The Energy Revolution
This is a new revolution. A revolution that lets you tune in to savings and drop out of your energy dependence. No, it won't be televised. But, you will remember it. So, unlike the saying, "if you can remember the 60's, you weren't there", you, will be there to save the planet.
The challenge of energy conservation is in the minute and boring details of everyday living. As with any chronic bad habit (eg. alcoholism, drug addiction, frivolous energy waste, etc.) the first step to a cure is awareness. Nothing goes quicker to the heart of energy waste awareness than two fairly easy steps. One, keep track of the kilowatt hours you use and two, monitor your house appliances and systems to calculate your energy footprint.
Step One: Keep track of your kWh Use
There are several meaningful ways to do this. This easiest way is to set up a computer spreadsheet with columns for months and rows for years. When you get your electric bill, plug in the total kWh from your bill. In less than a year you will start to see patterns in your energy use that can help you make management decisions about energy use. After one year of record keeping you can compare with previous years. This is a great and easy way to see how your energy conservation actions translate into dollar savings, which is the real point of this effort. In three years of record keeping you’ll gain a great understanding of how your house works and document your energy conservation results.
I know a guy that made a form to keep track of his energy use every day. With morning, coffee in hand, he takes a short walk to his electric meter and records the reading. If you were ever suspicious of your electric utility (“no way did I use that much electricity last month - is this bill an estimate?”) this will help reduce those fears. It will also quickly show the impact of energy management decisions in your house. A whole host of energy wasters can be recognized quickly this way. Leaky hot water faucets, stuck thermostats, underground water pipe leaks and failing electric motors have all been some of the things caught early by doing this. So, the effort can save you future headaches by fixing these problems before they turn into bigger problems.
Step Two: Monitor your Stuff
This sounds like a lot of work but really it’s not too bad and the feeling you get from being in control of your energy consumption destiny is well worth the effort. With your Kill-a-watt meter in hand, take turns plugging in different appliances. This is a real eye opener. Plug in each appliance like refrigerators, freezers, television systems, sound systems, computer systems, humidifiers, dehumidifiers, hair dryers, electric blankets, lamps, anything with a cord that plugs into a regular wall outlet. Keep each appliance plugged in for a week. Note the kWh used at the end of the week, divide by seven and multiply by 365 and you have the cost to run that appliance for a year. If you only use that freezer or humidifier for part of the year, adjust your calculations accordingly.
Here’s how to make this easy. Get a calendar that you can write on and hang it in the kitchen. Get a Kill-o-watt Meter and leave it on your kitchen counter. Just leave it there. Then, the next time you head for the refrigerator, before you open the door, unplug the fridge and plug it back in with the Kill-o-watt meter in place. Leave it for a week. (Mark the day and time you set up the meter on your calendar.)In a week pick a new appliance to monitor. Retrieve your meter after recording the kWh used and time elapsed on the previous appliance. Keep going until you have documented energy use on each plug in appliance in your house.
The main point of doing this is to save the planet of course, but the best part of doing this is to save money. Are you freaking out about the world financial turmoil? Are you trying to find that finance vehicle that is secure, gives great returns for your dollars invested and won’t disappear with the latest dip in the DOW? Energy Conservation is it. Money invested in home improvements geared to saving energy shows returns that far exceed anything you can do on Wall Street. If you want a safe place to stick your investment funds, stick them in energy conservation.
DO IT !
What’s stopping you? I know. Just like the anxiety of picking the right stock in today’s market, you’re afraid to make the wrong energy conservation decision. You don’t want to waste money or plunk down big bucks for small savings.
BUILDITSOLAR.COM shows you where to start. While this website sounds like it’s just geared to solar energy enthusiasts, there is a wealth of information about energy conservation. Not only do they cover great ideas on energy conservation, they offer ways to help you pick projects that give the best bang for the buck.
The combination of taking control of your energy use by monitoring and taking action based on a do-able plan for energy conservation will make you feel better about the economy and the environment all at the same time.
Showing posts with label Green Power. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Green Power. Show all posts
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
I can say that word, “NUCLEAR”
"The true essence of humankind is kindness. There are other qualities which come from education or knowledge, but it is essential, if one wishes to be a genuine human being and impart satisfying meaning to one's existence, to have a good heart."- Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama
In the energy debate, clever quips and well placed personal barbs seem to prevail over kindness. I think that is one reason why we haven’t gotten farther along with our energy planning in the USA.
This stumbling block to reasoned discussion is especially vitriolic in the nuclear energy debate where both sides frequently resort to a combination of name calling and bewildering statistics. Doing this makes it hard for the consumer on the street to sort out the facts. It makes most of us reluctant to even enter the debate.
Energy Central is a website that has offered news and commentary on the Electric Utility industry for many years. I believe their aim is to provide as much objective information as possible about this industry and its issues. It’s a great way to hear all sides of the debate on many different utility topics.
One regular contributor, John K. Sutherland, seems to have a pretty good handle on issues relating to Nuclear Energy production in the USA. Sadly, he seems so angry about those opposed to nuclear energy that it is hard to read much of his material. His most recent piece on nuclear energy includes this:
“Nuclear waste, despite the ignorant half-truths and inventions of those who fear it, and despite the fact that we would rather not have it, is one of the best reasons for developing nuclear power relative to any other major reliable source of energy other than hydro. When you add its minimal pollution contributions; its much better safety record than any large energy source; and its improving cost advantages at this time, there should be no contest, yet the emotionally slanted nuclear mythologies keep rearing their heads.”
In his article he includes interesting and helpful numbers that show that nuclear energy wins hands down when it comes to its safety record, waste stream volume reduction and health impacts compared to coal and natural gas. The trouble is, I am usually so pissed off by the time I get to his numbers, I don’t really care if he’s right.
In contrast Amory Lovins has long been an opponent of nuclear energy, until recently Mr. Lovins has tried to gain converts by bludgeoning them with statistics, but a recent piece of his from the Rocky Mountain Institute entitled “Forget Nuclear” does offer a summary that leaves out the laborious numbers and footnote references long enough to let the average person on the street understand a little about what he has been getting at. Yet he too cannot resist that Saturday Night Live jab like, “Jane you ignorant slut” when he concludes his summary opposition with the following comments;
“So why do otherwise well-informed people still consider nuclear power a key element of a sound climate strategy? Not because that belief can withstand analytic scrutiny. Rather, it seems, because of a superficially attractive story, an immensely powerful and effective lobby, a new generation who forgot or never knew why nuclear power failed previously (almost nothing has changed), sympathetic leaders of nearly all main governments, deeply rooted habits and rules that favor giant power plants over distributed solutions and enlarged supply over efficient use, the market winners’ absence from many official databases (which often count only big plants owned by utilities), and lazy reporting by an unduly credulous press.”
It’s really a shame we can’t be more polite to each other when it comes to talking about energy issues. Yet we persist in making sure we spend more time attacking opposing views than trying to understand them.
"Insanity is repeating the same behavior and expecting a different result," said Werner Erhart.
And, in the debate about energy planning for the USA, I think both sides are pretty much insane if they think their approach to this complicated issue is the way to develop a sound energy policy.
© Mark Daily, 2008
In the energy debate, clever quips and well placed personal barbs seem to prevail over kindness. I think that is one reason why we haven’t gotten farther along with our energy planning in the USA.
This stumbling block to reasoned discussion is especially vitriolic in the nuclear energy debate where both sides frequently resort to a combination of name calling and bewildering statistics. Doing this makes it hard for the consumer on the street to sort out the facts. It makes most of us reluctant to even enter the debate.
Energy Central is a website that has offered news and commentary on the Electric Utility industry for many years. I believe their aim is to provide as much objective information as possible about this industry and its issues. It’s a great way to hear all sides of the debate on many different utility topics.
One regular contributor, John K. Sutherland, seems to have a pretty good handle on issues relating to Nuclear Energy production in the USA. Sadly, he seems so angry about those opposed to nuclear energy that it is hard to read much of his material. His most recent piece on nuclear energy includes this:
“Nuclear waste, despite the ignorant half-truths and inventions of those who fear it, and despite the fact that we would rather not have it, is one of the best reasons for developing nuclear power relative to any other major reliable source of energy other than hydro. When you add its minimal pollution contributions; its much better safety record than any large energy source; and its improving cost advantages at this time, there should be no contest, yet the emotionally slanted nuclear mythologies keep rearing their heads.”
In his article he includes interesting and helpful numbers that show that nuclear energy wins hands down when it comes to its safety record, waste stream volume reduction and health impacts compared to coal and natural gas. The trouble is, I am usually so pissed off by the time I get to his numbers, I don’t really care if he’s right.
