Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Dominion to Invest $600 Million in Smart Grid

—

by

James A. Bacon
in ,

Dominion Virginia Power has unveiled a plan to invest $600 million in “smart grid” technology plus a slew of energy conservation programs that it estimates will save electric consumers $1 billion over 15 years and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 12 million tons.

“This plan will provide a jump start toward meeting the 10 percent conservation goal enacted last year by the Virginia General Assembly and the governor, getting the Commonwealth more than one-third of the way there within five years,” said David A. Heacock, president of Dominion Virginia Power. “It will provide significant environmental benefits in a cost-effective manner that translates into very real financial savings to customers.”

If the plan is approved by the State Corporation Commission, Dominion said in a press release issued this afternoon, it will begin executing it next year.

The centerpiece of the plan is the installation of “smart grid” technologies that enhances the performance of the electric distribution system. The grid will allow energy to be delivered more efficiently, resulting in substantial energy savings and permitting more precise control of the energy flow.

Under the smart grid program, Dominion would replace all of its existing electric meters with Advanced Metering Infrastructure, capable of two-way communications, as well as equipment to monitor and control electric distribution. The resulting fuel savings will more than offset the cost of the capital investment. As a bonus the technology should lead to improvements in service reliability and the ability of customers to monitor and control their own electricity usage.

The plan has many other elements, including:

  • Incentives for constructing energy-efficient homes that meet EnergyStar standards, whcih are 15 percent more efficient than homes built to regular standards.
  • Incentives to install energy-efficient light.
  • Energy audits and improvements for homes of low-income customers.
  • Incentives for residential customers who allow the company to cycle their air conditioners and heat pumps during periods of peak demand.
  • Power cost monitors that display how much electricity customers are using and what it’s costing them.
  • Incentives for residential customers to upgrade heat pumps to more efficient units.
  • Incentives for commercial customers to improve the energy efficiency of their HVAC units and to reduce consumption during periods of peak demand.
  • Incentives to turn in refrigerators that are 20 years old or more.

Electricity savings could reach 2.6 million megawatt-hours annually by 2013 , the company said. That’s enough to power 216,000 typical homes — but the savings will not be big enough or kick in soon enough to mitigate the need to add enough new generating capacity to meet demand expected to grow by 4,000 megawatts over the next decade.

This is just the first wave in the overhaul of the DVP electric system. The company continues investigate other energy-conservation and demand-reduction initiatives, including rate structures that would send better pricing signals to customers and emerging technologies that would leverage the smart grid to help customers manage the cost of individual appliances. “These technologies,” states the company, “will support the integration of on-site customer generation and future plug-in hybrid vehicles.”

Bacon’s commentary: Plug-in hybrids? Hoo-ah! See comments for details.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

  1. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    This is very, very good news. $600 million represents a serious investment in energy efficiency, and this is just the first wave. Undoubtedly, there will be more to come.

    This investment constitutes a win-win-win. Unlike construction of convention power plants or renewable energy, all of which will lead to higher rates, the smart grid will pay for itself and save customers $1 billion in consumption costs over 15 years, in effect, reducing the pressure on the inevitably higher electric rates to come. Even more, energy efficiency does not create pollution — no fossil fuels to extract from the earth, no CO2 emissions, no nuclear power rods to dispose of.

    Investments in energy efficiency and conservation should be the first place we look to address our electricity needs in Virginia.

    Dominion’s proposal looks pretty comprehensive. I have no way of knowing how it compares in scope to similar initiatives in California and New England where political pressure is much stronger to reduce electric consumption. But I suspect it stacks up pretty well. Without question, Dominion’s plan is more ambitious than anything contemplated before in Virginia.

  2. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    let me squeeze this in before Ray launchs again…

    “Since 1974, California has held its per capita energy consumption essentially constant, while energy use per person for the United States overall has jumped 50 percent.

    California has managed that feat through a mixture of mandates, regulations and high prices. The state has been able to cut greenhouse-gas emissions, keep utility companies happy and maintain economic growth. And in the wake of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on global warming, California serves as a model for other states seeking a similar path to energy reduction. Now California is pushing further in its effort to cut automobile pollution, spur use of solar energy and cap greenhouse gases.

    “California really represents what the rest of the country could do if it paid a bit more attention to energy efficiency,” says Greg Kats, managing principal at Capital E, an energy and clean-technology advisory firm. “California is the best argument we have about how to very cost-effectively both reduce energy consumption and cut greenhouse gases. And they’ve made money doing it.” Kats estimates that the average Californian family spends about $800 a year less on energy than it would have without efficiency improvements over the past 20 years.

    Today, as an energy consumer, California is more like thrifty Denmark than the rest of the energy-guzzling United States. While the average American burns 12,000 kilowatt-hours a year of electricity, the average Californian burns less than 7,000 — and that’s counting renewable energy sources.

    California has managed to cut its contributions to global warming, too. Carbon dioxide emissions per capita in California have fallen by 30 percent since 1975, while U.S. per capita carbon dioxide emissions have remained essentially level.

    “If we’re going to delay global warming, what we can do in a big hurry is energy efficiency: better cars, better buildings, better industry,” says Rosenfeld, who is now a member of the California Energy Commission and who last year won the Energy Department’s $375,000 Enrico Fermi Award for his contributions to national energy efficiency. “It’s not the whole story. But I think it’s at least half the story.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021602274.html

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Somebody correct me if I’m wrong.

    I make that to be an IRR of less than 5%. I figured it takes five years to invest the $600 million and then you start getting returns in the form of savings. Those savings are more in the out years (I assumed savings grwoth of 5% a year).

    Maybe a little more if they invest some and start getting returns earlier.

