electric from solar or by burning the natural gas) is more than the energy it cost you to get it (to make the solar cell or frack the gas or mine the coal or pump the oil). When you get hydrogen on Earth from any process, whether it's splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen or getting it via some other chemical reaction from natural gas, the energy you get from the hydrogen is less than the energy it took to obtain the hydrogen. That is why hydrogen (on Earth, at least) is not an energy source the way solar or natural gas is.

Of course, if you don't care about that because you have a cheap, plentiful source of energy, then hydrogen can be used as an energy storage medium (similar to a battery, which is basically what it's shown as competing with in the chart you give). But energy storage is not the same as "energy source" in the sense of having energy just sitting there "free" for the taking. It still costs more energy to make the hydrogen than the energy you get by burning the hydrogen. Just as it costs more energy to make and charge a battery than the energy you get out when you discharge it.

Physics_Kid said:
Toyota and others are building H cars

Yes, because they don't care whether hydrogen is an energy source, what they care about is whether it might end up being a better energy storage medium than batteries, all things considered. The only way to find out is to try and build them both in a competitive environment and see which one wins.
 
  • Like
Likes NTL2009
  • #554
PeterDonis, please keep answering/address all my points made in #552.
i like the rebuttal.
 
  • #555
Physics_Kid said:
perhaps i am confused.
solar is an energy source, H is not?? coal is a energy source, H is not?? ...

As @PeterDonis pointed out so well, yes, you are, and seem to continue to be confused, or are just not accepting what is being explained to you (or possibly not serious about any of this at all?). I'm a simple person, allow me to try to explain in a simple way:

Imagine you walk up to a 10 story building with two pulleys at the top, each with a long rope and bucket of water attached. One bucket of water was earlier raised to the top by someone and the rope tied off, the other bucket is on the ground. I think you understand that the bucket at the top has potential energy that could be calculated knowing the height, mass, and gravitational constant. If you simply apply a tiny bit of energy to cut or loosen the rope, you can 'harvest' that energy. But you can't do that with the bucket on the ground, there is no stored energy for you to use.

The bucket at the top is like oil, NG, or wood to burn. The potential energy was already put there before we got there, and is easy for us to release. To get energy out of the bucket on the ground, you have to put the energy in. And some of your energy is wasted by friction in the process. So just use your energy directly.

Solar? OK, you can set a reflector and a black pot out on a bright summer day, and obtain enough heat to cook a meal. But if I give you a pot of water (which contains Hydrogen in the H2O molecule), you can't cook a meal with it. It just sits there. You need to put energy into it. You can't just get energy out of the hydrogen that is in water, without putting more energy into it.

What isn't understood there (and I do think this should be in another thread about why Hydrogen isn't an energy source like other fuels)?emphasis mine:
Physics_Kid said:
... so how wonderful solar can make electric, and even if it powers the grid, looks like other problems will make all electric things not very useful. nice to have 1x10^63636363 kVA waiting to be used, but if you can't use it, what's the point? ...

If you understand this for electrical storage, why don't you understand it for Hydrogen storage?

Physics_Kid said:
...where you get energy and how efficient that harvest is, is only half the problem.

It's more than half the problem with Hydrogen, it's not even a starter - since there is no energy to 'harvest'.

There is an expression I heard recently, probably on this forum - "That's not even wrong.". Meaning, it is so far off base, that it is even hard to discuss the right/wrong about it. You need to go back and work on understanding the basics of energy - preferably in another thread, so this one can be about advances in solar power, not on and on about your misunderstandings of Hydrogen and energy. Sorry if that comes across as terse, but I am running out of patience with this subject diverting from the main subject.

I tried, that's all can do.
 
  • #556
Physics_Kid said:
yet nothing about the pollution a lithium harvesting and batt making process does ?

There's certainly plenty of bashing on all sides, but I have seen reasonable analyses that take into account the full life cycle costs of different energy sources--including harvesting, manufacturing, usage, and disposal. My sense from what I've seen is that batteries in general are not significantly different from other technologies as far as pollution is concerned.

Physics_Kid said:
4k mi trip, H and Tesla can go 400mi per tank. H takes 5min to fill, lithium take 8hrs. same speed.

Yes, recharge time is the key downside of battery technology as it currently stands. As I understand it, Tesla's solution to that problem, long term, is to swap the batteries instead of recharging them. In other words, you pull into a "filling station", an automated system slides the old battery pack out of your car and slides a new, freshly charged one in. Time required similar to the time to fill a gas or hydrogen tank.

