How do 100% renewable utility companies compare?

NorthFin

I hate the nuclear industry for all the damage they are doing to the earth.
I would love to go with one of the 100% renewable electricity companies. But do you pay more for the cleaner utilities?


http://www.goodenergy.co.uk/switch-london?gclid=CIKZ1s2ukcQCFUHItAodxmgAAA

tberry6686

There is no such thing as 100% renewable energy companies. The electricity they sell you comes from the same grid as is supplied by nuclear, gas fired, coal fired, oil fired, wind, solar, and tidal. They may tell you that they are 100% renewable but it is marketing BS.

The only way you can use 100% renewable is if your home is completely disconnected from the grid and is supplied by your own wind turbine, solar panels etc

JJ_Egan

Green =more expensive and the greener it is the more it costs .
But in the context of energy suppliers i really don't know what is really green .

Ben84

I actually think nuclear is quite positive for the environment and choose companies who use the most nuclear.

You can search online for the fuel mix data of suppliers in many places. Here's one examples:

http://www.electricityinfo.org/suppliers.php

However, whatever we think about the different sources, the truth is the majority of the electricity coming to your house comes from the nearest connected power plants, not necessarily the ones who your supplier buys their energy from. It basically all works out in the end somehow, but with many people not in fact using the energy they're paying for. Consumer influence probably has limits here, and I doubt that if everyone signed up for renewable energy we'd have a 100% renewable national grid any time soon. I still hope our choices can have a positive effect on the supply over time, but a good deal of how the grid works and what supplies it is down to planning we don't directly affect. I also think quite a few of the renewable and green energy suppliers are simply selling electricity that would be going in to the grid anyway, and for higher prices.

It's not complete nonsense, but I think it's not as clear as they imply in the marketing either. I wouldn't pay more for it unless the supplier can provide evidence of creating new renewable generation, or that they're planning to, or perhaps that they've kept existing renewable generation going when they would otherwise have been shut down. The key thing I think is to be sure that they're having some influence on the amount of renewable energy being put in to the grid, rather than just selling existing renewable supplies for higher prices.

I use suppliers with decent amounts of nuclear (sorry!) to support that, but mostly have focused on reducing the energy I use. That is something we have a good deal more control over.

Richie-from-the-Boro

NorthFin wrote: »

I hate the nuclear industry for all the damage they are doing to the earth.
I would love to go with one of the 100% renewable electricity companies. But do you pay more for the cleaner utilities?


http://www.goodenergy.co.uk/switch-london?gclid=CIKZ1s2ukcQCFUHItAodxmgAAA

- you might feel that way, but only because we all pay for your 'feelings' every person in the country pays for the nonsense that is 'green'
- the economic pain we all suffer if inflicted by our government against its people for no economic reason, current green[ing] is not viable
- the renewable revolution is already imploding, installing solar panels makes no sense unless general taxation subsidises it
- the renewable revolution is already imploding, little or even big windy-mills makes no sense unless general taxation subsidises it
- the renewable revolution is already imploding, general taxation subsidises it and the energy companies are forced to buy the overpriced leccy at above market prices
- the renewable revolution is already imploding, add in the maintenance costs, need for hydrocarbon back-up makes it even more non-viable
- the renewable revolution is already imploding, intermittent and unreliable generation, and the fact that the power company can't store the product, more waste & costs
- the renewable revolution is already imploding, every UK wind industry job is effectively subsidized to the tune of £100,000 per year
- the renewable revolution is already imploding, Scotland, has 230 onshore windy-mill-farms, the figure costs £154,000 per job
- the renewable revolution is already imploding, Germany an early major green pioneer already decided “the sun does send an invoice after all”
- the renewable revolution is already imploding, Siemens is winding down its solar division, and is due to shut it completely by next spring
- the renewable revolution is already imploding, Siemens bought Israels Solel, the gamble failed. Siemens lost around €1 billion
- the renewable revolution is already imploding, Bosch decided to get out of the solar cell and solar module market
- the renewable revolution is already imploding, but the UK continues to empty taxpayers pockets, green is a con - find another way

The only way I can see out of this madness is if ⅓ of the UK felt the way that you do and paid 100% more than I do for energy. That way I and the other ⅔ of the UK would have all green subsidy costs removed effectively because we were then subsidised by you. I would that to happen.

matelodave

No such thing as 100% renewable. The wind doesn't blow all the time, the sun only shines during the day and the closest you can get is tide power. Gas, oil and coal cause Co2 and other nasties which pollute the atmosphere and contribute to "global warming" if you believe the hype.


Nuclear for me all the way, cleaner & greener in my opinion.

Killerseven

Mark Jacobson said years ago the world could turn its back on nuclear and fossil fuels and go over to clean renewable. He said the three primary forms are wind, hydro and mainly solar.

Solar is now cheaper than nuclear per GW and clean for the earth. No toxic waste to dump into our Mother Earth.

matelodave

Also you don't get leccy when it's dark which is a bit of a problem at night and in the winter when most people tend to use it.


Any more clever ideas?

lstar337

Killerseven wrote: »

Mark Jacobson said years ago the world could turn its back on nuclear and fossil fuels and go over to clean renewable. He said the three primary forms are wind, hydro and mainly solar.

Solar is now cheaper than nuclear per GW and clean for the earth. No toxic waste to dump into our Mother Earth.

All of that is pointless until storage is possible.

Until then we need to have enough non renewable capacity to take over when the renewables are not producing.

Storage will solve our problems.

ChumpusRex

lstar337 wrote: »

Storage will solve our problems.

Storage is unrealistic for the forseeable future, except for things like peak shaving.

The cheapest battery technology available costs about 50p to store 5p of electricity.

Why would you pay 50p to store electricity that could be generated for a cost of 5p by burning gas or coal?

The only possible reason is if you need more power for a short amount of time, and cannot afford (or cannot get permission for) new power lines to bring in additional power. This is the case in a few towns and cities, the 5-6 pm peak demand is pushing infrastructure to the limit; new overhead power lines are impossible due to planning restrictions, and new underground power lines are impossibly expensive.

Killerseven

Isnt it something 2 thirds from the power stations is wasted before it get to where its going?