BillHobbs.com - Blogging about politics and media from Nashville.

So, Al Gore's folks claim his mammoth energy usage isn't really that bad because he buys "carbon offsets," although that doesn't appear to be quite the truth, and because he signed up for Nashville Electric Service's "Green Power Switch" program, for which he pays a little extra to buy "green" power.

Okay, so, what does that add up to, really. A reader at the Ecotality blog ran the numbers. Turns out "green power" accounts for less than one percent of all electric power generated by the Tennessee Valley Authority, from whence NES buys its power. Under seven percent if you count hydroelectric power as "green" - although TVA doesn't, for some reason. Now, once power is in the grid, it is impossible to tell which electrons came from windmills and solar panels and which came from burning coal. Which means that, at a maximum, only seven percent of the electricity used by Al Gore's Nashville mansion and guest house comes from green sources.

I agree with you in part, Bill, and disagree in part. Then there is the concept mess that is called Green Power which I am up in the CO2 on.

Where I disagee. The fact that AC energy supplied to Al is vibrating electrons in Al's own electric components aside, if Al is paying for the more expensive energy supplied, ie, the 'Green Energy', I think he has the right to claim he is not polluting with his energy used. The question is whether he is paying for the 'Green Energy' and whether he is 100% as he claims, at least on the Electrical energy use portion. This, to my mind, is akin to the idea that if I paid for a Prius, SUV owners don't get to claim a portion of my Green energy efforts under some communal concept.

Where I agree is in several areas, many of which we, or at least I, still don't have enough info to assess. One is Al's claim to being 100% Green Electric. The Tennessean reported that Al bought almost 108 blocks of Green Energy per month for the last three months per some summary they have in hand, yet they don't produce for readers to verify. That story, which I think you may have pointed me to, is here:
http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070227/NEWS01/702270382

WKRN, however, published Al's NES Billing History, here (via Donald Sensing):

http://www.news2wkrn.com/goreelectricbill.pdf

The tabulated summary does not show any additional charges so I did a table to check the rate charged and it is 0.0738 cents for Feb '07 which is in accordance with NES's published rate schedule (available in pdf online). I would expect the Green Energy charge of $4/block cost (or $432/month) to be reflected in the NES Billing History but it isn't there. As I noted in a comment on a previous post of yours, I don't believe it until I see the bills. It's possible he is signed up for 108 blocks but it is "first come first served" and Al isn't Green at all, though he in line to be when enough is available. If it is a case of Al only being signed up but not paying, then that is akin to me being signed up for some wonder car that produces no pollution at all and when someone invents it, I'll be first in line to buy one but because I am on the list, I'm 100% green now even though I will be driving my coal powered steam engine vehicle for until then.

But if Al is paying it and this can be shown to be true, I'd still need to get past this: According to an American Thinker post, TVA pays 15 cents per kW-h to their Green Energy suppliers. If this is so, then even if Al is paying the higher price to the full extent of his usage, he is only paying 35% of the additonal cost to TVA and others are subsidizing the rest. The best he could say then is he is 35% Green.

Lastly, part of the problem with this convoluted and totally ambiguous system of buying Green Energy is the honor and pride of wearing the Green lapel pin seems to me to be that you are paying more for the pin you wear in an effort to increase green energy sources. I mention this because, I in my rummaging around the Internet, I came across the EPA site which has program for fostering Green Energy, followed it through to Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) Marketers and then through a link to 3 Phases Energy Services, an REC marketer, to the 3 Phases website. There, one sees a Jan 2007 press release highlighting Penn State University's increased committment to Green Energy under a new energy contract. A synopsis of the story at PSU (http://live.psu.edu/story/21490):

In 2001 they committed via contract to dedicate 5% of their energy use to green energy (windpower) @1.4 cents per kW-h via an REC. With this new contract, PSU has just committed to increasing that to 20%, not by paying that more for the privilege of wearing a 20% Green lapel pin instead of the old 5%one bought in 2001, but by just negotiating a lower price of 0.5 cents per kW-h (different mix of sources) for the privilege.

Does that make sense? Maybe, but I don't really believe it does. Besides, almost 20% of PSU's new Green lapel pin was the result of switching from windpower to burning methane. That's not exactly a full step up on the green ladder; it sounds more like 16% Green and 4% Energy Independence.

Sorry to slip off subject with this PSU example, but I do think it is a good example of the quagmire that is fostered by Al Gore's fanatical efforts to stop the visions of climate change which prowl the deep recesses of his mind and the weird rationalizations that he spawns in society as a result.

Wow, also sorry for such a long comment.

Posted by: Dusty at March 4, 2007 8:47 PM

March 2, 2007

In Al's Defense