Again, the only way to know for sure is to let companies try building all of these technologies in a competitive environment and see which one wins. I don't think crunching numbers based on estimates is going to tell us much at this point beyond "well, all of them are probably worth trying", which we already knew anyway.
 
  • Like
Likes mheslep
  • #557
PeterDonis said:
As I understand it, Tesla's solution to that problem, long term, is to swap the batteries instead of recharging them.
Apparently not. Tesla built exactly one swap station for owners, and sent a couple hundred invitations to use it. A half dozen accepted, and each used the station once. It has since been closed.

[Swap is ]clearly not very popular," Musk said.

Even though Tesla has since invited all Model S owners in California to try the battery swap program, Musk expects the entire customer base will behave similarly to the initial sample group.

"People don't care about pack swap," Musk said. "The superchargers are fast enough. Based on what we're seeing here, it's unlikely to be something that's worth expanding in the future unless something changes
http://fortune.com/2015/06/10/teslas-battery-swap-is-dead/

Since that 2015 statement there have been increasing complaints about crowded charging stations, especially when a small queue means a wait of 1 to 2 hours. Tesla has also said it does not expect to raise the the charging power of stations. This makes sense given the 10% power as heat rejection and battery life impact above 1.5C charge.

I agree with your initial assessment, that charging time is the most serious problem for BEVS, especially for mass adoption.
 
  • #558
Physics_Kid said:
oil is in the ground, it has potential energy. H is in water, it has potential energy. its nothing more than energy conversion. the efficiency of each end-to-end can be whatever you say, as in solar >>> H, or solar >>>>>>>> H. but so what, efficiency is a technical problem, not a source problem.
H in H2O does not have usable potential energy* - it is already bound in a low energy state configuration. All the chemical potential energy it had was was emitted when it reacted with oxygen (aka burned) to make water.

The proper comparison is not between oil (refined or otherwise) and H2O, but with what you get from burning oil and H2O. You wanting to use H from H2O for power is like wanting to use CO2 and H2O (from burning hydrocarbons) to make oil and O2 so that you can then burn them again.
The point everyone has been making here is that it takes more energy to make the fuel than you then recover. In the most perfect ideal conditions you can only get exactly as much from burning it as you put into making it. It's not a matter of technical efficiency, it's a matter of basic chemistry.

In fact, if it were possible to extract nett energy from splitting H2O, then it'd be possible to make perpetual motion machines. You'd use X energy to split H2O into H2 and O, then allow these products to burn and obtain X+Y in the process of making H2O again. You'd then feed X energy back into the reaction to split the H2O, for nett gain of Y energy per reaction.
In the real world you can only ever hope to approach obtaining X energy from burning as your efficiency approaches 100%. You'll never go over unity to extract the additional Y.*unless you burn it in fluorine, but I hope nobody thinks that's a good idea.
 
Last edited:
  • #559
OmCheeto said:
...
I REALLY fell in love with the concept of CHP when I first heard about it. I was wondering, if like the Drakes Landing thermal system, solar pv could be used in the summer to split water, and convert that into methane (Sabatier reaction) , which could be stored until winter.

Haven't even started the maths on that yet. It probably also needs its own thread, if it doesn't already exist. Probably kind of expensive.
Oh my god. After 8 hours of research, and walls of maths, I've decided that this is a problem laden idea.
Based on my sister's use in San Diego, she would need a 7 kw solar array to generate enough methane to replace her natural gas line.
She would also need to store 175 kg of methane, which I think would need to be liquified.
And since the system is already at the break even point financially*, I decided it was time to give up.

*Definite maybe here. Prices for CO2 vary from $10 to $1000 per ton for "atmospheric" extraction, depending on who you listen to. And nowhere could I determine where any of these people came up with those prices.

ps. I'm so bad at chemistry, at one point, I resorted to determining the cost to generate H2 via electrolysis: $1.44E-26/H2 molecule.
pps. I did the maths, as I saw that Richard Branson was offering $25,000,000 to anyone who could do this. So, even though I failed, I thought it was worth the effort. (Actually, he just wanted a viable air capture CO2 extractor design. But CO2 cost was the bug my system, so I figured he'd divvy up, if I solved an extra problem.)
ppps. Fun problem!
 
  • #560
Not to poke this gorilla, but my apartment complex in Fort Worth Texas (yes, Texas, where some of the biggest oil producers are) is entirely run on renewable power via the company https://www.greenmountainenergy.com/, I am all for it, it might cost a tad bit more, but my weekend power is free... Renewable energy is being used in spits and spurts all over, problem is that it is in percentage points of the total...