    That seems like a long term, patient investment to make so little in return. Even farming can make that kind of money.

    If someone offered a deal like that on your retirement fund, would you take it?

    RH

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    California has the highest gas taxes in the nation. Do you suppose that helped reduce energy consumption?

    RH

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “but the savings will not be big enough or kick in soon enough to mitigate the need to add new power plant construction to meet demand expected to grow by 4,000 megawatts over the next decade.”

    Yup, you make big gains in efficiency, and you still need more resources.

    RH

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “will support the integration of on-site customer generation “

    I wonder if a solar farm still counts as a farm in Fauquier.

    RH

  7. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    I do not see anything on how Dominion is going to support more functional settlement patterns.

    What about supporting MIUS applications? Can an Alpha Neighborhood be a “customer?”

    EMR

  8. Rick Webb Avatar
    Rick Webb

    In his posted comment, Jim Bacon states that construction of both conventional power plants and renewable energy lead to higher rates. Jim, can you provide some quantification? Thanks.

  9. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    FYI –

    “The energy savings would eliminate the need to build two power plants and delay the construction of two more, Heacock said. The plan would result in an estimated annual savings of 2.6 million megawatt hours of electricity by 2013, or enough to supply 216,000 typical single-family homes, he said.”

    http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/home.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-06-20-0109.html

  10. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “…but the savings will not be big enough or kick in soon enough to mitigate the need to add enough new generating capacity to meet demand expected to grow by 4,000 megawatts over the next decade.”

    “The energy savings would eliminate the need to build two power plants …”

    OK Guys, which is it?

    RH

    RH

  11. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Law of diminishing returns.

    It takes $600 million to eliminate the first two power plants, 1200 million to eliminate the next two, and so on.

    How much does it cost to eliminate them all?

    RH

  12. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    RH –

    how much would it cost to eliminate electricity?

    you ask “what kind of a question is that”?

    ….. exactly

  13. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Larry , I don’t understand your point.

    Either this plan will save enough electricity to eliminate a new plant or it won’t. Apparently we are going to get a new plant anyway, so we can use more electricity.

    What happened to the “savings”?

    We used it on something else, and more. So we still need a new power plant. We didn’t really save anything, jaust shuffled uses around.

    Or else

    We spent $600 million and we actually eliminated a plant. the one we are building would have been the second one. That means the second plant costs us what ever it costs, plus $600 million.

    In that case the savings is not near as big as we believe. But if eliminating the first plant was cost effective, and it was a good thing, then we should figure out how much to eliminate the second one, No?

    And so forth.

    RH

  14. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    RH – it depends on when the estimate for future plants was made.

    If two years ago, it was estimated that 5 new plants were needed in the next decade…

    and now.. with several new plants already in the pipeline…

    we make a course correction on demand…

    we may well build two more but not the next 3…

    and at some point some older ones may be taken offline and the two newer (cleaner) ones kept.

    you said.. when do we reach zero plants.. or at least that’s what I heard..

    it was never about reaching zero plants.. only how many new ones would be needed and when…

    and then at some point LESS plants but never NO plants unless we use alternate ways to produce electricity

    but under so circumstance under no scenario will we reach the point where we need …no electricity and therefore will need no plants..

    capische?

  15. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “LESS plants but never NO plants unless we use alternate ways to produce electricity

    but under so circumstance under no scenario will we reach the point where we need …no electricity and therefore will need no plants..”

    That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you.

    And so what you are saying is that there is some level of pollution that is acceptable. Under no circumstances do we reach the point where we need no electricity. The value of some electricity is higher than the costs of pollution or other damage it causes us.

    We do know how to live without electricity. We could do it. And if we discovered tomorrow that electricity was Kepone or DDT, what would happen? We would ban electricity regardless of the costs, right?

    Probably not. but we would try like hell to reduce it.

    We are going to spend $600 million to reduce it as it is. The only question now is whether that is enough, or too much. If it is a good thing, we ought to do more.

    The IRR on this is 5%. The next reductions will cost more. If it is $800 million for the next reduction the IRR is 3%. If the next one is $900 million then IRR is one per cent, and when it costs you over a billion dollars to get a billion in savings, then it isn’t worth doing.

    It is the same with Mercury or anything else. We can of course to willingly spend more, but we cannot then say we are better off because of it.

    RH

  16. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “Under no circumstances do we reach the point where we need no electricity. The value of some electricity is higher than the costs of pollution or other damage it causes us.”

    Electricity does not equate to pollution no more than we think producing wind turbines is any/more or less “polluting” than wooden chop-sticks or glass containers…

    I’ll agree that some pollution results from building parts for a turbine but no more or less than virtually anything else we create in a civilization and certainly far,far less than some obviously deadly byproducts of some things that we manufacture.

    But in terms of GENERATING electricity – all things being approximately equal between the parts needs for coal-power plants and the parts needed for wind-turbines…

    the wind-turbines create virtually no pollution by generating electricity…

    at this point – we can compare the amount of mercury released between the two different methods of generating electricity and ask a legitimate question…

    Why would you NOT use wind or solar if their OPERATION produces less mercury than burning coal?

    note this:

    “In a finding that could help ease concerns about the potential environmental impact of manufacturing solar cells, scientists report that the manufacture of solar cells produces far fewer air pollutants than conventional fossil fuel technologies. Their report is the first comprehensive study on the pollutants produced during the manufacture of solar cells.”

    Manufacture of photovoltaic cells requires potentially toxic metals such as lead, mercury and cadmium and produces carbon dioxide, which contributes to global warming.

