ECN Forum
Posted By: BPHgravity Bogus FPL Program - 02/27/08 01:18 PM
Quote
Now you can help promote energy independence while preserving our environment.

By choosing Sunshine Energy®, a renewable energy program offered by Florida Power & Light Company, you can have a positive impact on our energy future. That’s because Sunshine Energy is American-made and generated from renewable sources like wind, bioenergy and the sun.

For each month you’re enrolled in the Sunshine Energy program, FPL ensures that 1,000 kWh of electricity from cleaner sources is produced by generators in Florida and other states. Your participation in the program creates important environmental benefits in the areas where this cleaner, renewable electricity is generated.


A simple, affordable way to do your part

Sunshine Energy is surprisingly affordable: for only $9.75 more a month, added to your FPL bill, you can help reduce your household’s share of carbon dioxide (C02) emissions and promote a more secure energy future. Nothing with your FPL service changes and no installation is required.
Is this a scam or what! This is the second time I have received this offering from FPL. I ignored the first one but it now appears they are going to push the program. I refuse to be an investor for FPL's profit machine and my only dividen is that I should feel good about myself.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for saving the environment and investing renewable energies. It just seems to me like this prgram is playing on the emotions of the general public and really will not have any direct impact on the citizens of this state.
Posted By: gfretwell Re: Bogus FPL Program - 02/27/08 05:07 PM
Most of this "energy/CO2" business is simply playing on emotion. We are going to run out of water long before we run out of oil and that will have a whole lot greater impact on the human population. That is why things like "ethanol" are such a boondoggle.
Posted By: SteveFehr Re: Bogus FPL Program - 02/27/08 05:41 PM
It's only a scam in the sense that renewables aren't as cost effective as coal or other power generation methods. This sounds like $9.75 covers the delta for 1000kWh produced by solar, wind, etc vice coal. It's only adding about 1 cent per kWh, which actually sounds like quite a good deal, considering those alternate energy sources are WAY more expensive than that; you can feel good knowing your hard earned money is already supporting a greener future through subsidies paid directly from your tax dollars, and subsidies paid indirectly through your electric bill as pocos are required to go "green" with expensive inefficient plants.

Ethanol is a boondoggle for reasons completely unrelated to oil- namely, it takes more energy to farm, process and distribute a gallon of ethanol from corn, soy, switchgrass or any other North American crop than you get from burning it. Only sugar cane has a net energy return, but that's not really an option here. Most of that energy is coming from coal, though, so we do have the benefit of at least trading oil imports for domestic coal production... but it's certainly not helping the environment at all.
Posted By: ghost307 Re: Bogus FPL Program - 02/27/08 07:15 PM
I don't necessarily see this as a scam, but what exactly do you get for your $9.75 a month other than a warm fuzzy feeling that you're helping the planet?

Why not spend it to do something that will decrease your bill while reducing your usage of energy?
Posted By: BPHgravity Re: Bogus FPL Program - 02/27/08 09:25 PM
ghost hits on my point exactly.

Why should I fund FPL that is going to turn around and sell the energy they produce from my donation back to me at a profit?

I just don't believe in endorsing anything that really isn't effective or serving a real purpose, like ground rods.

And Greg makes another great point. You can practically walk across Lake Okeechobee its so low and wells are drying up all over SW Florida. The poor little Peace River is more like a street side ditch. Perhaps its because they are sucking out water for 500,000 people to wask their cars with. The Caloosahatchee River would be a great source of water except that it contains so much fertilizer and farm run-off that Manatees won't even swim up it any longer.

Oh well. I just feel bad for all the senior citizens on fixed incomes here in Florida that are being suckered into this and paying out for FPL's financial benefit.
Posted By: JValdes Re: Bogus FPL Program - 02/28/08 05:38 PM
I would take my nine bucks and buy a 4 pack of CFL's at HD before I would give a utility a dime.

Anyone hear about the CFL's when they break? I heard that the mercury levels are enough that the manufacturers are warning and giving advice on how to clean it up including cutting out the section of carpet. Heard this on the radio yesterday. Just curious about what you guys think?
Posted By: SteveFehr Re: Bogus FPL Program - 02/28/08 05:44 PM
There is a negligible amount of mercury in a typical CFL; trace amounts, really. You'd need something like 100 CFLs to equal the mercury in one thermometer (that have been broken off in countless baby's posteriors to no ill effect). And unless you injest it, it's not going to hurt you. Certainly not tiny amounts that might get brushed off the broken bits of glass onto the the carpet. It's really a non-issue.

Multiply this by billions of bulbs in hundreds of millions of homes and it adds up, but the impact to YOU is nothing.
Posted By: JBD Re: Bogus FPL Program - 02/28/08 07:16 PM
Originally Posted by SteveFehr
There is a negligible amount of mercury in a typical CFL; trace amounts, really. You'd need something like 100 CFLs to equal the mercury in one thermometer (that have been broken off in countless baby's posteriors to no ill effect). And unless you injest it, it's not going to hurt you. Certainly not tiny amounts that might get brushed off the broken bits of glass onto the the carpet. It's really a non-issue.

Multiply this by billions of bulbs in hundreds of millions of homes and it adds up, but the impact to YOU is nothing.


Actually mercury toxicity is an accumulation issue. A one time exposure is not life threatening except maybe the inhallation of vaporized (powder/dust is not vapor) mercury. All of the anti-CF websites report the amount only and neglect to include the time frame.
Posted By: BPHgravity Re: Bogus FPL Program - 02/29/08 12:11 AM
The problem with CF lamps is that the energy required to manufacure them far exceeds that for which is needed to manufacture an incandescent lamp.

So while the consumer sees the reduction in energy use, the total energy conusmption of incandescent and CF's nearly equals out.

LED technology is the way to go!
Posted By: gfretwell Re: Bogus FPL Program - 02/29/08 07:35 AM
I agree LED will probably be the light of the future, as soon as they get the fabs running and the price comes down.
Posted By: BPHgravity Re: Bogus FPL Program - 02/29/08 11:47 AM
We had a representative from SESCO LIGHTING at the February IAEI Meeting. They gave a nice 1-hr CEU course on the topic of LED and other solid state lighting systems.

Like other emerging technologies, it is way too expensive at this point. But 5 years from now, I don't see incandescent or CF being relavent.

I will send you a copy of the power point, Greg...
Posted By: SteveFehr Re: Bogus FPL Program - 02/29/08 11:55 AM
Originally Posted by BPHgravity
The problem with CF lamps is that the energy required to manufacure them far exceeds that for which is needed to manufacture an incandescent lamp.
I believe it's more than break-even compared to the energy saved during use, though. They're all made in China and other third-world countries that don't have pesky environmental regulations that might cut into profits, same as the incandescents and LEDs.

Speaking of which... mercury is a trace element in coal, and around 50 tons are released into the environment every year by coal-fired power plants. About 14% of that could be reduced by switching to CFLs. (Not to mention uranium, lead, arsenic, etc) It would take about 8.75 billion CFL bulbs smashed up in a landfill to equal the amount of mercury saved by widespread CFL use. You're all recycling those CFLs, so it's not an issue, right? (lol)

I, too, eagerly await practical, inexpensive and well-balanced LED bulbs. I use them in all my flashlights, but not my house. For now? I extensively use CFLs because they save me a lot of money. It's actually cheaper to remove and throw away a brand new incandescent than to wait until it burns out- and electricty is cheap as hell here. THAT is the real benefit.
© ECN Electrical Forums