The Latest Salvos in the Energy War

Jul 8, 2008

—

Wise County coal plant:

The Wise Energy Coalition for Virginia has vowed to fight in court the construction of Dominion’s hybrid energy plant in Wise County. Although Dominion has obtained needed approvals from the State Corporation Commission and Air Pollution Control board, opponents say they intend to challenge the legality of the air pollution permits on the grounds that they do no require Dominion to curb carbon dioxide emissions.

Last week a state judge invalidated an air pollution permit for a planned coal-fired plant in Georgia because the permit established no carbon dioxide limits. The judge relied upon a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allows carbon dioxide to be regulated as a pollutant, reports the Roanoke Times. But the federal government has yet to issue such regulations.The environmental battle against coal is gaining momentum. The Coalition notes approvingly on its website that New York’s Attorney General started an investigation of Dominion, “questioning whether the company adequately disclosed investor risks associated with new coal-fired power plants.” If built, Dominion’s proposed coal-fired power plant would worsen global warming, accelerate mountain-top removal coal mining, encourage the construction of new transmission lines and further pollution Virginia’s air, land and waters.

Offshore drilling: Meanwhile, General Assembly Republicans are still pushing offshore drilling. Although Democrats have killed an offshore drilling bill on the Senate side, Republicans pushed a measure, HB 6006, through the House Rules Committee in a 12-3 vote. The bill would dedicate future revenues and royalties from offshore drilling to Virginia’s Transportation Trust Fund.

The Virginian-Pilot covers the issues here.

Share this article

(comments below)

Comments

Anonymous

July 8, 2008

“The environmental battle against coal is gaining momentum. “

Less coal, more nukes. Yipppeee!

RH

Log in to Reply
Larry Gross

July 9, 2008

I see nukes as necessary “bridge” technology -with some major downsides but we’re almost to the point of a Sophi’s Choice.

I don’t buy the “wind & solar can’t do it” proposition.

We have thousands of miles of shoreline… hundreds of thousands of miles of power-line rights-of-way, road rights-of-way, and other opportunities…

more expensive – in dollars – yes.. if you consider mercury pollution and nuke waste as “free”.

There is no way – we’ll be able to NOT use coal and nukes for a long, long time but at some point – we need to start a transition – especially for coal.

we keep hearing about ‘clean coal” technology.

You wanna know why we don’t do ‘clean coal”?

It’s because, it will cost MORE than solar/wind……

that should tell us something…about the future of coal…

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 9, 2008

Larry:

Even the most optimistic plans see wind and solar as providing 20% penetration. At most. And that is for physical reasons not cost reasons. You cannot propose a solution that violates physics, whether you buy it or not.

That means you still need 60% or more of something else for base load and back up.

“You wanna know why we don’t do ‘clean coal”?

It’s because, it will cost MORE than solar/wind……”

Clean coal will cost more than some solar wind. But if you try to go to 100% solar/wind you will find out it is MUCH more expensive than the best coal technology.

You can of course demand absolutely clean coal in which case the cost will approach infinity. Then, at some point, Solar/wind will be cheaper.

Unless you demand the SAME level of cleanliness from Solar/wind. Then, with a level paying field demanding infinite cleanliness there will ALWAYS be some trade off that provides the lowest total cost given the required limitations.

The real question is whether the limitations are worth what they cost. If we ARTIFICIALLY set the clean coal requirements so high that they amount to setting an Infinite cost for each case of mercury poisoning prevented, just so you can “afford” solar/wind, then we are missing the point.

You cannot afford to do clean coal if it costs more than the damage it prevents.

You ALSO cannot afford to do clean coal if Solar/wind is less expensive.

SOME solar/wind will be less expensive than SOME coal, but if you try to do 100% solar/wind, you may very well find that it is more expensive than even the most expensive clean coal.

It all depends on the value of the damage you prevent, in the end, so THAT is where you need to concentrate the cost analysis.

We have not been drilling in the cosatal zones to prevent environmental damage. Suddenly we find that the cost of preventing that damage has gone way up, and so more people are arguing in favor of offshore drilling.

When enough people favor that, we will get a political answer to a question that might be answered analytically. The political answer might be the wrong answer.

Factoid: Some wind installations generate 90% of their power during only 15% of the available time. That is because the power increases with the square of the winds velocity.

The wind blows a little bit most of the time, but if you want to average out that power curve, you need to square the number of turbines you think you will need.

Instead of 5500 turbines to equal the Wise plant capacity you need 30,250,000 in oder to equal the common base laod realiably. It won’t do you much good to equal the plant capacity with turbines if you only have electricity 15% of the time.

RH

Log in to Reply
Larry Gross

July 9, 2008

I’m not convinced that we physically don’t have the footprint for wind/solar.

Anyone who has driven or boated for a couple of weeks knows the vast expanses of land, coastline, and shallow ocean that we have.

VAST.. VAST areas

I think I saw something that we could power the US from an area the size of TEXAS or similar.

but just think of the roads alonge that we drive everyday. Right now the R/W carries ubiquitous electricity and telecommunications… what’s do keep the from also being used for wind and solar?

Money… more than anything else – right?

but I would appreciate any links that purport to show otherwise with respect to physical footprint.

I’m also not convinced that wind or solar will every come close to the pollution levels of anything that is burned.

There is a reason why fossil-fuel burning plants and cars have smokestacks and tailpipes and wind/solar do not.

There is absolutely no reason why the production of solar could not be a closed system that captures any waste generated.

I think what will happen is that wind/solar/tide generation will get cheaper and much more energy efficient versions will come to the fore – along with battery technology – at the same time – the cost of burning fossil fuels keeps going up.

It has already started – will accelerate when oil hits $200 a barrel and hybrid autos morph to plug-ins….

Once we get the battery technology, people will ask why those same batteries could not be used to power a home with wind/solar are not available.

Coal and Gasoline and natural gas/propane will still be used – they’ll be the “ultimate” back-up fuel…..but very expensive.

Both homes and cars will have the backup but again.. it will be so expensive as to be the equivalent of burning dollar bills…

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 9, 2008

“I’m not convinced that we physically don’t have the footprint for wind/solar.”

What good is the footprint, if you can’t afford to fill it? My farm has a bigger footprint than I can use: I have to limit my farming in order to limit my losses.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 9, 2008

For one thing, the Bureau of Land Management has put a two year hold on exploiting any more public lands for solar or wind.

If those generators have to actually buy the land they will use, it is going to change the cost considerably. And what public entity would miss the chance for new revenue (Free – No Cost) from leasing out their assets?

I agree we have plenty of land. I don’t think that is the problem. Solar only works in daylight, unless you ae going to transmit electricity around the world, or go to satellites.

Wind produces much of its energy in short bursts.

“I’m also not convinced that wind or solar will every come close to the pollution levels of anything that is burned.”

You are only considering the actual operation, in which cae I agree. Even considering the embedded energy, a wind turbine repays the cost pretty fast.

But:

Silicon Tetrachloride is pretty toxic. When we start mass producing solar cells we will need something like Iron Mountain to contain it all.

Noise pollution and dead flying animals have a cost.

And now we will have to drive all over those vast expanses to maintain that equipment and put up all the transmission lines to deliver the product.

You assume that battery technology will take a giant leap. I assume that chemical quantm phyisics remain the same. It takes a certain mass to store a certain number of free electrons, and there is energy waste in the form of heat in charging and discharging. Batteries will improve, but they are not magic.

I’m also not convinced that wind or solar will every come close to the pollution levels of anything that is burned, but that isn’t the point.

Wind and solar is going to coast more money. If it costs more than the cost of cleaning up coal as much as we can plus the cost of living with the rest, then wind and solar is a bad deal. Economically AND Environmentally.

I know that is hard to swallow, but pie in the sky what-ifs won;t change the bottom line.

We may very well wind up doing just as you say, but it could also be a very bad idea to do so.

RH

Log in to Reply
Larry Gross

July 9, 2008

FYI – “BLM director reverses solar moratorium on public lands”

http://www.idahostatesman.com/235/story/436939.html

I would expect the government to get a cut of some kind but isn’t it a bit ridiculous to talk on one hand about drilling for oil on public lands and offshore.. and not using the same footprints for relatively non-polluting energy generation?

You know when you get right down to it.. we’re talking about money.

right?

and it’s cheaper to generate energy from polluting technologies than non-polluting technologies.