    In the new study, Vasilis M. Fthenakis and colleagues gathered air pollution emissions data from 13 solar cell manufacturers in Europe and the United States from 2004-2006. The solar cells include four major commercial types: multicrystalline silicon, monocrystalline silicon, ribbon silicon, and thin-film cadmium telluride.

    The researchers found that producing electricity from solar cells reduces air pollutants by about 90 percent in comparison to using conventional fossil fuel technologies.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080225090826.htm

    so .. cut to the chase –

    it’s pretty clear that wind/solar win hands down on the pollution tradeoffs – agree?

    so .. why would we not use less polluting technologies to start with?

  17. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Electricity does not equate to pollution….

    Of course it does.

    why would we not use less polluting technologies to start with?

    You would not use those less polluting technologies if the cost of using them was greater than the cost of pollution prevented.

    If you do that, then you have violated the rule that stakeholders are treated fairly: Somebody is paying for something they don’t get, and that is the same as stealing.

    “the wind-turbines create virtually no pollution by generating electricity…”

    No, but they kill birds and bats just as surely as DDT. We have to drive allover the countryside to maintain them, and that causes pollution, We don’t know all the problems any more than we knew the problems with PCB’s.

    http://gizmodo.com/360117/exploding-wind-turbine-video-is-destruction-delicious

    You really want one of these next to your house?

    RH

  18. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Ray – they kill birds just like airliners and cars and high tension wires and other things kill birds.

    and Ray.. trucks that maintain pipelines, cell towers, highways, phone and power lines go all over the country and pollute also…

    re: “You would not use those less polluting technologies if the cost of using them was greater than the cost of pollution prevented.”

    and how do you know the true extent and scope of the potential harm?

    Did we “know” for things like DDT, dioxin, pcbs, lead, etc ?

    re: next to my home

    you mean compared to a Nuke or Coal Plant?

    How about you? Would you like to be next to a coal plant or a wind turbine?

  19. Rick Webb (www.VaWind.org) Avatar
    Rick Webb (www.VaWind.org)

    I posted a request for information that supports Jim Bacon’s statement that construction of new power plants, conventional or renewable, will lead to higher electricity rates. Was there no answer or did I miss it?

    Changing the subject – Larry Gross poses the question: “Would you like to be next to a coal plant or a wind turbine?”

    This is not a meaningful question.

    Consider, for example, the proposed Wise County coal plant. My analysis (below) indicates that it would take 2,260 2-megawatt turbines to match the output of the proposed Wise County coal-fired generating plant in August (the peak demand period of the year). That would require about 323 miles (at 7 turbines per mile) or about the length of the Blue Ridge Mountain chain in Virginia. And that’s just to offset one electricity generation plant that will satisfy only a small part of Virginia’s increasing electricity demand.

    **************
    I assumed that the coal fired power plant would have a capacity factor of 80% (it could be higher) and that the capacity factor for wind turbines in August (the peak demand period) would be 10% (based on the performance of other Appalachian wind projects, e.g., Mountaineer in Tucker County WV).

    output of Wise County plant / output of single wind turbine = number of turbines needed to equal output

    (565MW x 0.80 x 365 days x 24 hours/day) / (2MW x 0.10 x 365 days x 24 hours/day) = 2,260 turbines

    2260 turbines / 7 turbines/mile = 322.9 miles

    131/2260 = less than a 6% offset
    **************

    I’m almost reluctant to provide this kind of analysis, as some will inevitably characterize it as an argument in favor of the coal plant. It is not. If a coal plant will emit carbon and drive mountain-top-removal coal mining, then I am against it.

    We need alternatives – but those who promote wind energy development on our ridges as an alternative are advancing a losing argument. Wishful thinking is not a solution to our energy problems.

  20. Rick Webb Avatar
    Rick Webb

    Clarification -I failed to explain the last line in the analysis.

    131/2260 = less than a 6% offset

    2260 is the number of turbines needed to generate the same peak- demand-period electricity as the proposed Wise County coal plant.

    131 is the number of turbines that FreedomWorks, Inc. proposes for construction on 18 miles of ridgeline in the national forest adjacent the Shenandoah Valley.

    The developer has claimed that the proposed wind project would offset the need to build the Wise County plant – among other specious claims.

  21. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Rick, I can’t cite any studies for my assertion that construction of new power plants, conventional or renewable, will lead to higher electricity rates. I’m just working on the assumption that construction costs for power plants today are far higher than they were 10, 20 or 30 years ago when most of Dominion’s existing power plants were constructed.

    Current electric rates are based to a significant degree to allow Dominion to recoup a decent rate of return on its invested capital. If the utility adds new, expensive capacity, under the new regulatory schema, the average cost basis of its generating capacity will be higher.

  22. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Actually my comment was in response to a question as to reports that Wind Turbines can self-destruct and showers parts ….

    so I adjusted the premise to choose between a coal plant and a wind turbine ….

    .. which I would assert IS a valid comparison and here’s why.

    If each of us burned coal at our homes to generate our electrical power – we’d need to burn about a 1/2 ton a day IIRC and this would be a fair comparison in terms of location specific costs.

    and every day, you would have your “share” of the pollution including the mercury and SOX deposition.. bad air days, etc.. entire neighborhoods would bear the real brunt of generating power.

    For efficiency purposes we don’t do this – but what is the reason we don’t site those plants near each urban area that needs them instead of far away?

    It’s pretty clear – coal plants and urban areas don’t coexist very well…because of the enormous about of pollution that emanates from them.

    Consider the uproar over the small Mirant Plant in Alexandria.

    But I also demure over the comment that “we need options”.

    We have options.

    None of them are what we prefer but we do have options.

