Glen has a good point about reliability for solar energy. The same seems to be true for wind energy.
Wind power is the one alternative clean and renewable energy that every one in the nation can sign up for in one of two forms, right now... today. You do not have to wait for your local electric utility to take action. You can do this without them.
The wind energy movement is supported two ways. One way is to buy actual kilowatt hours made by wind turbines from one of the nations many wind farms. Many utilities already have firm contracts with these generators and the ones that do usually offer their customers "Green Power" or "Wind Power" for a small additional fee. You may complain about paying more for power generated by a free fuel, but if you can’t handle the extra 1.25 to 2.5 cents a kilowatt hour for a clean alternative, you sure can’t handle buying a photovoltaic solar system. This really is the biggest bang for the buck, today.
Go to the Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency to see if your utility offers Green Power. (http://www.dsireusa.org).
If your utility doesn’t have a wind power program you can still by "Green Tags" from several sources. Green Tags create revenue that directly supports the development of wind power projects across the nation. The Bonneville Environmental Foundation (BEF) is one of many sources of green tags. Their web site (https://www.greentagsusa.org) says, "During 2000, BEF developed its Green Tags product, in recognition of the demand for renewable energy in places where utilities do not offer that choice. Green Tags represent the environmental benefits that occur when clean, new renewable energy is substituted for power that is produced by burning fossil fuel. BEF has been the pioneer in offering this choice to customers worldwide. Revenues that are generated selling Green Tags are reinvested in new forms of renewable energy."
Sterling Planet (http://www.sterlingplanet.com) is another source for green tags and green tag information.
Buying wind energy directly through your utility and buying green tags through a third party provider like Sterling Planet, both support renewable energy and reduce green house gas emissions. Either type of wind power purchase puts more renewable energy in the power grid pipeline, so to speak. However, there will never be specific electrons with your name coming to your house to run you equipment. You are just supporting the growth of this industry. Just like buying regular power supports the fossil fuel industry in most cases.
Wind Energy is one of the fastest if not the fastest growing renewable energy generation source in the USA today. People that I talk to out on the street feel like utilities are holding back on the construction and support for wind and other renewable energy sources. Wind is about six percent of the nations electricity generation mix. Despite the fact that wind power has been used for centuries, the wind power generation industry is still a fledgling industry. It needs the same government and public support and subsidy that the fossil fuel industry has enjoyed for decades.
Even though the wind generated electricity industry is new, according to the American Wind Energy Association , wind generation faciltites have been coming on line and increasing power production at phenomenal rates.
Year -Megawatts -Percent Growth
2003 -6,353 -35.57%
2004 -6,725 -5.86%
2005 -9,149 -36.04%
2006 -10,492 -14.68%
Sources: U.S. Department of Energy Wind Energy Program & AWEA,,
© 2006 by the American Wind Energy Association.
Some feel that the only reason that wind generation has not become a bigger percentage of the US electricity generation portfolio is due to NIMY opposition ( Not In My Back Yard), but there are other reasons for wind power limitations.
One of the main limitations is that the best wind resource is a long way from transmission resources. So, no matter how much electricity could be make with the wind, you can’t deliver. The load is a long way from the wind resource and transmission expansion is costly and time consuming.
So at this point, wind resource maps showing how we could power the nation by wind power alone are misleading. You can’t get there from here. Not just yet anyway.
Another challenge to wind energy production is that the wind is not always on. This fact causes utility executives and planning engineers to insist on duplicating power generation resources with coal and other fossil fuel resources just to make sure that they can keep the lights on when the wind stops blowing. Experts say that wind power is only producing 25 percent of the time, even in the best wind resource areas.
Some even argue that wind power is increasing the green house gas problem because power generation companies worry that their profits will not be sufficient to cover the higher costs of some of the best new clean coal technologies. So, they insist on building new capacity with old technology that adds more green house gas than the new technologies.
