Here's one from Canada, Joel.

Regards,

Shax

Here is a link that might be useful: Co-ops

Thanks, Shax. I will look into this, since (as you know) I'm in Canada. Also, nice to hear from you, again, on a thread.

I have long heard about the U.S. law, passed in 1978, known as PURPA -- which requires the public utility system in all of the United States to buy available electrical-grid energy supplied by small producers (such as those using solar, wind, small-hydro). It is not hard to find out about the PURPA legislation, and I've appended a link to a very brief discussion of PURPA as it has applied to the state of Louisiana. More about the basic legal framework can readily be learned from a further Web search.

It was believed when the law was passed that it would encourage the establishment of small electricity producers, since the public utilities would be (as I understand it) required to buy the excess power of small producers.

This fact, coupled with an interest on the part of some Good Samaritans in their neighbourhoods or communities, should have encouraged the development of electricity producers at that scale -- I would have thought. Although getting the financing for the in-front costs of alternative power for the home or farm might be prohibitive in many cases, I would have thought that financing at this larger scale (neighbourhood or community) would be more feasible.

Have I got it wrong. Maybe there are other regulatory hurdles (??). I ask our American friends.

Joel

Here is a link that might be useful: PURPA in Louisiana

Forcing utilities to buy inefficient and wastefully generated power makes as much sense as saying nuclear power is a major polluter: only the misinformed will agree.

The purchase of energy has no relation to the cost to the consumer who choses to generate electricity. Seems to me that the wasteful/most costly behavior would be to ground the excess production rather than to let the meter roll back some. I could comment on some uses of logic, but I'll pass.

tplife: in what way do you find the smaller-scale electricity production to be inefficient and wasteful? Your post is pretty brief, and I'm left wondering.

Are you aware of the local installations ("wind farms") of wind-driven generators in countries like Denmark and Canada?

Not that I hope this thread will veer off into that topic (supposed wastefulness) much. I'm still mainly interested to learn about installations at the neighbourhood and community level.

J.

My only experience with local power generation is from living in the town of Pardeeville, Wisconsin, about 40 miles north of Madison. Pardeeville, and other small progressive towns in central Wisconsin, electrified very early, within a decade of New York City, I believe. They built a small dam across the Fox River, creating Park Lake in the process. The falling water was used to drive a generator, & I believe the system is still being used.

Thanks, Eric. I'm guessing that the project you're refering to goes back to days before the "green awareness" and energy consciousness that has (so I've read, from a tousand sources) stemmed from the original Earth Day, 1970. I believe that there must have been quite a few local energy-producing projects from earlier decades, which were pursued simply because they made some kind of sense -- i.e., they were not driven by any kind of rhetoric or major "point proving."

Not to say that I'm unhappy about the generally raised awareness of environmental topics.

J.

The small hydroelectric plant in Pardeeville, WI, would likely date to around 1900. At that time, social progress and scientific/industrial progress were part of the same fabric. Having a local power plant meant civic improvements like street lights, and made the town more attractive to industry. I don't know to what degree the dam and small lake it created disrupted the local ecology.
The Fox River upstream of Park Lake is an ox-bowed stream, maybe three feet deep, and 10 feet wide. It winds through marshland and pastures before it enters the lake. It is neither swift nor cold.

"At that time, social progress and scientific/industrial progress were part of the same fabric. Having a local power plant meant civic improvements like street lights, and made the town more attractive to industry." Yeah, Eric, that's what I meant.

I'd think that decentralization of power production would still make sense, in terms of the possibility of energy price stability (hence, also, greater community independence and self-respect), the ability of a populace to add its voice in rejection of suggestions for larger, polluting power plants in the region, etc. But *home* scale energy production, in terms of today's small tech, is still not really afforable and practical enough to entice a significant proportion of home-owners. It's basically attractive to residents of isolated situations.

J.

I am old enough to remember New England mill towns and their dwindling reliance on local water power both to do mechanical work and to generate electricity. My home town had 4 dams along the river and spaced pretty closely. I recently returned to find most dams had been removed (along with most of the old mills). What surprised me was how shallow were the empoundments behind all but one of the dams. Each dam had been erected near the top of rapids, thus allowing quite a head of water pressure to develop for downstream users.

Marshall, there is one "ghost town" in my region -- a few people have returned to it, nostaligically and with hopes of tourism livelihoods -- that has a water-power generator put in during the mining-boom days just before 1900. Picture an area something like the mineral-seam areas of the Rocky Mountains, although we are in a mountain chain to the west.

This was the second generator system in all of British Columbia, being put in in the gaslight era. The generator was restored a decade or so back and is now fully functional.

Today's generators *would* be more efficient (is that a nod in the direction of Mr. tplife?

J.

Hey, if it doesn't have the appropriate corporate logo and the Right political connections, it is (ipso facto) inefficient. ;0)

Right, Marshall.[chuckle]

In the absence of a response from Mr. tp, I've got to wonder if that's where he was coming from.

