Would you be okay with green energy it significantly raised your rates?

[HempKat]

I'm attempting to do my first poll so bear with me. In various places across the world green energy sources our being developed, wind, solar, bio-fuels, etc. Many are being funded entirely by taxpayers in the form of a rate increase to pay for it to be built. Yet it gets sold as a cheaper as well as greener source of energy. In many cases these increases come close to doubling what you pay for kilowatt per second. Surveys in areas affected by this sort of thing typically the wealthy being in favor even though it will cost more. People that have little to no income to spare are bitterly against it because they're already struggling and don't understand why that if it's supposed to be cheaper then how come it's costing so much more? Plus they understand that all businesses affected will pass that on to the consumer as well, so the consumer effectively gets taxed twice.

So that's my question, a simple yes or no poll that says:
Yes - I'm all for green energy even if I'm the one that's going to pay more for it.

or

No - I'm hanging on by a thread and already sacrifice to much to survive, If I have to pay more for green energy I don't want it.


Feel free to add to the thread as to why you choose the way you do. I figure it's got to be an interesting topic for many of us because many of us were part of the original "Hippie" movement and one of the bigger issues was the environment. Yet also many of us are struggling to get by and can sometimes only make it by growing and selling weed to supplement often very meager incomes. These taxes and rate hikes come into direct conflict with our ideals vs our lives. Especially when you consider that it would make growing more expensive and therefore you'd have to sell for more. Except everyone you sell to is going to be feeling the pinch too and they may need to cut back rather then pay more.

 

[HidingInTheHaze]

If any of these fat cats actually cared about green energy they would be encouraging YOU to make your home environmentally friendly and self sufficient so it could be taken off of the grid.

They want green energy but only if they control it and can make money by selling it to you. If it costs double to produce somebody is doing something wrong, or they are just totally taking you to the cleaners under the ruse of caring about our environment.

 

[yerboyblue]

If energy is renewable, then why does it cost more? I'm not sure but they managed to make that the case.

And no regarding the poll.

 

[resinryder]

NO. I am purchasing power from a Co-Op which is not being forced to buy the "green energy" like the larger power company in the state. They currently purchase electricity wholesale at 6.5 cent/kwh but could buy this absolutely wonderful GREEN ENERGY for 21cent/kwh. That would have raised my normal power bill from 212.00 this month to slightly more than 636.00.
The legislature has forced the larger power company in the state to buy the green energy peaking out to where they have to use at least 21 to 25 percent of all power sold to come from a green source by 2020 or some time frame around that. The legislature has lovingly looked out for the Green energy producers while allowing them to rape the power customer, forcing them to purchase this high priced commodity. Total bullshit. If green energy is such a good deal, why is it better than 3 times more to purchase, subsidized by state and fed government, and FORCED on the customer who has a hard time paying for what they are getting now without a choice buy a company with a monopoly?
So no. Until they came bring it to where it is now I'd just as soon keep what I have.

 

[Perpetual Nooch]

You forgot one option. How about green energy that is cheap and abundant. I've got one word: molten salt reactor fueled by thorium. Ooops, ok that's six words.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor

This is the answer to all our hopes and prayers. Will it happen? I doubt it. But people should know there is an alternative that is safe, reliable, abundant and cheap that is possible with today's technology.

I voted no only because I know there is a cheap alternative that is better for the environment and all that is needed is to bring it online. The Chinese are making these reactors already.

 

[Terroir]

NOT a fan of the green energy myself. Love the cleanness etc however over the last few years we have seen massive power price hikes due to electricity wholesalers "gold plating" there networks as the only way they can increase the rates they charge is by investing in the network. However electricity usage has been dropping steadily for quite a few years. They claim they need to ugrade the networks for peak demand summer days. Lying scum just trying to inflate there bonuses.

Water is so precious here however It would be an ecological disaster to build more dams for hydro. OUr rivers need the flow more than we need clean juice.

Wind has its uses but its not reliable enough. 2 expensive as well. Produces good yield when placed correctly but clean energy should be as cheap as coal. I dont believe in govt subsidies for green energy. Research subsidies and grants etc are cool however nothing that lines the pockets of the power providers as its "good for the planet" and subsidized by the tax payer.

I truly believe we are not far away from a solar revolution. Thats the green future and when they figure it out theres going to lots of juice here very cheap.

Coal is dirty but its cheap. MOney talks. Oz is a pretty untouched an unspoiled place a bit of co2 from coal power is ok by me.

 

[HempKat]

If any of these fat cats actually cared about green energy they would be encouraging YOU to make your home environmentally friendly and self sufficient so it could be taken off of the grid.

They want green energy but only if they control it and can make money by selling it to you. If it costs double to produce somebody is doing something wrong, or they are just totally taking you to the cleaners under the ruse of caring about our environment.

They're not saying it costs double to produce. It's costing double to raise the money to build it rather then the fat cats taking the money out of their pockets to foot the bill. In one case I just heard about, the increase will stay in effect for 25 years at which point it will be considered paid for. The fat cats will then have control of a free energy source and do you really think they'll just suddenly drop the rates to what they should have been or will they keep milking people for the same amount they've been used to paying for the past 25 years?

