Hey, don’t be sticking your big sausage in my daughter’s face, buddy

I walked into a grocery store in Bozeman Montana with my daughter several years ago and came face to face with a large man wearing a large cowboy hat. He was standing behind a large table filled with large plates of sausage. Yep, you guessed it – large sausage.

He poked a smoky looking link in my daughter’s face and said, ‘try some of the best sausage in the west”. My daughter responded in an icy monotone, “no thanks, I’m a vegetarian”. The large man tipped his large hat politely and said, “I heard there was a vegetarian in Montana, I’m really glad to meet you ma’am”.

While beef’s for dinner in Montana, coal is still king. I have no idea if, Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer is a vegetarian, but I know for sure he likes coal. It’s fine to like coal. I like coal. Without it many of us in the USA would be paying lots more for our electricity today. Over fifty percent of our electricity comes from coal. If you live in the Midwest or West it’s more like sixty percent. Yet, the cost of electricity may not accurately reflect the true cost to the planet as we all now know from listening to the climate change debate.

Yet, as any smoker knows, old habits are hard to break and Governor Schweitzer doesn’t seem to understand the addiction. In a recent Christian Science Monitor article (12/29/08) the Governor said. " ..unless you are willing to live naked in a tree and eat nuts for the next thirty years, coal's going to be part of the portfolio”.

So much for Al Gore’s Repower America with “100% clean electricity within 10 years”.

The wide gap between the Governor’s assertion and Al’s cheerful optimism can’t help but make you feel like turning on the TV to another mind numbing program. What’s the point any way, either Brian or Al is crazy. They both could be crazy, it’s a sure bet that one of them can’t be sane.

Meanwhile thousands, yes thousands of people are living fully clothed in nice homes, eating beef and sausage off the grid. A quick scan of off the grid systems finds thousands of single family homes across the USA with normal people, fully clothed and well feed that have jsut decided to delare thier own energy independance.

Find a Solar professional to get started and we’ll make Governor’s, Ex-senators and electric distribution companies irrelevant.

I know you have heard it from me before, but I am going to keep saying it for the rest of my life; or until the opposing sides in the climate change and energy generation debates stop calling each other names; and get down to the business of agreeing on facts, plans and actions that we can all get behind. If this is the moral equivalent of war as some argue, we have at least got to agree on which enemy we are fighting and stop shooting each other.

We must learn to play nicely in the sand box and quit calling each other names. I think every policy-maker, every politician and every business executive in the world should read, understand and pledge to follow Adam Kahane’s steps for Changing the World by Changing How We Talk and Listen. If we don’t stop downloading, we will continue to waste valuable time and resources shooting at each other and dying from friendly fire. It doesn’t matter what you wear or what you eat, you have got to see the wasteful stupidity in continuing that way.
© 2009 Mark R. Daily

Let's Make a big Alternate Electricity Generation Plan

In the early 1900’s American architect and urban planner Daniel H. Burnham said, “Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood and probably themselves will not be realized. Make big plans. Aim high in hope and work. Remembering that a noble, logical diagram once recorded will not die.”

What’s your Energy Plan? Don’t have one? If you don’t have one why should your local, state or national government have one? Don’t have an energy plan? Why should your electric utility have one? I’ll bet you have an emergency plan for bailing out of your house if it catches on fire. I’ll bet you have a planned route to get to work. Most of us these days have a retirement plan. You probably have some plan for dinner tonight. You have a plan to educate yourself and your children. You may have a plan for what to wear to the office tomorrow. A plan. Hmm.

How would you like it if your local state or national government planned your dinner for you, or your route to work, or your wardrobe? Those of you standing in bread lines after the recent round of employment cut backs may think government planned dinners are a great idea. But let’s take it a step farther. How would you like it if your local government decided that all the people in your neighborhood had to do without electricity every Wednesday? It’s just one day a week for Pete’s sake, what’s the big deal?

Right now stop reading this and walk through your house. Don’t take paper and pen with you but just walk into each room and notice what uses electricity. I have gas heat so I’m all set you might think. Me too, but unless you have a gas powered fan or pump or a gas powered ignition switch, Wednesday means long underwear and winter parka day for both of us.

Ten years ago I did an energy audit for a guy that wanted to really cut his electric bill. My cursory investigation of his billing history showed a very low bill even in subzero high mountain valley January. I was intrigued. How was I going to help this guy save energy, he wasn’t using any. I pulled into the drive-way on the appointed day and as I pulled out my blower door and other equipment this quiet retired school teacher came out of the house wearing a winter parka, gloves with the fingers cut out, a wool watch cap pulled down over his ears, wool pants, insulated boots and a friendly smile. I discovered during my home owner’s interview that he was not dressed for the outdoors. He was dressed the way he always dressed in the winter – inside. He kept thermostats in back rooms at 40 degrees and his main living area thermostats were set at 50 degrees. His other energy saving tips included pulling every other light bulb out of any double bulb fixtures and replacing all remaining bulbs (except one reading lamp) with 25 watt incandescent bulbs. He thought those compact fluorescents were a little pricey. Every drape and curtain that wasn’t in full sun was closed tight. In a perfectly normal American home, I felt like I was creeping through a medieval mountian top monastery instead of a split level ranch house 50 yards off the highway.