The manufacturing angle is another sham…

It PRESUMES that manufacturing wind or solar technology is more polluting than manufacturing coal or nuke technology.

Isn’t this just an assumed assertion without any real proof?

This is about money – pure an simple.

It’s “cheaper” to have sulfur, nitrogen and mercury deposition than to not have it…..

On one hand we talk about the billions that will be required to clean up the Chesapeake Bay – as if that is a separate cost – not associated with the technologies that cause the pollution.

If we every included that cost of cleaning up the Bay and Rivers- in the electric bills ..that we pay.. how would that affect the money equation?

We’re not talking about pristine here – we’re only talking about what it would take to return the Bay to a healthy state – still with pollution – but pollution that does not render it as damaged as it is now.

We subsidize electricity with pollution and then we pretend that the cleanup costs should not be incorporated into the bills for electricity.

Log in to Reply
Not Ed Risse

July 9, 2008

Solar might do it sooner than anyone realizes.

Check out this article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23464740/

“PHOENIX – A Spanish company is planning to take 3 square miles of desert southwest of Phoenix and turn them into one of the largest solar power plants in the world….
…the energy produced, estimated to be enough to supply up to 70,000 homes at full capacity.”

or this article:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/environment/2008-03-26-solar-energy-california_N.htm

“Southern California Edison plans to announce Thursday what it says will be the largest solar installation in the USA, spending $875 million to put 250 megawatts of solar energy on more than 100 buildings in the greater Los Angeles area.
The systems will cover 65 million square feet of rooftops and supply enough power to serve about 162,000 homes.”

Then do the math.

Utilizing 1.6 % of the land area of Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico and approximately 2 trillion dollars (using the technology in the first example) every house in the United States could be 100% solar powered.

Here is the math on land area involved:

130,000,000 homes / 70,000 homes powered per 3 square mile solar plant = 1,857 solar plants x 3 = 5,571 square miles which is 1.6 % of the 346,166 square miles of land area of Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico.

The second method would cost less and take less area.

For less than the cost of the Gulf Wars we could have….

What are we waiting for?

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 9, 2008

Taking a break from their usual efforts to keep campaign contributions from developers flowing, the Fairfax County BoS has decided to make it easier for residents to turn their backyards into wind farms.

EMPOWERING CITIZENS TO FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING: WIND TURBINES AND SOLAR PANELS (1 p.m.)
With reference to his written Board Matter on the subject, Chairman Connolly said that recently constituents contacted his office to ask about bureaucratic barriers to the installation of residential wind turbines and solar panels on their properties. These devices can play a significant role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. A residential wind turbine, for example, that costs between $6,000 and $22,000 can reduce 200 tons of greenhouse gases and over a ton of other pollutants over its lifetime. Unfortunately, these citizens have encountered a couple of hurdles in their efforts to fight global warming. County Zoning requirements for accessory structures and setbacks would force citizens installing a wind turbine to go before the Board of Zoning Appeals to get approval for a reduction in setback requirements. Although the County provides tax incentives to install solar panels, many Homeowners Associations (HOAs) prohibit the installation of solar panels in their covenants. Because both wind turbines and solar panels can reduce emissions, and because citizens have demonstrated an interest in using these technologies, the County should eliminate red tape that is preventing them from helping to fight global warming.
Chairman Connolly moved that the Board direct staff to:

• Prepare a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to de-classify wind turbines and towers associated therewith as accessory structures and undertake to eliminate hurdles to installing wind turbines.

• Explore legislation for the General Assembly to address HOAs’ covenants that prevent the installation of solar panels, and report to the Board’s Legislative Committee with recommendations.

Supervisor Foust and Supervisor Hudgins jointly seconded the motion.
Following discussion, Supervisor Gross asked unanimous consent that the Board direct staff to:

• Examine any noise impacts of wind turbines.

• Solicit input from HOAs.

Without objection, it was so ordered.
Following a brief discussion, Chairman Connolly asked to amend his motion to direct staff to also include the proposed amendment on the agenda of the Board’s Environmental Committee, and this was accepted.
Vice-Chairman Bulova relinquished the Chair to Acting-Chairman Hyland and asked unanimous consent that the Board direct staff to circulate information on the County’s tax incentive program for the installation of solar panels. Without objection, it was so ordered.
Acting-Chairman Hyland returned the gavel to Vice-Chairman Bulova.
The question was called on the motion, as amended, which carried by unanimous vote.

At least they decided to look into the noise affects of wind turbines and to talk to the HOAs.

Give me the Descendants of Pocahontas any day. Their common sense has not yet be displaced my massive egos.

TMT

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 9, 2008

“It PRESUMES that manufacturing wind or solar technology is more polluting than manufacturing coal or nuke technology.”

I don’t make any presumptions other than you look at both systems on an equivalent full basis, from cradle to grave.

I figure that manufacturing a turbine is pretty much the same, no matter how you drive it. But if you need a lot more turbines to get the same effective work……..

“and it’s cheaper to generate energy from polluting technologies than non-polluting technologies.”

I never said that. All I said was that the total cost = the cost of generation + cost of pollution avoidance + cost of pollution not avoided.

Do that for wind and the cost of pollution avoidance is lower because you have nor bag houses or precipitators but it has some other upper costs like driving all over the place for maintenance and building a lot more stuff we have not recognized. The cost of pollution not avoided is much smaller, because you don;t have anything to ecape the bag houses and precipitators that you dont have. But the cost of generation will be higher, by quite a bit.

Add up all those things and you get one number. Do the same thing for coal plants and you get another number. In this case the costs include the costs for all the asthma, global warming effects (for that plant only, not the total cost of all global warming) etc. Then you get a different number. If you think the cost of pollution not avoided has a very high cost, then wind will be cheaper.

Unless you make a mistake on assigning those costs. I that happens coal is cheaper, but you just don’t know it. Same goes for the other direction: if you estimate those costs too low, then Coal will appear cheaper, but you will be wrong.

The actual damage can be JUST AS BIG EITHER WAY. So you need to get those cost estimates right.

“Failure to capture external costs or benefits, by definition, results in an inefficient allocation of resources. To alleviate the inefficiency, a price for the externality has to be established.”

And you need to get those costs right, or you make a big, big mistake.

AND it makes a difference whether you are talking capital costs or operating costs, because high capital costs will have to be amortized.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 9, 2008

“It’s “cheaper” to have sulfur, nitrogen and mercury deposition than to not have it…..”

I never said that, and I don;t believe it. But there are costs associated with hving pollutants AND costs associated with preventing or cleaning up after. If the costs of prevention are very high, the cost of having some level of pollutants WILL BE lower.

It is a question of cost of cleanup AND what level of pollutant. Infinitely clean means essentially infinite costs.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 9, 2008

“If we every included that cost of cleaning up the Bay and Rivers- in the electric bills ..that we pay.. how would that affect the money equation?”

Not all the cost of cleaning up the bay is atributable to electricity production. it is certainly not attributable to THE NEXT plant we build.

What you are doing here is the same problem you have with charging developer for new infrastructure. You ignore what already happened in the past.

Yes, we have Bay damage. That cost is already included in the total cost of the low price energy we once enjoyed.

You cannot rationally apply the historical cleanup costs to a new plant and use that to justify solar/wind. You can demand that the new plant have best avalable technology, and you can (politically) set the price for bay damage at whatever you want. But if you are wrong, you are wrong: the real price for that damage is whatever it is. You might as well figure out what it is and get it right. Otherwise you are making a multibillion dollar decision based on conjecture.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 9, 2008

“We’re not talking about pristine here – we’re only talking about what it would take to return the Bay to a healthy state – still with pollution – but pollution that does not render it as damaged as it is now.”

Now you have the idea. First thing you have to do is go off and get a consensus form all the environmental groups, fishermen, etc. as to how clean is that. What is the standard of pollution we will accept. or maybe even the range we will accept.

After you decide how clean is clean, the rest starts getting a LOT easier.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 9, 2008

“if higher gas prices reduce the need for road spending due to less cars being used, we can look to France or Germany as models. “

At last, something we can agree on.

“Of course, you’d have to spend a lot more on transit ACROSS the state to get there.”

Agreed again.

What I think is that you wind up like France and Germany. Higher taxes, lower economic production, less convenient and useful transportation at a higher overall cost.

But, you have wide and deep transit, and less pollution, maybe. French and Germans seem to get by, I guess we could too.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 9, 2008

Yep, I’m aware of all those big solar plans. I had big plans myself, once.

