If you are having trouble sleeping, one cure that works for me on those rare occasions is reading dueling opinions about climate change. Try this one from Energy Pulse . It’s a real dozy, not because of the various and conflicting opinions and not because of the demeaning and sarcastic tone of several of the authors.
The discussion is a dozy because most of us really don’t see how we can make sense out of the debate. How many scientists does it take to screw in a light bulb? Just two, but I can’t figure out how they get in there. If higher math skills were the only requirement for solving the world’s problems, I suspect solutions would be in place. There are lots of really smart people in this world. What’s missing is a reasoned and universally agreeable way to talk about these issues.
So, I’ll stop making jokes and offer this prayer for a better world; a world where people that disagree can work together on agreeable facts that make a foundation for future discussions. We should be long past the point of arguing about what makes up green house gases. We should be over the discussion about whether climate change is a natural or manmade phenomenon. Just as we can all agree that two times two equals four there must be a definitive answer to the question, “what causes destructive impacts to our atmosphere”? Just as we can all agree that zero times anything is still zero, there must be an answer about the causes of these impacts that isn’t clouded by suspicious industry related sources.
Refusing to take any action to reduce climate change whether it is real or not is like refusing to buy home owner’s insurance because you don’t know how hot the fire will be if your house burns down. Come on, if we can’t figure out the science and explain it so the public can understand it, the least we can do is buy some insurance.
The only social change that has ever been successful came about from individuals taking individual actions in open environment of honest debate and factual argument. Let’s get back to that.
Most of us are too busy trying to keep up with jobs and family to care about this debate, but all of us care about the financial health of our families. Who doesn’t like to live better for less? If I have extra time or money, I am going to spend it on better appliances, windows, doors, more insulation, and other systems that will help me keep more of the money I earn, rather than giving it to businesses and corporations that use profits to argue about the facts. The beauty of this is that it could make scientific debate about climate change irrelevant while it saves me money all at the same time.
In the next few months, almost every family is going to get a small windfall or tax rebate money. You can do what George asks and spend it on disposable items that will end up in some landfill. You can do what many fear - put it in savings. Or, you can put it to work by improving some part of the building envelope where you live or work. When you do this, you get to keep more of the money you earn in the future.
One person at a time; one house at a time, one energy saving project at a time. The money and time you invest today will save you money tomorrow. Just think what your life would be like today if you had spent another 10% on better windows, or better doors or more insulation ten years ago. Today your family would be spending less for energy to run your homes and businesses. It’s better than the value of compounding interest and you get to feel its warmth and see its benefits every month in lower utility bills.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Why Environmentalists think Electric Utility Executives are a pain.
Environmentalists view utility executives as part of the cause of global climate change and resource pollution rather than as the defenders of low cost reliable energy that electric utility executives view themselves being. This disconnect between executive’s self image and the environmental community image has several sources. One is the media attention focused on electric utility problems and mistakes. Enron leaps into mind as does the California billing crisis. Unfortunately every mistake from Three Mile Island to Florida’s recent blackout feeds an impression that electric utility executives make important decisions without including the public in their decision making. These media reports have been long on fearful emotions and short on engineering details. It comes down to the idea that people tend to fear what they don’t understand and utility executives have not been at all successful at improving the public’s understanding of the utility business.
The other source of this distrust goes back many years.
In an address to the National Association of Science Writers in New York on September 16, 1954, US Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Lewis L. Strauss was talking about nuclear power and said, "It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter; will know of great periodic regional famines in the world only as matters of history; will travel effortlessly over the seas and under them and through the air with a minimum of danger and at great speeds, and will experience a lifespan far longer than ours, as disease yields and man comes to understand what causes him to age. This is the forecast of an age of peace." (N.Y. Times, August 7, 1955)
Now that the future has arrived we all feel cheated since few of these predictions have materialized. The promise of electricity “too cheap to meter” hits especially hard as rate increases nation-wide reminder us of the failure to reach this dream. So, we have to blame someone and who better to blame than people we don’t really understand, electric utility executives.
And of course, electric utility executives encourage a certain amount of persecution simply by the way they conduct business. If they manage an investor owned utility, their allegiance is to stockholders and investors whose primary interest is the biggest return on their investment. If they lead a municipal or member cooperative electric utility, their allegiance is to their diverse constituents. Some constituents believe we must explore alternate energy resources, demand side management and energy conservation while other constituents simply want the cheapest way to keep beer cold and light bulbs working.
While the environmental community buys the whole global climate change scenario, utility executives generally remain skeptical about the role of power generation in climate change.