There maybe a point when wind generation facilities are so spread out across the nation that somewhere the wind will always be blowing hard enough to make electricity. Once this diversity occurs, wind maybe more reliable in meeting loads nationwide. When this happens, the argument to duplicate base load generation will loose its strength. The diversity argument is a good one yet it is still a chicken and egg situation where no one wants to agree to do without power until the infrastructure is in place and no one wants to put the infrastructure in place until someone has a load to use the power.
Worldwide the USA is a little behind in the deployment of wind generation. Denmark, one of the world leaders has a long proven industry in wind generation, they feel that wind generation goes a long way to reduce fossil fuel generation needs and green house gas emissions.
"The Danish Wind Industry Association did an in depth life cycle analysis of wind power generation through the use of wind turbines. This analysis showed that modern wind turbines recover all of the energy spent in manufacturing, transporting, installing, maintaining, and scrapping them when their productive life is finished within 3 months of operation. This is quite impressive considering that the average life span of modern turbines is estimated at 20 years of design life.[1] A 600 kW turbine is estimated to save 4300 tons of coal from being consumed per year. This is a significant savings in CO2 emissions which are estimated to increase by ~75% by the year 2020." (Aaron Racicot, ESE 589,Term Project, 07/24/03)
The first step to identifying wind resource potential is to review the NREL Wind Resource materials. This information describes average estimated wind speeds throughout the nation. Wind speed is the gold standard for wind production. If you have a class 3 or better wind resource, you may have an economically viable project. With wind speeds lower than Class 3, you are out of the game altogether. The big challenge is to find out if your area has enough wind to constitute a resource rather than an annoyance. While the NREL maps can narrow the search area, the only real way to find out if your area has a wind resource is to do a wind resource study. The web has a host of sites that can get you started and some areas offer free meta towers and data loggers to help with your search. Western Area Power Administration is one resource for customers in western states.
This web site has a nice run down explaining wind speed classification. (http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/Atmosphere/wind_speeds.html&edu=high)
While wind study is not rocket science, there are specific methods required to do a meaningful study. Putting up a wind generation facility just because you think its "really windy here" may risk wasting your money.
This book tells you everything you ever wanted to know about wind resource studies. Wind resource assessment handbook: Fundamentals for conducting a successful monitoring programBailey, BH ; McDonald, S.L. ; Bernadette, DW ; Markus, M.J. ; Elsholz, K.V. [AWS Scientific, Inc., Albany, NY (US)] Publication Date 1997 Apr 01 OSTI Identifier OSTI ID: 486127 Report Number(s) NREL/SR--440-22223; ON: DE97000250
Next time I plan to talk about the nuclear energy electricity industry.
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Concentrating Solar Power- Alternative Energy -part of the Electric Power Solution
Central Station solar power is not a new concept. California has had 354 megawatts on line for 15 years. Remember we call any big power generation facility designed to make power and transmit it to load centers as "central station power generation". The other style of power generation is referred to as "distributed power generation". This can be individual home or business systems, or larger community systems that are "distributed" to meet the local load or need.
Central Station Solar power typically uses the intense thermal heat from the sun to make steam and then uses conventional steam generation equipment similar to fossil fuel systems to actually make the electricity. So, the equipment is different than just hooking up millions of photovoltaic solar panels. This does not mean that the land requirements for Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) are small.
The EPA estimates the following CSP capacity potential from the four sunniest states in the nation along with the corresponding land area in square miles that would be needed to meet that CSP generation capacity.
State
Megawatts
Square Miles Needed
Arizona- 1,652,000 MW - 12,790 Square Miles
California - 742,305 MW - 5,750 Square Miles
Nevada - 619,410 MW - 9,157 Square Miles
New Mexico -1,119,000 MW - 9,157 Square Miles
For comparison, note that the State of Maryland has 12,407 sq. miles; New Hampshire 9,351 sq. miles; and, Connecticut 5,544 sq. miles.
While the cost of this technology continues to fall, using this source of power would triple your electric bill. "Current Costs can be as low as 8 cents /kWh but new 50-100 MW [facilities] will probably be closer to 12-14 cents/kWh"(Central Station Solar Electricity, Concentrating Solar Power by Dr. Frederick Morse, Chairman Solar Thermal Power Division, Solar Energy Industries Association, http://www.epa.gov/cleanrgy/pdf/morse-dec6.pdf)
Wholesale power costs nationwide continue to be in the 3 -7 cents per kilowatt hour range and are generally about 50 to 70 percent of the retail cost that consumers pay at the meter.