    What we don’t have – is the will to make the choices …

    What is worse:

    7 turbines per square mile or thousands of square miles of rivers and reservoirs with so much mercury pollution that fish advisories are posted and we are warned to be careful of what kind and how much fish to eat.

    I’m not arguing that we should replace the coal plant with wind turbines – I’m only pointing out that we have made choices and there are consequences and that we most often to not connect the two.

    Here’s another option we don’t choose in Virginia.

    If Virginians used electricity at the rate that Californians and Europeans used it – we would not need more coal plants and if would give us the opportunity to start considering replacing some older planters with SOME turbines and SOME solar.

    but when we say that we can’t have turbines, we can’t destroy mountain-tops and we can’t cut our usage by 1/4 but we do need “options” .. it sort of describes our real attitudes…

    which basically is.. we don’t want to pay higher rates but we also don’t want to pay for less pollution either.

    We need to use smart meters and decouple the rates – like California has done – and let each person make the decisions that work for them – as a start.

    And then we need to recognize that coal is not “better” than wind or solar except if we pretend that the damage that results does not really affect us.

    Your kids and their kids will live in a world where mercury pollutes most of the rivers and reservoirs on Virginia – because of the “options” that we have chosen today.

    I’m not saying the answers are easy or simple much less cheap – but we ARE making choices and there ARE consequences.

  23. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    to further elaborate on the choices we make and the consequences…:

    “Air Pollution
    Emissions from a power plant
    Just like anything else, pollutants released into the air will eventually make their way down to the earth’s surface.

    Air pollution not only affects the quality of the air we breathe; it also impacts the land and the water.

    In particular, airborne nitrogen is a major contributor to poor water quality in the Bay and its tributaries.

    Nitrogen compounds include nitrogen oxides (NOx), ammonia and organic nitrogen. Scientists estimate that

    one-quarter to one-third of the nitrogen

    that enters the Bay comes from air deposition: nitrogen released into the air that falls onto the land and runs off into the water, or falls onto the water itself.

    * Nitrogen oxides (NOx) are primarily released into the air as a by-product of combustion: the burning of fossil fuels like oil, gas or coal.

    http://www.chesapeakebay.net/airpollution.aspx?menuitem=14693

    “How much will this [removing nitrogen] cost? Who will pay?

    Preliminary estimates suggest cleanup efforts could cost a

    billion dollars or more a year.

    Exactly who pays will depend on actions outlined in tributary strategies.

    http://www.bayjournal.com/article.cfm?article=798

    More to the point.

    This data is clearly in the public realm…

    .. but when do these costs get connected to the choices we make about generating power?

    and these costs do NOT include the cost to remove the mercury contamination which is a much more difficult and costly task along the lines of “if you have to ask, you can’t afford it”.

    We have choices.

    Those choices have consequences.

    We choose to not connect the two.

    obviously .. we cannot have wind and solar.. too impractical and too expensive…

    QED

  24. Accurate Avatar
    Accurate

    Time for my two cents –

    First, does anyone realize that with this ‘smart’ technology the power company will be able to –
    1) Turn off specific appliances when they (the power company) deems it necessary.
    a) It’s 100 degrees outside but the drain on the grid is too great so the power company turns off your AC.
    b) It’s 5 degrees out, the inside of your house is at 60 degrees, the drain on the grid is too large; the power company turns off your furnace.
    c) You’ve decided to go green and technology has evolved. You did your part, you bought an electric car to drive, you just have to plug it in every night. One night there is a need/drain on the power grid and the power company decides to shut off the power to recharge your car. You wake up to a car that only is capable of taking you a half a mile.

    Plus many, many more things that ‘those-in-charge’ can do once you give them that degree of control over thing like power.

    Second, regarding wind power. I’ve been working on some sites in Oregon where we are installing new wind turbines. I guarantee that they chose the right spot as my hardhat blew off 6 times the first day I was there (and it didn’t stop moving till it’s 1/4 mile down the road). However, one day I went up there and … no wind, no wind for well over 12 hours – no wind means no power. A very hit-and-miss way to generate power in my mind.

    Finally, the flap over wind turbines hurting birds and bats. Yes, it’s a fact, but there is ALWAYS some trade off. DDT was (and is) a great insecticide, always has been. It was used improperly and harm resulted. We pulled it off the market and take a look at how many, many, many people die from malaria in 3rd world countries now because it is so difficult to obtain and use. I believe that DDT should be made available again and I believe that wind turbines should be built.

  25. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I have been known to get a big carried away at times..

    🙂

    but here might be the essential compromise with smart meters:

    You can buy guaranteed power without ‘strings’ for one price and you get a discounted priced for “interruptible” service.

    REC – Rappahannock Electric Cooperative does this right now by providing free water-heater service in exchange for the ability to turn it off during peak power.

    The other aspect to consider – in times when there is stress on the system -would you prefer to have the power to you furnace cycled on and off – or how a several-hour power outage?

    re: continuous wind power

    no proposal to have ONLY power generation from stuff that at times, won’t have “juice”.

    The point is to:

    1. – reduce the need to build new – high polluting plants

    2. – to replace older even worse plants with lower polluting alternatives.

    3. – design and operate a grid that can opportunistically harvest power generation when it is available and to be able to still operate when it is not.

    We do this right now. We have stand-by gas turbines for peaking needs. These same turbines could be used for backup to wind/solar because the wind/solar could potentially be used to defray coal.

    We need to factor in to the design and operation of the grid – the newer technologies to use them when they are useful and appropriate – not put the whole grid at risk over some inflexible ideas about “either/or” propositions.

    re: critter killing technologies

    First, we need to understand the difference between the destruction of endangered species – specifically the destruction of their habitat which, in turn contributes to the destruction of the species itself.. not individual critters.