In contrast Amory Lovins has long been an opponent of nuclear energy, until recently Mr. Lovins has tried to gain converts by bludgeoning them with statistics, but a recent piece of his from the Rocky Mountain Institute entitled “Forget Nuclear” does offer a summary that leaves out the laborious numbers and footnote references long enough to let the average person on the street understand a little about what he has been getting at. Yet he too cannot resist that Saturday Night Live jab like, “Jane you ignorant slut” when he concludes his summary opposition with the following comments;
“So why do otherwise well-informed people still consider nuclear power a key element of a sound climate strategy? Not because that belief can withstand analytic scrutiny. Rather, it seems, because of a superficially attractive story, an immensely powerful and effective lobby, a new generation who forgot or never knew why nuclear power failed previously (almost nothing has changed), sympathetic leaders of nearly all main governments, deeply rooted habits and rules that favor giant power plants over distributed solutions and enlarged supply over efficient use, the market winners’ absence from many official databases (which often count only big plants owned by utilities), and lazy reporting by an unduly credulous press.”
It’s really a shame we can’t be more polite to each other when it comes to talking about energy issues. Yet we persist in making sure we spend more time attacking opposing views than trying to understand them.
"Insanity is repeating the same behavior and expecting a different result," said Werner Erhart.
And, in the debate about energy planning for the USA, I think both sides are pretty much insane if they think their approach to this complicated issue is the way to develop a sound energy policy.
© Mark Daily, 2008
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Alternate Energy Advocates need to Get Real
Electricity is today, by almost any standard, a requirement for modern life.
A nation-wide system of unrelated companies makes electricity, a product that cannot be seen, stored or stockpiled and gets it delivered to every corner of the nation through a series of wires connected by thousands of different companies, 24 hours a day for 365 days a year.
This product reaches the customer at the exact moment that the customer wants it- even when the customer doesn’t know they want it. If too much electricity is delivered, things start melting. If too little electricity is delivered, things start melting. This is not like gas for your car. There is no gauge showing a low tank so you can head to the filling station. This is a product that most homeowners only think about when it isn’t there or when the price goes up.
The back bone of the electric power generation system consists of thousands of power plants spread across the country. Most are located strategically near urban load centers or sources of fuel. Usually, sources of fuel, like coal or wind or hydro power, are nowhere near urban load centers.
Base-load fossil fuel is stockpiled allowing power plants to schedule power production to meet anticipated loads. When power plant schedulers get it right, nobody notices. When they get it wrong, rolling brown-outs or black-outs inspire months of government investigation and reams of customer hate mail focused on those utilities that left them in the dark or melted their ice cream. Wholesale power suppliers pay various contract penalties for being short on generation delivery if they under produce or waste electricity and ratepayer’s money if they produce more than is needed.
Because of the ability to schedule these base-load fossil fuel systems, they are called “dispatch-able”. Schedulers dispatch power at varying levels targeted every thirty minutes to meet your electricity demands. They do it based on formulas that consider historic loads, predicted weather conditions and anticipated load growth. Wind and solar energy are not “dispatch-able”.
Based load power plants have an excellent track record of meeting the nation’s needs. As a whole, they achieve an astounding 80% production output that combines with back-up power generation and regional inter-connections to provide electricity at your house almost 100 percent of the time.
Renewable power production facilities have a track record of 25% output. As renewables become more plentiful and spread over wider geographic areas, this “production” factor will improve. Increased reliability through diversity has long been a goal of renewable energy advocates. The Rocky Mountain Institute is one group supporting this concept. Their recent research in the July 2008 issue of their Solution Journal describes how that might come about.
Utilities, have historically appeared to drag their feet about including wind and solar power into their generation portfolio. This is not because they dislike clean power, but because they feel like a 25 % production track record does not meet the needs of their customers. From their perspective, every kilowatt of wind or solar power generation must be backed up with equal base load generation to cover the 75% of the time renewable resources fail to deliver power. In a business dedicated to reliable power at the least cost, the expense of supporting renewable energy means building redundant base-load coverage.
Until customers get “real” about alternate energy expectations there will always be conflict between customer expectations and utility’s ability to deliver.
A nation-wide system of unrelated companies makes electricity, a product that cannot be seen, stored or stockpiled and gets it delivered to every corner of the nation through a series of wires connected by thousands of different companies, 24 hours a day for 365 days a year.
This product reaches the customer at the exact moment that the customer wants it- even when the customer doesn’t know they want it. If too much electricity is delivered, things start melting. If too little electricity is delivered, things start melting. This is not like gas for your car. There is no gauge showing a low tank so you can head to the filling station. This is a product that most homeowners only think about when it isn’t there or when the price goes up.
The back bone of the electric power generation system consists of thousands of power plants spread across the country. Most are located strategically near urban load centers or sources of fuel. Usually, sources of fuel, like coal or wind or hydro power, are nowhere near urban load centers.
Base-load fossil fuel is stockpiled allowing power plants to schedule power production to meet anticipated loads. When power plant schedulers get it right, nobody notices. When they get it wrong, rolling brown-outs or black-outs inspire months of government investigation and reams of customer hate mail focused on those utilities that left them in the dark or melted their ice cream. Wholesale power suppliers pay various contract penalties for being short on generation delivery if they under produce or waste electricity and ratepayer’s money if they produce more than is needed.
Because of the ability to schedule these base-load fossil fuel systems, they are called “dispatch-able”. Schedulers dispatch power at varying levels targeted every thirty minutes to meet your electricity demands. They do it based on formulas that consider historic loads, predicted weather conditions and anticipated load growth. Wind and solar energy are not “dispatch-able”.
Based load power plants have an excellent track record of meeting the nation’s needs. As a whole, they achieve an astounding 80% production output that combines with back-up power generation and regional inter-connections to provide electricity at your house almost 100 percent of the time.
Renewable power production facilities have a track record of 25% output. As renewables become more plentiful and spread over wider geographic areas, this “production” factor will improve. Increased reliability through diversity has long been a goal of renewable energy advocates. The Rocky Mountain Institute is one group supporting this concept. Their recent research in the July 2008 issue of their Solution Journal describes how that might come about.
Utilities, have historically appeared to drag their feet about including wind and solar power into their generation portfolio. This is not because they dislike clean power, but because they feel like a 25 % production track record does not meet the needs of their customers. From their perspective, every kilowatt of wind or solar power generation must be backed up with equal base load generation to cover the 75% of the time renewable resources fail to deliver power. In a business dedicated to reliable power at the least cost, the expense of supporting renewable energy means building redundant base-load coverage.
Until customers get “real” about alternate energy expectations there will always be conflict between customer expectations and utility’s ability to deliver.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Climate Change and the Tooth Fairy
Every once in a while I find myself in one of those conversations that begins with someone saying, “I don’t believe in Global Climate Change”. To me, the issue of Global Climate change is not a matter of belief or disbelief. When the world talks about Global Climate change or politicians or scientists talk about global climate change, they are not talking about a belief at all really. I mean not like “do you believe in Big Foot or the Tooth Fairy”.
Here is the difference. So far no one has been able to cite a documented observation, clear photographic record, or reproducible experiment evaluated by confirming peer reviewed data or evidence on either Big Foot or the Tooth Fairy. A peer group of four year olds might all agree that the tooth fairy does exist, but we should expect a higher degree of professionalism from the scientific community about the issue of Global Climate change.
To that end, a group of scientists have in fact gotten together to look at all of the available data, various studies, some modeling scenarios and a host of other scientific documentation relating to global climate and temperature variations. This data not only covers historic records kept by people, it also includes scientific estimates of historic temperatures, snow and ice levels, based on agreed upon methods of ice core sample research etc.; along with current information.
The results of this work was printed recently in a report called,
An Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This report also included a summary of the findings. This summary, approved in detail at Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Plenary XXVII (Valencia, Spain, 12-17 November 2007), “represents the formally agreed upon statement of the IPCC concerning key findings and uncertainties contained in the Working Group contributions to this Fourth Assessment Report” according to their web site introduction.
Everyone that cares about the facts relating to climate change owes it to themselves and the people that may roll their eyes behind their backs when they announce that they do or don’t “believe in global warming”, to read this summary. And, after a winter like we’ve had this year you can just imagine the debate. However, when you look at the numbers and compare studies and ask consistent questions, the facts, according to this Assessment Summary, seem to point to a real change in the temperature of the globe, with shrinking ice and snow fields and rising ocean levels all pointing to unprecedented increases in global temperature.
Then of course the next question would be, “is this a natural change or a man made change?” This same assessment says it is probably a man made change. Now I don’t just mean “probably” like someday I’ll probably have car trouble, I mean that there is a real likely hood based on the evidence that the climate is warming more rapidly now than any natural conditions would predict or explain. The study goes on to say that this trend is consistent with trends in the production of green house gases created by human activity.
Far from being the “hoax” that some headlines flaunt, the issue of climate change cannot easily be dismissed after reading this summary. If climate change is our fault, then the next question becomes, “what if anything should we or can we do about it”?
The impacts to the world wide human and animal communities predicted in the IPPCC Assessment are not cheerful. Their predictions do not show a happy ending. And, of course, since everyone agrees that no one can really predict the future, until it’s too late to do anything about, this is where any thought of corrective action and who foots the bill will get bogged down. The resulting gridlock debate will make the US Senate look like a decisive action oriented group of rational, objective and logical thinkers
I think we are all too hung up on taking action to stop Global Climate change. There are many compelling reasons to take actions that will help reduce man’s impact to the climate that have nothing to do with helping to reduce man’s impact to the climate.