It is still goping to take a long time and I don’t see 100% conversion happening for a long, long time.

I’m pretty sure it is outside my event horizon.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 9, 2008

“Utilizing 1.6 % of the land area of Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico and approximately 2 trillion dollars (using the technology in the first example) every house in the United States could be 100% solar powered.”

What do you do at night?

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 9, 2008

For less than the cost of the gulf war we could have damn near anything, but we all have our priorities…..

How did this one get set?

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 9, 2008

And don’t forget to ask about liability when one of those wind turbine tears itself apart.

If the thing costs $10,000 and reduces 200 tons of co2, thats only $50 a ton. Pretty good deal. you could sell the credits on the European market and almost get electricity for free.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 10, 2008

While there are logical arguments in favor of a cap & trade system, the system will be manipulated by speculators. There should be a prohibition against the sale, lease or trade of any credits by any entity or person not engaged in CO2 emissions. Dominion can buy and sell them, as can GM. But Goldman Sachs cannot. Similarly, the trading market adminstrator should be a nonprofit.

We need to reward those who make useful things and provide quality services and not those who gamble on market trends without also making something or providing services. Any country where speculators and gamblers make 40% of all profits is heading down fast.

TMT

Log in to Reply
floodguy

July 10, 2008

At 3:06 PM, Not Ed Risse

Compare your scenario with the entire nation’s workforce located in the same area of land. Each an every morning, all those people will need to jump into their preferred source of transportation and travel across the nation. Most would travel by roads toward the east to the midwest and to the east coast. Massive highways would be required, airline industry and airports massively expanded.

Similarly with your scenario, massive extra high-voltage powerlines would have to be constructed which would more than triple your cost figures.

A plan such as that can’t be imagined until after the turn of the century.

Today in 2008, we are merely entering our the transition period in this clean energy revolution. The first substantial fruits of this endeavor will not have a true impact until the year 2025-2030. During this transition period, a mix of every solution is required throughout different regions of the nation. As an example, Virginia isn’t the southwest (solar), its isn’t the upper midwest (wind) and it isn’t eastern Canada (tidal), so currently because of market & economic realities, such renewable resources are lower on the list of available solutions. What we do have here in Virginia is, coal, nuclear, gas, and one of the lowest investments in EEC in the nation. Thankfully, Dominion is plowing $600 million into the grid to capitalize on the wasted resources the gird now offers. This proposal will be one of several such investments to make our state grid more intelligent. When that is accomplished, the feasibility of implementing more intermittent renewables resources will be more marketable. Also by that time the entire grid is made over, distributed resources such as such as pv solar roofing and plug-ins autos will increase and become more common in powering the grid.

Until this cleaner energy model (the smart grid) is a reality, the transition period requires all solutions be implemented.

Log in to Reply
floodguy

July 10, 2008

@ Larry

Regarding clean coal tech, don’t be surprise if CCS arrives sooner rather than later. It appears the technology is here, but currently the costs makes its use prohibitive. However, in Germany & Poland that doesn’t appear to be the case. In those countries, the resources are more limited which equates to higher overall prices. CCS technology therefore, isn’t quite a stretch. Two demonstration projects involving large coal power plants will be retrofitted with new technology to capture C02. Also, power plant design modification will be made to increase the generator’s efficiency. Your typical coal generator is about 35% efficient. Proposals are now being signed to bring efficiency ratings up to 50% or more. For every 1% increase in a plant’s efficiency, decrease C02 emmissions by 2%. Thus the cost to scrub and capture C02 is decreased. This projection completion is expected by 2011-12.

Secondly, the technology application might be expensive, but again, like nuclear, coal plant operation which generates electricity is very cheap. Over the course of the powerplants life, the price will still be very competitive since the power is reliable.

What is far too often overlooked is that intermittent renewables, especially here in the east, require major investments to make reliable those resources. A wind generator who intends to sell power, considers both the profit margin and the duration of those profits. Hence most generators seek long term power agreements. W/o such arrangement, the price paid for intermittent power resources, would not fetch a great deal on the market because its unreliable. Once a smarter grid is implemented, the reliability can be share thru EEC/demand response, lessening the role gas backup would have.

The bottomline is, our utility needs a more intelligent grid to marry EEC/demand response with gas to make intermittent resources reliable. This in turn makes wind more marketable and profitable, since a more intelligent grid, will allow for intermittent resources to be sited farther from their most geographically preferred (higher efficient) locations.

Log in to Reply
Larry Gross

July 10, 2008

I’m not sure how much should be expected from any company that is essentially protected from innovative competitors.

Why should we expect any investor-owned monopoly enterprise to take a leadership role in something that does not enhance their own bottom line?

Their business model, the health of their enterprise is based on consumption – not conservation or even efficiency if efficiency results in lower consumption.

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 10, 2008

TMT:

Speculators play a valuable role in markets.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?source=hptextfeature&story_id=11670357

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/29/AR2008062901479.html

http://www.newsweek.com/id/143786

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2008/07/07/080707ta_talk_surowiecki

RH

Log in to Reply
floodguy

July 10, 2008

Larry said
“Why should we expect any investor-owned monopoly enterprise to take a leadership role in something that does not enhance their own bottom line?

Their business model, the health of their enterprise is based on consumption – not conservation or even efficiency if efficiency results in lower consumption”

That’s the beauty of EEC. Investments in EEC to obtain resources from existing capacity, which is previously wasted and lost, can be sold to customers. The result is less capital expeditures for increase sales, and a ratio more profitable than any other utility investment for added resources, renewable, coal or nuclear. Moreover, Dominion has put this in writing.

Log in to Reply
Larry Gross

July 10, 2008

floodguy – how about a short primer on EEC?

thanks

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 10, 2008

Efficiency results in lower prices, and therefore MORE consumption. This paradox has a name, which I have forgotten.

Listen to what Floodguy says:

Investments in EEC essentially pay people for preventing waste, like paying people to take car pools. We can sometimes do that for less than creating new generating capacity, but we are not really going to save anything because we are going to turn around and sell it to other customers anyway.

What you are doing is brokering or speculating in people property rights: the right to use electricity.

It is a perfectly valid business model for what it is, but what it isn’t is a new way to create electricity from nothing.

RH

Log in to Reply
floodguy

July 10, 2008

Larry, for starters check out Xcel Energy. This is their $300 million Smartgrid initiative for Boulder, Co. On this webpage a video half way down is worth watching.

http://www.xcelenergy.com/XLWEB/CDA/0,3080,1-1-1_15531_43141_46932-39884-0_0_0-0,00.html

Another more thorough and current source is http://www.smartgridnews.com/

Federal initiatives were started thru EPAct 2005 and expanded in EISA 2007 section xiii.

Dominion’s press release about its $600 mill EEC investment is in sync with all of this.

Log in to Reply
floodguy

July 10, 2008

RH the premise of your statement is wrong. There is no tampering with anyone’s rights. Under a fully implement smart grid, customers will have the choice. They can use electricity as they always have been, or they can conserve and/or defer more of their usage for off-peak. This type of consuming behavior is beneficial to everyone, including the customer’s pocketbook. Pricing is still being studied but eventually the model will undoubtedly change to a more dynamic scheme. Real-time pricing based on real costs for on and off peak usage will create clear financial incentives for all types of customers, and allow the utility to serve more customers w/ less costly investments in grid expansion. It will also behove customers to eventually upgrade their building and household appliances with smart technology which will allow them to communicate with the local utility at their choosing.

This model will also incentivize customers to add their co-generating resources to the grid, such as a plug-in vehicle or pv solar roofing.

This may seem like a pipedream, but Dominion’s proposal is no small financial commitment and is a large step into that “fantasy land”. I suspect we will have a fully implemented smart grid by the year 2025-2030.

Whatever the criticism you may find with this so-called “scheme”, when it comes to supplying more customers with what they want, investments made in EEC resources will deliver those services more cheaply, cleaner, and more quickly than any other investment in any other resource, renewable, nuclear or fossil fuel. Furthermore, EEC doesn’t require the condemnation or devalue public or private property, it doesn’t obstruct viewsheds, seashores, it doesn’t affect avian and chiropterian species 😉 , nor does it affect sea vessel or military row’s; EEC doesn’t disturb the land, the air nor the climate.

And if you question the amount of resources available, which to make the effort worthwhile, keep in mind the state grid of Virginia is rank in the high 40’s out of 50ths in terms of EEC investments over the past decade. The resource savings potential is quite large, in fact, I would bet Dominion considers such resources not only the lowest fruit, but the most ample, and most doable, over the next 3 decades.