Is this what is in store for everyone? Is this what Randy Udall meant when he said, “the challenge in president-elect Obama’s energy plan will be to maintain prosperity”? “We have to be very smart about what kind of investments we make in a new energy supply”. (Dawson, Crested Butte News, November 21, 2008)

Dean Kamen is very smart. The inventor of the Segway and expensive medical equipment, Kamen rules a three acre island off the coast of Connecticut that proclaimed energy independence. He has a plan. It includes the elimination of all incandescent lighting and the installation of wind and solar power.

Samso, Denmark is an island community that’s 40 square miles and a two hour boat ride from the main land. After ten years of community and government collaboration they are closing in on their goal, 100% energy independence. They have a plan. A summary of their plan includes a section on implementation appropriately titled, project design and planning. Their plan included every citizen, and every agency on the island.

“No man is an island, no man is an island…..he’s a peninsula” – Jefferson Airplane

Could your community make an energy plan? Sure it could. But, let’s not make the same mistake we did in the 70’s with our energy planning. OK gas prices are going down and Jim Carter lost the election – problem solved.

Recent headlines blarred, “World Publics Strongly Favor Requiring More Wind and Solar Energy, More Efficiency, Even If It Increases Costs. Most Think It Will Save Money in the Long Run". While some may have cheered the recent findings of the World Public Opinion.org survey I was not impressed. As you read the details of their findings you discover that most people think their government or utility companies should solve the problem.

This problem will never be solved as long as people think the solution is up to someone else.

The solution to meet the growing demands for electricity is not a problem to solve; it’s an ethic to be lived. It should be as much a part of our national ethos as “family values”. In fact it should be a family value. Can you make a difference in all of this? Of course you can. And, you don’t have to freeze in the dark to do it …. at least not yet. Let’s make better choices and better plans about using energy before it comes to that.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has". - Margaret Mead

Solve the Electricity Generation Crisis with Smarts

“A group won't be smart if its members imitate one another, slavishly follow fads, or wait for someone to tell them what to do. When a group is being intelligent, whether it's made up of ants or attorneys, it relies on its members to do their own part. For those of us who sometimes wonder if it's really worth recycling that extra bottle to lighten our impact on the planet, the bottom line is that our actions matter, even if we don't see how.” – Swarm Theory by Pete Miller, National Geographic.

Swam Theory may be one method to solve the growing crisis for electricity generation in the USA. The concept demonstrates two key features that could bring meaningful results to the challenge of meeting our energy needs.

First, experts and cynics a like seem to agree that our energy needs will be best met by a combination of energy conservation, renewable energy growth and cultivation of existing energy generation systems like coal and nuclear power. This means that we all have a role to play in reducing our energy demands and a role to play in encouraging energy generation diversity. In short your actions at home to conserve energy and your actions in the political arena to encourage wise decision making are very important.

Second, we all must participate in the discussion in order to make the most out of our “smart swarm” of ideas and actions.

How do you get Smart?

Can you live without electricity? Of course you could, but your life would change dramatically for the worse. You would spend more of your time doing mundane chores and less time doing things that make your life what it is today. So, if you can’t live without it, shouldn’t you know something about it? Yet, I frequently get blank stares from smart people when I ask, “how much electricity does your house or business use and what is your cost per kWh”? I use between 300 and 602 kWh per month, lowest in the summer and highest in the winter – in case you wonder if I’ve done my homework. Yes, I know. I could do better, but the national average according to U.S. Energy Information Administration is 888 kWh per month. (thanks Power - Save for setting me straight on this). Oh and I pay $0.13 per kilowatt hour. If you live in Hawaii you pay about $0.22. The nation average in June 2008 was about $0.12 per kWh and rising.

Once you know your energy appetite, find out why you eat what you eat. Everyone is reading grocery product labels these days. Consumers want to know if the product they are buying might come from a tainted batch of garlic from China or the neighborhood organic farm. They want to know if what they are buying is mostly sugar or substance. So it should be with your energy bill. Find out how much energy each appliance eats at your house. Its different for everyone so don’t use your mother-in-laws numbers, get your own. Buy a Kill-A-Watt meter or ask for one for a holiday gift. Start tracking down what you require for energy at your house. Don’t just take the utility companies month meter reading total.

Get smart. Get active. Don’t wait for someone to tell you what to do. Do your own part. It’s not that hard. No one knows your house better than you do.
© Mark Daily, 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

Solar Energy Can't do it alone- What about Nuclear Energy?

Proponents of alternate energy generation generally support “green” technologies like solar and wind. These same green advocates often shun nuclear energy and point to a long list of dangers inherent in that technology. Yet blind support of solar power is like demanding that you use rubber bands to power you car. For solar to work, we'll need to make big adjustments in our homes and lifestyles.

Solar powered electricity generation made up less than 1% of the generation mix in 20007. According to the Solar Electric Power Association, there were “473MW [megawatts] of grid-connected photovoltaics installed throughout the entirety of the U.S. as of the end of 2007”. Assuming that this 473 MW of grid tied resource got an average of 6 hours of sun each day, they would produce about 1,035,870 Megawatt hours of electricity in a year.