For example, driving less, or buying a vehicle with better gas mileage ratings, will save you money in the long run. Driving less gives you more time to do other things that might be more fun than driving. Aside from the climate change issue, gas prices will continue to rise, not because burning gasoline is or isn’t changing the climate, but because the more we use the less there will be and when there is less of something that people want, the price goes up. Throw into this discussion the possibility that our purchase of gasoline supports people that are trying to kill us (terrorists, communists and other “ists”) and you have to ask yourself, “geez, why would I want to use gasoline at all”?
Now gasoline conservation by itself will not solve all climate problems, but it keeps your money in your pocket. So if you have no clue about how to reduce your driving, Google “Reduce your driving”. You’ll find all kinds of ideas.
Next time I’ll get into ways you can cut your home heating fuel use and how to evaluate your options. I’m trying as many of these ideas as I can afford. I want to spend my money on fun things, not on gas and utilities.
Here is the difference. So far no one has been able to cite a documented observation, clear photographic record, or reproducible experiment evaluated by confirming peer reviewed data or evidence on either Big Foot or the Tooth Fairy. A peer group of four year olds might all agree that the tooth fairy does exist, but we should expect a higher degree of professionalism from the scientific community about the issue of Global Climate change.
To that end, a group of scientists have in fact gotten together to look at all of the available data, various studies, some modeling scenarios and a host of other scientific documentation relating to global climate and temperature variations. This data not only covers historic records kept by people, it also includes scientific estimates of historic temperatures, snow and ice levels, based on agreed upon methods of ice core sample research etc.; along with current information.
The results of this work was printed recently in a report called,
An Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This report also included a summary of the findings. This summary, approved in detail at Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Plenary XXVII (Valencia, Spain, 12-17 November 2007), “represents the formally agreed upon statement of the IPCC concerning key findings and uncertainties contained in the Working Group contributions to this Fourth Assessment Report” according to their web site introduction.
Everyone that cares about the facts relating to climate change owes it to themselves and the people that may roll their eyes behind their backs when they announce that they do or don’t “believe in global warming”, to read this summary. And, after a winter like we’ve had this year you can just imagine the debate. However, when you look at the numbers and compare studies and ask consistent questions, the facts, according to this Assessment Summary, seem to point to a real change in the temperature of the globe, with shrinking ice and snow fields and rising ocean levels all pointing to unprecedented increases in global temperature.
Then of course the next question would be, “is this a natural change or a man made change?” This same assessment says it is probably a man made change. Now I don’t just mean “probably” like someday I’ll probably have car trouble, I mean that there is a real likely hood based on the evidence that the climate is warming more rapidly now than any natural conditions would predict or explain. The study goes on to say that this trend is consistent with trends in the production of green house gases created by human activity.
Far from being the “hoax” that some headlines flaunt, the issue of climate change cannot easily be dismissed after reading this summary. If climate change is our fault, then the next question becomes, “what if anything should we or can we do about it”?
The impacts to the world wide human and animal communities predicted in the IPPCC Assessment are not cheerful. Their predictions do not show a happy ending. And, of course, since everyone agrees that no one can really predict the future, until it’s too late to do anything about, this is where any thought of corrective action and who foots the bill will get bogged down. The resulting gridlock debate will make the US Senate look like a decisive action oriented group of rational, objective and logical thinkers
I think we are all too hung up on taking action to stop Global Climate change. There are many compelling reasons to take actions that will help reduce man’s impact to the climate that have nothing to do with helping to reduce man’s impact to the climate.
For example, driving less, or buying a vehicle with better gas mileage ratings, will save you money in the long run. Driving less gives you more time to do other things that might be more fun than driving. Aside from the climate change issue, gas prices will continue to rise, not because burning gasoline is or isn’t changing the climate, but because the more we use the less there will be and when there is less of something that people want, the price goes up. Throw into this discussion the possibility that our purchase of gasoline supports people that are trying to kill us (terrorists, communists and other “ists”) and you have to ask yourself, “geez, why would I want to use gasoline at all”?
Now gasoline conservation by itself will not solve all climate problems, but it keeps your money in your pocket. So if you have no clue about how to reduce your driving, Google “Reduce your driving”. You’ll find all kinds of ideas.
Next time I’ll get into ways you can cut your home heating fuel use and how to evaluate your options. I’m trying as many of these ideas as I can afford. I want to spend my money on fun things, not on gas and utilities.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Make the Global Climate Change Debate Irrelevant
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Why Utility Executives Hate Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards
Did you ever wonder why Renewable Energy provides less than ten percent of this nation’s electric energy? What the heck is an RPS and why should you take action to support them? And, finally if RPS’s are such a good idea, why do many utility executives hate them?
Defining Renewable Portfolio Standards
Renewable Portfolio Standards are not exactly on everyone’s mind these days. A Google search of RPS is just as likely to turn up sites about Rock – Paper – Scissors. Some insist that RPS is a game, but for states moving ahead with renewable energy industries, Renewable Portfolio Standards, sometimes called Renewable Electricity Standards, can be just the extra push that renewables need to become a big player in the electric energy generation game.
“A renewable portfolio standard is a state policy that requires electricity providers to obtain a minimum percentage of their power from renewable energy resources by a certain date. Currently there are 24 states plus the District of Columbia that have RPS policies in place. Together these states account for more than half of the electricity sales in the United States.
Four other states, Illinois, Missouri, Virginia, and Vermont, have nonbinding goals for adoption of renewable energy instead of an RPS.
Three states, Missouri, Virginia, and Vermont, have set voluntary goals for adopting renewable energy instead of portfolio standards with binding targets.”
Source: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy
Today renewable energy makes up less than 10% of the generation mix anywhere in the nation. And, 8% of that is from conventional large hydroelectric dam facilities. Wind generation even with its recent strong growth amounts to less than 1% of the generation mix and solar comes in at 0.04% of the generation resource in 2005.
Non-renewable resources mostly fossil fuel related, still account for 89.9% of the electricity generated in the USA.
Utility Executives Hate Renewable Portfolio Standards
So, why do some utility executives appose Renewable Portfolio Standards? It’s simple. No one likes it when someone else tells them what to do, especially when that someone else is outside the industry and expertise of that industry. Utility executives feel that the public is ill-informed about the true costs of electric energy generation. Utility executives with electrical engineering background especially feel that the public has arrived at their “pro-renewable” stance based on incomplete or faulty information. “If you knew what I know….,” you can hear them saying.
Frankly, I think that these executives are right. You don’t have to review too many of my previous blogs to find examples of misguided renewable cheerleaders getting carried away with a few acts or ignoring the facts all together. One mission of this blog is to correct that lack of information. The Union of Concerned Scientists must feel the same way because their FAQ does a pretty nice job of answering those happy hour questions about renewable energy.
Despite gains made in renewable energy production and in spite of the fact that the “fuel” for wind and solar energy is free, the fact still remains that all renewable energy resources cost more to get into the grid than non-renewable energy.
The Bottom Line for Renewable Energy
So, here is the real reason utility executives hate RPS. It raises rates and these guys have never ever gotten one phone call from any of their consumers yelling at them for having rates that were too low. Oh no my friends. I know from personal experience being the main person fielding angry customer complaints that I never, ever in fifteen years of dealing with angry customers – had a customer angry with me because rates were too low; quite the opposite in fact. And, since utility executives are trying to deliver electricity at the best rates possible, no one wants to be forced into RPS regulations mandating higher rates. Or, worse yet mandating rate freezes while requiring RPS targets, similar to what the retail deregulation experience did in many states.
A recent study by American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy of the financial impacts of RPS adoption shows that over all energy costs would go down but the cost savings do not happen right away and this study shows that electricity rates by themselves go up as a result of RPS implementation.
Renewable Energy Management
Renewable Energy tends to be a small scale disbursed generation resource. This requires more coordination for dispatching electricity to the load or demand centers that need the juice. Having a host of renewable energy resource generators to coordinate instead of one huge coal fired power plant gives utility executives nightmares. While there can be positive aspects to a more widely distributed generation resource, there is also the real possibility that making the system more complicated will lead to more system failures, brown-outs and black outs from mistakes made in the dispatch process.
What Can You Do to help Push Renewable Energy Electricity Generation and RPS forward?
So, how do we get around this opposition and get state legislators to adopt renewable portfolio standards?
There are three things that you must do to save the world.
First, know what you are talking about. Get the facts. Find out what alternate energy can really do. Parroting phrases like, “the State of Nevada has enough solar energy to power the entire US economy” is counter-productive. This may be a true statement, but unless you support extensive transmission line construction, no one cares what happens in Nevada.
Second, become a vocal, but polite voice advocating renewable energy development through the adoption of Renewable Energy or Renewable Electricity Portfolio Standards. Write to state and national elected officials and your utility executives and tell them that you support higher rates as long as those increases go toward the addition of renewable energy resources in their generation portfolios.
Finally the absolute most important thing that you can do to help renewable energy become a bigger percentage of the electricity generation mix is stop using electricity stupidly. This is more than just turning the lights off. Residential lighting in the US accounts for only about five percent of the entire electric energy demand. So even if you use headlamps all the time you haven’t done much to reduce energy use. Energy conservation means doing the same work smarter, by buying the most energy efficient appliances; hunting down and eliminating phantom electric loads in your house; making sure your home has the best insulation levels and high quality windows possible. Utility executives are not generating electricity because it’s a lot of fun. They are generating electricity because you are asking for it. Read some previous postings to find out more about energy conservation.