    There may be a legitimate issue for the siting of some wind turbines in some places that may affect very limited habitat for some rare species.

    But there is massive confusion over the “machines kill critters” aspect of wind turbines.

    Consider for example, how many critters end up as road kill.

    Squirrels seem destined to prove that their high rate of reproduction is needed.

    I’m not unsympathetic to critters getting killed by “civilization” but we need to understand the “pander” potential with respect to wind turbine issues.

    I think it is either misunderstood or disingenuously used to rile up those that misunderstand.

    We do have choices.

    The choice we don’t have – is to be left alone to continue the status quo.

    but the changes that will occur will not result in disaster either – they actually will result in a more sustainable path IMHO.

    If we can operate a space station that keeps people alive for long periods of time on solar power – that there ARE places right now that can exist off-the-grid – we know that there is a foothold to a path that with some appropriate infusions of the proper technology can put us on a better path.

    Last year, I spend time at a residential home at 60 degrees latitude that was off the grid and utilized solar panels for refrigeration, hot water and lights.

    They do have a backup generator.

    They have thermometers on the heater and refrigerators and power meters on their batteries so they know their charge and they manually fire up the generators when the gages tell them.. usually after several days of rain.

    These guys have a manual version of a smart meter.

    What if Dominion Power would sweeten the deal by offering a propane/natural gas backup generator that they could turn on if they needed it and you could if you needed it?

    What if you could actually afford to that yourself if the smart meter allowed you to save that much money on your power usage?

    We have options besides our current path – which mostly is status quo inertia than anything else…

    We could actually create new energy technology business opportunities for the world – if we pursue this further.

  26. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    FYI:

    “The New Trophy Home, Small and Ecological

    For the high-profile crowd that turned out to celebrate a new home in Venice, Calif., the attraction wasn’t just the company and the architectural detail. The house boasted the builders’ equivalent of a three-star Michelin rating: a LEED platinum certificate.

    The actors John Cusack and Pierce Brosnan, with his wife, the journalist Keely Shaye Smith, came last fall to see a house that the builders promised would “emit no harmful gases into the atmosphere,” “produce its own energy” and incorporate recycled materials, from concrete to countertops.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/us/22leed.html

  27. Accurate Avatar
    Accurate

    Larry –
    Does anything ever really stay status quo? Wind turbines are gaining favor because the cost of energy has gone up. Cars are being invented that run on electricity, hydrogen, water, solar cells because the price of energy has gone up. Likewise there would be inventions that wasted power, to excess, if the cost of energy was to go down. Nothing really stays the same, most folks are looking for cheaper ways to accomplish something (anything) – if only to lower their own costs if not to sell it to others.

    As for you ‘house of the future’ did you notice how the hollywood stars didn’t sell what they have and move into one of these compact cracker boxes?

  28. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    The actors, actresses and others in Hollywood are really a disgrace. They preach liberalism and environmentalism. Yet they fly in private planes and live in huge mansions. They lecture the press on complex economic matters yet few managed to get their undergraduate diploma. They rail against CEO pay while making a king’s ransom with every new song, movie or even TV ad. If the Republicans had any sense (which they don’t) these pretty faced dim bulbs would be “front and center” as anti – Obama evidence.

    You want a new tax? 95% tax on all earnings over $2M in any given year.

  29. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: status quo

    agree ….partially…with caveats

    wind turbines are not taking over because they produce power cheaper than coal.

    and electric and hydrogen cars won’t take over because they are cheaper than gasoline.

    and hydrogen will never be cheaper anyhow if the energy used to create it is cheaper; why not just use the cheaper energy?

    hydrogen is the biggest joke.

    It was originally promoted as a way to allow auto-centric urban areas to continue unabated without the pollution problems.

    It was never originally envisioned as superior to gasoline since it costs more to produce hydrogen than it does gasoline – a lot more.

    wind turbines, solar and even hydrogen are sought after IMHO, because they are perceived to be ‘cleaner’, and less polluting.

    but none of them can beat coal and gasoline on price – yet.

    so the status quo favors coal and gasoline – right?

    If wind/solar were as cheap or cheaper than coal/nukes/etc then switching over would be a no-brainer – right?

    there would be no debate. Dump coal and nukes now.

    Isn’t the essential quandary that our current energy needs are being met by cheap but polluting means?

    Isn’t the conventional wisdom is that the cheaper the power – the more we benefit – right?

    So, why don’t we have coal-plants without pollution equipment because then our power would be truly dirt cheap – and wind/solar would have no chance of competing?

    Why don’t we do that?

    or .. if we wanted to not pollute our cities and not pollute the Chesapeake Bay – why not move all of our power plants to the Eastern Shore and take off the pollution eqipment- which would be no further away than they are now – in the opposite direction and electricity would be dirt cheap?

  30. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Government makes poor decisions about technology. Look at Ethanol that has done nothing to reduce energy costs; probably creates more carbon emissions (assuming, arguendo, that they are evil) than gasoline; and has added significantly to inflation in food prices.

    What other horrors lie in the future for renewable energy, etc.? Government’s role is not to pick winners and losers, but to regulate to protect the public health, safety and welfare through the police power.

    Cap & Trade. How soon before Goldman Sachs and some creative Wall Street lawyers find a way to manipulate that market, just as what occurred with subprime mortgages and now commodities?

    I’m not against alternative energy sources or conservation. My wife just talked me into paying for half of her new Prius that’s on order. I’m constantly ragging everyone in my household to turn off lights and music, hibernate computers, etc. But the idea that the new wave is any more virtuous than the Enron Boys is incredible!