So, in spite of the clamor for free power from the sun and safe clean energy to power our homes and businesses. The line of people saying, " sign me up" has been short so far.
This then explains part of the reluctance of your electric utility to get into CSP in a big way. The other hang up is the fact that power production goes down with the sun. With large population centers distant from the four main sunny states, the potential of CSP to deliver power where it is needed is also limited.
Electric Utilities not only live to keep the lights on, they also believe that part of their mission is to provide consumers with the least cost electricity at the meter. As long as consumers do not perceive higher value in renewable energy’s higher costs, utility executives will continue to look to King Coal and other lower cost fuels to keep the lights on at your house.
As costs for this option come down and costs for the fossil fuel options rise you will see more of this in the generation portfolio. Tripling the cost of your electricity may look better than Global Warming, green house gas production and air quality degradation, but it will be awhile before wide support for this alternative will make a difference.
You can find more information about CSP and alternative energy at the following at the following web sites:
http://www.solarelectricpower.org/index.php?page=
http://www.epa.gov/cleanrgy/pdf/morse-dec6.pdf
http://www.dsireusa.org/
http://www.energytaxincentives.org
A more optimistic view of CSP can be found at the Energy Blog http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2005/09/overview_of_con.html
Central Station Solar power typically uses the intense thermal heat from the sun to make steam and then uses conventional steam generation equipment similar to fossil fuel systems to actually make the electricity. So, the equipment is different than just hooking up millions of photovoltaic solar panels. This does not mean that the land requirements for Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) are small.
The EPA estimates the following CSP capacity potential from the four sunniest states in the nation along with the corresponding land area in square miles that would be needed to meet that CSP generation capacity.
State
Megawatts
Square Miles Needed
Arizona- 1,652,000 MW - 12,790 Square Miles
California - 742,305 MW - 5,750 Square Miles
Nevada - 619,410 MW - 9,157 Square Miles
New Mexico -1,119,000 MW - 9,157 Square Miles
For comparison, note that the State of Maryland has 12,407 sq. miles; New Hampshire 9,351 sq. miles; and, Connecticut 5,544 sq. miles.
While the cost of this technology continues to fall, using this source of power would triple your electric bill. "Current Costs can be as low as 8 cents /kWh but new 50-100 MW [facilities] will probably be closer to 12-14 cents/kWh"(Central Station Solar Electricity, Concentrating Solar Power by Dr. Frederick Morse, Chairman Solar Thermal Power Division, Solar Energy Industries Association, http://www.epa.gov/cleanrgy/pdf/morse-dec6.pdf)
Wholesale power costs nationwide continue to be in the 3 -7 cents per kilowatt hour range and are generally about 50 to 70 percent of the retail cost that consumers pay at the meter.
So, in spite of the clamor for free power from the sun and safe clean energy to power our homes and businesses. The line of people saying, " sign me up" has been short so far.
This then explains part of the reluctance of your electric utility to get into CSP in a big way. The other hang up is the fact that power production goes down with the sun. With large population centers distant from the four main sunny states, the potential of CSP to deliver power where it is needed is also limited.
Electric Utilities not only live to keep the lights on, they also believe that part of their mission is to provide consumers with the least cost electricity at the meter. As long as consumers do not perceive higher value in renewable energy’s higher costs, utility executives will continue to look to King Coal and other lower cost fuels to keep the lights on at your house.
As costs for this option come down and costs for the fossil fuel options rise you will see more of this in the generation portfolio. Tripling the cost of your electricity may look better than Global Warming, green house gas production and air quality degradation, but it will be awhile before wide support for this alternative will make a difference.