My next Blog will explain why utility executives think environmentalists are a pain in the ass.
©Mark Richard Daily
Defining Renewable Portfolio Standards
Renewable Portfolio Standards are not exactly on everyone’s mind these days. A Google search of RPS is just as likely to turn up sites about Rock – Paper – Scissors. Some insist that RPS is a game, but for states moving ahead with renewable energy industries, Renewable Portfolio Standards, sometimes called Renewable Electricity Standards, can be just the extra push that renewables need to become a big player in the electric energy generation game.
“A renewable portfolio standard is a state policy that requires electricity providers to obtain a minimum percentage of their power from renewable energy resources by a certain date. Currently there are 24 states plus the District of Columbia that have RPS policies in place. Together these states account for more than half of the electricity sales in the United States.
Four other states, Illinois, Missouri, Virginia, and Vermont, have nonbinding goals for adoption of renewable energy instead of an RPS.
Three states, Missouri, Virginia, and Vermont, have set voluntary goals for adopting renewable energy instead of portfolio standards with binding targets.”
Source: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy
Today renewable energy makes up less than 10% of the generation mix anywhere in the nation. And, 8% of that is from conventional large hydroelectric dam facilities. Wind generation even with its recent strong growth amounts to less than 1% of the generation mix and solar comes in at 0.04% of the generation resource in 2005.
Non-renewable resources mostly fossil fuel related, still account for 89.9% of the electricity generated in the USA.
Utility Executives Hate Renewable Portfolio Standards
So, why do some utility executives appose Renewable Portfolio Standards? It’s simple. No one likes it when someone else tells them what to do, especially when that someone else is outside the industry and expertise of that industry. Utility executives feel that the public is ill-informed about the true costs of electric energy generation. Utility executives with electrical engineering background especially feel that the public has arrived at their “pro-renewable” stance based on incomplete or faulty information. “If you knew what I know….,” you can hear them saying.
Frankly, I think that these executives are right. You don’t have to review too many of my previous blogs to find examples of misguided renewable cheerleaders getting carried away with a few acts or ignoring the facts all together. One mission of this blog is to correct that lack of information. The Union of Concerned Scientists must feel the same way because their FAQ does a pretty nice job of answering those happy hour questions about renewable energy.
Despite gains made in renewable energy production and in spite of the fact that the “fuel” for wind and solar energy is free, the fact still remains that all renewable energy resources cost more to get into the grid than non-renewable energy.
The Bottom Line for Renewable Energy
So, here is the real reason utility executives hate RPS. It raises rates and these guys have never ever gotten one phone call from any of their consumers yelling at them for having rates that were too low. Oh no my friends. I know from personal experience being the main person fielding angry customer complaints that I never, ever in fifteen years of dealing with angry customers – had a customer angry with me because rates were too low; quite the opposite in fact. And, since utility executives are trying to deliver electricity at the best rates possible, no one wants to be forced into RPS regulations mandating higher rates. Or, worse yet mandating rate freezes while requiring RPS targets, similar to what the retail deregulation experience did in many states.
A recent study by American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy of the financial impacts of RPS adoption shows that over all energy costs would go down but the cost savings do not happen right away and this study shows that electricity rates by themselves go up as a result of RPS implementation.
Renewable Energy Management
Renewable Energy tends to be a small scale disbursed generation resource. This requires more coordination for dispatching electricity to the load or demand centers that need the juice. Having a host of renewable energy resource generators to coordinate instead of one huge coal fired power plant gives utility executives nightmares. While there can be positive aspects to a more widely distributed generation resource, there is also the real possibility that making the system more complicated will lead to more system failures, brown-outs and black outs from mistakes made in the dispatch process.
What Can You Do to help Push Renewable Energy Electricity Generation and RPS forward?
So, how do we get around this opposition and get state legislators to adopt renewable portfolio standards?
There are three things that you must do to save the world.
First, know what you are talking about. Get the facts. Find out what alternate energy can really do. Parroting phrases like, “the State of Nevada has enough solar energy to power the entire US economy” is counter-productive. This may be a true statement, but unless you support extensive transmission line construction, no one cares what happens in Nevada.
Second, become a vocal, but polite voice advocating renewable energy development through the adoption of Renewable Energy or Renewable Electricity Portfolio Standards. Write to state and national elected officials and your utility executives and tell them that you support higher rates as long as those increases go toward the addition of renewable energy resources in their generation portfolios.
Finally the absolute most important thing that you can do to help renewable energy become a bigger percentage of the electricity generation mix is stop using electricity stupidly. This is more than just turning the lights off. Residential lighting in the US accounts for only about five percent of the entire electric energy demand. So even if you use headlamps all the time you haven’t done much to reduce energy use. Energy conservation means doing the same work smarter, by buying the most energy efficient appliances; hunting down and eliminating phantom electric loads in your house; making sure your home has the best insulation levels and high quality windows possible. Utility executives are not generating electricity because it’s a lot of fun. They are generating electricity because you are asking for it. Read some previous postings to find out more about energy conservation.
My next Blog will explain why utility executives think environmentalists are a pain in the ass.
©Mark Richard Daily
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Alternate Electric Generation Systems need Facts
It happened again Saturday. I was in a room of about thirty people eager to hear about the Sierra Club’s Cool Cities program. These thirty people appeared to be well educated. We were all certainly well feed because the meeting was at an Irish Pub. I thought about speaking up. Maybe it was the pint of Guinness. Maybe it was the weekend. At any rate, I bit my tongue and sat on my hands to avoid climbing on my soap box and alienating the few remaining friends I have.
Well meaning speakers got on the subject of net metering, wind power and hydro-electric energy generation. They were making the kind of statements that make uneducated crowds cheer and utility executives barf.
Here are some of the comments. “We have wind resources that should be used to replace dirty coal fired power plants”. “Solar energy systems are available that can be built into your house and power your home without the need for dirty coal fired power plants”.
Man, if it were only that simple.
Yes, there are wind resources throughout the United States that could be developed to provide power into the grid. Yes, there are integrated solar photo-voltaic systems that can be built into your house to provide clean energy. Yes, there are low head and small hydro-electric opportunities across the USA that contribute power to the nationwide electric grid. These things exist today and people are actually doing them, but there is more to the story. I believe that blindly repeating these cheer leader statements creates a climate of distrust between utilities and consumers that destroys the working relationships needed to really solve our electric energy problems.
The future of all of these technologies is exiting and optimistic. Yet, there are some very valid reasons that utilities might balk at massive expenditures to bring these technologies into the system today.
Wind Power- Wind power has seen exponential growth in construction and development, but it is still a small portion of the generating resource that keeps all of our lights on. In many areas the wind blows hard enough to get your attention but not hard enough to make a financially viable resource. The obvious limitation is that we expect electricity all the time, but the wind doesn’t blow all the time even in the Dakotas. Yes, some day there may be enough wind generation equipment well connected and spread out over a big enough area that system managers can “schedule” reliable power to load centers (like your neighborhood). Today however, utilities know that you will not wait to have electricity until the wind is blowing. This means that while wind can make a growing contribution to the grid, utilities feel that they must have base load reliable power generation that they can schedule to meet your power needs. So now, they are building and paying for wind facilities and coal fired facilities at the same time. This is part of the reason that generation utilities grimace in a crowd that’s screaming for more wind power. The other limitation to wind power is that people don’t usually like to live in a good wind resource area. While Chicago may be an exception, wind resources aren’t located near major population centers. So now we are talking major transmission facility construction and the people that are usually pro- wind, seem to be Not in My Back Yard (NIMBYS) when it comes to building transmission systems. Studying your wind resource for a full 12 months is the only way to find out what the wind power potential is for your site. You can get a rough idea about wind resources national wide from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).
Solar Power-New developments in thin film construction for solar panels promise to make collectors that will turn 50 percent of the light that hits them into power instead of the 10 to 25 percent efficiency of panels in service today. Today you can buy solar roofing materials that do double duty. These new products have been commercially available for years and protect your roof like shingles while making electricity at the same time. Thousands of homes across the nation are using solar panels called photo-voltaic systems to power their homes. So why not just go solar now? -Two reasons. First they aren’t going to power my home unless I make major (read expensive) changes to my home’s building envelope (walls, attic insulation, windows) and appliances (refrigerator, well pump, stock tank heater, etc). Second, no one wants to be in the dark when the sun goes down, so making central station solar generation, puts us in the dark just when we get home and want the power. The exception to that is business and air conditioning loads. Here again we run into a “disconnect” between wishful thinking and reality. A simple Photo voltaic system with controls and equipment will set you back $10,000 to $20,000 for a modest system capable of generating 1.5 KW (kilo-Watts) and every five to seven years you get to replace batteries at about $4- 5 K a wack. When I go through my house and add up the load demands my appliances and equipment require, I’m in trouble and I’ll bet your home and business is in the same situation. It takes a very large and very expensive system to supply the 500 kWh per month average energy demand of homes in the USA. If you are serious about going solar you have to get a copy of the Real Goods Source book. It’s a product catalogue and a how to manual rolled into one book.
