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.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
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, March 11, 2008
Why Environmentalists think Electric Utility Executives are a pain.
Environmentalists view utility executives as part of the cause of global climate change and resource pollution rather than as the defenders of low cost reliable energy that electric utility executives view themselves being. This disconnect between executive’s self image and the environmental community image has several sources. One is the media attention focused on electric utility problems and mistakes. Enron leaps into mind as does the California billing crisis. Unfortunately every mistake from Three Mile Island to Florida’s recent blackout feeds an impression that electric utility executives make important decisions without including the public in their decision making. These media reports have been long on fearful emotions and short on engineering details. It comes down to the idea that people tend to fear what they don’t understand and utility executives have not been at all successful at improving the public’s understanding of the utility business.
The other source of this distrust goes back many years.
In an address to the National Association of Science Writers in New York on September 16, 1954, US Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Lewis L. Strauss was talking about nuclear power and said, "It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter; will know of great periodic regional famines in the world only as matters of history; will travel effortlessly over the seas and under them and through the air with a minimum of danger and at great speeds, and will experience a lifespan far longer than ours, as disease yields and man comes to understand what causes him to age. This is the forecast of an age of peace." (N.Y. Times, August 7, 1955)
Now that the future has arrived we all feel cheated since few of these predictions have materialized. The promise of electricity “too cheap to meter” hits especially hard as rate increases nation-wide reminder us of the failure to reach this dream. So, we have to blame someone and who better to blame than people we don’t really understand, electric utility executives.
And of course, electric utility executives encourage a certain amount of persecution simply by the way they conduct business. If they manage an investor owned utility, their allegiance is to stockholders and investors whose primary interest is the biggest return on their investment. If they lead a municipal or member cooperative electric utility, their allegiance is to their diverse constituents. Some constituents believe we must explore alternate energy resources, demand side management and energy conservation while other constituents simply want the cheapest way to keep beer cold and light bulbs working.
While the environmental community buys the whole global climate change scenario, utility executives generally remain skeptical about the role of power generation in climate change.
Al Gore included this quote in his book about the subject that seems to apply here.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” Upton Sinclair
Utility Executive are well educated and experienced. They have seen a lot of history and simply don’t buy the premise that mankind is powerful enough to alter the planet’s climate. A common agreement about facts remains a barrier of distrust between utility executives and the environmental community. Many “green” concepts and the load reduction possibilities of energy conservation are also viewed skeptically by utility executives because in their experience customers don’t use these programs, even when they are well advertised and free.
To add to these differences in world view, they tend to over-estimate load growth because it takes so long to get new generation and transmission facilities in place. They feel the only way they can avoid the rolling blackouts of the Northeast several years ago or more recent sustained power outages in southern Florida is to have lots of facilities approved and ready to go.
The rewards for succeeding with energy conservation and demand side management are not equal to the penalties imposed for poor power reliability.
Utility executives refuse to talk about anything but base-load coal generation because when real numbers are compared, they do not see how renewable energy or energy conservation can meet the demands for electricity based on today’s energy use growth trends. Yet, if they stand up and say these things, environmentalists respond with personal attacks and polarizing comments. This only increases the resolve of utility executives to push for business as usual. It forces them to retreat into protective policies that lack transparency.
Balancing the diverse needs and desires of electric utility customers is not for the faint of heart. Yet, from the looks of things today, it is clear that utilities must do a better job of explaining a boring but necessary business to a busy and misinformed public. "We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology." - Carl Sagan
And, this lack of knowledge will continue to haunt utility executives for many years. Their refusal to discuss facts about alternatives because they think it is a waste of time, money and effort will continue to be the primary reason that environmentalists think electric utility executives are a pain in the… you know what.
The other source of this distrust goes back many years.