” It is a perfectly valid business model for what it is, but what it isn’t is a new way to create electricity from nothing.”

While EEC isn’t anything new, it is clearly a vast improvement of what you used to know it as. This isn’t the 1970’s anymore.

With electricity rates entering a long-term upward trend due to a variety of factors, EEC is the clearly the smartest and most effective use of utility $ moving forward.

When the price of carbon is eventually filtered into energy rates, a more intelligent grid will allow the implementation of renewable resources farther away from their most preferred geographic regions. Hence a pilot start for a huge mid-Atlantic offshore wind and wave generation farm is just over the horizon.

Read what Dominion says about its $600 mill proposal. When the application is made public when filed at the SCC, we’ll learn the details. But for now, no leftist environmentalist or skeptical blowhard should complain about this in my opinion.

http://www.dom.com/news/elec2008/pr0619.jsp

Log in to Reply
Larry Gross

July 10, 2008

Thanks, floodguy… good stuff.. but I did have a bit of a problem understanding because they start off talking about all the benefits and are fairly vague about how they actually accomplish the benefits.

so I was a bit reassured when I got to Wiki and they said:

“This article or section is written like an advertisement.
Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view.”

🙂

RH’s issue is that he considers the current status quo business models for electricity (and roads and other things)to be a “right” that cannot be changed without altering his “rights”.

So.. for instance, if Dominion Power is not currently charging higher rates for peak power usage, then a change to start charging more for peak power would then be tantamount to “stealing” existing “rights” (of NOT paying peak-hour power rates).

I think I got this right but I’m sure he will correct me if I got it wrong.

The “Smart Grid” is much more than peak-hour pricing… and I’m a bit perplexed as to how.. folks like Dominion don’t already use computer networks and automated balancing mechanisms to coordinate their power production sources…

I would think that most of us would expect them to coordinate their loading and distribution, etc.

..but at the end user level – “smart grid” is where the power company .. could cycle power to appliances like water heaters, air conditioners, etc..and I can tell you right now. there are more than a few folks around who will not like this idea….

.. but the way to implement it would be to offer a lower price for power for those that accept this “power management” function or more likely, in the context of a rate increase – offer a way to not get hit with the full increase.

and as I have said before, my own power provider, REC ALREADY does a limited version of this – as we have a “black” (actually grey) box with a light on it installed on our water heater.

If the light burns bright – it means the water heater is getting full power. If it blinks, it means that power saving mode is on.

Now .. I don’t know if it means that the water heater gets no power at all for some period of time or whether it is “cycled”… on while other’s are “cycled” off.. round-robin style.

HOWEVER.. at the end of the day – I still have the same question.

How does this benefit a company like Dominion whose profit is tied to how much power they sell – AND they are allowed to tack on additional fuel charges if they have to provide peak power?

Why would Dominion not just continue to provide as much power as people want to use – making their standard profit on it?

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 10, 2008

Where did I suggest tampering? All I said was you get paid for conservation. And I didn’t use the word Scheme anywhere.

Don’t assume I’m not on your side.

So they pay you to save and sell the power to someone else who pays more.

Then, the “saved energy” gets sold to someone else anyway. Sounds like a plan to me.

How is a plug in vehicle a cogenerating system?

Real-time pricing based on real costs for on and off peak usage will charge us more for electricity when we need it most.

Then I can take my expensive PV panels and sell power back to the grid when the grid needs it least and I get paid little.

Instead of paying money for Domnion’s capital equipment I ay money for my own capital equipment, which I have to maintain and insure. And since my equipment is not as efficient as theirs, how am I supposed to see this as a savings?

Pricing is still being studied: that’s what I said, we are negotiating property rights.

When it comes to supplying more customers with what they want what I want is consistent power at a predictable price. I want it when I want it, and I don’t want to have to enter arbitrage to find out what the price is going to be. I’m really not too interested in speculating on the cost of my shower.

“Furthermore, EEC doesn’t require the condemnation or devalue public or private property….disturb the land, the air nor the climate”.

This is the something for nothing argument – again. EEC is fine, but it costs money and it does not produce anything new. PLEASE DON’T TRY TO CON ME.

It is a perfectly valid business model for what it is, but what it isn’t is a new way to create electricity from nothing. They could not create electicity from nothing in the 1970’s, either. Coudn’t then, and cannot now.

Look. I don’t have anything against EEC, but when I read these arguments it is like watching Laurel and Hardy: I howl with laughter.

I don’t have anything against renewables, conervation or pollution prevention. Buyt I simply cannot stomach any huckster, environmental or otherwise, who tries to tell me this is free, or will save money.

THOSE THINGS ALL COST MONEY. Now, if you can show me in dollars and cents how much it costs me, how much it saves me and when, then we can talk. otherwise it is just hot air.

I am on your side, but I demand really good arguments.

I will be happy to buy a PV system from you, but when you come to the door, you had better have the numbers down pat, and an Ironclad promise from Vepco, pre-signed permission from the HOA and the zoning board, engineering to show it won’t become airborne and rip my roof off, and anything else I can think of between now and pipe dream time.

I could care less about an intelligent grid, at least until I can see some intelligent arguments.

Sure, MAYBE I can reduce electical use by 20%, but I don’t think I can do it with the same level of service as I have now. And if I have to pay more to put in this smart grid, and still more for powe when I need it, I can easily see this more or less forced 20% savings as costing me MORE MONEY.

Now, what was it about what I said that was wrong? They psy for conservation, and sell the power saved to someone else, right?

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 10, 2008

“RH’s issue is that he considers the current status quo business models for electricity (and roads and other things)to be a “right” that cannot be changed without altering his “rights”.”

Not exactly. I am paying for certain things. Other people think I should be paying for different things.

I don’t see that the things they want me to pay for have as much value to me, as they have to them. So if they want me to do something they want, the usual deal is for them to pay me. If they want to pay me to car pool, I’ll be happy to.

On the other hand, I am not obdurate. They might actually come up with something that I see as valuable, and that I’m willing to pay for. Even be an early adopter.

Toyota did that for me with the Prius. (and people “paid” me to do it by lettng me in the car pool lane.)

So yeah, I don’t think other people have the right to tell me what to buy. That is an idea I don’t buy.

When you have an idea I can believe in, I’ll be your biggest supporter.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 10, 2008

A change to start charging more for peak power would then be tantamount to “stealing” existing “rights” (of NOT paying peak-hour power rates) IF AND ONLY IF what I wind up paying for the EEC grid, higher peak rates, new equipment, and less satisfactory service is MORE than what I’m paying now.

And it is stealing only if I have no choice in the matter. If I sign up voluntarily, well that’s just stupid.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 10, 2008

“Why would Dominion not just continue to provide as much power as people want to use – making their standard profit on it?”

Well, let’s see. Thay pay me to conserve, then they sell you peak power at a higher rate. The difference between what they pay and what they sell has a higher margin than what they get on a new power plant, and it is a whole lot less grief.

Or they just aggravate me into conserving by charging highe rates, and sell it to someone else with a higher order of needs – and probably more money.

Either way it is more or less free money to Dominion. Now, since they are not actually making any more electricity and as a whole Dominion customers are not getting any more service, where exactly do you think Dominion’s new money comes from?