You can find more information about CSP and alternative energy at the following at the following web sites:
http://www.solarelectricpower.org/index.php?page=
http://www.epa.gov/cleanrgy/pdf/morse-dec6.pdf
http://www.dsireusa.org/
http://www.energytaxincentives.org
A more optimistic view of CSP can be found at the Energy Blog http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2005/09/overview_of_con.html
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Solar Energy Electricity Generation
I made a good career in the electric utility industry talking to angry people. These were normal everyday hard working utility customers that were angry, frustrated, and often confused about their electric bill. They blamed the electric utility for their problems. "There is no way I used over a $100.00 worth of electricity last month", they would often say. While the details might vary the expressed feelings were really pretty much the same in every case. "I am mad about my electric bill and since you are the electric company it must be your fault".
After a letting them settle down a little most of these angry people were receptive to the idea that their electric bill was almost completely under their control. Having a low electric bill was easy. All they needed to do was start flipping breakers into the off position and "presto" -no bill, or at least a very low bill. Of course, spoiled milk and frozen pipes cost money too. So, you have to decide, "cold beer and fresh milk" or "lower bills". Yet, there are many low cost or no cost actions that a home owner can take to reduce their energy bill. We’ll get into that discussion some other time. After a home visit I was usually able to get within 5% of guessing their electric bill, just by adding up the estimated energy use of all of the equipment in their home. Of course the difference was due to their confusion about how often the equipment was running, but I digress.
The point of this is that people get mad when they feel their choices are being shoved down their throats. People get happy when they feel like they are in control of the way they spend their money. I want to continue the discussion about electric utility generation choices by talking a little bit about solar energy. Many electricity consumers hear about the "free power" from the sun and assume that they are being gouged by their electric companies. While scientists estimate that the power of sunlight hitting the earth could produce enough electricity to run everything, it is not that easy and it will not be free.
The science of solar electricity is fairly easy. A group of Solar panels called an array turns sunlight into direct electrical current (DC). Control equipment links the system to the load, while an inverter is used convert the DC power in to Alternating current (AC) power to be used by most of today’s appliances and equipment. And you thought AC/DC was a rock band. Solar electricity is often called PV for "photovoltaic", the chemical process that solar panels use to generate electricity. Everything you ever wanted to know about Solar Electricity can be found on the amazing Solar Buzz website (http://www.solarbuzz.com).
They say the following about the present role of solar energy in the USA.
"In 2000, total U.S. net generation of electricity was 3,792 billion kWh, 2% higher than 1999. Fifty-two percent was generated by coal, with nuclear providing 20%, 16% from natural gas and 3% from petroleum. Hydro provided 7% while other renewables generated 2%. Generation from coal, nuclear and gas was higher than in 1999, by 4, 4 and 7%, respectively.The use of renewable energy for electricity generation in the United States dropped by almost 12% in 2000. Renewables generated 358,606 million kilowatt-hours (net) in 2000, down from 406,322 in 1999, according to the Energy Information Administration. The big drop was from the largest source of renewables, hydroelectricity, which went from 319,484 million kWh to 274,600.
Solar PV went from 848 to 844 million kWh. Wind was the only renewable energy to buck the decline, rising from 4,488 to 4,947 million kWh over the two years. Looking at broader total energy use, rather than just electricity generation, the picture in 1998 had renewable energy contributing 8% of the total. This was dominated by hydropower and biomass (93% combined), with solar contributing 1% of it." (http://www.solarbuzz.com/StatsMarketshare.htm)
The small percentage the solar power contributed to the USA energy picture is due to many factors. Mostly, the puny 1% is because the residential and small commercial solar industry is new. Others argue that another reason is because this disbursed industry does not command the same political clout as coal and other fossil fuel based generation. This lack of clout shows up in many ways including lower government subsidies for solar installations, resistance to market enhancing features like net-metering, misinformation about the safety and liability issues, as well as a home and building construction industry that is generally oblivious to energy efficient designs that could make solar power a more reasonable choice.
According the Solar Buzz website, the solar industry is making excellent progress in their battle to lower equipment prices to make the final output of kilowatt hours more cost competitive with central station fossil fuel power plants. According to Solar Buzz the cost of solar panels has dropped over 85% since 1982. Today one kilowatt hour (kWh) of solar power is in the 30 cent range. The average cost per kWh in the nation for utility power is approaching 10 cents per kWh.