    TMT

    P.S. I agree with Groveton that the Hollywood types are grossly undertaxed. Congress should set a tax deductibility cap of $2 M on any payments made to artists.

  31. Accurate Avatar
    Accurate

    Larry – do you just like to argue? Yes, as of now and for the next one, two, maybe even five years coal is a cheaper source of power. However, the cost of producing power from coal has risen over the years and continues to rise. Why? Because of pollution controls as much as because of anything else – of course we can’t run internal combustion engines on coal plants so that is another issue. Back to the plants, between environmental issues (holes in the ground, pollution released when the coal is burned, etc) and the general cost of obtaining it (wages, insurance, safety, cost of fueling motor vehicles to transport it, etc) coal has become more and more expensive as an energy source. The time has come where the cost of producing energy from coal (all costs considered) makes the cost of producing energy from solar, wind and nuclear competitive. In your example you stripped away what has increased it’s costs and stripped away controls that the vast majority in the country would argue NOT be stripped away. Your argument was not based on facts as they are (meaning those pollution controls exist) but in a world where they didn’t exist. We do not live in a world of status quo, if we did we would still have mud roads with horse and buggy as our main modes of transportation (if we would have even come that far). Unlike EMR, I believe that we will find ways to live like we want to live, meaning SFH and some mode of individual transportation rather than his communal vision. Communal living has been around for a long time, some people like it, I don’t – EMR wants ALL of us to live that way no matter what. We do progress, I just hope that progress is NOT the vision that EMR has of it.

  32. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    not argue – better understand – understand one’s own position and understand others … and have more clarity overall…

    concurrence leads to change

    but will solar/wind come online after 5 years if Dominion builds a new coal plant and the State of Virginia guarantees that the ratepayers will pay for that plant over the next 25 years no matter what happens in the world of solar/wind?

    I agree with your analysis of wind/solar becoming comparatively cheaper as coal becomes more expensive and/or stricter pollution controls.

    and yes.. most folks are opposed to loosening pollution laws but they are also even more strongly influenced by higher electricity rates and that keeps us invested in dirty-coal power now – and into the future.

    I too am optimistic that we won’t have to live in dense multi-family structures without personal mobility and, in fact, I’d point out this.

    The people who will be in the best position to utilize wind/solar as technology advances and coal-powered electricity gets more expensive will probably be those folks in SFH – right?

    the folks who live in SFH with enough land to site solar panels..which could also charge their personal mobility plug-in electrics.

    I would think that the folks with the least options to personally benefit from wind/solar will be the folks who live in dense “shared” structures and “shared” vehicles…

    and if great numbers of the folks who live in SFH reduce their use of electricity – and the power plant must still be paid for – it will be the folks who cannot use solar who will get stuck with the rate increases.

    …and, in fact, if wind/solar make major breakthroughs such that a tidal wave of SFH buyers install wind/solar – those who live in dense settlement patterns will get stuck with the rate increases.

    and I’ll plug my idea about backup power once again…

    If you have a SFH and you have a backup power source – whether it be solar, wind or even a propane/natural gas generator and Dominion was able to “use” that power when you have excess – and they would pay you the going rate for it…you could end up with a LOWER electric bill.

  33. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Here’s a good read on the subject:

    ” Green Coal Baron?

    A charming and natty 60-year-old, Rogers is the chief executive of the electric company Duke Energy. But he has none of the macho, cowboy stolidity you might expect in an energy C.E.O. Instead, he lives to brainstorm. He spends more than half his time on the road, a perennial fixture at wonky gatherings like the Davos World Economic Forum and the Clinton Global Initiative, corralling “clean energy” thinkers and listening eagerly to their ideas. The day we met, he was brimming with enthusiasm for a new approach to solar power.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/magazine/22Rogers-t.html?scp=1&sq=green+coal&st=nyt

  34. Accurate Avatar
    Accurate

    Two items –
    First, in life there are trade offs. We vaccinate kids against diseases, a few kids actually get the diseases that we are trying to protect them from, in a very few cases some die. However so many are saved and are safe that we (as a society) are comfortable with the saved versus doomed ratio. Same with pollution controls, if by loosening controls we gained more energy at a cheaper price would that be worth an extra 3 parts per trillion of soot in the air??

    As for SFH, I’ve advocated before that homes be limited to a minimum 5 acre plot. You can raise some crops and some livestock on a plot that size, making you less dependent upon grocery stores. With all the incentives that are out to ‘go green’ you could add solar, wind and just use the utility as your backup (have some large batteries that store up to a day’s worth of energy). It can be done, but would be impossible in one of EMR’s villages. By the same token, if you want to live in one of EMR’s group living arraignments, you should have that right; but I dislike the way EMR seems to think that we should all live the way he thinks we should and that the rest of us are rather un-informed and we should pay through the nose while our taxes should subsidize the style of living that ERM advocates.

  35. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    geeze louise – we seem to have jumped the track here – subject-wise.

    In EMR’s defense – (I know this is HIGHLY irregular here in BR)…

    🙂

    he believes that excessive energy use AND pollution are the direct result of a system that essentially subsidizes – consumption.

    I essentially agree with him on that aspect but I don’t see how such monolithic changes in governance is the solution nor how such changes will every happen if there is not a single place in the world where such Governance changes even approach what they ought to me to achieve the results.

    However, since we ARE talking about Dominion and electric, as you have pointed out, many folks DO have the option of doing their own power and using Dominion as a backup but they do not.

    Why?

    Because, most folks want cheap power and on-site solar/wind/batteries/backup generators are not going to be cheaper than what you pay Dominion right now.

    That “cheap” (a relative term for sure) power is “expensive” in terms of impacts to the environment.