This is not merely a numbers game. We won’t meet our energy needs by doubling or tripling or even quadrupling our photovoltaic generation.

Nuclear electricity generation produced record levels in 2007. Energy Information Administration data show that nuclear generation climbed slightly this May. “Nuclear output rose 13 percent in May 2008 compared with the preceding month. Even with the increase, generation was slightly below May 2007 (less than half a percent difference). Cumulative generation for the first five months of 2008 is slightly over one percent lower than in the record year of 2007.”

In 2007, 806,486,978 Megawatt Hours of electricity was produced by nuclear reactors in the USA. Thirty two states produce a portion of their electricity from nuclear power and 20% of all electricity produced in the USA came from nuclear reactor generation in 2007.

The challenge here when talking about ways to solve climate change and reduce green house gas emissions tied to electric energy production is the big gap between what the public seems to want for power generation -clean power- versus what the public wants in terms of the growing electricity demand.

One typical residential solar photovoltaic setup with twelve 100 watt PV collectors in a sunny part of the USA might be capable of producing 216 kilowatt hours per month or 2.5 Megawatt hours per year.

The South Texas Project 1 nuclear facility produced almost 12 million megawatt hours in 2007. The smallest nuclear generation facility, Point Beach 1 in Wisconsin produced almost 4 million megawatt hours. It would take over 18,000 homes running 1.2 KW photovoltaic systems in a sunny climate to come anywhere close to the generation output of the smallest nuclear facility.

Let’s face it folks. If we want to maintain our current standard of living it will take more than solar power to run the nation. Actually, it will take advancements in every electricity generation sector plus a lot of conservation success to keep up with projected electricity demand.

William Tucker offers his perspective for going nuclear in his interesting The Case for Terrestrial (a.k.a. Nuclear) Energy. You may not want to hear it, but you really should try to understand all sides in our great energy debate.

For more nuclear facts visit the International Atomic Energy Agency and read some IAEA Newsletters.

What will you do when your area runs out of electricity? - Preparing for Future Electricity Demands

Ignoring the title question is like an ostrich hiding its head in the sand when attacked by wild dogs. Guess which part of the anatomy gets bitten first? So it could be with us, if we all ignore the facts when it comes to getting electricity to our homes and businesses.

Electricity users throughout the United States and Canada are being ostriches unless they actively ask their elected Representatives to deal with the question, “how can we power the future without destroying the planet or making electricity a luxury few can afford”.

“Summer peak demand in the U.S. is forecast to increase over 135,000 MW or 17.7 percent in the next ten years with committed resources projected to increase 77,000 MW or 8.4 percent
(including uncommitted resources, 123,000 MW or 12.7 percent).” Source: NERC 2007 Long-Term Reliability Assessment

No matter which study or forecast you review, the answer comes out the same. We will not have enough electric power to meet our needs in as little as two years, if our current (pun intended) behavior doesn’t change. It the NERC assessment is correct we will have 5 percent less electricity than we need when 2018 arrives in less than ten years.

Don’t be an ostrich, take action. If you are a member of a rural electric cooperative your supplier belongs to the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. They created a website that makes it easy for anyone to contact their elected representatives. I did it in about five minutes and you can do it too.

Go to https://www.ourenergy.coop and after reading that page, scroll down to the line that says "Contact your electric officials and begin the dialogue now". When you click the arrow at the end of this line, you will be asked to fill out your name and address to email your US Senators and US House of Representatives with the following message:

Our country faces a crisis as electricity use increases faster than available supply. I believe that by unleashing American ingenuity we can solve this problem. What are you doing to speed the development of new technology which will allow me to have the electric power I need while meeting our national climate policy goals? I look forward to your answer and will share it with my friends and neighbors. Thank you.

Then click “Send Message”, that’s it. You don’t even have to know who your representatives are. By filling in your name and address your message will automatically be sent to the correct representatives and you will get a brief confirming message listing which representatives were emailed on your behalf. It’s easy.

Let me know who it went and what you think about it.

© Mark Daily, 2008

Electric Rates- Consumers Must Wade Through the Hype and Speak Up

Writing about energy issues isn’t easy. There are a host of dueling experts that love to aggressively champion their ideas. Some even have secret motives tied to parts of the energy industry. Are these objective writers? It’s hard to say frankly. I once had a person reading my material wonder aloud “which side are you on”? That really is the whole point of my writing. I don’t want to be on a “side” unless it is the side of getting the most accurate and honest information out to the most number of people.

As general consumers I believe we still have a rather naive view of electric energy and electric energy issues. Many people still hold the idea that there are these robber baron capitalists that are cranking out copious amount of “dirty” electricity trying to make the most money for the least investment possible. Of course, this is the American way some would argue.”What’s wrong with that? ”, some might say; Nothing, actually. That may well be the goal of most utility companies and their investors. Yet each state has its own utility commission that reviews utility rate increases and keeps a lid on potential abuses from the private sector. Municipal Utilities have tax payers that theoretically are keeping an eye on things and can vote the scoundrels out if rates climb beyond reasonable expense recovery and, member owned public power districts and member owned rural electric cooperatives also have the “membership vote” regulation in play.