Another reason for the low solar role in electricity generation at the home owner level is the high cost of entry. The typical cost for a stand alone solar electric system runs about $10,000 and can generate about 1,800 kWh per year in a sunny climate. The nation wide monthly kWh use for the average home is 500kWh per month. So, a much larger system would need to be installed to cover the average annual 6,000 kWh per year. At the current kWh cost you can buy 100,000 kilowatt hours of electricity for the same price as that $10,000 solar system or about 16 years of electricity from your electric company.
Next week, I’ll try get some information out about the central station generation options being explored for solar power. In the mean time, check out these web sites to learn more about the solar and alternative energy possibilities for your home.
http://www.chicagosolarpartnership.org
http://www.nrel.gov/ncpv/vision.html
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/
http://www.solarbuzz.com
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=153397,00.html
http://www.dsireusa.org
After a letting them settle down a little most of these angry people were receptive to the idea that their electric bill was almost completely under their control. Having a low electric bill was easy. All they needed to do was start flipping breakers into the off position and "presto" -no bill, or at least a very low bill. Of course, spoiled milk and frozen pipes cost money too. So, you have to decide, "cold beer and fresh milk" or "lower bills". Yet, there are many low cost or no cost actions that a home owner can take to reduce their energy bill. We’ll get into that discussion some other time. After a home visit I was usually able to get within 5% of guessing their electric bill, just by adding up the estimated energy use of all of the equipment in their home. Of course the difference was due to their confusion about how often the equipment was running, but I digress.
The point of this is that people get mad when they feel their choices are being shoved down their throats. People get happy when they feel like they are in control of the way they spend their money. I want to continue the discussion about electric utility generation choices by talking a little bit about solar energy. Many electricity consumers hear about the "free power" from the sun and assume that they are being gouged by their electric companies. While scientists estimate that the power of sunlight hitting the earth could produce enough electricity to run everything, it is not that easy and it will not be free.
The science of solar electricity is fairly easy. A group of Solar panels called an array turns sunlight into direct electrical current (DC). Control equipment links the system to the load, while an inverter is used convert the DC power in to Alternating current (AC) power to be used by most of today’s appliances and equipment. And you thought AC/DC was a rock band. Solar electricity is often called PV for "photovoltaic", the chemical process that solar panels use to generate electricity. Everything you ever wanted to know about Solar Electricity can be found on the amazing Solar Buzz website (http://www.solarbuzz.com).
They say the following about the present role of solar energy in the USA.
"In 2000, total U.S. net generation of electricity was 3,792 billion kWh, 2% higher than 1999. Fifty-two percent was generated by coal, with nuclear providing 20%, 16% from natural gas and 3% from petroleum. Hydro provided 7% while other renewables generated 2%. Generation from coal, nuclear and gas was higher than in 1999, by 4, 4 and 7%, respectively.The use of renewable energy for electricity generation in the United States dropped by almost 12% in 2000. Renewables generated 358,606 million kilowatt-hours (net) in 2000, down from 406,322 in 1999, according to the Energy Information Administration. The big drop was from the largest source of renewables, hydroelectricity, which went from 319,484 million kWh to 274,600.
Solar PV went from 848 to 844 million kWh. Wind was the only renewable energy to buck the decline, rising from 4,488 to 4,947 million kWh over the two years. Looking at broader total energy use, rather than just electricity generation, the picture in 1998 had renewable energy contributing 8% of the total. This was dominated by hydropower and biomass (93% combined), with solar contributing 1% of it." (http://www.solarbuzz.com/StatsMarketshare.htm)
The small percentage the solar power contributed to the USA energy picture is due to many factors. Mostly, the puny 1% is because the residential and small commercial solar industry is new. Others argue that another reason is because this disbursed industry does not command the same political clout as coal and other fossil fuel based generation. This lack of clout shows up in many ways including lower government subsidies for solar installations, resistance to market enhancing features like net-metering, misinformation about the safety and liability issues, as well as a home and building construction industry that is generally oblivious to energy efficient designs that could make solar power a more reasonable choice.