Maybe they are “stealing it” from someone.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 10, 2008

Steve Alesch, Green Party candidate for Congress (IL-13), blasted opponent Rep. Judy Biggert’s new Apollo Energy Independence Act, calling it a political stunt that will jeopardize the health and well-being of millions of people in the 13th district. Rep. Biggert’s plan calls for more nuclear reactors across the United States, as well as a nuclear waste reprocessing facility in the Chicago suburbs.”Biggert is promoting the forms of energy that we should be moving away from in the next 10 years,” said Alesch. “This is another example of how out-of-touch Biggert is with the reality of our energy crisis.”Alesch and other Green candidates and party leaders will address the dangerous expansion of the nuclear energy industry during the Green National Convention in Chicago, July 10-13 (http://www.greenparty2008.org). While Barack Obama and John McCain have endorsed nuclear power, Greens have opposed it and warned of insurmountable security and environmental risks, especially from nuclear waste (http://www.gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=58).While Biggert has proposed drilling for oil in environmentally sensitive areas, it is her proposed major expansion of nuclear energy in the Chicago suburbs that should be particularly troubling to area residents.”We’ve known for decades that nuclear facilities are liabilities and risks,” said Alesch. “They produce waste that is dangerous and costly to transport and store, can be targets of terrorist attacks, and they put surrounding communities at risk.”It should be noted that Biggert is calling for a massive expansion of nuclear facilities across the U.S. while at the same time promoting a plan to build a nuclear reprocessing facility in the Chicago suburbs under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP).”In simple terms, GNEP is a plan to make suburban Chicago the world’s nuclear waste dump,” Alesch said. “Nuclear waste from all over the world will be transported and reprocessed right here in our neighborhood, endangering the lives and health of millions. Adding up health care costs and the environmental impact, who knows how much Biggert’s plan will cost us. Any jobs this will create will be vastly outweighed by the pain and suffering this facility will cause.”While Alesch did commend Rep. Biggert for recognizing that the nation needs a ‘Marshall Plan’ to solve the energy problem and the looming catastrophic effects of global climate change, the nation doesn’t need to invest in unsafe technologies like nuclear power, he said.Instead, Alesch called for Congress to raise the fuel-efficiency standards for cars and light trucks, expanding tax incentives for consumers for energy-efficient upgrades to buy solar panels for their homes, hybrid cars, etc. Alesch is opposed to squandering our strategic oil reserves in ANWR.”We cannot afford to sign our strategic oil reserves over to energy companies like Exxon, who happen to be making record profits during this so-called crisis,” said Alesch. “Biggert’s plan is beyond foolish. It threatens our national security.””Let’s bring some common sense to the debate. Renewable energy from solar, wind, geothermal — this is the direction our nation ought to be heading,” said Alesch. “But before we get there, we need someone in Washington right now with the courage to act.”

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 11, 2008

Less coal, no nukes. Yipppeee.

My wood lot ought to be worth a fortune, for about a week.

Oops, fogot, no CO2 either.

And renewables might get us 40% of what we need, if we wait long enough and don’t care what it costs.

Man, this is starting to sound like the GA transportation special session.

No compromise is possible.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 11, 2008

There goes another rant against profits.

“A pseudo environmentalist whose only line of argument is capitalism is equal to bad and poverty is equal to innocence, has not understood the fundamentals of either environment or economics.”

Unknown

RH

Log in to Reply
floodguy

July 11, 2008

One way to envision the current power grid, is to imagine all of our roadways without traffic lights, no directional signs like yield signs, or maximum or minimum speed limits signs, etc. Vehicle traffic would be a nightmare with accidents and traffic jams. Public transportation would be at full capacity and public funds unable to keep up with expansion to meet demand. State DOTs would be constantly condemning property to expand existing roadways or to build new ones. That is how today’s electric powergrid operations flow.

The power grid of tomorrow will have the equivalent of traffic signals, roadsigns, digital message boards instructing motorist of upcoming congestion, advising of alternative travel routes. Today’s traffic management, for the most past, clears most congestion allowing motorist to reach greater speeds. Eventually expansion would be required, but reducing the inefficiencies within the current grid network will reduce expansion, while the increased demand is met thru resources gained thru greater efficiency. Under the current environment the utility industry is experiencing, investments in energy efficiency & conservation (EEC) is cheaper and quicker to implement than any other resource. The utilities will see no protests or lawsuits from EEC investments, because EEC doesn’t have a physical footprint affecting land, air, or climate.

The existing grid is a one-way communicating network, requiring at a given time, maximum capacity on standby to ensure reliability to overcome power outages due to random transmission & power plant failures, transmission congestion, and spikes in peak demand. Unused spinning generators on standby are costly and are paid for by all utility customers. When demand approaches unacceptable standards in reliability, the current grid simply calls for grid expansion – more power plants & more transmission lines. This is also very costly due to a variety of factors; but furthermore, the public is staunchly opposed to expanding the grid, leaving little room for utililies to serve the very public who demands more power. This opposition is clearly visible in the northeast along the I-95 corridor from DC to Boston, and in southern California. Five other heavily populated regions are poised to develop into the similar circumstance in the near future. Why? Because power plants haven’t been built in these areas or are being decommissioned because of costly clean air regulation. Hence, utilities in those regions are turning to transmission to help carry the load from new or expanded powerplants elsewhere, only because the market says its needed and because its cheaper. This has become a major national problem, poised to grow worse under the current infrastructure we have.

Moreover, no matter how much consumers alter their living habits to decrease their electrical use, continuing changing lifestyles due to technological innovations will only require more electricity. Combined with this increase, growing demand for electricity due to population expansion is leading to increases in demand forecasts, 30% by the year 2030. Furthermore, 50% of coal plants are approaching 2/3 of their expected lifespan, and 70% of nuclear power plants are halfway there. And with the current grid we have, intermittent renewables are unsuited for siting in areas less geographically gifted for them. And if carbon regulation is inherited into federal and state regulation, the powergrid problem just doubles in size!

The smart grid is a concept which intends to makeover the grid, retrofitting it with meters and switches allowing the local utility to have two-way communications within substations and the end-users throughout the grid. It allows the local utility to better read it grid’s behavior and to disperse supply where it is most needed, quickly. It will also utilize its customers who choose to provide grid resources to help manage their power load. These customers will opt to use real-time pricing, and have installed as many household and building appliances,which can communicate with the powergrid, shifting their usage during times when demand is decreased, and the price for electicity is cheaper.

A smarter grid will be able to take advantage of intermittent renewable capacity (in more inefficient regions), when it is available, allowing it to shut-down theor most polluting or costly capacity resource. It will also allow the utility to manage the load when capacity is decreased when their renewable resources becomes unavailable. A smart grid will signal backup capacity resources, be it fossil-fuel or end-users, who have volunteered with pre-arranged contracts to reduce their electricity usage during certain periods of the day, and/or from end-users who have made their own generation resources available to the powergrid, thru plug-in type electric vehicles or pv solar roofs, as an example.

Ultimately the smart grid concept aims to decrease the reliance on the costly and inefficient use of maximum standby generation, decrease congestion in transmission, decrease the constant need to expand the grid, and to utilize non-fossil resources, as much as possible. The smart grid concept will decrease pollution and GHG emissions, reduces certain market forces behind rising energy costs, decrease the spikes in the peak demand curve, and increases the market-profitability of energy conservation programs and non-fossil intermittent renewable resources beyond their most efficient geographic locations.

_________________

From my perceptive, it seems to me the liberal green types, discount or doubt the impact of the smart grid, because they see the utility maintaining or having more control. “What good can it be if its from the power company?” They despise and distrust of the industry in general, so they fail to understand why the smart grid will eventually become the hub of the clean energy revolution. Without the smart grid, all these alternative energy resources being invented and fine tuned today, which green environmentalists want desperately, cannot become a reality and widely implemented tomorrow; and that’s especially true here in Virginia, where it is not particularly windy and sunny, or where tidal changes and wave action is prevailent. And in our state, this means the smart grid is primarily Dominion Power, and they hate the sound of that. How could Dominion Power do anything to aid in the cause against global warming? I think they find it hard to believe this may indeed be the case.

On the right, conservatives seem to downplay or oppose the smart grid because they see it as something borne from the green environmental movement. From what I experience in discussing it with those types, they seem to think the cost for smart grid investments is due to policymaking influenced by Al Gore and global warming alarmists, since the smart grid means greater energy efficiency and conservation, while allowing for increased renewable resources. Most simply fail to understand the problem today’s power infrastructure will become in the future, with or without carbon regulation in the equation.

Because neither political end seems interested in the smart grid, its concept is flying under most everyone’s radar, as has the impact of Dominion’s 1st smart grid proposed installment of $600 million. If Dominion’s balance sheet is strong, our state could become one of the first five states in the nation with a statewide smart grid. When that happens, although unknown to most now, it will make Virginians very proud.

Log in to Reply
floodguy

July 11, 2008

RH, consider today’s current pricing model.

100 units of electricity consumed during 24 hours @ $1 per unit. Total daily cost = $100 dollars.

Under a real-time pricing scheme, during peak, 1 unit costs $1.50 and $0.50 for off peak. The portion of units consumed during each period is split 50/50. Total daily cost = $100.

Why penalize customers, residential especially, under the current flat-rate pricing model, forcing them to share the burden of others who consume more electricity during peak periods? The real cost of electricity is not flat in the wholesale market where utilities buy and sell bulk power.