Hydroelectric power- Big dams have gotten a lot of bad press lately. Never mind that customers in big dam areas have some of the lowest power bills in the nation. Big dams create a host of other environmental problems that have their own opponents. Small hydro facilities in the 500 KW range are springing up nation-wide MARK FIND OUT FACTS. These facilities have real potential to contribute to the electric grid in regions that have the resource. So why aren’t utilities knocking down the doors to license and build these facilities? Well, there are two reasons, licensing and building. Each permit to build generation equipment requires a long drawn out battle because of all of the conflicting issues. Why go through multiple battles 500 to 1000 KW at a time when you can fight one 100 or 500 Megawatt battle and build the facility closer to the load demanding the power?
Even the smallest hydroelectric system can use more water and more water fall than you think. If you think you have a small hydroelectric resource you must do the research and study of your water resource to find out the potential to make electricity. The Real goods catalogue can help, but other hydroelectric education resources are available.
So, there you have it. I know it’s confusing. I know that in one sentence I sound like a democrat and the next sounds more republican. I had one women read my stuff and get real confused about which side I was on, and that is the problem today. It seems we have to pick sides and one side is for dirty coal and the other side is for clean renewable energy. The truth is both sides want electricity 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Utilities are mandated by law to do two things. First they have to supply the amount of power you want when you want it. Second, they have to do it at the least possible expense. If that wasn’t hard enough, they have to get permits and design approval ten years before you want the power. No wonder some of those executives are cranky.
My next blog will explain why most utility executives hate net-metering.
Well meaning speakers got on the subject of net metering, wind power and hydro-electric energy generation. They were making the kind of statements that make uneducated crowds cheer and utility executives barf.
Here are some of the comments. “We have wind resources that should be used to replace dirty coal fired power plants”. “Solar energy systems are available that can be built into your house and power your home without the need for dirty coal fired power plants”.
Man, if it were only that simple.
Yes, there are wind resources throughout the United States that could be developed to provide power into the grid. Yes, there are integrated solar photo-voltaic systems that can be built into your house to provide clean energy. Yes, there are low head and small hydro-electric opportunities across the USA that contribute power to the nationwide electric grid. These things exist today and people are actually doing them, but there is more to the story. I believe that blindly repeating these cheer leader statements creates a climate of distrust between utilities and consumers that destroys the working relationships needed to really solve our electric energy problems.
The future of all of these technologies is exiting and optimistic. Yet, there are some very valid reasons that utilities might balk at massive expenditures to bring these technologies into the system today.
Wind Power- Wind power has seen exponential growth in construction and development, but it is still a small portion of the generating resource that keeps all of our lights on. In many areas the wind blows hard enough to get your attention but not hard enough to make a financially viable resource. The obvious limitation is that we expect electricity all the time, but the wind doesn’t blow all the time even in the Dakotas. Yes, some day there may be enough wind generation equipment well connected and spread out over a big enough area that system managers can “schedule” reliable power to load centers (like your neighborhood). Today however, utilities know that you will not wait to have electricity until the wind is blowing. This means that while wind can make a growing contribution to the grid, utilities feel that they must have base load reliable power generation that they can schedule to meet your power needs. So now, they are building and paying for wind facilities and coal fired facilities at the same time. This is part of the reason that generation utilities grimace in a crowd that’s screaming for more wind power. The other limitation to wind power is that people don’t usually like to live in a good wind resource area. While Chicago may be an exception, wind resources aren’t located near major population centers. So now we are talking major transmission facility construction and the people that are usually pro- wind, seem to be Not in My Back Yard (NIMBYS) when it comes to building transmission systems. Studying your wind resource for a full 12 months is the only way to find out what the wind power potential is for your site. You can get a rough idea about wind resources national wide from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).
Solar Power-New developments in thin film construction for solar panels promise to make collectors that will turn 50 percent of the light that hits them into power instead of the 10 to 25 percent efficiency of panels in service today. Today you can buy solar roofing materials that do double duty. These new products have been commercially available for years and protect your roof like shingles while making electricity at the same time. Thousands of homes across the nation are using solar panels called photo-voltaic systems to power their homes. So why not just go solar now? -Two reasons. First they aren’t going to power my home unless I make major (read expensive) changes to my home’s building envelope (walls, attic insulation, windows) and appliances (refrigerator, well pump, stock tank heater, etc). Second, no one wants to be in the dark when the sun goes down, so making central station solar generation, puts us in the dark just when we get home and want the power. The exception to that is business and air conditioning loads. Here again we run into a “disconnect” between wishful thinking and reality. A simple Photo voltaic system with controls and equipment will set you back $10,000 to $20,000 for a modest system capable of generating 1.5 KW (kilo-Watts) and every five to seven years you get to replace batteries at about $4- 5 K a wack. When I go through my house and add up the load demands my appliances and equipment require, I’m in trouble and I’ll bet your home and business is in the same situation. It takes a very large and very expensive system to supply the 500 kWh per month average energy demand of homes in the USA. If you are serious about going solar you have to get a copy of the Real Goods Source book. It’s a product catalogue and a how to manual rolled into one book.
Hydroelectric power- Big dams have gotten a lot of bad press lately. Never mind that customers in big dam areas have some of the lowest power bills in the nation. Big dams create a host of other environmental problems that have their own opponents. Small hydro facilities in the 500 KW range are springing up nation-wide MARK FIND OUT FACTS. These facilities have real potential to contribute to the electric grid in regions that have the resource. So why aren’t utilities knocking down the doors to license and build these facilities? Well, there are two reasons, licensing and building. Each permit to build generation equipment requires a long drawn out battle because of all of the conflicting issues. Why go through multiple battles 500 to 1000 KW at a time when you can fight one 100 or 500 Megawatt battle and build the facility closer to the load demanding the power?
Even the smallest hydroelectric system can use more water and more water fall than you think. If you think you have a small hydroelectric resource you must do the research and study of your water resource to find out the potential to make electricity. The Real goods catalogue can help, but other hydroelectric education resources are available.
So, there you have it. I know it’s confusing. I know that in one sentence I sound like a democrat and the next sounds more republican. I had one women read my stuff and get real confused about which side I was on, and that is the problem today. It seems we have to pick sides and one side is for dirty coal and the other side is for clean renewable energy. The truth is both sides want electricity 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Utilities are mandated by law to do two things. First they have to supply the amount of power you want when you want it. Second, they have to do it at the least possible expense. If that wasn’t hard enough, they have to get permits and design approval ten years before you want the power. No wonder some of those executives are cranky.
My next blog will explain why most utility executives hate net-metering.
Monday, November 26, 2007
The Death of the Electric Utility Industry
"The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated"- Mark Twain.
Like Mark Twain, the US electric utility industry will no doubt be surprised by my predictions that their death is coming soon. This is no apocalyptic prediction and certainly no veiled monkey wrench threat; so, DHS don’t get your knickers in a knot.
What I am talking about is the age old cyclical nature of technology and the natural evolution of things from disbursed to central and back to disbursed again. I am sure entropy is at work in this, or chaos theory or at least a corollary version of my mother’s plea to, “put all your toys in one box”. But, I knew that keeping my toys spread out through the house was more efficient. I could get them quicker and if one broke I didn’t have to go all the way back to the toy box to get a new one.
Hang with me just a little longer this is really cool stuff and what you are about to learn will help you for the rest of your life.
The popular press and media hype about renewable energy versus that bad old kind of energy made from coal and hydrocarbon fuels leads many people to believe that if those greedy bastards at the electric utility company would just use wind and solar instead of coal, our electric bills would drop with green house gas emissions. Then Al Gore could retire and quit using all that jet fuel to travel around the world telling everyone about global climate change.
It must be a fossil fuel baron’s conspiracy keeping the world from clean air and cheap power right? After all the sun shines everywhere and that damned spring wind makes everyone insane part of the year and Wyoming residents crazy all year long. You just have to watch our vice president for awhile to see the proof of that, but I digress.
If you want to call yourself an American, or an Environmentalist or an Industrialist or a true blue techie, you have to know the history of electricity generation. I’m not going to launch into the details of the knock down drag out contest between the Alternating Current philosophies of Thomas Edison and the Direct Current philosophies of Nikola Tesla, but read those links and find out what the limitations where of each system because that same argument is coming back to haunt the electric utility industry.
It’s no secret that distributed distribution (e.g. home light plants and individual municipal electric generation) systems generally went the way of the dinosaur. Efficiencies for power production and air quality have long been assumed to be best with a central location for power production. Why else do you think all of those investor owned, cooperative and municipal utilities got together to power the industrial world from central power plants? Check it out yourself. If you live in or near a city that existed before the 1940’s, I’ll bet you that they had their own, light plant or power plant. When large central station transmission lines came to the neighborhood most of these municipalities dropped their power generation facilities and started buying the bulk of their electricity from a wholesale power supplier. Doing this reduced their costs and their headaches. It also made the air in your city cleaner.