According the Solar Buzz website, the solar industry is making excellent progress in their battle to lower equipment prices to make the final output of kilowatt hours more cost competitive with central station fossil fuel power plants. According to Solar Buzz the cost of solar panels has dropped over 85% since 1982. Today one kilowatt hour (kWh) of solar power is in the 30 cent range. The average cost per kWh in the nation for utility power is approaching 10 cents per kWh.
Another reason for the low solar role in electricity generation at the home owner level is the high cost of entry. The typical cost for a stand alone solar electric system runs about $10,000 and can generate about 1,800 kWh per year in a sunny climate. The nation wide monthly kWh use for the average home is 500kWh per month. So, a much larger system would need to be installed to cover the average annual 6,000 kWh per year. At the current kWh cost you can buy 100,000 kilowatt hours of electricity for the same price as that $10,000 solar system or about 16 years of electricity from your electric company.
Next week, I’ll try get some information out about the central station generation options being explored for solar power. In the mean time, check out these web sites to learn more about the solar and alternative energy possibilities for your home.
http://www.chicagosolarpartnership.org
http://www.nrel.gov/ncpv/vision.html
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/
http://www.solarbuzz.com
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=153397,00.html
http://www.dsireusa.org
Tuesday, December 5, 2006
Environmental Kooks and Electric Utility Public Service Commission Obstructionists
One big challenge facing anyone debating technical issues is the challenge of facts. Finding facts in this day and age seems so easy with inter-net resources yet if we use our personal bias blindfolds we will never see the whole problem or the whole solution. If you only find the fact that describes the elephant’s trunk and I find only the fact that describes the elephant’s toe nail, we might never get to agreement on the fact that we are talking about elephants until we remove the blindfolds.
So it is with the debate about how to power the United States economy. There are many different "facts" to be evaluated. It presents a daunting challenge but as citizens we have two choices. Either we agree with the facts and choices used by our utility companies or we don’t.
I prefer not to get bogged down in a greenhouse gas (GHG) debate at this point although, for many this is the only reason to debate "what powers the U.S.A".Yet, the issue of "we will run out of it someday" is also a good reason to tackle this challenge. To me they are intertwined motives. "Running out" won’t matter much if the planet’s ability to support life is compromised. Thinkers far more advanced than I have already coined plenty of slogans for this: "There is no business to be made on a dead planet"; "We must protect the environment as well as the economy or some day we will have neither". Quotes like that.
For more about those GHG details please read Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. If you agree with Al, you can feel smug about having such a nice guy to agree with. If you disagree with Mr. Gore, you will at least find out how "those people" think. So, it’s a good thing to read it no matter what opinion you hold on the impacts of Greenhouse Gases (GHG). Some day I think we will all agree that the only people confused about the science of global climate change are the people pretending to be scientists. The real scientists all seem to agree we have a problem.
Fact:"The United States relies on electricity to meet a significant portion of its energy demands, especially for lighting, electric motors, heating and air conditioning. Electricity generators consumed 34 percent of U.S. energy from fossil fuel combustion in 2004. The type of fuel combusted by electricity generators has a significant effect on their emissions. For example, some electricity is generated with low CO2 emitting energy technologies, particularly non-fossil options such as nuclear, hydroelectric or geothermal energy. However, electricity generators rely on coal for over half of their total energy requirements and accounted fo 94 percent of all coal consumed in the Unites States in 2004. Consequently, changes in electricity demand have a significant impact on coal consumption and associated CO2 emissions." (pg 7 of 18 Executive Summary , Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2004 (April 2006) USEPA #430-R-06-002
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads06/06ES.pdf 12/05/06)
On June 19 2006, the 2006 Energy Biz summit gathered eight leading electric utility executives together to discuss issues relating to electricity generation in the US. Energy Biz Magazine recently made pod-casts available providing summaries of some of the material.
http://www.energycentral.com/centers/energybiz/eb_summit_list.cfm
Several striking conclusions come from listening to these presentations. The main one that I agree with says that citizens in the USA are not really aware of the growing "base load" crisis. Rolling brown outs in the north east, cascading power outages in the Midwest and billing shenanigans in California are symptoms of a larger problem. While experts on both sides may effectively argue that "pilot error" or "pilot greed" caused these problems, the fact that human problems can trigger these repercussions points to one fact. The demand for electricity is rising faster than construction for new sources of electric generation.