If those who are dependant on consuming electricity during peak periods, where is the harm if they participate in a/c load management via a/c smart switches, if there is no noticable physical difference in terms of interior climate and hvac mechanical usage? Where is the harm if household or non-residential appliance usages are deferred to off peak periods, while the option to override and use appliances during peak is still available at the flip of a switch? If such usage is not mandatory, why consider the participation a detriment or questionable as your replies seem to elude?

Eventually, if the consuming mass accepts this approach, the ultimate net result is a reduced price per unit consumed? How? Because the local utility would have to purchase less peak power capacity which on the wholesale market, costs the most. Secondly, it is growth in peak demand which is the primary driver for utility investments in new or expanded power plants and transmission. W/o such investments, or with decreased frequency of such needs, the overall cost for these investments would be reduced or never be passed down to the end-user.

How does this therefore benefit the utility you may ask? Because the utility is still serving increased demand from its customers, thru capital investments which are far less expensive than any other type of investment, transmission, fossil or non-fossil.

You have heard this phrase before, but it is very fitting – pick the lowest hanging fruit. Such is the case with EEC investments. New technology will make it happen. Hard to imagine, but its true. There are some drawbacks, but the pro’s certainly outway the negatives, carbon regulation, global warming notwithstanding. The inescapable truth is, the existing powergrid is fast approaching a critical condition, and a more intelligent grid can help resolve some of those pressures, while also helping to address carbon issues, if those concerns are real.

Log in to Reply
floodguy

July 11, 2008

Regarding my reply to RH

“… the ultimate net result is a reduced price per unit consumed? How?”

Not to be forgotten…

Transmission congestion will decrease with a more intelligent grid. Transmission bottlenecks requires some capacity to serve the grid since existing capacity cannot flow quick enough where demand is strong, plus it leads to utility investments in transmission. Transmission congestion is increasing in the grid because of displacement of generation farther away from load centers for reasons previously posted. This relocation of resources connects to the load center via transmission. During peak demand periods, because of grid inefficiencies, transmission congestion is the greatest, b/n interfaces as well as in load centers. A smart grid will relieve congestion, decrease power costs and reduce grid investments as a two-way communicating grid will signal demand response and co-gneration resources to response accordingly. The cost for such resources which are then resold, avoid greater expeditures thru grid expansion and the cost for idling generators, yet result in no less profit. Its only obvious Dominion sees these advantages, both financially but as a corporate stewart, which is reflected by the size of their 1st smartgrid proposal.

Log in to Reply
Larry Gross

July 11, 2008

“Why penalize customers, residential especially, under the current flat-rate pricing model, forcing them to share the burden of others who consume more electricity during peak periods? The real cost of electricity is not flat in the wholesale market where utilities buy and sell bulk power.”

this is the part where RH says the current business model of NOT charging higher prices for peak power is a “right” that cannot be taken away.

RH fundamentally believes that we all use electricity so we should all pay and that to charge proportionately is unfair.

This is a key issue with regard to consumption.

As long as we charge a flat rate even though the costs of producing power vary according to demand – we do not reward those who conserve but instead reward those who consume but not making them pay the actual costs of providing them with higher priced power.

In other words, the “correct” way to charge people for electricity is to essentially subsidize peak power… everyone pays for it … no matter how much of it they use.

Whenever I ask RH to explain this rationale, I am sorry.. because I get hundreds of convoluted words of how so many other things affect the equation that until we can figure out every other external cost that we cannot take away the “right” to get peak power for regular power prices.

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 11, 2008

” Today’s traffic management, for the most past, clears most congestion allowing motorist to reach greater speeds.”

Are you out of your mind? That is the worst possible analogy you could use. o motorist who has been delayed by wrong information signs is going to beleive that.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 11, 2008

“Why? Because power plants haven�t been built in these areas or are being decommissioned because of costly clean air regulation. Hence, utilities in those regions are turning to transmission to help carry the load from new or expanded powerplants elsewhere, only because the market says its needed and because its cheaper.”

The heavily populated areas have claimed, and gotten, new property rights: the exclusion and elimination of power plants, and the right to expoert their pollution.

Now the battle over property rights is being joined by those who will get the transmission lines.

All of this could have been prevented by establishing strong property rights and defending them. Then, there would not be any “GAIN” to be made except as a fair deal, mutually agreed to.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 11, 2008

“where is the harm if they participate in a/c load management via a/c smart switches, if there is no noticable physical difference in terms of interior climate and hvac mechanical usage? “

There is no harm in that if it is true, I don’t beleive it. I beleive it is the camels nose under the tent.

How much is it going to cost me to “participate”? I’m not convinced that I’m going to see any of the cpaital savings that might happen, and I’m not convinced the environmental benefits will be worth anything like what comes out of my pocket.

Even bumbblees swarm around the four-o-clocks at four-o-clock. Try to convince me that they can save energy by fighting nature.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 11, 2008

Look, I think the smart grid and diversified, distributed power production is a great idea.

But I’m not sold yet. You ave a lot of buzzwords, and no buzz numbers. Like you say, they are still being negotiated. When someone shows up at my door with something negotiable, then I’ll listen.

So far, I have not been offered anything, and I have no incentive to “participate”.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 11, 2008

“The real cost of electricity is not flat in the wholesale market where utilities buy and sell bulk power.”

SO what? The usage of electricity is not flat for the vast majority of users.

Why penalize them just to give a tiny benefit to a few? Show me the Coasian trade that proves EVERYBODY is better off, and this isn’t just a tax against some peoples property on the basis that a few others are more virtuous.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 11, 2008

This boils down to one simple fact. The smart grid isn’t going to provide any more power but it will provide more income to the power company.

How am I going to save money on that? You cannot get something for nothing.

RH

Log in to Reply
floodguy

July 11, 2008

Larry“In other words, the “correct” way to charge people for electricity is to essentially subsidize peak power… everyone pays for it … no matter how much of it they use.”

I understand totally the point and it is RH’s point.

Lets take for a moment and agree with that rationale. Let’s say as regulators we want to keep that “right” established because it is the model used since our macro-powergrid was first implemented.

This stance is developing unresolvable cracks threatening the security of the grid and the economy it serves, and does nothing fix it. Building the grid out will is not an only impossible solution by itself, it isn’t doable because of real hurdles. Neither the economy, the market, nor the current regulatory system has the answers within the current operating framework. It is unsustainable.

Energy demand threatens to outpace capacity because the market’s ability is hampered by economics, substantial physical hurdles, and the very public it serves, as well as the growing issues involving climate matters, agree with it or not.

This is the reason for the Energy Policy Act of 2005. That act of Congress set into motion steps to implement certain ideas and from it in part, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 was born.

There is nothing the RH’s in our society, can do to resolve what ails the powergrid, within the existing framework which it now operates under. Nothing. Such is the reason why we have seldom seen solutions from RH when discussing energy matters here on this blog – just questions and skepticism.

Log in to Reply
floodguy

July 11, 2008

Are you out of your mind? That is the worst possible analogy you could use. o motorist who has been delayed by wrong information signs is going to beleive that.

RH, the analogy of unmanaged roadways paints a clear picture of the operational flow the current powergrid is.

Just because there is traffic today, doesn’t do anything to debunk how our macro-powergrid functions.

Log in to Reply
floodguy

July 11, 2008

ll of this could have been prevented by establishing strong property rights and defending them. Then, there would not be any “GAIN” to be made except as a fair deal, mutually agreed to.

RH, alot could have been done to avoid the current “macrogrid” system we have but they didn’t happen. Now those options no longer exist.

The answer with what now exists, is the concept to make these existing inefficiency efficient, through a more “microgrid” concept.

Log in to Reply
flooguy

July 11, 2008

There is no harm in that if it is true, I don’t beleive it.

Believe it, I have two smart a/c switches and there is no different in the systems operational usage nor to interior climate. Read this post on the RK blog for how it works

http://www.raisingkaine.com/showComment.do?commentId=100384

How much is it going to cost me to “participate”? I’m not convinced that I’m going to see any of the cpaital savings that might happen, and I’m not convinced the environmental benefits will be worth anything like what comes out of my pocket.
Capital expeditures on EEC and smart grid equipment, is distributed to all end users. The net benefit is that it bring more resources online, thru cheaper means than what would have otherwise been needed, ie new power plants or more transmission.

SO what? The usage of electricity is not flat for the vast majority of users.

Why penalize them just to give a tiny benefit to a few?

Because the current model is unsustainable and there are no existing solutions to fix the problem in the grid within that framework.