Yet as construction costs, electricity demand, and environmental concerns grow, it will be these big central power suppliers that will disappear like an extinct reptile. No- wait; I like electric utilities, really. Without them we would have all been in the dark and powerless. Yet today, their desperate fight for survival is due to the fact that the big money and the big expense, is still in central station electricity generation. And, it’s the “big expense” part of the equation that spells the death knell for electric power generation as we know it.
Of course the electric utilities argue that alternate energy is not capable of powering our society. They are right and they will continue to be right for another 15 to 50 years or until society changes and that is where it gets interesting. Society is changing and the change is accelerating in a way that will make distributed power generation king again, dethroning King Coal and its entire kingdom. Remember, “The stone age did not end because we ran out of stones and the Oil (fossil fuel) Age will not end because we ran out of Oil (fossil fuels). – Don Huberts, Shell Hydrogen.
My next Blog entry will begin to explain how I think this is going to happen.
Like Mark Twain, the US electric utility industry will no doubt be surprised by my predictions that their death is coming soon. This is no apocalyptic prediction and certainly no veiled monkey wrench threat; so, DHS don’t get your knickers in a knot.
What I am talking about is the age old cyclical nature of technology and the natural evolution of things from disbursed to central and back to disbursed again. I am sure entropy is at work in this, or chaos theory or at least a corollary version of my mother’s plea to, “put all your toys in one box”. But, I knew that keeping my toys spread out through the house was more efficient. I could get them quicker and if one broke I didn’t have to go all the way back to the toy box to get a new one.
Hang with me just a little longer this is really cool stuff and what you are about to learn will help you for the rest of your life.
The popular press and media hype about renewable energy versus that bad old kind of energy made from coal and hydrocarbon fuels leads many people to believe that if those greedy bastards at the electric utility company would just use wind and solar instead of coal, our electric bills would drop with green house gas emissions. Then Al Gore could retire and quit using all that jet fuel to travel around the world telling everyone about global climate change.
It must be a fossil fuel baron’s conspiracy keeping the world from clean air and cheap power right? After all the sun shines everywhere and that damned spring wind makes everyone insane part of the year and Wyoming residents crazy all year long. You just have to watch our vice president for awhile to see the proof of that, but I digress.
If you want to call yourself an American, or an Environmentalist or an Industrialist or a true blue techie, you have to know the history of electricity generation. I’m not going to launch into the details of the knock down drag out contest between the Alternating Current philosophies of Thomas Edison and the Direct Current philosophies of Nikola Tesla, but read those links and find out what the limitations where of each system because that same argument is coming back to haunt the electric utility industry.
It’s no secret that distributed distribution (e.g. home light plants and individual municipal electric generation) systems generally went the way of the dinosaur. Efficiencies for power production and air quality have long been assumed to be best with a central location for power production. Why else do you think all of those investor owned, cooperative and municipal utilities got together to power the industrial world from central power plants? Check it out yourself. If you live in or near a city that existed before the 1940’s, I’ll bet you that they had their own, light plant or power plant. When large central station transmission lines came to the neighborhood most of these municipalities dropped their power generation facilities and started buying the bulk of their electricity from a wholesale power supplier. Doing this reduced their costs and their headaches. It also made the air in your city cleaner.
Yet as construction costs, electricity demand, and environmental concerns grow, it will be these big central power suppliers that will disappear like an extinct reptile. No- wait; I like electric utilities, really. Without them we would have all been in the dark and powerless. Yet today, their desperate fight for survival is due to the fact that the big money and the big expense, is still in central station electricity generation. And, it’s the “big expense” part of the equation that spells the death knell for electric power generation as we know it.
Of course the electric utilities argue that alternate energy is not capable of powering our society. They are right and they will continue to be right for another 15 to 50 years or until society changes and that is where it gets interesting. Society is changing and the change is accelerating in a way that will make distributed power generation king again, dethroning King Coal and its entire kingdom. Remember, “The stone age did not end because we ran out of stones and the Oil (fossil fuel) Age will not end because we ran out of Oil (fossil fuels). – Don Huberts, Shell Hydrogen.
My next Blog entry will begin to explain how I think this is going to happen.
Monday, September 3, 2007
RESIDENTIAL ENERGY TAX CREDITS HELP YOU SAVE ENERGY
If you make certain types of energy efficient improvements to your primary home in 2007, you may be able to apply for tax credits to lower your income tax requirements or increase your income tax return for 2007.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 and its amendments encourage homeowners and renters to install energy efficient home improvements in three major categories; Residential building envelope improvements; Residential heating system improvements, and; Solar energy system additions.
If you qualify for building envelope improvements, you may be able to take a tax credit of 10% of the cost of your “nonbusiness energy property credit” improvements up to a total of $500. The materials referred to in the IRS general instructions for Form 5695 must be new and permanently installed to last at least five years. These improvements can include insulation materials, exterior windows, exterior doors and storm doors and some metal roofing materials. Labor costs for these improvements eligible for the tax credit.
Heating system improvements or “Residential energy property costs” include certain electric heat pumps, ground source or geothermal heat pumps and other space conditioning equipment. Labor costs are eligible for this tax credit which has the same tax credit eligibility of 10% up to a maximum of $500.
Solar energy tax credits are referred to as the “ Residential Energy Efficient Property Credit”. This credit is limited to 30% of your costs including labor up to a maximum credit of $2,000 for qualifying photovoltaic and solar water heating systems.
This article is not a tax consultant article. To make sure these credits apply to you, talk to your tax consultant, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), or refer to IRS Form 5695. The Energy Star website also has more information.
Eligible improvements must be in place by December 31, 2007 and meet other requirements to qualify, so make sure you check it out before buying your improvements.
© Mark Daily, 2007
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 and its amendments encourage homeowners and renters to install energy efficient home improvements in three major categories; Residential building envelope improvements; Residential heating system improvements, and; Solar energy system additions.
If you qualify for building envelope improvements, you may be able to take a tax credit of 10% of the cost of your “nonbusiness energy property credit” improvements up to a total of $500. The materials referred to in the IRS general instructions for Form 5695 must be new and permanently installed to last at least five years. These improvements can include insulation materials, exterior windows, exterior doors and storm doors and some metal roofing materials. Labor costs for these improvements eligible for the tax credit.
Heating system improvements or “Residential energy property costs” include certain electric heat pumps, ground source or geothermal heat pumps and other space conditioning equipment. Labor costs are eligible for this tax credit which has the same tax credit eligibility of 10% up to a maximum of $500.
Solar energy tax credits are referred to as the “ Residential Energy Efficient Property Credit”. This credit is limited to 30% of your costs including labor up to a maximum credit of $2,000 for qualifying photovoltaic and solar water heating systems.
This article is not a tax consultant article. To make sure these credits apply to you, talk to your tax consultant, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), or refer to IRS Form 5695. The Energy Star website also has more information.
Eligible improvements must be in place by December 31, 2007 and meet other requirements to qualify, so make sure you check it out before buying your improvements.
© Mark Daily, 2007
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Wind Energy Could Be Mainstream Generation Resource Soon
With over 11,000 megawatts of wind energy on line in the USA and 2,000 of it coming on line in 2006 alone, wind stands to be a major contributor to renewable energy generation.
One of the obstacles to the adoption of wind generation as a major electric energy generation source in the Untied States has been the contention by some in the Utility industry that wind energy must be covered by duplicate dispatchable fixed output generation facilities. This argument has been used to down play the importance and usefulness of wind energy to the growing renewable energy moment. The argument goes like this.
Since the wind can stop blowing at any time, coal or other conventional generation resources must be built simultaneously with wind production facilities, just in case the wind stops blowing. While it maybe true that wind is not as reliable as conventional generation, according to a Utility Wind Integration Group ( UWIG) report entitled, “ Utility Wind Generation State of the Art”, studies confirm that wind generation can stand alone as a generation source without the requirement for fossil fuel back up. The anti wind sentiment also dampened the enthusiasm of utility planners to the acceptance of combined cycle gasification technologies and other advance clean coal and clean fossil fuel technologies because they argued that the extra expense of these unproven technologies was not justified if wind generators could kick in any time the wind was blowing hard enough to cover the demand.
While some of you may see a pattern here ( read conspiracy) I think that utilities justifiably and sincerely are concerned about the impact that wind generators might have on a stable energy grid. Restarting a coal fired plant (50% or more of the USA’s generation fuel) is no easy task. Neither is balancing load requirements with available electricity generation facilities. While some may retort that this is not rocket science, I think its pretty close. Keep in mind that terribly expensive things happen to utilities when there is not enough power available to cover the demand from millions of independent homes and businesses. Every kilowatt hour sent to your house or business comes from a system that plans ahead for your equipment to come on even when you haven’t told anyone that you have the equipment.
Utilities have developed sophisticated computer models that use weather forecasts, seasonal business cycle histories and historic residential demand data for the average home in their service area. They are prepared to turn on, ramp up and stoke up generation facilities or turn off, ramp down or slow down every generator in the USA every thirty minutes to an hour 24 hours a day 365 days per year. Just to keep us in “cold beer and toast”, as Amory Lovins says. I think it’s a bit more serious than just cold beer and toast, but a surprising amount of energy is wasted every year.
