Talk:Green tags

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Green tags article.

Contents

[edit] Proof of displaced pollution

Hey, Kerberos... can we talk about what you just deleted? Here are the paragraphs:

Kerberos deleted: "Here is a simple explanation of how a green tag works. An electricity provider like a wind farm is credited with green tags for every 1000kWhs of electricity it produces. (A pure coal power plant would produce roughly 1 tonne of CO2 while creating a comparable amount of energy.) A certifying agency gives each green tag an ID number and makes sure it doesn't get double-counted. Then the wind farm sells the green tag on the open market."

I would like to add this back in. What is the problem with this paragraph? Scott Teresi 05:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
That paragraph's fine, but it repeats from the preceding paragraph. --Kerberos 16:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Kerberos deleted: "In this example, since the CO2 pollution produced by the coal power plant is not directly taxed, how does buying a green tag reduce CO2? The 1000kWhs of power that the renewable plant produced is mandated to be bought by the coal plant (or whatever power company serves the area) at the market price. In effect, the coal plant has to then cut its output by a corresponding 1000kWhs. By buying a green tag, you've just financed a reduction of 1000kWhs in polluting energy and shifted the demand for energy from a traditional power plant to a green power plant."

A majority of electricity is propduced buy pollution-causing generators. What's wrong with this example? It states that we're comparing to a 100% coal mix. We could add that this is not typical, but that's shown in the next paragraph Scott Teresi 05:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
It's confusing and inaccurate. Coal plants (for example) don't by renewable power, nor do they necessarily reduce their output because renewable power is fed into the grid. (Particularly coal plants, since they provide steady base load power; the most likely displaced fossil fuel is peak load providing natural gas; if there's hydro on the system, that's the most likely to be displaced.) Mainly, however, green tags are only a token of the renewable energy. If the energy goes into the grid, it's because it goes into the grid, not because the green tags are sold later. --Kerberos 16:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback, Kerberos. I'll see if I can improve the article, with the point in mind that green energy has a much smaller chance of replacing coal energy than hydro energy, for instance (I'm going to check some sources for some feedback on that). However, I think your following point is too extreme: "If the energy goes into the grid, it's because it goes into the grid, not because the green tags are sold later." Where does the money go when a green generator sells green tags? It no doubt increases the owner's salary, but it probably also goes into further investment into the plant for future expansion or for loan guarantees. Green tag income would also be counted on in the business plans of other people who want to start up a green energy plant. From a macro perspective, how can you not say that income from green tags does not increase the viability of green energy production? -- Scott Teresi 06:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that is true. Green tags increase the economic viability of green energy production. Conveniently for producers of less valuable green energy, such as wind power, green tags are not tied to actual displacement of other sources or actual reduction of their emissions.

Kerberos deleted: "You can estimate the amount of CO2 saved by buying one green tag by looking at the energy mix in the typical electricity supply. A green tag could offset 1 tonne of CO2 if it were to finance the offset of about 1000kWh from a pure coal power plant. However, nationally, the electrical grid in the U.S. is made up of about 50% coal power plants, 17% natural gas, 19% nuclear, and the rest hydroelectric. As a rough calculation, it would take 1648 kWh of grid electricity to create 1 tonne CO2, so you would have to buy roughly 1.648 green tags to offset one tonne of CO2 in the U.S.[1] If, however, you are paying for green tags which offset coal plants more directly than other forms of energy, your effect would be greater."

I think you've gone overboard here! Scott Teresi 05:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Again, coal (or nuclear) is the least likely to be displaced and hydro the most. Further, it's sloppy language to say "a green tag could offset ...," since, again, it is just a token. --Kerberos 16:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Kerberos added: "Critics point out, however, the flaw in this system in that it does not require any proof of displaced polluting power."

I don't understand this criticism exactly... yes, a green tag doesn't mean that any exact amount of CO2 is displaced. All it means is that 1MWh of green electricity has been produced. Why does this mean the following paragraphs must be removed? If you produce 1MWh of clean energy, where is it going to go?? Scott Teresi 05:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The point is what is displaced, not what is produced, was mentioned in the next sentence. --Kerberos 16:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Kerberos added: "But since some renewable energy sources, most notable wind power, are intermittent and variable, their production does not displace an equivalent amount of other sources, diminishing the effective value of the green tags."