My oldest kid who is a newly minted environmental engineer can't wait to come to visit and find out about this company.
 
  • Like
Likes OmCheeto
  • #561
Dr Transport said:
Not to poke this gorilla, but my apartment complex in Fort Worth Texas (yes, Texas, where some of the biggest oil producers are) is entirely run on renewable power via the company https://www.greenmountainenergy.com/, I am all for it, it might cost a tad bit more, but my weekend power is free... Renewable energy is being used in spits and spurts all over, problem is that it is in percentage points of the total...

My oldest kid who is a newly minted environmental engineer can't wait to come to visit and find out about this company.
Be wary: I went for a job interview with them and it is basically a multi-level marketing scheme and more or less a scam. They don't generate much of their own power, but rather over-pay for electricity that is already being generated.
 
  • Like
Likes NTL2009
  • #562
russ_watters said:
Be wary: I applied for a job there and it is basically a multi-level marketing scheme and more or less a scam. They don't generate much of their own power, but rather over-pay for electricity that is already being generated.
I'll pass that along to my apartment management...good to know.
 
  • #563
As long as we burn coal and oil (stationary), there are places with 20% CO2 instead of 0.04% - the exhaust of these power plants. Capturing that to make hydrocarbons is rarely a good idea, of course.
 
  • #564
russ_watters said:
Dr Transport said:
Not to poke this gorilla, but my apartment complex in Fort Worth Texas (yes, Texas, where some of the biggest oil producers are) is entirely run on renewable power via the company https://www.greenmountainenergy.com/, I am all for it, it might cost a tad bit more, but my weekend power is free... Renewable energy is being used in spits and spurts all over, problem is that it is in percentage points of the total...

My oldest kid who is a newly minted environmental engineer can't wait to come to visit and find out about this company.
Be wary: I went for a job interview with them and it is basically a multi-level marketing scheme and more or less a scam. They don't generate much of their own power, but rather over-pay for electricity that is already being generated.

Yes, these plans where they say you are 100% renewable due to paying them for electricity never made sense to me.

Like, if you didn't sign up, they would shut down their wind turbines and solar panels? Or they never would have installed them without your commitment? I don't think so, they get a premium for that power. Seems to me they just scrape an extra penny per kWh by reselling to people who want to feel good about this.
 
  • #565
NTL2009 said:
Yes, these plans where they say you are 100% renewable due to paying them for electricity never made sense to me.

Like, if you didn't sign up, they would shut down their wind turbines and solar panels? Or they never would have installed them without your commitment? I don't think so, they get a premium for that power. Seems to me they just scrape an extra penny per kWh by reselling to people who want to feel good about this.

No they would not have, but I'd not have my apartment because they required that I get my power from greenmountain...
 
  • #566
Dr Transport said:
No they would not have, but I'd not have my apartment because they required that I get my power from greenmountain...
Sorry, you lost me.

From your previous post, what would your son learn by visiting to find out about this company (or visiting your apartment - that wasn't clear either?)? It's not like you can see where your electricity comes from.

I think you could learn about them here:

https://www.consumeraffairs.com/texas-electricity-companies/green-mountain-energy.html
 
  • #567
NTL2009 said:
Sorry, you lost me.

From your previous post, what would your son learn by visiting to find out about this company (or visiting your apartment - that wasn't clear either?)? It's not like you can see where your electricity comes from.

I think you could learn about them here:

https://www.consumeraffairs.com/texas-electricity-companies/green-mountain-energy.html

And down the rabbit hole we go...

Wiki re: ConsumerAffairs.com
Criticism
In October 21, 2014, Truth in Advertising published "Who is ConsumerAffairs.com Really Advocating For?" In the article, Unbeatablesale.com complained to the Electronic Retailing Self-Regulation Program, a division of the Better Business Bureaus and National Advertising Review Council, that ConsumerAffairs "creates biased and negative portrayals of companies that don't pay for its service called ConsumerAffairs for Brands."

Sounds like the mafia to me.

russ_watters said:
Be wary: I went for a job interview with them and it is basically a multi-level marketing scheme and more or less a scam. They don't generate much of their own power, but rather over-pay for electricity that is already being generated.

They told you they were scammers in your interview? hmmmm...

Anyways, wiki says this about the company, NRG, that owns Green Mountain:
Following the acquisition of Reliant, NRG extended its retail footprint with the acquisition of Green Mountain Energy in November 2010. In doing so, NRG also became the largest retailer of green power in the nation, providing all of its Green Mountain and many of its Reliant customers with energy derived from 100% renewable resources.