The UWIG report acknowledges that Wind Generators are a different type of generator but assure planners that wind generation can fit into the existing electricity generation system nationwide, with the proper planning, design and integration.
Electric energy dispatchers rely heavily on weather forecaster’s temperature predictions for scheduling their power delivery. The UWIG report says that weather forecasters are 80% effect at predicting wind speeds and durations. This additional weather data can go a long way towards making wind generators as reliable, predicable and dispatch able as fossil fuel generators.
Recent policy approvals for amendments to the National Energy Policy Act of 2005 lend new support for renewable energy initiatives. This could be the perfect storm that renewable energy needs to get a little help out there. The coal, nuclear and oil industries have subsidies and federal support that has been in place for decades. Now is the time to lend that same support to renewable energy by supporting Renewable Electricity Standards.
California, New Mexico, Minnesota, Oregon, and Colorado – have or are implementing Renewable Portfolio Standards of 20 percent or more. Now is the time to take it nation wide. Contact your congress person today.
What are your energy questions these days? Drop me a note and I'll try to cover your question in a future blog.
© Mark Daily 2007
One of the obstacles to the adoption of wind generation as a major electric energy generation source in the Untied States has been the contention by some in the Utility industry that wind energy must be covered by duplicate dispatchable fixed output generation facilities. This argument has been used to down play the importance and usefulness of wind energy to the growing renewable energy moment. The argument goes like this.
Since the wind can stop blowing at any time, coal or other conventional generation resources must be built simultaneously with wind production facilities, just in case the wind stops blowing. While it maybe true that wind is not as reliable as conventional generation, according to a Utility Wind Integration Group ( UWIG) report entitled, “ Utility Wind Generation State of the Art”, studies confirm that wind generation can stand alone as a generation source without the requirement for fossil fuel back up. The anti wind sentiment also dampened the enthusiasm of utility planners to the acceptance of combined cycle gasification technologies and other advance clean coal and clean fossil fuel technologies because they argued that the extra expense of these unproven technologies was not justified if wind generators could kick in any time the wind was blowing hard enough to cover the demand.
While some of you may see a pattern here ( read conspiracy) I think that utilities justifiably and sincerely are concerned about the impact that wind generators might have on a stable energy grid. Restarting a coal fired plant (50% or more of the USA’s generation fuel) is no easy task. Neither is balancing load requirements with available electricity generation facilities. While some may retort that this is not rocket science, I think its pretty close. Keep in mind that terribly expensive things happen to utilities when there is not enough power available to cover the demand from millions of independent homes and businesses. Every kilowatt hour sent to your house or business comes from a system that plans ahead for your equipment to come on even when you haven’t told anyone that you have the equipment.
Utilities have developed sophisticated computer models that use weather forecasts, seasonal business cycle histories and historic residential demand data for the average home in their service area. They are prepared to turn on, ramp up and stoke up generation facilities or turn off, ramp down or slow down every generator in the USA every thirty minutes to an hour 24 hours a day 365 days per year. Just to keep us in “cold beer and toast”, as Amory Lovins says. I think it’s a bit more serious than just cold beer and toast, but a surprising amount of energy is wasted every year.
The UWIG report acknowledges that Wind Generators are a different type of generator but assure planners that wind generation can fit into the existing electricity generation system nationwide, with the proper planning, design and integration.
Electric energy dispatchers rely heavily on weather forecaster’s temperature predictions for scheduling their power delivery. The UWIG report says that weather forecasters are 80% effect at predicting wind speeds and durations. This additional weather data can go a long way towards making wind generators as reliable, predicable and dispatch able as fossil fuel generators.
Recent policy approvals for amendments to the National Energy Policy Act of 2005 lend new support for renewable energy initiatives. This could be the perfect storm that renewable energy needs to get a little help out there. The coal, nuclear and oil industries have subsidies and federal support that has been in place for decades. Now is the time to lend that same support to renewable energy by supporting Renewable Electricity Standards.
California, New Mexico, Minnesota, Oregon, and Colorado – have or are implementing Renewable Portfolio Standards of 20 percent or more. Now is the time to take it nation wide. Contact your congress person today.
What are your energy questions these days? Drop me a note and I'll try to cover your question in a future blog.
© Mark Daily 2007
Friday, July 20, 2007
Here is What you Need to do to lower Your Electricity Demand
Rates are going to continue going up. And, we are responding just like the late comedian Jack Benny in one of his most popular skits. When confronted by a mugger’s demand, "your money or your life". The crowd bursts into laughter when, after a long pause the mugger shoves the gun in Jack’s face, and the notoriously stingy comedian responds, " I’m thinking, I’m thinking".
While each of us as electricity consumers have direct control over our electric bills, as rates continue to rise other choices for how we spend our money become more and more obvious. But, when faced with the choice of spending money on more insulation to cut our air conditioning bills by as much as 10% ; or managing our use of heating and air conditioning energy, we continue to send our money to the utilities instead of taking action. " I’m thinking , I’m thinking". Yet , no one thinks that this is funny. In fact tempers flare as rates climb and consumers almost uniformly blame the utility that supplies their electricity.
Electric Utilities, unlike oil and gas companies, are not making record profits. In fact, some utilities have been brought to the brink of disaster with artificially suppressed rates that came in with state laws adopting deregulation. As these caps come off, its no wonder that rates are climbing. You have to ask yourself, have my fuel costs gone up in the last few years? Of course they have. And, utility fuel costs have also gone up. Electricity as we know it today requires fuel, coal, oil, natural gas, uranium. Increase fuel prices and presto, increased electric rates.
One other factor causing rates to rise is our consumer demand. This demand is outstripping the capacity of existing electricity generation facilities. When this happens, utilities have two choices, turn off the power when demand exceeds supply or make more supply. Making more supply requires new construction and new construction of any kind is expensive. Just ask anyone that has done any major home remodeling lately.
We as consumers have a third choice that puts us in control of our own homes and businesses. We can conserve energy, turn it off, turn it down, get more efficient appliances, get smarter about how and when we use electricity. Of course this is hard work and it is lots easier to repeat, "I’m thinking, I’m thinking".
Many electricity users mistakenly think that if utilities just switched to free power from the sun or wind that their bills would go down. While the US is leading the way in wind power development the magnitude of the demand exceeds what wind and solar power can do to keep up. This has the potential to change, but not without our help. Energy Conservation is the key to reducing demand and the key to making today’s home more able to use the limited amount of power output coming from renewable resources.
So unless you love your electric bill, here’s is what you need to do.
Step One- Find out how much you pay for electricity. What do you pay per kilo-Watt hour
( kWh)? If you don’t know the answer to this question off the top of your head then you are not prepared to deal with the other numbers you need to know to save the world and your money.
2) Get a Kill-a-watt meter or some other device to learn about how much energy your appliances are using. You need to know what contributes to your electric bill. Is it really air-conditioning or is it that old refrigerator? Is it the electric dryer or your stereo system? Some appliance are not easy to sample with a plug I meter and you may have to settle for estimates based on the time it runs and the appliance energy rating. Do your home work and get an answer that you think make sense for every electricity using device in your house that’s lighting, heating, cooling, refrigerating, pumping, entertaining or just sitting there humming.
3) Start shopping around for choices. There are lots of different choices to make so keep going until you are sure you have some reasonably energy efficient choices. You don’t have to rush out and buy them all today, but as they break down, or your needs change, consider energy star and other energy efficiency rated equipment.
Stop thinking, start doing.
"We have meet the enemy, and he is us". Pogo
While each of us as electricity consumers have direct control over our electric bills, as rates continue to rise other choices for how we spend our money become more and more obvious. But, when faced with the choice of spending money on more insulation to cut our air conditioning bills by as much as 10% ; or managing our use of heating and air conditioning energy, we continue to send our money to the utilities instead of taking action. " I’m thinking , I’m thinking". Yet , no one thinks that this is funny. In fact tempers flare as rates climb and consumers almost uniformly blame the utility that supplies their electricity.
Electric Utilities, unlike oil and gas companies, are not making record profits. In fact, some utilities have been brought to the brink of disaster with artificially suppressed rates that came in with state laws adopting deregulation. As these caps come off, its no wonder that rates are climbing. You have to ask yourself, have my fuel costs gone up in the last few years? Of course they have. And, utility fuel costs have also gone up. Electricity as we know it today requires fuel, coal, oil, natural gas, uranium. Increase fuel prices and presto, increased electric rates.
One other factor causing rates to rise is our consumer demand. This demand is outstripping the capacity of existing electricity generation facilities. When this happens, utilities have two choices, turn off the power when demand exceeds supply or make more supply. Making more supply requires new construction and new construction of any kind is expensive. Just ask anyone that has done any major home remodeling lately.
We as consumers have a third choice that puts us in control of our own homes and businesses. We can conserve energy, turn it off, turn it down, get more efficient appliances, get smarter about how and when we use electricity. Of course this is hard work and it is lots easier to repeat, "I’m thinking, I’m thinking".