So, if these regulating functions are doing their jobs no one should be paying more than absolutely necessary for electricity and no utility company should be getting windfall profits from the sale of electricity. And, I think that this has largely been the case with the California mess and Enron being the main exceptions to the rule. Fingers pointing in so many directions on those debacles that everyone got a little of the blame there.

In fact with those exceptions, regulators have been doing their jobs so well that in many states prices per kilowatt hour had actually gone down in the 90’s as a result of deals made between regulators and utilities over electric utility de-regulation. Unfortunately increasing fuel costs for all utilities have cancelled out the anticipated price reductions and left many companies in the red begging for rate increases in recent years. Our memories are short when it comes to electricity prices, so the feelings consumers have today are strictly based on recent and nation-wide rate increases and any residual positive perception from the rate decreases of the 90’s has long evaporated in the angry and heated response over the most recent bill.

So, what’s a consumer to do? The main thing a consumer can do is get familiar with their electric bill. How much are you paying per kilowatt hour? What is your monthly kWh use? How much does your monthly use fluctuate with the seasons? What appliances do you have that contribute the most to your electric bill? These questions all go to the heart of the concept – “if it’s not being measured, it’s not being managed”, and if you aren’t trying to manage your electric bill, then you deserve whatever bill you get. And, whatever bill you get is your fault, not your utility’s.

The next best thing you can do is let your elected representative know that you are tired of them spending so much time worrying about what’s going on in public bathrooms and private bedrooms and get back to the job we elected them to do, which is to research, propose and adopt legislation that encourages us all to take a long range view of energy issues.

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.

Why Environmentalists think Electric Utility Executives are a pain.

Environmentalists view utility executives as part of the cause of global climate change and resource pollution rather than as the defenders of low cost reliable energy that electric utility executives view themselves being. This disconnect between executive’s self image and the environmental community image has several sources. One is the media attention focused on electric utility problems and mistakes. Enron leaps into mind as does the California billing crisis. Unfortunately every mistake from Three Mile Island to Florida’s recent blackout feeds an impression that electric utility executives make important decisions without including the public in their decision making. These media reports have been long on fearful emotions and short on engineering details. It comes down to the idea that people tend to fear what they don’t understand and utility executives have not been at all successful at improving the public’s understanding of the utility business.

The other source of this distrust goes back many years.

In an address to the National Association of Science Writers in New York on September 16, 1954, US Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Lewis L. Strauss was talking about nuclear power and said, "It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter; will know of great periodic regional famines in the world only as matters of history; will travel effortlessly over the seas and under them and through the air with a minimum of danger and at great speeds, and will experience a lifespan far longer than ours, as disease yields and man comes to understand what causes him to age. This is the forecast of an age of peace." (N.Y. Times, August 7, 1955)

Now that the future has arrived we all feel cheated since few of these predictions have materialized. The promise of electricity “too cheap to meter” hits especially hard as rate increases nation-wide reminder us of the failure to reach this dream. So, we have to blame someone and who better to blame than people we don’t really understand, electric utility executives.

And of course, electric utility executives encourage a certain amount of persecution simply by the way they conduct business. If they manage an investor owned utility, their allegiance is to stockholders and investors whose primary interest is the biggest return on their investment. If they lead a municipal or member cooperative electric utility, their allegiance is to their diverse constituents. Some constituents believe we must explore alternate energy resources, demand side management and energy conservation while other constituents simply want the cheapest way to keep beer cold and light bulbs working.

While the environmental community buys the whole global climate change scenario, utility executives generally remain skeptical about the role of power generation in climate change.

Al Gore included this quote in his book about the subject that seems to apply here.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” Upton Sinclair

Utility Executive are well educated and experienced. They have seen a lot of history and simply don’t buy the premise that mankind is powerful enough to alter the planet’s climate. A common agreement about facts remains a barrier of distrust between utility executives and the environmental community. Many “green” concepts and the load reduction possibilities of energy conservation are also viewed skeptically by utility executives because in their experience customers don’t use these programs, even when they are well advertised and free.

To add to these differences in world view, they tend to over-estimate load growth because it takes so long to get new generation and transmission facilities in place. They feel the only way they can avoid the rolling blackouts of the Northeast several years ago or more recent sustained power outages in southern Florida is to have lots of facilities approved and ready to go.

The rewards for succeeding with energy conservation and demand side management are not equal to the penalties imposed for poor power reliability.

Utility executives refuse to talk about anything but base-load coal generation because when real numbers are compared, they do not see how renewable energy or energy conservation can meet the demands for electricity based on today’s energy use growth trends. Yet, if they stand up and say these things, environmentalists respond with personal attacks and polarizing comments. This only increases the resolve of utility executives to push for business as usual. It forces them to retreat into protective policies that lack transparency.