Are you saying that 1MWh of wind energy does not displace 1MWh of traditional energy? Why not? Where does the 1MWh go then? Can't coal power plants be turned down when the wind energy is being generated? Scott Teresi 05:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
No, coal plants can not be turned down. They take many hours to get going. Only fast-reacting peak load providers would change their output to balance the fluctuations of wind power. But, like the difference between driving stop-and-go in the city and driving steadily on the highway, that frequent ramping and especially turning on and off is less efficient (burns more fuel) and cancels some, if not all, of the benefit. Nobody has ever shown a reduction of other fuel use because of wind power on the grid. Thus green tags for wind power at least do not translate to less pollution or carbon emissions. --Kerberos 16:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Costs

What makes nuclear and fossil fuel cheaper than solar and wind power? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.113.104.47 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The fossil fuel industry is entrenched and has a lot of susidies I believe (at least petroleum does). Nuclear power also receives a lot of subsidies. Also, their full cost isn't figured into their price. The cost of using an energy source which pollutes the atmosphere is cheap now, but must be paid for later. Should this be made clearer in the opening paragraphs of the article? -- Scott Teresi 16:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
They are also tremendously concentrated sources of fuel whose generation of electricity can be pretty well relied upon, although Scott's answer is also quite correct. Kerberos 01:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] details please

Could you explain the process better? When you pay a green tag does the person you pay it to pay your non-renewable energy bill and then put some green energy on their grid? When you audit your energy usage and buy green tags do you add transmission costs to it? I know the actual electrons are unlikely to make it to your location, but if you are paying a wind farm somewhere in Kansas it may be that it's output has to travel far to reach it's destination and maybe those losses should be understood and added to the green tags needed. Everytime I read about green tags all I see is flowery language without the hard questions answered. Even when I've looked at a green tag producer's page I could not find the details. It resembled dot com maarketing hype. Don't misinterpret my attitude. I'm all for it but I want be able to answer the critics if take up the cause. BillK --leavingthegrid.blogspot.com

Sometimes the green tags are bundled with the energy, and the utility buys both, usually to fulfill its renewable portfolio obligations. They can not be resold. But when individuals and companies buy green tags, it is separate from the energy, which would have been sold "alone" -- that is, unless you're directly paying your utility for green energy, you're still buying the same amount of nongreen energy along with your green tags. The sale of green tags spearate from the energy certainly helps the income stream of the green energy producer (not to mention the green tag brokers that are popping up like fungi), and thus may have some effect of helping to enable the production of green energy, but it doesn't affect the actual production of that energy or its contribution to the grid at all. A pretty clear description can be found at http://www.nativeenergy.com/comparison.html, showing that with or without green tags the green energy entering the grid and the nongreen energy used by the purchaser is the same. You are quite right to be skeptical, especially as company after company announces they've "gone green" by just buying those tags. --Kerberos 22:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC):
This is as I feared. I was a memeber of something like this for roughly 2 years. It is called http://www.ncgreenpower.org I didn't know this was green tags.

I contributed money for 3 blocks of green energy at $4 per block per month. When I met them at their booth at a local enviro festival I learned from one of their booth workers that they did not actually have the renewable inputs yet, but that my "donations" (rougly $288 ) went into an escrow. I am even more dubious about this scheme. Needless to say I quit buying green power blocks. Bill Knighton - leavingthegrid.blogspot.com


[edit] Link to critical page

The page in the links section "the wooly world of green tags" attempts to show that Green Tags are a charade, whose only benefit is to enrich the organization selling them. I think it's healthy to have views from both sides, and wouldn't advocate removing this link, but it would nice if the aricle more clearly responded to this line of (flawed) argument. The criticism in this link in entirely baseless, because it ignores the fact that being able to sell Green Tags is what makes the renewable energy production possible. If it costs you $1 to produce a unit of energy renewably, and the market price for that energy is 50c, then the only way to ensure that energy gets produced is to sell 50c worth of Green Tags (or similar). Buyers of those Green Tags are not some suckers who's been tricked into handing over money for nothing, they are collectively ensuring that the renewable energy will be produced. Their 50c has the net effect that 1 unit of non-renewable energy is replaced by 1 unit of renewables. Arguing (as this critic does) that the wind turbine would still be spinning regardless of whether you bought a Green Tag is like arguing that your local McDonald's would still be making Cheeseburgers even if you didn't buy them -- true in a narrow sense, but misleading in its implications. If nobody buys Cheeseburgers, they will eventually stop being produced. If no-one buys Green Tags, or otherwise subsidizes renewable energy production, it will also stop being produced, because the market price is not sufficient to cover the costs of production. --spiralhighway 19:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

So if McDonald's sells "cheeseburger credits," can someone who buys one of those credits say they bought a cheeseburger? It's one thing to say you support cheeseburgers by buying the credits, but quite wrong to say that you consume cheeseburgers when you don't. The "woolly world" writer also has a parody: "grocers greens tags". Kerberos 22:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe a better way to think of Green Tags is to say that by buying one I am willing to pay a higher price for that unit of renewable energy (because I am effectively subsidising the renewable energy company). And by making non-renewable energy companies purchase them, it is effectively making them pay closer to the true cost of producing that unit of energy. 203.117.184.66 15:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC) Jamie A.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/r/e/Talk%7EGreen_tags_33c5.html"