Many electricity users mistakenly think that if utilities just switched to free power from the sun or wind that their bills would go down. While the US is leading the way in wind power development the magnitude of the demand exceeds what wind and solar power can do to keep up. This has the potential to change, but not without our help. Energy Conservation is the key to reducing demand and the key to making today’s home more able to use the limited amount of power output coming from renewable resources.
So unless you love your electric bill, here’s is what you need to do.
Step One- Find out how much you pay for electricity. What do you pay per kilo-Watt hour
( kWh)? If you don’t know the answer to this question off the top of your head then you are not prepared to deal with the other numbers you need to know to save the world and your money.
2) Get a Kill-a-watt meter or some other device to learn about how much energy your appliances are using. You need to know what contributes to your electric bill. Is it really air-conditioning or is it that old refrigerator? Is it the electric dryer or your stereo system? Some appliance are not easy to sample with a plug I meter and you may have to settle for estimates based on the time it runs and the appliance energy rating. Do your home work and get an answer that you think make sense for every electricity using device in your house that’s lighting, heating, cooling, refrigerating, pumping, entertaining or just sitting there humming.
3) Start shopping around for choices. There are lots of different choices to make so keep going until you are sure you have some reasonably energy efficient choices. You don’t have to rush out and buy them all today, but as they break down, or your needs change, consider energy star and other energy efficiency rated equipment.
Stop thinking, start doing.
"We have meet the enemy, and he is us". Pogo
Monday, January 8, 2007
Go green Go Nuclear
Are you crazy? Don’t you remember the months of drama surrounding the Three Mile Island melt down? Well, actually I do. Haven’t you seen the pictures of the horribly disfigured victims from the Chernobyl, Russian nuclear explosions and fire - a disaster that is still to this day - twenty years later - producing birth defects of hideous magnitude? Well, yes, actually I have. Haven’t you been paying attention to the conflicts over permanent storage at Yucca Mountain, Nevada? Republican Governor Kenny Guinn doesn’t even want it and Nevada wants everything. Oh yeah, I have read about all of that. And, if that wasn’t enough, now we have people in Iran that in the same year announced the creation of nuclear material and their belief that Israel has no right to exist. Yep, I did notice that as a matter of fact. Then why are you talking about supporting nuclear energy?
Well, Patrick Moore, Co-founder of Green Peace, says we don’t have much of choice, for one thing. And, if renewable energy is such a great idea, why aren’t you living off the grid? Say what you like about the energy situation today. Point your finger in any direction you want. The end result still echos, the cartoon character Pogo, " we have met the enemy ..... and he is us".
According to an April 16th article in the Washington Post (Moore, Washington Post, Sunday, April 16, 2006; Page B01) all of those pesky questions about death and destruction from the promotion of nuclear energy have real world modern solutions. The truth of the matter is that the United States power industry by itself is still producing ten percent of the total global CO2 emissions. Experts estimate that world electric power needs will double in the next twenty years.
"The 600-plus coal-fired plants [in the USA] emit nearly 2 billion tons of CO2 annually - the equivalent of the exhaust from about 300 million automobiles. In addition, the Clean Air Council reports that coal plants are responsible for 64 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 26 percent of nitrous oxides and 33 percent of mercury emissions. These pollutants are eroding the health of our environment, producing acid rain, smog, respiratory illness and mercury contamination."(Moore, Washington Post, Sunday, April 16, 2006; Page B01)
According to the Nuclear Energy Institute (http://www.nei.org) there are 104 commercial reactors with operating licenses in 31 states. These reactors supply 20 percent of the electricity in the United States. This website provides a host of information dispelling negative opinions about nuclear energy and the disposal os used nuclear material. Yet, many people still object to the idea of increasing the use of nuclear rules for electricity generation.
Today the United States is having lots of discussion about the "energy situation". Yes, I am aware that there are those that believe the world will be better off with more CO2. My bias is that I am not one of them. I encourage all electricity consumers to read as much as they can about electricity generation from as many sources as possible. Only through open debate and discussion of these complicated issues will we emerge into a sustainable energy future. More people die in one year from mining coal in the United States than have died in any U.S. nuclear plant activities combined, ever. We must overcome our irrational fears of nuclear energy and replace them with facts about all of our energy options.
Everyone from politicians to investment bankers are talking about the realities of electricity generation in the United States. The politicians get it. "Our nation’s future electricity needs cannot be met almost exclusively by natural gas, but must be a reasonable combination of efforts that include energy conservation, energy efficiency, renewable energy, nuclear energy and clean-coal technology."(U.S. Conference of Mayors, Resolution, June 2004)
The investment bankers get it. "The Energy Policy Act of 2005 "provides meaningful incentives for the construction of new nuclear plants and advanced coal generation facilities . . . Fitch,[an investment company], views EPACT’s provisions to spur development of a handful of new nuclear and coal-based facilities as an effective way to mitigate the risks relating to commercialization of the targeted new technologies. Demonstration of successful commercial performance of several such facilities will likely reduce investment costs, shorten the construction cycle for subsequent plants and avoid the need for extraordinary subsidies for follow-on facilities. Thus, these incentives could have far-reaching consequences in the 2015-2020 period, despite few immediate investment effects."(Fitch Ratings Ltd."Energy Policy Act of 2005"August 2, 2005)
Now its time for the rest of us to "get it". Believe me, if there was ever a person more skeptical than me about nuclear power, he would be hard to find. These changes are a challenge to swallow. This may however, be the prescription that the earth needs for its very survival.
For more information, read Moore’s complete article at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html or Goggle "Nuclear Power Issues". The Chicago Tribune ran an article December 2006 covering the rising interest in Nulcear Power Generation. http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/nation/16342573.htm
As the ancient guardian knight said just before Indiana Jones grabbed the holy grail chalice to face life or death, "choose wisely".
Well, Patrick Moore, Co-founder of Green Peace, says we don’t have much of choice, for one thing. And, if renewable energy is such a great idea, why aren’t you living off the grid? Say what you like about the energy situation today. Point your finger in any direction you want. The end result still echos, the cartoon character Pogo, " we have met the enemy ..... and he is us".
According to an April 16th article in the Washington Post (Moore, Washington Post, Sunday, April 16, 2006; Page B01) all of those pesky questions about death and destruction from the promotion of nuclear energy have real world modern solutions. The truth of the matter is that the United States power industry by itself is still producing ten percent of the total global CO2 emissions. Experts estimate that world electric power needs will double in the next twenty years.
"The 600-plus coal-fired plants [in the USA] emit nearly 2 billion tons of CO2 annually - the equivalent of the exhaust from about 300 million automobiles. In addition, the Clean Air Council reports that coal plants are responsible for 64 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 26 percent of nitrous oxides and 33 percent of mercury emissions. These pollutants are eroding the health of our environment, producing acid rain, smog, respiratory illness and mercury contamination."(Moore, Washington Post, Sunday, April 16, 2006; Page B01)
According to the Nuclear Energy Institute (http://www.nei.org) there are 104 commercial reactors with operating licenses in 31 states. These reactors supply 20 percent of the electricity in the United States. This website provides a host of information dispelling negative opinions about nuclear energy and the disposal os used nuclear material. Yet, many people still object to the idea of increasing the use of nuclear rules for electricity generation.
Today the United States is having lots of discussion about the "energy situation". Yes, I am aware that there are those that believe the world will be better off with more CO2. My bias is that I am not one of them. I encourage all electricity consumers to read as much as they can about electricity generation from as many sources as possible. Only through open debate and discussion of these complicated issues will we emerge into a sustainable energy future. More people die in one year from mining coal in the United States than have died in any U.S. nuclear plant activities combined, ever. We must overcome our irrational fears of nuclear energy and replace them with facts about all of our energy options.
Everyone from politicians to investment bankers are talking about the realities of electricity generation in the United States. The politicians get it. "Our nation’s future electricity needs cannot be met almost exclusively by natural gas, but must be a reasonable combination of efforts that include energy conservation, energy efficiency, renewable energy, nuclear energy and clean-coal technology."(U.S. Conference of Mayors, Resolution, June 2004)
The investment bankers get it. "The Energy Policy Act of 2005 "provides meaningful incentives for the construction of new nuclear plants and advanced coal generation facilities . . . Fitch,[an investment company], views EPACT’s provisions to spur development of a handful of new nuclear and coal-based facilities as an effective way to mitigate the risks relating to commercialization of the targeted new technologies. Demonstration of successful commercial performance of several such facilities will likely reduce investment costs, shorten the construction cycle for subsequent plants and avoid the need for extraordinary subsidies for follow-on facilities. Thus, these incentives could have far-reaching consequences in the 2015-2020 period, despite few immediate investment effects."(Fitch Ratings Ltd."Energy Policy Act of 2005"August 2, 2005)
Now its time for the rest of us to "get it". Believe me, if there was ever a person more skeptical than me about nuclear power, he would be hard to find. These changes are a challenge to swallow. This may however, be the prescription that the earth needs for its very survival.
For more information, read Moore’s complete article at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html or Goggle "Nuclear Power Issues". The Chicago Tribune ran an article December 2006 covering the rising interest in Nulcear Power Generation. http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/nation/16342573.htm
As the ancient guardian knight said just before Indiana Jones grabbed the holy grail chalice to face life or death, "choose wisely".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