The most interesting fact about NRG was this number: "After the GenOn merger, NRG has 47,000 MW of total generation capacity, enough to power approximately 40 million homes."

That's 1/3 of the homes in America! All supplied by one company. I find that interesting. I'm not sure why, but I do.
 
  • #568
NTL2009 said:
Sorry, you lost me.

From your previous post, what would your son learn by visiting to find out about this company (or visiting your apartment - that wasn't clear either?)? It's not like you can see where your electricity comes from.

I think you could learn about them here:

https://www.consumeraffairs.com/texas-electricity-companies/green-mountain-energy.html
He was going to look into the company as a possible employer...
 
  • #569
Dr Transport said:
He was going to look into the company as a possible employer...

OK. But what about your other comment - "... I'd not have my apartment because they required that I get my power from greenmountain..."? That's the one that I got lost on. Why wouldn't you have your apartment?
OmCheeto said:
And down the rabbit hole we go...
...
Anyways, wiki says this about the company, NRG, that owns Green Mountain:
Following the acquisition of Reliant, NRG extended its retail footprint with the acquisition of Green Mountain Energy in November 2010. In doing so, NRG also became the largest retailer of green power in the nation, providing all of its Green Mountain and many of its Reliant customers with energy derived from 100% renewable resources.
...

The bolded part is what I'm really wondering about. I just can't see how signing a contract for 100% renewable energy does much of anything at all. It seems like a marketing ploy/semi-scam to me.

As I said earlier, does my signing on actually cause a single added kWh of renewable energy to be produced? How so?

They're not going to disconnect their wind turbines or solar panels if I don't sign up, a market already exists for that power. Maybe, just maybe, the extra penny (or whatever) they might make on these contracts provides a little more incentive to install more wind/solar? But I think demand already exists, not sure this would create any tipping-point decision for a new wind or solar farm. But if it does, I think the effect is very slight, certainly not 100% responsible. So it seems to me these certificates don't result in any significant amount of renewable energy production, they are just a 'badge' sold to well-meaning people who want to advertise (or just feel good personally about) their 'commitment' to green energy?

I also cringe a bit when I see these announcements that some facility, or entity is going to be 100% renewable energy by year 20XX. I'd be more impressed if they showed they could do that by disconnecting from the grid (but that would be rather stupid and bad economics). But as long as they are reliant on the grid, and the fossil/nuke back up, are they really 100% renewable? Oh, except for the part that isn't?

OK, maybe saying "We will install enough renewable energy to offset our energy usage", is too big a mouthful for a headline or public statement. I'd need to look at one of those though, I'm pretty sure they really just mean the electrical energy they consume, not the energy they use for their delivery trucks, or maybe heating the building, or producing the products they sell.
 
  • #570
Dr Transport said:
He was going to look into the company as a possible employer...
After some googling, I now understand what Russ was saying. It's not so much a scam on the customers, as much as it is a scam on the employees.

But wiki claims that there are plenty of such companies: List of multi-level marketing companies
So I don't know that it's fair to kick one horse, and not all the rest.

NTL2009 said:
The bolded part is what I'm really wondering about. I just can't see how signing a contract for 100% renewable energy does much of anything at all. It seems like a marketing ploy/semi-scam to me.

Perhaps someone needs to explain "retail" to me. I always though it was only Joe-blow customer that was sold "retail" stuff. Are business to business sales also considered "retail"?
All I know, is that Green Mountain supplies my electrical provider(PGE) with 100% green energy.
For about the last 20 years or so, I've been donating $2.50 a month to something called "Clean Wind".
So each month, I get 200 kwh of "wind energy". I think. The wind doesn't always blow, so like you, I don't fully understand their maths.

As I said earlier, does my signing on actually cause a single added kWh of renewable energy to be produced? How so?

I would think so.

Om's silly "wind" donations * 20 years * 120 million households = $72 billion

http://www.windustry.org/how_much_do_wind_turbines_cost
$3.50/watt wind

$72 billion / ($3.5/watt) = 20,600 MW

http://www.awea.org/wind-energy-facts-at-a-glance
Total U.S. installed wind capacity, through end of 2016: 82,143 MW

Om's relative contribution: ¼​

So, "my demand" for 200 kwh/month of wind power seems to have partially funded the current installed wind capacity.

I like to think that's how it works.

Of course, some people are really serious about "green energy".
I believe Artman paid 3 to 4 times more for his "PV system" than I did for my house!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 108 ·
4
Replies
108
Views
12K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K