Al Gore included this quote in his book about the subject that seems to apply here.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” Upton Sinclair
Utility Executive are well educated and experienced. They have seen a lot of history and simply don’t buy the premise that mankind is powerful enough to alter the planet’s climate. A common agreement about facts remains a barrier of distrust between utility executives and the environmental community. Many “green” concepts and the load reduction possibilities of energy conservation are also viewed skeptically by utility executives because in their experience customers don’t use these programs, even when they are well advertised and free.
To add to these differences in world view, they tend to over-estimate load growth because it takes so long to get new generation and transmission facilities in place. They feel the only way they can avoid the rolling blackouts of the Northeast several years ago or more recent sustained power outages in southern Florida is to have lots of facilities approved and ready to go.
The rewards for succeeding with energy conservation and demand side management are not equal to the penalties imposed for poor power reliability.
Utility executives refuse to talk about anything but base-load coal generation because when real numbers are compared, they do not see how renewable energy or energy conservation can meet the demands for electricity based on today’s energy use growth trends. Yet, if they stand up and say these things, environmentalists respond with personal attacks and polarizing comments. This only increases the resolve of utility executives to push for business as usual. It forces them to retreat into protective policies that lack transparency.
Balancing the diverse needs and desires of electric utility customers is not for the faint of heart. Yet, from the looks of things today, it is clear that utilities must do a better job of explaining a boring but necessary business to a busy and misinformed public. "We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology." - Carl Sagan
And, this lack of knowledge will continue to haunt utility executives for many years. Their refusal to discuss facts about alternatives because they think it is a waste of time, money and effort will continue to be the primary reason that environmentalists think electric utility executives are a pain in the… you know what.
The other source of this distrust goes back many years.
In an address to the National Association of Science Writers in New York on September 16, 1954, US Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Lewis L. Strauss was talking about nuclear power and said, "It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter; will know of great periodic regional famines in the world only as matters of history; will travel effortlessly over the seas and under them and through the air with a minimum of danger and at great speeds, and will experience a lifespan far longer than ours, as disease yields and man comes to understand what causes him to age. This is the forecast of an age of peace." (N.Y. Times, August 7, 1955)
Now that the future has arrived we all feel cheated since few of these predictions have materialized. The promise of electricity “too cheap to meter” hits especially hard as rate increases nation-wide reminder us of the failure to reach this dream. So, we have to blame someone and who better to blame than people we don’t really understand, electric utility executives.
And of course, electric utility executives encourage a certain amount of persecution simply by the way they conduct business. If they manage an investor owned utility, their allegiance is to stockholders and investors whose primary interest is the biggest return on their investment. If they lead a municipal or member cooperative electric utility, their allegiance is to their diverse constituents. Some constituents believe we must explore alternate energy resources, demand side management and energy conservation while other constituents simply want the cheapest way to keep beer cold and light bulbs working.
While the environmental community buys the whole global climate change scenario, utility executives generally remain skeptical about the role of power generation in climate change.
Al Gore included this quote in his book about the subject that seems to apply here.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” Upton Sinclair
Utility Executive are well educated and experienced. They have seen a lot of history and simply don’t buy the premise that mankind is powerful enough to alter the planet’s climate. A common agreement about facts remains a barrier of distrust between utility executives and the environmental community. Many “green” concepts and the load reduction possibilities of energy conservation are also viewed skeptically by utility executives because in their experience customers don’t use these programs, even when they are well advertised and free.
To add to these differences in world view, they tend to over-estimate load growth because it takes so long to get new generation and transmission facilities in place. They feel the only way they can avoid the rolling blackouts of the Northeast several years ago or more recent sustained power outages in southern Florida is to have lots of facilities approved and ready to go.
The rewards for succeeding with energy conservation and demand side management are not equal to the penalties imposed for poor power reliability.
Utility executives refuse to talk about anything but base-load coal generation because when real numbers are compared, they do not see how renewable energy or energy conservation can meet the demands for electricity based on today’s energy use growth trends. Yet, if they stand up and say these things, environmentalists respond with personal attacks and polarizing comments. This only increases the resolve of utility executives to push for business as usual. It forces them to retreat into protective policies that lack transparency.
Balancing the diverse needs and desires of electric utility customers is not for the faint of heart. Yet, from the looks of things today, it is clear that utilities must do a better job of explaining a boring but necessary business to a busy and misinformed public. "We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology." - Carl Sagan
And, this lack of knowledge will continue to haunt utility executives for many years. Their refusal to discuss facts about alternatives because they think it is a waste of time, money and effort will continue to be the primary reason that environmentalists think electric utility executives are a pain in the… you know what.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