In an address to the National Association of Science Writers in New York on September 16, 1954, US Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Lewis L. Strauss was talking about nuclear power and said, "It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter; will know of great periodic regional famines in the world only as matters of history; will travel effortlessly over the seas and under them and through the air with a minimum of danger and at great speeds, and will experience a lifespan far longer than ours, as disease yields and man comes to understand what causes him to age. This is the forecast of an age of peace." (N.Y. Times, August 7, 1955)
Now that the future has arrived we all feel cheated since few of these predictions have materialized. The promise of electricity “too cheap to meter” hits especially hard as rate increases nation-wide reminder us of the failure to reach this dream. So, we have to blame someone and who better to blame than people we don’t really understand, electric utility executives.
And of course, electric utility executives encourage a certain amount of persecution simply by the way they conduct business. If they manage an investor owned utility, their allegiance is to stockholders and investors whose primary interest is the biggest return on their investment. If they lead a municipal or member cooperative electric utility, their allegiance is to their diverse constituents. Some constituents believe we must explore alternate energy resources, demand side management and energy conservation while other constituents simply want the cheapest way to keep beer cold and light bulbs working.
While the environmental community buys the whole global climate change scenario, utility executives generally remain skeptical about the role of power generation in climate change.
Al Gore included this quote in his book about the subject that seems to apply here.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” Upton Sinclair
Utility Executive are well educated and experienced. They have seen a lot of history and simply don’t buy the premise that mankind is powerful enough to alter the planet’s climate. A common agreement about facts remains a barrier of distrust between utility executives and the environmental community. Many “green” concepts and the load reduction possibilities of energy conservation are also viewed skeptically by utility executives because in their experience customers don’t use these programs, even when they are well advertised and free.
To add to these differences in world view, they tend to over-estimate load growth because it takes so long to get new generation and transmission facilities in place. They feel the only way they can avoid the rolling blackouts of the Northeast several years ago or more recent sustained power outages in southern Florida is to have lots of facilities approved and ready to go.
The rewards for succeeding with energy conservation and demand side management are not equal to the penalties imposed for poor power reliability.
Utility executives refuse to talk about anything but base-load coal generation because when real numbers are compared, they do not see how renewable energy or energy conservation can meet the demands for electricity based on today’s energy use growth trends. Yet, if they stand up and say these things, environmentalists respond with personal attacks and polarizing comments. This only increases the resolve of utility executives to push for business as usual. It forces them to retreat into protective policies that lack transparency.
Balancing the diverse needs and desires of electric utility customers is not for the faint of heart. Yet, from the looks of things today, it is clear that utilities must do a better job of explaining a boring but necessary business to a busy and misinformed public. "We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology." - Carl Sagan
And, this lack of knowledge will continue to haunt utility executives for many years. Their refusal to discuss facts about alternatives because they think it is a waste of time, money and effort will continue to be the primary reason that environmentalists think electric utility executives are a pain in the… you know what.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
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
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
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
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Why Electric Utility Executives Hate Net-Metering
Net- Metering is a specific utility term used to describe the way utilities may allow small home generators to feed electricity back onto their electric distribution wire grids.
The DSIRE database, (Data base of State Incentives for Renewable & Efficiency) lists each state’s renewable programs. They define net- metering like this:
“Net Metering Rules For those consumers who have their own electricity generating units, net metering allows for the flow of electricity both to and from the customer through a single, bi-directional meter. With net metering, during times when the customer's generation exceeds his or her use, electricity from the customer to the utility offsets electricity consumed at another time. In effect, the customer is using the excess generation to offset electricity that would have been purchased at the retail rate. Under most state rules, residential, commercial, and industrial customers are eligible for net metering, but some states restrict eligibility to particular customer classes.”
This is a widely accepted definition but gets confused by some utility programs that don’t really offer net-metering. Instead they offer wholesale or avoided cost metering. This often requires two meters installed at the customer’s expense. One meter records the kWh flowing into their house from the utility grid and the other meter records the flow of electricity from the home’s power generation sources like a PV array or small wind turbine. The market drives the cost of electricity just like it does other commodities and the price we all pay on our electric bill reflects market value as well as actual costs for delivery. In the case of small alternate energy generators, utilities typically pay a wholesale rate for any energy that they buy directly.