The smart grid isn’t going to provide any more power but it will provide more income to the power company.

The smart grid will increase the usable resources w/i the same amount of capacity. Under such improvements, the utility makes its same profit % established by state regulators as they would for other new resources.

How am I going to save money on that? You cannot get something for nothing.

Once again RH, EEC investments are cheaper per kWh, hence the eventual costs for such improvements are less than what the alternative is; and that alternative is far more expensive in many ways more than one.

So far, I have not been offered anything, and I have no incentive to “participate”.

Because the smart grid concept is just entering the 2nd inning. Dominion announced proposal will be submitted later this yet and they are set to use those investment from 2009 to 2014. The incentives don’t exist until the grid’s implementation reaches you. At that time, the incentives will have to be determined by the end-user: financial or climate matters. Real-time pricing will provide you the financial incentives and decreased grid expansion thru fossil fuel can be forestalled thru increased participation.

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 11, 2008

” everyone pays for it … no matter how much of it they use.”

Listen to yurself>

The vast majority of people use electricity during peak period. As a result, averaging that additiaonla cost over time is completely rational, and inexpensive. There are a few nonpeak users, who no doubt feel they are being screwed by the system. But there are so many of the others paying for peak usage, (however it is actually billed) that the screwing a few are taking is virtually nil.

The claim of “no matter how much of it they use.” is exactly that. it is a claim of damage that is much higher than actually exists and therefore it is a claim of a new (and probably unjustified) property right: the right of a few to tell the many when to use electricity to save a few cents on their own bill.

It is nothing but selfish pigheadedness. But some smart ewuipment manufacturer is going to use it as a spearhead to create A MANDATE for yet another unneeded “energy saving” project that is going to wind up costing us money.

Fooey.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 11, 2008

Such is the reason why we have seldom seen solutions from RH when discussing energy matters here on this blog – just questions and skepticism.

Sorry, Show me the “Solution” in a plan that creates no new energy but still makes more money for the epower company and smart grid vendors.

Even you cannot create something from nothing and I think it is a perfectly reasonable skeptical question to ask: Where is the money coming from? How does it save me anything?

I don’t hear any answers yet.

I don’t offer many solutions, because I have to defend my criticisms from people who refuse to get it. Any solutions I might offer will be subject to the same sort of mindless knee jerk attacks until people accept three simple facts:

Nothing is worth an infinite price.
Nothing is free.
Negotiating is all about what you own and what I own: property rights, in other words.

If you accept that, the rest is pretty easy.

You think we need to use less electricity. I don’t have a problem with that. Tell me how much less and what use we should stop so I can evelauate what you are saying.

My suggestion?

Slap a big tax on electricity, and watch people use less. But then, instead of chaging them for a blinking light on the hot water heater in the basement, use the tax on something worthwhile, something that DOES something.

Spend it on Transit if you like. Just don’t spend it blowing smoke up my behind.

And remember. I’m on your side. Don’t attack me just because I think your ideas are weak and uneconomic. If you think I’m a tough critic, you should hear what some people are saying.

And no wonder. You are going to charge some people more and some people less, based on some nebulous and silly fairness argument. You are going to install millions of dollars of gear, and re-sell all the electricity you “save”. And it won’t cost me a thing.

Why does this sound like a perpetual motion machine?

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 11, 2008

“Because the current model is unsustainable “

So is the new model. You save a little bit now, and in ten years you are right back to square one.

You want to talk about a model that is unsustainable, try one that counts on repetitive ten per cent reductions.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 11, 2008

“If Dominion’s balance sheet is strong, our state could become one of the first five states in the nation with a statewide smart grid. When that happens, although unknown to most now, it will make Virginians very proud.”

I take it you are sure enough of this that you are buying a lot of Dominion stock.

Or are your personal investments somewhere that might actually make money?

rh

Log in to Reply
floodguy

July 11, 2008

RH – your logic overemphasizes the term peak usage across the the array of consumption and therefore clouds the solution.

Its the highest spikes in peak demand, about 10-20 times during the summer and half of that during the winter, which drives utiilities to physically expand the grid.

Reduce those spikes thru digital energy management, both at the utility and customer end, and you lessen the need to expensive grid expansion, which in our region is primarily fossil fuels and/or costly nuclear.

Between these spikes and off peak periods, a more intelligent grid can utitilize resources which costs the overall “grid” less money to operate, allows for the reduction of polluting gases during code red days, and when available, will allow for greater usage of cleaner renewable power while decreasing the need for fossil generation.

Sure reducing the demand curve will only raise baseline consumption but that will be countered with increased co-generation and storage.

Secondly, the point of the matter isn’t to save a few cents on the dollar. Overall cost for utility provided electricity is on a steady march upwards for many more years. Fuel costs, environmental and air regulation, construction costs, legal costs, as well as costs due to inefficiencies increased by idlying standby generators and increasing transmission congestion, as well as the soon to be carbon costs, are all real market hurdles facing utilities, who will eventually pass those costs to the end-user with the blessing of state regulators.

While a smart grid will aid to reduce those forces of energy inflation thru efficiency, its primary purpose is to help secure the grid in terms of reliability, because the status quo of our current marcogrid, is reaching its limits. Throw in the likelihood of carbon regulation, and you have a greater incentives for utilities to turn to a smarter more microgrid model with a pricing structure which benefits everyone across the board. Without such model, the price per kwh will be higher for everyone, on & off peak, all while roaming blackouts threaten to interrupt commerce & comfort, and increased spikes in transmission congestions bring additional costs to all end-users.

RH you have failed to grasp the total problem, so your mindset incorporates no viable solution.

The problems threaten grid’s reliability, are forcing higher utility costs, limiting expansion creating an unsustainability market which threatens to interrupt energy security & daily commerce. And if you are a believer, it will lead to increased carbon emissions affecting the climate.

All options are part of the answer, and amongst the array of these pieces, a smarter more micro-oriented powergrid is the hub which marries the others together to create the solution.

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 11, 2008

“The smart grid will increase the usable resources w/i the same amount of capacity. Under such improvements, the utility makes its same profit % established by state regulators as they would for other new resources.”

Let’s see.

Dominion Generates 5000kw.

The smart grid lets them sell – 5000 kw.

And we got more usable resources – where?

We didn’t. What we got was an excuse to charge more for the same resources, just like we are doing eith HOT lanes.

You have to do better than that. It is a transparent falsehood.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 11, 2008

I make 15000 bales of hay. most of it sells in peak demand Jan and Feb. I could charge more to people who buy in Jan and Feb and less to people who buy off peak. But I still only have 15000 bales to sell.

And, I’m not a monopoly, like HOT lanes and Dominion. If I tried it I’d sell more cheap bales at off peak, and no bales at the high price. Explain to me how I xan’t make money doing that, but Dominion can.

RH

Log in to Reply
floodguy

July 11, 2008

RH, your position is like walking in a circle

“So is the new model. You save a little bit now, and in ten years you are right back to square one.”

Everyone knows that EEC isn’t a miracle bread basket. Eventually resources gained thru EEC will run out and the grid will require expansion. But the frequency of such will be lessened and with it, the use of it will provide more resources than without. Hello?

EEC involves the utility infrastructure, as well as the end-user’s. Typical coal plants operate at around 35%. T&D systems ineffiencies loose about 12% of the electricity. The macro-powergrid we have today, costs customers $5 to move $1 of electricity. RH it was invented a long long time ago.

While this energy transformation is underway, the grid will be expanding regardless. Have you forgotten? Demand is outpacing capacity, and moreover, outpacing the utilities ability to meet that demand. The utilities have to also weigh the fact they will be facing a wave of powerplant retirements, forcing the need to substantial long-distance extra high-voltage transmission, and meet states’ imposed renewable portfolio standards, all while the cost for carbon sits at the doorstep of next Congress (unless the sun convinces them otherwise.)

You are arguing from a platform which is sinking and sinking fast. You are clinging to a model which you believe will keep you afloat but the industry knows better.

The existing model may have a rescue buoy for you to hold onto, but no one is holding the rope on the opposite end.

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 11, 2008

“your logic overemphasizes the term peak usage across the the array of consumption and therefore clouds the solution.”

Prove it.

“Its the highest spikes in peak demand, about 10-20 times during the summer and half of that during the winter”

You just proved my point. Who is using energy during peak demand?

Everybody.

Who pays for it?

Everybody.

Who gets screwed? Almost nobody.
How much do they get screwed? Not worth noticing.