The second interesting item from Energy Biz summit, points to the current reality that renewables will not soon take the place of base load generation. It is not a simple matter of sticking up more wind turbines and solar panels to harvest free and non-polluting energy. New renewable energy industries simply cannot bring enough reliable power on line soon enough to meet the need. One executive even added his belief that no single technology will be able to keep up with the growing demand for electricity.
If you don’t believe this, try a simple sample problem with your house. Find an old electric bill. Pick a shoulder month so it won’t be a real high or real low bill. Find the total kilowatt hours used (kWh). Its on your bill somewhere. Now, go to the GAIAM web site and order a copy of the Real Goods Solar Living Sourcebook. If you are really into alternative energy and really hate your utility company, this will be the best $35 (plus shipping) that you ever spend. In that book find the Solar Energy Worksheet. You can use it to figure out how to size your equipment to deliver the kWh amount you got off your electric bill. Then you can go to the product pages and figure out the cost for that equipment. If your house is like mine, it will be many years before your electric rates get high enough to make the purchase of that equipment a good idea for your wallet. Making use of most alternative energy fuels will require a lot more fundamental changes in our lifestyles then simply changing the source of power generation fuels.
Let’s move on to "interesting item number three". Amory and Hunter Lovins (http://www.rmi.org/) must have gotten tuckered out lately because you rarely hear about "Negawatts" any more. The concept of "demand side management" was mentioned in these summary pod-casts, but the phrase, "energy conservation" was once again noticeably absent from the discussion. Regional groups like Western Resource Advocates, still argue that conservation could effectively cut the growing electricity demand in half in some western states. (http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/energy/clenergy.php)Yet, eight utility executives gloss over this "resource" without much comment, and here is why.
Interesting item number four: These guys like to build big power plants and coal is currently the cheapest fuel to buy for running them. Sadly, the tone of the Final Remarks show an attitude that makes the normal uninformed citizen like me, angry at utility companies. Their collective feeling seems to be that if the environmental crazies and the damn ivory tower regulators would just get out of the way, they could provide all the electric power generation the world will ever need. "We can build these things". "This is great stuff", they proclaim. This is a great solution. They get to take action and the costs for these huge multi-billion dollar projects get passed on to us, the rate payers.
Its too bad, in an exciting world where so many options could be used to solve our energy problems and improve environmental health; a world where we could all be working together to solve our energy problems; we still have major utility businesses run by men using the same thinking that got us into this mess. The time has come. We can no longer afford to confuse size with imagination.
So it is with the debate about how to power the United States economy. There are many different "facts" to be evaluated. It presents a daunting challenge but as citizens we have two choices. Either we agree with the facts and choices used by our utility companies or we don’t.
I prefer not to get bogged down in a greenhouse gas (GHG) debate at this point although, for many this is the only reason to debate "what powers the U.S.A".Yet, the issue of "we will run out of it someday" is also a good reason to tackle this challenge. To me they are intertwined motives. "Running out" won’t matter much if the planet’s ability to support life is compromised. Thinkers far more advanced than I have already coined plenty of slogans for this: "There is no business to be made on a dead planet"; "We must protect the environment as well as the economy or some day we will have neither". Quotes like that.
For more about those GHG details please read Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. If you agree with Al, you can feel smug about having such a nice guy to agree with. If you disagree with Mr. Gore, you will at least find out how "those people" think. So, it’s a good thing to read it no matter what opinion you hold on the impacts of Greenhouse Gases (GHG). Some day I think we will all agree that the only people confused about the science of global climate change are the people pretending to be scientists. The real scientists all seem to agree we have a problem.