One myth that is often used to oppose net-metering is the myth that meters go forward more accurately than they go backwards. Eletromechanical meters have no physical reason to run any differently more or less accurately no matter which way the current is going. Yet, this is the reason that many utilities require two meters. Two meters doubles your minimum monthly service charge and throws an un-necessary obstacle into the net-metering road.
Utilities that offer true net-metering, allow one meter that goes both directions. With this arrangement, consumer’s gain by having any energy that they generate going back to cancel the incoming kWh hours.
Once the meter hits zero on the register the price changes. Now you are making a net contribution to the grid instead of just canceling out your utility company generated power. So, the price you make on each kWh goes down to the wholesale rate which is typically 40 to 60 percent less than the retail rate. So, if you are going to run payback numbers for your project, you need to find out the average retail rate per kWh when you calculate the financial benefits of installing your own net-metering equipment.
Safety has always been very important to electric utilities and rightfully so. You can’t make any mistakes handling 14,000 volts of electricity without serious – usually fatal consequences. So, may utilities require a long list of lock out safety requirements and a hefty insurance liability policy from homeowners interested in installing net metering equipment.
Some utilities require a physical lock out device accessible to utility personnel; all day every day so that they can isolate your system from the grid while they are working on distribution circuits effected by your system.
I heard a good talk several years ago by a knowledgeable engineer about the potential danger from net-metering facilities. He seemed to think that the likely hood of a 12 or 24 volt 1.5 to 3.0KW net-metering system back feeding enough voltage to injury a line worker was a remote possibility and said it really was not scientifically supportable. Yet many utilities still persist in adding this substantial obstacle to net- metering installations from home owners.
Today, there are several alternate energy system inverters that take care of most of the legitimate interconnection and safety issues raised by utility regulations.
The main problem with net metering relates to the way you get billed for electricity. In most locations there are two parts to your bill. One part is a kWh charge that is supposed to cover all of the costs of getting each kWh to your house from the generation facility. The other part of your bill has a fixed minimum monthly charge or availability of service fee that is supposed to cover those expenses that a distribution utility incurs whether you use any electricity or not. If you leave town and throw your main breaker to the off position, you will not use any kWh. But, your meter is still sitting there ready for action and the wires coming to your house are still in the air or under the ground waiting for something to do and the utility company still needs to send a meter reader or use software to read your meter remotely just in case you use some juice that month. These fixed costs, like property taxes, accounting expenses and administrative expenses continue whether you use electricity or not. Also these expenses are often so high that utilities bundle a portion of the fixed expense into your kWh charge. So, if you are a net-metering customer whose meter hits zero or generates a lot of your own power that displaces the utility grid power , you are cutting into their revenue, without making a meaningful contribution to cutting the costs for buying power during the night and on cloudy days.
What may change utility attitudes toward net-metering is the growing need for additional generation resources and the clamor over fossil fuel generation. Utility executives maybe looking for net-metering resources to fill in peak daytime loads when the sun is shining, thus taking some of the pressure off financing new fossil fuel resources.
Do you have a question about how your electricity gets to your house? Ask me. I'll try to find out? GOt any other questions about electric energy generation? Ask me. I'll get some answers.
The DSIRE database, (Data base of State Incentives for Renewable & Efficiency) lists each state’s renewable programs. They define net- metering like this:
“Net Metering Rules For those consumers who have their own electricity generating units, net metering allows for the flow of electricity both to and from the customer through a single, bi-directional meter. With net metering, during times when the customer's generation exceeds his or her use, electricity from the customer to the utility offsets electricity consumed at another time. In effect, the customer is using the excess generation to offset electricity that would have been purchased at the retail rate. Under most state rules, residential, commercial, and industrial customers are eligible for net metering, but some states restrict eligibility to particular customer classes.”