Balancing the diverse needs and desires of electric utility customers is not for the faint of heart. Yet, from the looks of things today, it is clear that utilities must do a better job of explaining a boring but necessary business to a busy and misinformed public. "We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology." - Carl Sagan

And, this lack of knowledge will continue to haunt utility executives for many years. Their refusal to discuss facts about alternatives because they think it is a waste of time, money and effort will continue to be the primary reason that environmentalists think electric utility executives are a pain in the… you know what.

Why Utility Executives Think Environmentalists are a Pain in the Ass

Utility Executives think environmentalists are a pain in the ass for many reasons, but the main reason is because the language that environmentalists use to talk about utilities and utility executives hurts their feelings. Oh you won’t get them to admit it. Utility executives often have engineering or accounting backgrounds and these professions are not exactly known for their warm and fuzzy emotional types. But, still, environmentalists create immediate walls of distrust and antagonism just by choosing annoying words to frame their points of view.

Think of your own profession or job. Would you like it if people referred to what you were doing with words like “toxic”, “destruction”, “degradation”, “waste”, “monopoly”, “cancer” or my favorite derogatory word “spew”. What have you been spewing today? Did you spew your product on anyone?

How about degradation? Have you degraded anything today?

While most businesses secretly wish they were monopolies, no one likes to be accused of being one. It just isn’t the American way.

So, imagine recent headlines referring to the electric utility industry. Oh, I know, I am going to exaggerate a little for effect, but still you can imagine a headline like this in your local newspaper.
“Electric Monopoly Spews Toxic Destruction Degrading Air quality linked to Cancer”.

It’s like the old conundrum “when did you stop beating your wife”? Environmentalists lead with a verbal left hook. And, it seems like the only reason they would do that is to get headlines or make someone angry. If you had a neighbor with a barking dog or a messy yard, you wouldn’t storm over there demanding and accusing, unless you just like fist fighting. You’d get to know them first and find out if there were extenuating reasons for their behavior. Chances are there is more to the story. You know that. And the Electric Utility industry is in the same spot, there is more to the story. In fact, all of us that love our computers, televisions, cold beer, toast, light after dark, and inexpensive consumer goods, are all – the rest of the story.

Today we are stuck in what peace activist Adam Kahane calls “debating”. We have each side shouting their view of the facts hoping to drown out the other’s argument. One side says, “We can power the economy with a combination of wind, solar and conservation”. The other side shouts back, “No we cannot, the load growth is too large, we must use fossil fuels and expand nuclear power”.

What can we do about all of this? We can and must do two things. Stop wasting electricity and stop wasting words about solving environmental problems. I did not say stop using electricity (we can’t). Nor did I say stop having conversations about environmental problems. I said stop wasting energy and stop wasting words.

Study the work of Adam Kahane and learn how to talk to each other about difficult issues. If Adam can do it with people that have been killing each other for decades, we can do it with the inflammatory dialogue of the environment and electricity generation debate. The so called choice between the economy and the environment is a false choice. The environment is the economy (and I am tempted to violate my own beliefs and add “stupid”, but I won’t).

We must develop a generative dialogue to realize that we all agree that the earth is our only home. We must make collective decisions about how and what we spew. We should decide together when, where and why we degrade. We must face and answer the question about what we do about waste. In the long run we must reduce even the distant potential to harm our health and the health of our children through toxins, climate change and reduced air quality. Our very lives depend on it. It will not serve the future well to stay in divisive arguments. We must come together and agree on mutually understood facts. We must take decisive steps to make this world the kind of earth on which we can all live healthy and productive lives for all eternity. We cannot keep borrowing the future from our children and hope new technology bails us out. We cannot keep ignoring the elephant in the living room without catastrophic impacts to our homes. We cannot keep calling each other names and expect to ever have the kind of world that we know in our hearts is possible.

Please, let’s all do something today to take action on those two things that we can do. Stop wasting energy and stop wasting words. We could call it Vision Power Generation. Make it all count.

Next time in the interests of fair play, I‘ll explain why environmentalists think Utility Executives are a pain in the ass.
©Mark Richard Daily, 2008

The Death of the Electric Utility Industry- Part Two

So, here is the scenario for the demise of central station electricity power grids. Many of the key elements are already visible. First you have climbing electric rates. Today, no one is predicting a decrease in electric rates. In fact no one is predicting stabilization of electric rates in the near future.

Next as central station power production rates climb, costs for alternative power systems keep going down. Innovations in wind turbine design, solar photo-voltaic output and other alternate electricity systems continue to drive down the costs of delivering power to your house from these choices. And, the majority of these systems are designed to work right at your house. No more buried cable or over head power lines for residential development. Bye Bye wires companies. No more distribution meters on homes for local distribution companies, adios distribution companies.

Of course this isn’t going to happen tomorrow, but the trends are there. Today the driving expense for wholesale power costs are power plants and transmission grids. These two features of the electric utility industry are also the most damaging to the environment. Witness the reduction in the number of proposed coal fired power plants as investors and consumer re-evaluate their roles in a climate change environment. Take away the residential load and what happens? Poof, now all that’s left is business and industrial loads.