Fact:"The United States relies on electricity to meet a significant portion of its energy demands, especially for lighting, electric motors, heating and air conditioning. Electricity generators consumed 34 percent of U.S. energy from fossil fuel combustion in 2004. The type of fuel combusted by electricity generators has a significant effect on their emissions. For example, some electricity is generated with low CO2 emitting energy technologies, particularly non-fossil options such as nuclear, hydroelectric or geothermal energy. However, electricity generators rely on coal for over half of their total energy requirements and accounted fo 94 percent of all coal consumed in the Unites States in 2004. Consequently, changes in electricity demand have a significant impact on coal consumption and associated CO2 emissions." (pg 7 of 18 Executive Summary , Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2004 (April 2006) USEPA #430-R-06-002
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads06/06ES.pdf 12/05/06)
On June 19 2006, the 2006 Energy Biz summit gathered eight leading electric utility executives together to discuss issues relating to electricity generation in the US. Energy Biz Magazine recently made pod-casts available providing summaries of some of the material.
http://www.energycentral.com/centers/energybiz/eb_summit_list.cfm
Several striking conclusions come from listening to these presentations. The main one that I agree with says that citizens in the USA are not really aware of the growing "base load" crisis. Rolling brown outs in the north east, cascading power outages in the Midwest and billing shenanigans in California are symptoms of a larger problem. While experts on both sides may effectively argue that "pilot error" or "pilot greed" caused these problems, the fact that human problems can trigger these repercussions points to one fact. The demand for electricity is rising faster than construction for new sources of electric generation.
The second interesting item from Energy Biz summit, points to the current reality that renewables will not soon take the place of base load generation. It is not a simple matter of sticking up more wind turbines and solar panels to harvest free and non-polluting energy. New renewable energy industries simply cannot bring enough reliable power on line soon enough to meet the need. One executive even added his belief that no single technology will be able to keep up with the growing demand for electricity.
If you don’t believe this, try a simple sample problem with your house. Find an old electric bill. Pick a shoulder month so it won’t be a real high or real low bill. Find the total kilowatt hours used (kWh). Its on your bill somewhere. Now, go to the GAIAM web site and order a copy of the Real Goods Solar Living Sourcebook. If you are really into alternative energy and really hate your utility company, this will be the best $35 (plus shipping) that you ever spend. In that book find the Solar Energy Worksheet. You can use it to figure out how to size your equipment to deliver the kWh amount you got off your electric bill. Then you can go to the product pages and figure out the cost for that equipment. If your house is like mine, it will be many years before your electric rates get high enough to make the purchase of that equipment a good idea for your wallet. Making use of most alternative energy fuels will require a lot more fundamental changes in our lifestyles then simply changing the source of power generation fuels.
Let’s move on to "interesting item number three". Amory and Hunter Lovins (http://www.rmi.org/) must have gotten tuckered out lately because you rarely hear about "Negawatts" any more. The concept of "demand side management" was mentioned in these summary pod-casts, but the phrase, "energy conservation" was once again noticeably absent from the discussion. Regional groups like Western Resource Advocates, still argue that conservation could effectively cut the growing electricity demand in half in some western states. (http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/energy/clenergy.php)Yet, eight utility executives gloss over this "resource" without much comment, and here is why.
Interesting item number four: These guys like to build big power plants and coal is currently the cheapest fuel to buy for running them. Sadly, the tone of the Final Remarks show an attitude that makes the normal uninformed citizen like me, angry at utility companies. Their collective feeling seems to be that if the environmental crazies and the damn ivory tower regulators would just get out of the way, they could provide all the electric power generation the world will ever need. "We can build these things". "This is great stuff", they proclaim. This is a great solution. They get to take action and the costs for these huge multi-billion dollar projects get passed on to us, the rate payers.
Its too bad, in an exciting world where so many options could be used to solve our energy problems and improve environmental health; a world where we could all be working together to solve our energy problems; we still have major utility businesses run by men using the same thinking that got us into this mess. The time has come. We can no longer afford to confuse size with imagination.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