    You and I COULD reduce our impacts to the environment in a number of ways – either on or off grid.

    Smart Meters is one way since one of the biggest environmental impacts is the necessity of bring new plants online to meet peak power requirements.

    It’ not only costs 9 times more to generate peak power but the amount of damage done to the environment is accelerated when coal-power plants must run wide-open to meet peak demand.

    Smart Meters are a way to reduce demand and reduce environmental impacts.

    One could say that Smart meters are, in fact, VERY environmentally-friendly – a way for each of us to do our individual part to help reduce consumption and environmental damage.

    I favor, almost always, giving people options and not dictates.

    In this case, I would favor offering incentives for Smart Meters but certainly allowing folks to reject them, with the proviso, that when rates have to go up – that those without smart meters get the full increases and those with Smart meters do not – since they are doing their part to reduce the need for generating peak power and ultimately because pf peak-power demands – more power plants.

    I also wonder – if there is a choice between Dominion building new power plants …

    or using smart meters and having backup generators on homes with smart meters – that those generators could be used as “peaker” units instead of having to build more plants.

  36. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    yet another article – which, after reading, – makes me wonder about Dominion’s effort to build a new plant in Wise County – unless they are planning to take some older ones offline.

    “The end of coal?

    …environmental concerns, and expected federal regulations in the next year or two concerning carbon emissions, are killing dozens of proposed coal plants around the country.

    The major force stopping the construction of new coal plants is the near certainty of federal regulations that would limit carbon emissions and levy a charge for each ton produced, effectively making coal-generated power more expensive and nonpolluting energies, such as wind and solar, less so.

    [as has been discussed here]

    Plant developers are waiting to learn how low the limits and how high the charge will be to decide whether any particular coal plant could still make money in the “carbon-constrained” market, as the industry calls this new era.

    In February, big lenders including Citigroup Inc. and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. said that they have stopped financing coal plants that can’t prove that they will operate profitably under whatever new environmental restrictions come.

    Coal-fired projects are still being proposed and still being approved, even though the market is tougher now,” said Charlotte Wright, managing editor in Washington of Platts Coal Trader, an industry publication.

    The United States has the world’s largest coal reserves, 27 percent of the world’s total and a 250-year supply at the current rate of use,

    http://www.startribune.com/business/19033589.html

  37. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “You would not use those less polluting technologies if the cost of using them was greater than the cost of pollution prevented.”

    and how do you know the true extent and scope of the potential harm?”

    First, you have to accept the eidea that you do not want to use even good technologies if they cost more than the harm they are supposed to prevent.

    After that it is easy. All you have to do is be willing to look.

    If you are spending a lot of money to prevent lives from being lost and illnesses from happening, and can’t measure the benefit, maybe it is time to stop digging that particular hole.

    How do you know the true scope of harm? First you assume it proably isn’t infinite, because that will be obvious. That allows you to look for limits, realistically.

    Sometimes you will make mistakes – in both directions. In the past we made some pretty big ones, as you have indicated. But, having pushed that pendulum, we ought to at least be aware that it is possible to make equally large mistakes going in the other direction.

    RH

  38. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “How about you? Would you like to be next to a coal plant or a wind turbine?”

    The question is a false dichotomy.

    When was the last time you saw a coal plant fly off its foundation?

    There have been four catastropic turbine failues that I know of.

    I’d evaluate the risks and the costs of each on its own merits.

    RH

  39. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “But in terms of GENERATING electricity “

    You are limiting the argument to meet you rown needs. My argument is that you need to set a comprehensive system boundary or you are bound to get false answers/

    RH

  40. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “coal plants and urban areas don’t coexist very well…because of the enormous about of pollution that emanates from them.”

    Nonsense.

    Coal plants and urban areas don’t mix very well because that is where they have the votes to exclude them.

    Coal plants don’t go in urban areas because property there is expensive.

    Urban areas get the pollution anyway, but dilution does seem to be at least part of the solution.

    RH

  41. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “the changes that will occur will not result in disaster either – they actually will result in a more sustainable path IMHO.

    If we can operate a space station that keeps people alive for long periods of time on solar power”

    Do you have any idea what a space rated solar panel costs? There are farm or efficient that the 7 or 9% efficient commercial panels, but Believe me when I say that you would NOT think it was sustainable if you paid for electricity what the space station pays.

    RH

  42. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Wishful thinking is not a solution to our energy problems.”

    Or any of our other ones. There is a LOT of wishful thinking on this site, which I characterize as “we really can get something for nothing”.

    RH

  43. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “If you have a SFH and you have a backup power source – whether it be solar, wind or even a propane/natural gas generator and Dominion was able to “use” that power when you have excess – and they would pay you the going rate for it…you could end up with a LOWER electric bill.”

    We can really get something for nothing.

    Absolutely not. This is impossible. The only way you get a lower electric bill by selling back to the power company, is if you can generate power cheaper than they can.

    RH

  44. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “I agree with your analysis of wind/solar becoming comparatively cheaper as coal becomes more expensive and/or stricter pollution controls.

    and yes.. most folks are opposed to loosening pollution laws but they are also even more strongly influenced by higher electricity rates and that keeps us invested in dirty-coal power now – and into the future.”

    I don’t understand why you can’t see the fallacy in this.

    In the first sentence, the operative word is comparatively. Stricter pollution controls make solar comparatively less expensive. But they make electricity MORE expensive. Always. And the more you spend on electricity the less you can do in other evironmental efforts.

    We stay invested in dirty coal because it is cheaper – even including the cost of the dirt, and the damage caused by it.

    RH

  45. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Why would you NOT use wind or solar if their OPERATION produces less mercury than burning coal?”