Here too the trend is moving to disbursed generation facilities. Part of this movement is to improve reliability and part is a direct response to increasing rates and the lack of control that businesses feel over electric utility rate increases. The Y2K scare drove many industries to set up back up power systems that were under their control, just in case. So, many facilities have already done some of the planning to be grid free.

What can you do about all of this. Get informed. Find out how solar and wind might work at your house. Use existing tools to calculate what it would take for you to get off the grid. Even if you choose not to make the plunge, like me, you will at least understand your energy appetite and be able to have some control over your own climate change emissions. Here are some sites to get you started with your quest.

For innovations in wind energy see- http://www.getsmartenergy.com/

For help sizing your photovoltaic system see- http://www.realgoodssolar.com/

For help reducing your home energy use see- http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/reduce.html

I like electric utilities, really I do. I’m not ready to do this stuff by myself. I want a team of lineman ready to help get the lights back on after a storm. I want an office of skilled engineers designing a safe and reliable system to keep my home running. What I don’t want is an industry wide arrogance about individual energy choices that assumes central station power generation is the only economical way to go. That may be true today, but tomorrow will be here sooner than many utility executives can imagine.

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.

Air Permit Denial Threatens to Cost Consumers

Like the old Chinese curse, " may you live in interesting times", recent events could be on track for a perfect storm for electric utility generation, with electricity consumers caught in the middle and footing the bill as usual.

The convergence of recent US Supreme Court decisions, pending State and Federal government climate change legislation and citizen discussions about global warming put consumers at risk for a deluge of electric rate increases. Add a cold winter, or higher transportation and maintenance costs and the writing is on the wall. For those consumers that believe that current electricity rates are too low and do not reflect the external costs of air pollution created during electricity generation, the recent decision to deny power plant air quality permits in Kansas is a good decision. For those consumers struggling on fixed incomes or tight budgets, the decision may mean electric rates will continue to climb. That could be bad for everyone.

The Background
Tri-State G&T proposed the joint construction of the largest coal-fired power plant in the United States, to be built at the cost of $3.6 billion. The power plant with its two 700-megawatt generators was to be built and financed by several utilities including, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Sunflower Electric Association, Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc, and Midwest Energy.All four companies are member owned, non-profit cooperative corporations. The first three companies are wholesale power suppliers. Sunflower, organized in 1957, serves six rural electric distribution cooperatives in 34 western Kansas counties. Tri-State, started in 1952, is owned by and serves 44 electric cooperatives across portions of Colorado, Nebraska, New Mexico and Wyoming. Golden Spread Electric Cooperative was founded in 1984 and serves 16 distribution cooperatives in Oklahoma and Texas. Midwest Energy serves customers in central and western Kansas.

The new power plants are planned as an expansion to existing power generation facilities owned by Sunflower on their 10,000-acre, 360-megawatt Holcomb Station site. This is located approximately four miles south of Holcomb, Kansas.

The original plan was for Golden Spread, Sunflower, Tri-State and other investors to jointly own the first new 700-megawatt unit. Construction of the first unit was planned to begin in 2007 and be operational in 2012. Golden Spread planed to own 400 megawatts of the unit’s output for supply to its member systems. Sunflower expected to provide up to 150 megawatts to its member systems, and Midwest Energy was in for 75 megawatts. Tri-State planned to own the second 700-megawatt unit, to supply power to its member systems. This unit was projected to be online in 2013, but recent proposals before the denial show Tri-State postponing construction and tying the construction schedule to future load growth.

The Denial
According to an October 18, 2007 Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), press release concern over carbon dioxide production was the key factor in permit denial. Bolstered by the recent US Supreme Court decision (Massachusetts v. EPA), KHDE Secretary Roderick L. Bremby, stated, "I believe it would be irresponsible to ignore emerging information about the contribution of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to climate change and the potential harm to our environment and health if we do nothing".

Massachusetts v. EPA defined carbon dioxide ( CO2) as an air quality pollutant that should be regulated by the EPA. The 66 page Supreme Court Opinion refers to specific scientific studies and reports documenting the existing and predicted negative impacts from global climate change and ties these changes directly to human activity; specifically the accelerated production of green house gases. Carbon dioxide heads the list of these green house gas emissions.

The EPA defines coal fired electricity generation as the single largest source of CO2 emissions in the USA. Coal fired electricity generation exceeds CO2 emissions from the entire transportation sector.

This permit denial is the first such denial in the nation."We are disappointed with the Secretary's arbitrary and capricious action," said Earl Watkins, Sunflower's president and chief executive officer. Those disappointed with the denial point out the neither the EPA or the State of Kansas include CO2 as a regulated air pollutant. Project partners felt that they had met all environmental and regulatory requirements with their proposal.

This action also changes Sunflower's plans to invest in and advance algae technology that would use carbon dioxide from the power plants. Attempting to address carbon emissions, the project partners completed initial testing for an innovative algae reactor that would use a portion of the carbon dioxide emissions from Holcomb Station to produce biofuels, including ethanol and biodiesel. Funds that would have been earned from the power plant expansion project were expected to be used to finance Sunflower's investment in the commercial algae reactor.