My understanding of solar is that it has become a *lot* more efficient since the '70s, and that now scientists and techies are working on ways to make the production of solar cells cleaner, as a next goal.

J.

Improved efficiencies have been on-going in spite of sporadic government incentives and perhaps even dis-incentives. There is little reason for major energy suppliers and distributors to support decentralized energy expansion as long as the supply of fossil fuels continue to be assured by collective government policies. Energy independence is defined as control over this fuel supply, not creating alternative energy systems.

Of course I write with US in mind although Canadian energy policies are deeply integrated with the US ones.

I was able to look up minutes from a recent meeting of the Pardeeville Public Utilities, operators of the small hydro-dam referred to above. The Pardeeville power unit is buying electricity from several large electric companies, and is also getting billed for improvements to the regional transmission system. The original hydroelectric dam is in need of regular maintenance, both to the dam and also to the generator itself. There is no sense of an independent community attempting to make and use power locally. That may have been true at one time. Today, the public utility functions as a way for the community (ratepayers) to keep costs down. I'm sure they get a better rate when they purchase power through the Pardeeville Public Utilities, as opposed to being an individual household.

Eric, is it not the case that *all* public power-producing plants will, sooner or later, require not only regular maintenance but upgrades, replacement of major structures and components, the building of new facilities, etc?

You said before that the Pardeeville Power Plant was old. Okay. But what happens when a big, grid-feeding coal or nuclear plant gets older? Does it not require lots of money at that point? Will that be paid by electrical-rate-payers only, or via the public tax system?

Are the public utilities independent of government? How about if they have "an accident"? (Up here, the power companies have often been part of government -- "Crown coporations.")

J.

I'm not sure how Pardeeville Public Utilities supports itself. To my knowledge, it charges customers for services, including electricity, sewer, & water. The customers expect reliable electricity, and I suspect the demand for electric power has outgrown what could be supplied by the local hydro plant. I am not aware of any attempt to increase the supply of electric power locally, with either wind or solar. So, they buy power from larger companies, & distribute this power to the local customers.

Shax -- if you're still lokking in on this thread.... I seem to remember that you are using solar (p.v.) at your home place, am I right?

Assuming you are, can you see some advantage for people in your neighbourhood banding together and establishing power generation at a larger scale? I realize it gets into power distribution via overhead or buried cables. Seems to me, though, that a dozen neighbours could produce, say, two dozen-fold the electrical power, so that each household had more when they needed it.

In many places, obviously, the power lines are already installed.

G'day.

Joel

I don't think this townhouse development is on a big enough scale to suit community green power definition, but I happened to see it looking for something related & thought of this thread.

Here is a link that might be useful: solar saver homes

Joel,

yes, am pretty well all solar on my place (except the chainsaw...still working on that one!).

Most, if not all of my neighbours are on the grid, so your question to me is a moot point, but theoretically, I don't think it would work on a social level. Would be a nightmare trying to organise so many disparate families, miles from each other, to form any sort of co-op. And most people who choose this lifestyle (around here, at least), do so to get away from neighbours.

Even I would be reluctant to become part of such a scheme, as it'd mean losing some of my independence.
I realise this sounds pessimistic, but just my opinion...

Regards,

Shax

Shax, most of the people in my valley have similar attitudes. By far, most are on the grid. A few are on solar. There's not frequent enough wind at a sufficient level to go with that. And small hydro requires the right sort of creek on your property.

But independence is what a lot of people value in my rural area. Possibly back 25-30 years, there would have been a group here who would have tried neighbourhood-level power genration, it's not likely the case now. The principle would have to be modeled by other communities first, then people here might be willing to consider it seriously. I think of places like Davis, California (which I've never visited -- but have read about, from time to time).

I tend to feel that if hydrogen is the near-future's fuel for cars and transport, then it will only really be a good thing if coupled with renewable-sourced electricity as the means to split the water molecule to derive the hydrogen. (That or bacterial production of hydrogen.)

Home set-ups may make sense for a small portion of the population, but since the majority of people in most of the world now live in cities and suburbs, home set-ups in themselves probably can't be terrifically significant to planet Earth. Too individually expensive and demanding of maintenance. But they can be useful in some circumstances -- and they sort of make a statement of a positive sentiment, too.

J.

Joel, check out Randy's thread -- NBC News -- for examples of community green.

Thanks, Althea.

By the way (and O.T.), how's your soil coming? Has the compost helped noticeably? Good luck in the gardens!

J.

No problem Joel.

The soil is coming along nicely. Thanks for asking. I finally got some compost tea brewing which will be ready in a couple of days and planted peas leftover from spring as a cover crop. I don't have much compost to work with yet, but I used what I had, plus I moved as much of my old soil as I could when I moved some perennials. I now have a growing population of worms where there were none. I'm having fun watching the transformation.

Joel, this article may be of interest. Findhorn in Scotland and Damanhur in Italy have developed sophisticated economic systems. They even have their own currency.

Here is a link that might be useful: A Tale of Two Ecovillages