    Same answer. You would not use wind or solar if the OPERATION costs more than burning coal and dealing with the mercury.

    If you do that, you are wasting money you could have spent better on something else. Presumably something that costs less to clean up after than mercury.

    The only reason you WOULD do that is if you were convinced that the cost of mercury was so high you could afford wind/solar.

    As you point out, those costs ARE in the public domain. They ALREADY use large margins of safety. To arbitrarily set them higher in the absence of knowledge, just so you can “afford” wind/solar would be an environmental abomination.

    RH

  46. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Wind costs ten times as much as nukes, and even costs more to OPERATE.

    http://remittanceman.blogspot.com/2008/06/wind-power-numptiness.html

    Not to mention storage or back up.

    RH

  47. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    The costs of cleaning up the nutrient damage to the Chesapeake Bay is conservatively estimated at a billion dollars a year – if we don’t stop them from being released at the source… continuous cleanup

    that’s $400 a year per household.

    the costs of cleaning up mercury – to the point where fish are safe to eat would be far more.

    Both of these costs – we don’t pay right now – a clear subsidy for coal.

    re: peak power and gas vs coal plants.

    good point! and do agree.

    but to this point – even in California – no rate structure has succeeded in cutting peak usage – until now – with the advent of Smart Meters.

    when we “solve” the problem of peak power and rush hour congestion – we’ll be on our way to nirvana for sure.

  48. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “I don’t understand why you can’t see the fallacy in this.

    In the first sentence, the operative word is comparatively. Stricter pollution controls make solar comparatively less expensive. But they make electricity MORE expensive. Always. And the more you spend on electricity the less you can do in other evironmental efforts.”

    the more money that you spend on electricity – when that “more” money is spent to restrict pollution to lower levels –

    you ARE spending money for a better environment

    correct?

    what is it about this that is a fallacy?

    the “crossover” point is reached ..when it costs MORE to clean-up coal pollution than it costs to generate electricity from wind/solar.

    Are coal plants that emit no more pollution than solar/wind going to be more or less expensive?

    If wind/solar beat coal on pollution don’t we benefit by having less polluted rivers, bays, and air quality?

    Why would creating electricity from solar/wind be a “bad” thing if we save money from having to be spent on clean-up?

  49. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “If wind/solar beat coal on pollution don’t we benefit by having less polluted rivers, bays, and air quality?”

    Not if what you spend on wind/solar costs more than the benefit of having less polluted environment is worth.

    If it isn’t a NET bebefit, it isn’t a benefit. The people who issued the power plant licenses were supposed to take the costs of pollution into account.

    If you believe we can always benefit by having less pollution then you beleive we can spend an infinite amount on wind/solar without regard to cost.

    “After accounting for the oil, natural gas and electricity that go into its production, an extra billion gallons per year of corn ethanol yields the net energy equivalent of only 14,000 barrels per day of oil–the amount we get from a single, highly-productive deepwater oil well.

    A 3.5 MW wind turbine delivers, on average, as much electricity as could be generated by 230,000 cubic feet per day of natural gas. It takes 300 such turbines to produce as much energy as the least productive of the top 100 US gas fields.

    Replacing the energy content of current US net imports of petroleum and natural gas would require the equivalent of an extra 837 billion gallons per year of ethanol and 55,000 large wind turbines.

    Cut these figures in half to account for the potential contribution of conservation and energy efficiency, and they are still overwhelming, without a substantial contribution from additional conventional energy supplies.”

    That’s 55,000 wind turbines just to replace impoted oil. We haven’t even considered replacing coal yet.
    Thats 20 wind turbines per county. And you think siting cell towers was a hassle?

    RH

  50. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Why would creating electricity from solar/wind be a “bad” thing if we save money from having to be spent on clean-up?”

    It would be a bad thing if you spent more on creating solar/wind than the cleanup would have cost.

    You need to set an allowable release limit based on the cost of damages it causes. Then you can figure out how much it costs to meet that release limit. Then you can figure out if solar/wind is cheaper.

    But you cannot say that solar/wind would be cheaper if you only raised the pollution standard, because the pollution standard is based on the costs the pollution cuases. If you just raise the standards arbitrarily, you are claiming the damage costs are higher than they are.

    This is a fraudulent claim and it means that some stkeholder somewhere is paying for something he isn’t getting, or paying more than he should.

    RH

  51. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Both of these costs – we don’t pay right now “

    Of course we pay them now. You just don’t like the currency.

    cost of electricity = cost of generation + cost of pollution damages + cost of preventing pollution.

    Or,

    Cost of electricty = cost of (coal,gas, oil, solar, wind) generation + cost of (coal,gas, oil, solar, wind) damages + cost of preventing (coal,gas, oil, solar, wind) damages.

    If the cost of solar/wind generation is more than the cost of the damages and cleanup costs it prevents, then our total costs go up, and there is no benefit.

    What you are saying is that we can just reset the equation so that the coal damages are higher than they are, or the coal cleanup costs are higher than they are: then we can “afford” to spend more on wind/solar.

    But claiming the coal damages are higher than they are is an exercise in fantasy.

    RH

  52. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Are coal plants that emit no more pollution than solar/wind going to be more or less expensive?”

    They are going to be a lot more expensive than the plants we have now. They might still be less expensive than wind/solar.

    So what?

    The point is that using either technology will be more expensive and result in less damage from pollution.

    You would not want to use either technology to reduce $1 in pollution damges if it costs you $100 in generation costs.

    You might actually WANT to do that. You might even CHOOSE to do that. But you could NOT claim a public benefit for doing so, because you would be paying more for the cleanup than it was worth.

    RH

Leave a Reply

Read More