Kansas should get with the times.
I’ve been thinking about renewable energy production since last week when the President’s State of the Union speech before Congress highlighted his plans to reduce American dependence on oil as a source of power. While the President’s goal is surely a lofty one, his plan seemed more than a little lackluster.
My musings have gone from the serious end of the spectrum (wind generation or tidal power) to the downright silly and farfetched. My favorite idea so far from the weird end of the spectrum? Gather up a bunch of those big sea turtles that travel thousands of miles through the open ocean each year. You could probably snag them while they are laying eggs on the beach or something. Anyway, National Geographic has been hooking cameras to their backs and filming the voyages, so why not take that same concept and make it work for us? Hook little turbines on their backs with storage batteries. Then when the turtles come up the next year to lay their eggs, you swap out the batteries.
Fun, but probably unworkable on multiple levels.
Anyway, many states offer incentives for individual Citizens to invest in various renewable technologies for their homes and offices. This website gives you a complete listing of tax incentives, grants, and other government programs on a state-by-state basis on how to incorporate renewable energy into your energy consumption.
One thing that struck me, though, was that most states appear to have what is known as net-metering laws. Normally, if you have a solar panel on top of your roof, it will lower your energy costs by generating a portion of your total energy usage (a single solar panel will usually pay for itself in about 5-7 years). If you build an energy efficient home and have a dozen solar panels, you may pay almost nothing in your electricity bill each month. If you have something like a wind turbine on your land as well, you will be feeding electricity back into the grid rather than sucking it out of the grid.
In states with net-metering laws, your electricity meter actually can spin backwards to reflect the amount of energy you have added to the grid on your own. Instead of sending you a bill each month, the energy company has to send you a check for the energy you gave them.
Most states have this, and it’s a great incentive for people to add some electricity-generating machines to their property (like solar fields, water-wheels on local creeks, windmills, or geothermal venting pipes). Kansas, though, does not have one of these laws. In other words, you could build a system where you generate more power than you use, but all that excess would flow into the grid without you receiving a dime in return.
Why should a Kansan generate power in excess of what he or she uses, then? Social conscience? Perhaps, but that seems to rarely motivate people as much as I think it should.
Kansas should get with the times. Give people the incentive necessary to make money off their plains. What do you want to bet that there are a few farmers who would rather put up 300 acres of wind turbines rather than grow 300 acres of wheat? Wind generators wouldn’t need harvesting, planting, watering or irrigation, pesticides, fertilizers, or expensive machines. An initial investment, plus periodic maintenance, is all that is required before the checks start rolling in on a monthly basis. And if you wanted to generate even more electricity, you could add lightning rods to the tops of the windmills.
If you want people to reduce their reliance on oil for electricity, you should make it profitable to generate power in some other way. Allowing the power company to steal excess energy without paying for it seems to be an odd way of doing that. Why don't we have net-metering laws?
My musings have gone from the serious end of the spectrum (wind generation or tidal power) to the downright silly and farfetched. My favorite idea so far from the weird end of the spectrum? Gather up a bunch of those big sea turtles that travel thousands of miles through the open ocean each year. You could probably snag them while they are laying eggs on the beach or something. Anyway, National Geographic has been hooking cameras to their backs and filming the voyages, so why not take that same concept and make it work for us? Hook little turbines on their backs with storage batteries. Then when the turtles come up the next year to lay their eggs, you swap out the batteries.
Fun, but probably unworkable on multiple levels.
Anyway, many states offer incentives for individual Citizens to invest in various renewable technologies for their homes and offices. This website gives you a complete listing of tax incentives, grants, and other government programs on a state-by-state basis on how to incorporate renewable energy into your energy consumption.
One thing that struck me, though, was that most states appear to have what is known as net-metering laws. Normally, if you have a solar panel on top of your roof, it will lower your energy costs by generating a portion of your total energy usage (a single solar panel will usually pay for itself in about 5-7 years). If you build an energy efficient home and have a dozen solar panels, you may pay almost nothing in your electricity bill each month. If you have something like a wind turbine on your land as well, you will be feeding electricity back into the grid rather than sucking it out of the grid.
In states with net-metering laws, your electricity meter actually can spin backwards to reflect the amount of energy you have added to the grid on your own. Instead of sending you a bill each month, the energy company has to send you a check for the energy you gave them.
Most states have this, and it’s a great incentive for people to add some electricity-generating machines to their property (like solar fields, water-wheels on local creeks, windmills, or geothermal venting pipes). Kansas, though, does not have one of these laws. In other words, you could build a system where you generate more power than you use, but all that excess would flow into the grid without you receiving a dime in return.
Why should a Kansan generate power in excess of what he or she uses, then? Social conscience? Perhaps, but that seems to rarely motivate people as much as I think it should.
Kansas should get with the times. Give people the incentive necessary to make money off their plains. What do you want to bet that there are a few farmers who would rather put up 300 acres of wind turbines rather than grow 300 acres of wheat? Wind generators wouldn’t need harvesting, planting, watering or irrigation, pesticides, fertilizers, or expensive machines. An initial investment, plus periodic maintenance, is all that is required before the checks start rolling in on a monthly basis. And if you wanted to generate even more electricity, you could add lightning rods to the tops of the windmills.
If you want people to reduce their reliance on oil for electricity, you should make it profitable to generate power in some other way. Allowing the power company to steal excess energy without paying for it seems to be an odd way of doing that. Why don't we have net-metering laws?
posted by The Academian | 12:58 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home