 

[HempKat]

You forgot one option. How about green energy that is cheap and abundant. I've got one word: molten salt reactor fueled by thorium. Ooops, ok that's six words.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor

This is the answer to all our hopes and prayers. Will it happen? I doubt it. But people should know there is an alternative that is safe, reliable, abundant and cheap that is possible with today's technology.

I voted no only because I know there is a cheap alternative that is better for the environment and all that is needed is to bring it online. The Chinese are making these reactors already.

Ahh but if it only were just an option. For the people in areas where this is happening it's being made law. The only hope for the people is that the law doesn't pass. That or they move or find some way to go off the grid which is typically impossible for those struggling to get by.

 

[mwz]

Ecologists tell us humans will lead to the extinctions of humans. In my opinion, seeing we have a choice between filling the atmosphere with carbon or not reinforces that view.

Just my two cents.

 

[Slim Pickens]

It's been alluded to in the previous posts.I don't have a problem with Green Energy at all.The problem I have is we as citizens foot the bill for the development,and then the energy produced is sold back to us at highly inflated rates.The enormous profits then go to some banker/investor who lights cigars with $100 bills.

Just like everything else.

 

[GMT]

All people need to do is spend 100 $ or £ or euros each, buy up a few shares in these power companies and then we the people own our own power supplies between us. But people keep complaining about paying loads each month for power and how the companies are run. Each year you vote to fire every member of the board of directors till we get a board that runs it for us rather than to maximise the profits. The solution is right there but instead people would rather complain than share the cost of the solution between them.

 

[RM - aquagrower]

Green energy? Kinda like ethenol, made from corn and used to "cut" gas, and "lower dependence on oil"? Yea right. Little known fact is that it takes 3 gal of oil to produce 1 gal of ethenol, and the only "profit" seen by it's producers is from gonverment subsidies.

Add in the cost increase of corn per bushel due to supply/demand when so much is being used to produce the ethenol and not to feed livestock and let's see just how much we are actually paying for this "green energy". What a farce.

I suspect that much, if not all, "green energy" runs along the same lines. Not so "green" after all. Total bullshit I say, and I'm tired of paying for it.

Just one more example of the golden rule, "He who has the gold, makes the rules".

 

[kaotic]

Your poll options suck. I'm voting no but not because I'm broke. This is like a liberal media gotcha question. Sorry man, just had to put it out there.

 

[Hydro-Soil]

The only green-power I'm interested in paying additional money for is an off-grid system for my own house.

Not interested in lining the pockets of people that don't need the money.

Stay Safe!

 

[astartes]

Depends on the type of green energy. We dug up an acre and put in a geothermal system. With good tax rebates, the costs will be recouped in 7 years. After that the home's heating and cooling costs are roughly 10% of what we'd be paying without the system. Still on the grid but only a fraction of the cost.

Paying more simply for the sake of paying more doesn't make much sense to me.

a.

 

[GMT]

dont forget to ditch the petrol engine, buy a diesel and run it on cooking oil.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

Where's the other options?

Like the one that says "I hate green energy. Screw posterity. Money is only good if it's in my pocket."

Or "Coal is fine. Global warming is a leftist conspiracy."

Or "Why should I have to pay for anything? I showed up where's my energy?"

Especially the one I would have voted for "Nuclear power is entertaining to worry about."

 

[David557]

Some people are generating their own green energy and even taking themselves off the grid. There are some great guides out there on how to do this, some of which are listed on this site www.diyenergyreview.com if you’re interested?

 

[HempKat]

Your poll options suck. I'm voting no but not because I'm broke. This is like a liberal media gotcha question. Sorry man, just had to put it out there.

All I'm really trying to determine is whether or not peoples ideals for the environment hold up when it hits them in the pocketbook real hard.

 

[HempKat]

Depends on the type of green energy. We dug up an acre and put in a geothermal system. With good tax rebates, the costs will be recouped in 7 years. After that the home's heating and cooling costs are roughly 10% of what we'd be paying without the system. Still on the grid but only a fraction of the cost.

Paying more simply for the sake of paying more doesn't make much sense to me.

a.

I'm not talking about optional upgrades, I'm talking green energy that is forced on you by your local government. The story that sparked this is being billed as a wind tax. It's for the state of Maryland to pay for an off shore wind farm in the Atlantic. If passed everyone getting electricity from all the major power providers in the area will be forced to pay nearly double what they pay now per killowatt hour for the next 25 years. Unfortunately not everyone can afford to go GeoThermal or aren't in the right location. Nor can everyone afford to go solar or set up their own wind turbines. When they asked state residents what they thought the only voices saying it was a good thing because it's better for the environment were people who could afford to absorb the extra cost. So I wanted to see what the general consensus was here because I know alot of members are from the hippie movement days and improving the environment was a big cause back then. I was curious as to whether or not those sorts of causes hold up for people when it's not so convenient?