The Next Step
Tri-State's general counsel Ken Reif reported to the G&T's employees, "Naturally we are all disappointed in this action and we are in the process of evaluating our options with Sunflower and our board."
Sunflower’s President and CEO Watkins said, "Politics aside, the 1.5 million cooperative customers still need reliable, low- cost power. We will endeavor to fulfill that mission in the appropriate way, but those customers will be harmed and the economy damaged by the Secretary's decision. Sunflower expects to pursue legal and legislative remedies to this denial."

Talk about Denial
Wholesale power utilities still do not get it. They continue to promote misleading statements regarding global warming or climate change and insist that decisions are being made based on emotion and "politics" rather than science. If it wasn’t for "politics", utilities and consumers would have been paying higher generation rates for decades to account for externalities - pollution etc., caused by fossil fuel electricity generation. Some argue that as soon as electricity becomes expensive enough to be worth saving, energy conservation will finally kick in and become a serious part of demand side management, instead of the token savings that it is inmost homes today.

In any case the Kansas Department of Health and Environment took one of the first steps toward new thinking and new energy solutions. In these interesting times it will be very interesting to see the impact that this permit decision has on other coal fired power plant construction plans across the nation. It will be even be more interesting to see how utilities meet the growing national demand for electricity with limited generation resources and a growing demand for climate change action.
© 2007Mark Daily

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

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

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 suffisticated 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. Well, I guess it is more than just cold beer and toast.

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.

Over twenty states including,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.

Have you contacted your legislators to show support for Renewable Energy Standards? I'd like to hear from you one way or the other about this. What are your thoughts on the subject?

© Mark Daily 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

Time to take Action for Renewable Electric Energy Generation

I’ve seen it before. Last week I saw it again. It was a bumper sticker that said, "If you’re not really pissed off, you are just not paying attention".

June 21st must have been the longest day for the US Senate. On solstice day they passed a version of the new national energy policy that will no doubt anger anyone that is paying attention, except those that believe that the American Auto industry is on the right track.
The highlights of this legislation regarding electric energy and electricity generation are, that two key provisions failed to get into the final version. The $32.1 billion alternative energy tax package got the boot and so did nation wide renewable energy portfolio standards.

Mired down in the gasoline controversy of CAFÉ standards and oil industry subsidies, the Senate had no strength to include these progressive and important issues in the final piece of legislation. The only glimmer of hope for reducing the nation’s non-renewable electric energy appetite were the changes proposed in lighting and appliance standards.

The oil and coal industries killed the Alternative Energy tax subsidies because an increase in Alternative Energy subsides was to be funded by reductions in fossil fuel industry subsidies. The electric industry killed the renewable energy portfolio standards for various reasons. Some argued that they did it to avoid a change in their cozy relationship with the fossil fuel industry - coal mining and natural gas development. Others argued that belectric utilities killed it simply because they didn’t want to change they way that they have done things since the 1930's.
Of course they say the electric utility industry killed it because the system is working the way it is and there is no need to change. Utility executives go on to argue that there is no need to change a system that continues to bring relatively cheap and reliable energy to a growing demand for electricity. They claim, I think rightfully so, that consumers do not want to see drastic increases in their electric bills. Yet the rates can’t help but continue to climb as scarcity principles dictate.

Which argument is correct? Frankly, I am so sick of the way business is conducted in this country that I can’t really think objectively about it and there is the real problem. Analysis paralysis has gripped all of us. We can no longer, if we ever could really , trust the accuracy of the information that we get to make our informed opinions...well ...informed. Absent this assurance that we are getting the facts that matter, it is no wonder that most of the population continues to keep living the way they always have; driving more road miles every year regardless of price and environmental damage; using increasing amounts of electricity regardless of price and environmental damage.

So what will this new legislation do to help us be smarter and make better use of the energy that we all agree is disappearing and getting more expensive? Wading through 464 pages of legislation to find out is hard work.

Those of us that can’t stand to read through all of that, should simply contact their elected representatives and tell them you want them to vote to take away the oil and coal industry subsidies that have been in place for decades and give those subsidies to the new guys and the little guys- the solar, wind, and energy conservation industries. It’s the fair thing to do. Don’t give it to the bio-fuels industry. Creating Bio fuels takes more regular fuel to make than the bio-fuel it produces. There is no objective study that says otherwise. Why would we want to support legislation that makes us run out of gasoline faster? I know, Ed Abbey claimed he drove a Cadillac just to hasten the end of the fossil fuel era. So now Governors and the rest think we could be saving the world by driving more metal. Are you paying attention?

If you want more renewable energy used to generate your electricity, if you want the future to harness, clean and renewable technologies instead of replacing one destructive fuel with a different destructive fuel, we must all take action.

Come on, make that call.

Environmental Kooks and Electric Utility Public Service Commission Obstructionists

One big challenge facing anyone debating technical issues is the challenge of facts. Finding facts in this day and age seems so easy with inter-net resources yet if we use our personal bias blindfolds we will never see the whole problem or the whole solution. If you only find the fact that describes the elephant’s trunk and I find only the fact that describes the elephant’s toe nail, we might never get to agreement on the fact that we are talking about elephants until we remove the blindfolds.