This is a widely accepted definition but gets confused by some utility programs that don’t really offer net-metering. Instead they offer wholesale or avoided cost metering. This often requires two meters installed at the customer’s expense. One meter records the kWh flowing into their house from the utility grid and the other meter records the flow of electricity from the home’s power generation sources like a PV array or small wind turbine. The market drives the cost of electricity just like it does other commodities and the price we all pay on our electric bill reflects market value as well as actual costs for delivery. In the case of small alternate energy generators, utilities typically pay a wholesale rate for any energy that they buy directly.
One myth that is often used to oppose net-metering is the myth that meters go forward more accurately than they go backwards. Eletromechanical meters have no physical reason to run any differently more or less accurately no matter which way the current is going. Yet, this is the reason that many utilities require two meters. Two meters doubles your minimum monthly service charge and throws an un-necessary obstacle into the net-metering road.
Utilities that offer true net-metering, allow one meter that goes both directions. With this arrangement, consumer’s gain by having any energy that they generate going back to cancel the incoming kWh hours.
Once the meter hits zero on the register the price changes. Now you are making a net contribution to the grid instead of just canceling out your utility company generated power. So, the price you make on each kWh goes down to the wholesale rate which is typically 40 to 60 percent less than the retail rate. So, if you are going to run payback numbers for your project, you need to find out the average retail rate per kWh when you calculate the financial benefits of installing your own net-metering equipment.
Safety has always been very important to electric utilities and rightfully so. You can’t make any mistakes handling 14,000 volts of electricity without serious – usually fatal consequences. So, may utilities require a long list of lock out safety requirements and a hefty insurance liability policy from homeowners interested in installing net metering equipment.
Some utilities require a physical lock out device accessible to utility personnel; all day every day so that they can isolate your system from the grid while they are working on distribution circuits effected by your system.
I heard a good talk several years ago by a knowledgeable engineer about the potential danger from net-metering facilities. He seemed to think that the likely hood of a 12 or 24 volt 1.5 to 3.0KW net-metering system back feeding enough voltage to injury a line worker was a remote possibility and said it really was not scientifically supportable. Yet many utilities still persist in adding this substantial obstacle to net- metering installations from home owners.
Today, there are several alternate energy system inverters that take care of most of the legitimate interconnection and safety issues raised by utility regulations.
The main problem with net metering relates to the way you get billed for electricity. In most locations there are two parts to your bill. One part is a kWh charge that is supposed to cover all of the costs of getting each kWh to your house from the generation facility. The other part of your bill has a fixed minimum monthly charge or availability of service fee that is supposed to cover those expenses that a distribution utility incurs whether you use any electricity or not. If you leave town and throw your main breaker to the off position, you will not use any kWh. But, your meter is still sitting there ready for action and the wires coming to your house are still in the air or under the ground waiting for something to do and the utility company still needs to send a meter reader or use software to read your meter remotely just in case you use some juice that month. These fixed costs, like property taxes, accounting expenses and administrative expenses continue whether you use electricity or not. Also these expenses are often so high that utilities bundle a portion of the fixed expense into your kWh charge. So, if you are a net-metering customer whose meter hits zero or generates a lot of your own power that displaces the utility grid power , you are cutting into their revenue, without making a meaningful contribution to cutting the costs for buying power during the night and on cloudy days.
What may change utility attitudes toward net-metering is the growing need for additional generation resources and the clamor over fossil fuel generation. Utility executives maybe looking for net-metering resources to fill in peak daytime loads when the sun is shining, thus taking some of the pressure off financing new fossil fuel resources.
Do you have a question about how your electricity gets to your house? Ask me. I'll try to find out? GOt any other questions about electric energy generation? Ask me. I'll get some answers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
