Utility companies nationwide are jumping on the claim that YES they do. Of course this lends to benefit utility companies from both federal funds and higher energy bills for the consumer.

Some argue, utility providers, that they already have enough power for their communities and the creation or green energies only increases costs to produce and maintain power beyond the community demand.

In order to argue this point you need to understand a little about how Utility companies obtain their energy for distribution. Not all utility companies actually “produce” energy. Most energy is managed through the RTOs, Regional Transmission Organizations. These providers manage the operation of multiple interconnected independent power supply companies. The purpose of the RTO is to provide for a separation of generation and transmission and elimination of stacked rates. This very function eliminates the potential benefit from the distribution of lower cost produced energy. Why? Because energy is pooled and distributed at a fixed, negotiated contract rate on a national level. When someone creates and transmits solar energy in Texas though the RTO distribution chain the percentage is so nominal that the end consumer will only experience the difference in .0000001 of a penny if at all. The real effect is the local market in Texas where the power is being created will actually experience an increase due to the new costs associated in creating new energy. Additionally that same utility provider didn’t really create the previous energy it was providing to begin with and brokered its energy from the RTOs.

Is it justifiable for this local energy company to raise its rates? That’s where the real argument comes in. Prior to “Green”, the utility companies purchased their energy for distribution at a fixed negotiated price. Now the company has to budget millions in new technology, development and equipment. Though RTOs will distribute this energy they won’t pay a penny more for it and unless it can be produced at less cost than current methods there’s absolutely no cost benefit to the utility company.

In an ideal world most energy produced would come from Green technologies and this would reduce wholesale costs dramatically. But for now there is only a burden of increased costs to the end consumer.

Northwest Utilities Warn Green Energy May Raise Rates: http://news.opb.org/article/4611-northw ... ise-rates/

W(watt) ratings very rarely tell you how much power a turbine will produce. Most small turbines are advertised with a given W rating or output. For example, a turbine might be called 500W, 10 kW, 5 kW or 25 kW (1000 w = 1 Kw). The rating describes the rated capacity of the turbine at a particular wind speed. A 10 kW turbine might produce 10 kW at a 40 MPH wind speed. A 25 kW turbine might produce 25 kW at a 36 MPH wind speed. These numbers do not tell you how much power the turbine will produce at the average or more realistic wind speed at your location - or any location for that matter. There are few, if any, locations where small wind turbines will be installed where the average wind speed is 25 or 30 MPH. Most locations where small turbines will be installed have average wind speeds in the 4-10 MPH range.

Two 500 W turbines might also produce completely different power outputs due to the rotor diameter. One has a 4 foot diameter rotor and the other an 8 foot diameter rotor. Both have 500 W generators. The 8 foot turbine has twice the swept area of the 10 foot turbine. It will therefore produce twice the power of the smaller rotor turbine. The 500 W rating tells the prospective customer nothing about the turbine's capacity to produce electrical power.

Another factor to consider is what is considered a “Small” turbine. Most small turbines are anything but “Small” and require large mounting supports 20’ to 30’ high and could boast 10’ to 14’ diameter rotors. The start up speed for these units might be significantly above your average wind speed in your installation area.

Unfortunately, Watts is a key word in marketing a wind turbine to the general market. Some states and funding agencies require these ambiguous ratings. This only encourages manufacturers to attach large (less efficient) generators to small diameter rotors in order to secure a market and funding advantage. This practice both unfairly prejudices a particular turbine but misleads the consumer to spend more money on the wrong product for their needs.

First you need to know “how much stuff you have”, then you need to know “How Solar works”. Additionally, but not such a critical factor is “where you live”, it’s fair to assume you will get about 6 hours of direct sunlight a day on average considering clouds, rain, and other weather conditions that might exist in your specific area.

You can start by figuring out how much power your home consumes on average. Your energy bill should provide you with a summary of your energy consumption trends over a period of time. A typical home has the basics, a water heater, stove/oven, dish washer, clothes dryer, electric heater , TV, lights, computer, etc. If we say these items average out to 600 watts. Over the course of 24 hours, you need 600 watts * 24 hours = 14,400 watt-hours per day.

Now a bit about solar. An average solar panel can generate 70 milliwatts per square inch * 5 hours = 350 milliwatt hours per day. Therefore you need about 41,000 square inches of solar panel for the house. That's a solar panel that measures about 285 square feet (about 26 square meters).

Unfortunately this only covers you the part of the day the sun shines, approximately 6 hours, and most likely not the 6 hours your home. So what do you do when the sun isn’t shining? A battery bank is a good solution but very costly to an already costly endeavor. The original question, how much do I need, is a moving target. Solar by itself is not a reasonable cost effective, practical solution.

NOAA Solar Calculators: http://www.srrb.noaa.gov/highlights/sunrise/gen.html

With recent stimulus dollars will GM be positioned to finally finish what other poorly funded and under resourced companies have failed at?

GM has played in this field before with the Chevy Volt and plans on a production release in 2010. Though the Volt is only about 50% electric, it’s a step in the right direction.

With a fresh bankroll, a leaner team and tremendous motivation to “stay in business”, I would think GM is the perfect company to finally put Electric cars on the road.

Here are a few companies that are trying to get some stimulus dollars!

Electric Vehicles International (EVI)
http://www.evi-usa.com

Tesla Motors
http://www.teslamotors.com

Tesla Model S
http://www.teslamotors.com/models/index.php

This week Assembly Democrats proposed a wind, solar and other clean energy tax in Navada. Nevada is one of our leading states in the production of Clean Energy. Why would the government want to tax the very product that eliminates our need for foreign oil dependency?

Similar bills have been presented in the past few weeks. Nevada appears to be a pinnacle state in this new direction to bleed states for more tax revenues. If just one of these bills pass it will open the door to go after other states and producers of alternative energy.

http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/200 ... 39956/1058