So it is with the debate about how to power the United States economy. There are many different "facts" to be evaluated. It presents a daunting challenge but as citizens we have two choices. Either we agree with the facts and choices used by our utility companies or we don’t.

I prefer not to get bogged down in a greenhouse gas (GHG) debate at this point although, for many this is the only reason to debate "what powers the U.S.A".Yet, the issue of "we will run out of it someday" is also a good reason to tackle this challenge. To me they are intertwined motives. "Running out" won’t matter much if the planet’s ability to support life is compromised. Thinkers far more advanced than I have already coined plenty of slogans for this: "There is no business to be made on a dead planet"; "We must protect the environment as well as the economy or some day we will have neither". Quotes like that.

For more about those GHG details please read Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. If you agree with Al, you can feel smug about having such a nice guy to agree with. If you disagree with Mr. Gore, you will at least find out how "those people" think. So, it’s a good thing to read it no matter what opinion you hold on the impacts of Greenhouse Gases (GHG). Some day I think we will all agree that the only people confused about the science of global climate change are the people pretending to be scientists. The real scientists all seem to agree we have a problem.

Fact:"The United States relies on electricity to meet a significant portion of its energy demands, especially for lighting, electric motors, heating and air conditioning. Electricity generators consumed 34 percent of U.S. energy from fossil fuel combustion in 2004. The type of fuel combusted by electricity generators has a significant effect on their emissions. For example, some electricity is generated with low CO2 emitting energy technologies, particularly non-fossil options such as nuclear, hydroelectric or geothermal energy. However, electricity generators rely on coal for over half of their total energy requirements and accounted fo 94 percent of all coal consumed in the Unites States in 2004. Consequently, changes in electricity demand have a significant impact on coal consumption and associated CO2 emissions." (pg 7 of 18 Executive Summary , Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2004 (April 2006) USEPA #430-R-06-002
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads06/06ES.pdf 12/05/06)

On June 19 2006, the 2006 Energy Biz summit gathered eight leading electric utility executives together to discuss issues relating to electricity generation in the US. Energy Biz Magazine recently made pod-casts available providing summaries of some of the material.
http://www.energycentral.com/centers/energybiz/eb_summit_list.cfm

Several striking conclusions come from listening to these presentations. The main one that I agree with says that citizens in the USA are not really aware of the growing "base load" crisis. Rolling brown outs in the north east, cascading power outages in the Midwest and billing shenanigans in California are symptoms of a larger problem. While experts on both sides may effectively argue that "pilot error" or "pilot greed" caused these problems, the fact that human problems can trigger these repercussions points to one fact. The demand for electricity is rising faster than construction for new sources of electric generation.

The second interesting item from Energy Biz summit, points to the current reality that renewables will not soon take the place of base load generation. It is not a simple matter of sticking up more wind turbines and solar panels to harvest free and non-polluting energy. New renewable energy industries simply cannot bring enough reliable power on line soon enough to meet the need. One executive even added his belief that no single technology will be able to keep up with the growing demand for electricity.

If you don’t believe this, try a simple sample problem with your house. Find an old electric bill. Pick a shoulder month so it won’t be a real high or real low bill. Find the total kilowatt hours used (kWh). Its on your bill somewhere. Now, go to the GAIAM web site and order a copy of the Real Goods Solar Living Sourcebook. If you are really into alternative energy and really hate your utility company, this will be the best $35 (plus shipping) that you ever spend. In that book find the Solar Energy Worksheet. You can use it to figure out how to size your equipment to deliver the kWh amount you got off your electric bill. Then you can go to the product pages and figure out the cost for that equipment. If your house is like mine, it will be many years before your electric rates get high enough to make the purchase of that equipment a good idea for your wallet. Making use of most alternative energy fuels will require a lot more fundamental changes in our lifestyles then simply changing the source of power generation fuels.

Let’s move on to "interesting item number three". Amory and Hunter Lovins (http://www.rmi.org/) must have gotten tuckered out lately because you rarely hear about "Negawatts" any more. The concept of "demand side management" was mentioned in these summary pod-casts, but the phrase, "energy conservation" was once again noticeably absent from the discussion. Regional groups like Western Resource Advocates, still argue that conservation could effectively cut the growing electricity demand in half in some western states. (http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/energy/clenergy.php)Yet, eight utility executives gloss over this "resource" without much comment, and here is why.

Interesting item number four: These guys like to build big power plants and coal is currently the cheapest fuel to buy for running them. Sadly, the tone of the Final Remarks show an attitude that makes the normal uninformed citizen like me, angry at utility companies. Their collective feeling seems to be that if the environmental crazies and the damn ivory tower regulators would just get out of the way, they could provide all the electric power generation the world will ever need. "We can build these things". "This is great stuff", they proclaim. This is a great solution. They get to take action and the costs for these huge multi-billion dollar projects get passed on to us, the rate payers.

Its too bad, in an exciting world where so many options could be used to solve our energy problems and improve environmental health; a world where we could all be working together to solve our energy problems; we still have major utility businesses run by men using the same thinking that got us into this mess. The time has come. We can no longer afford to confuse size with imagination.