You are spending $600 million to even out parts of 20 days of power when we need it most, and you don’t even claim to be saving the power.

And after you eliminate the capacity for peak demand we will all be running closer to the edge with less reserve capacity. And we will burn more coal doing it, if you hate coal.

It’s like thinking you can save moneyon gas by keeping the tank less than a quarter full.

THIS IS IDIOCY.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 11, 2008

you lessen the need to expensive grid expansion

How much is it going to save ME, not Dominion, ME.

Oh, thats right, rates are being negotiated.

Upward.

“allows for the reduction of polluting gases during code red days”

Great. That’s something I’m actually willing to buy. Soon as I finish filling up my tractor. How much do you think I should be willing to pay for my share of this worlwide benefit?

That sounds sarcastic, but it isn’t. That’s a real question, and I’d like to know.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 11, 2008

You are arguing from a platform which is sinking and sinking fast.

And you are offering me a lifeboat that is no better, overall.

RH.

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 11, 2008

RH you have failed to grasp the total problem, so your mindset incorporates no viable solution.

I have a amsters egree in this stuff. I understand the problem. I agree (in principle) with the proposed solution, I’m on you r side, but you have not sold me yet.

I am not willing to invest. You need a better argument, one any moron can understand, even if he has a Master’s.

SHOW ME THE MONEY

Cuba Gooding Jr.

Log in to Reply
floodguy

July 11, 2008

Yet another explain of you walking in a circle:

“Let’s see.

Dominion Generates 5000MW.
The smart grid lets them sell – 5000 kw.

And we got more usable resources – where?

We didn’t…You have to do better than that. It is a transparent falsehood.:

Let’s see, reality check – Dominion generates power from a 5000MW power plant and looses 50% of it. Typical coal or gas powerplant.

2500 reaches T&D network, which in turns looses 12% more. Typical inefficiences thanks to current macrogrid infrastructure.

End-users consumer the remaining 2200MW, of which 40% of industry never uses it in their production process.

Meanwhile, a flatrate price for electricity develops longterm entrench habits demands more electricity.

Dominion is forced to propose, apply for with regulators, and basically fight to condemn land for another powerplant, which will costs them and consumers, your typical $5 for every $1 of electricity they sell.

Instead, Dominion opts to invest its money in smart grid technologies, capturing 30% of the lost the generation from its original 5000MW powerplant. Walla, another 840MW is available at far less the cost then from capacity supplied thru a new powerplant or thru transmission, at the $5-to-$1 ratio the current macrogrid requires.

Have a nice weekend RH.

Log in to Reply
Larry Gross

July 11, 2008

this is what RH does not believe:

Ten times last year, Judi Kinch, a geologist, got e-mail messages telling her that the next afternoon any electricity used at her Chicago apartment would be particularly expensive because hot, steamy weather was increasing demand for power.

Each time, she and her husband would turn down the air-conditioners — sometimes shutting one of them off — and let the dinner dishes sit in the washer until prices fell back late at night.

Most people are not aware that electricity prices fluctuate widely throughout the day, let alone exactly how much they pay at the moment they flip a switch.

Just as cellphone customers delay personal calls until they become free at night and on weekends, and just as millions of people fly at less popular times because air fares are lower, people who know the price of electricity at any given moment can cut back when prices are high and use more when prices are low.

If just a fraction of all Americans had this information and could adjust their power use accordingly, the savings would be huge. Consumers would save nearly $23 billion a year if they shifted just 7 percent of their usage during peak periods to less costly times, research at Carnegie Mellon University indicates. That is the equivalent of the entire nation getting a free month of power every year.

Meters that can read prices every hour or less are widely used in factories, but are found in only a tiny number of homes, where most meters are read monthly.

The handful of people who do use hourly meters not only cut their own bills, but also help everyone else by reducing the need for expensive generating stations that run just a few days, or hours, each year. Over the long run, such savings could mean less pollution, because the dirtiest plants could be used less or not at all.

rest of article – worth reading – at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/business/08power.html?pagewanted=print

Log in to Reply
floodguy

July 11, 2008

Larry, yes I remember that article very well.

Average residential ac usage accounts for ~7% of annual electricity costs.

The average home a/c operates on an average :30 minutes where 75% it is on and 25% it is off during the summer months. That’s around :23 minutes on, and :07 minutes off.

Of the tens of thousands of a/c units in a utility’s terrority, neither the end user nor the utility provider, know when or for how long those a/c will be on or off. Therefore, the utility has to have the enough power on standby, 100% of the time, to be sure all of them run whenever they want.

What the a/c smart switches I have talked about and what the a/c load mgmt program that article refers to does, it aims to collectively manages all of the participating a/c units in an organized fashion.

Instead of operating at freewill requiring full capacity availability 100% of the time, the load mgmt program groups the a/c units in 6 or 7 groups, by having installed 6 or 7 different smart switches which signal on and off at different times.

The first group runs for the first :23 minutes and off for the following :07 minutes, then on again. The second group delays a/c operations for :01 minute, then goes on for :23 minutes and off for :07, and so on for each group.

The net result is the utility knows when the a/c will operate, and can supply the required power to fully see that they all operate and provide the comfort the end-user demands. This equates to ~16% less peak power requirements above normal consumption, if participation is throughout the utility’s service terrority.

The more participation, the less the utility has to purchase capacity during peak times, whether its pre-arranged or on the open market. This means decreased overall power costs, and that’s lower price per kWh felt by the enduser.

Log in to Reply
floodguy

July 11, 2008

Larry,

The a/c smart switch load mgmt program is not very popular. Its not because its an inconvience or has no impact, or because it costs the customer money. I can say this because I have 2 on each hvac zone. Both signal on and off at different times so never are both off at the same timeframe and my family never feels the difference.

The response to this program is pretty standard across the board in terms of the philosophical spectrum.

A liberal green Arlingtonian has the exact same reaction as does a conservative southsider from rural Halifax county – “I’m not giving control of my a/c to Dominion Power”.

The reality is they are not. The user is only allowing the power company to collectively manage a/c for the end purpose so less fossil fuel is used and less grid expansion occurs which condemn or devalues rural property. If they only knew?

Such is it is only fitting that the first item on the list of strategies to reach EEC goals in the state of Virginia, as explained thru Va. Energy Plan 2007, is nothing more simple than EDUCATION!

My goodness, we can only hope that bloggers on both sides of the spectrum, see the light so that their readers can understand, and education about the subject grows as Dominion makes over the grid into the future.

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 11, 2008

Smart grid won’t do anything about heat loss at the plant. It won’t do anything about transmission losses, but it might mean you can send SOME electricity less distances. Probably not because with more uniform load you can use the coal plants instead of the local gas plants for peaking.

Smart grid won’t do anything about waste except charge more to prevent it, and use the same electricity someplace else. It’s a total value judgement and it is going to cost more.

Not having any AC I could care less about smart switch. Still it is a good example as far as it goes. Utility wide smart swtches controlling everybody in consert could make beautiful music, as far as AC goes.

Now tell me that it will make my electric bill go down, and how much………..Yeah, I didn’t think so.

I don’t think I want one on my stereo. Or the fuel pump for my tractor. Or the fans for the chickens.

Most people are not aware that electricity prices fluctuate widely throughout the day, because for most people prices do not fluctuate throughout the day, cost does.

What smart grid does is take Dominion’s cost problem and make it mine and every other customers problem: and charge us for the privilege. I’m not convinced that we can do massively parallel processing all that well, especially part time.

The last thing I need is a bunch of emails telling me to turn off the AC I don’t have.

Oh well, just because cenral planning didn’t work for the soviets doesn;t mean it can;t work for Dominion.

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 11, 2008

Thew guy in Arlington could care less about rural conservation. They think e are effete snobs out here. They made that pretty clear during the power line “crisis”.

RH

Log in to Reply
floodguy

July 11, 2008

It doesn’t seem likely RH would have any Asian-Indian blood in his heritage. Hell no, look what is happening there! 😉

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/080709/20080709005505.html?.v=1

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 11, 2008

“The response to this program is pretty standard across the board in terms of the philosophical spectrum.”

No wonder. I’m telling you you have a lousy sales pitch. Try offering them an incentive, rather than a punishment.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 11, 2008

“linked to the ability of India�s economy to maintain its current nine percent annual growth rate.”

You guys refuse to learn anything, don’t you. Didn’t I refer to this paradox before.

Sure, lets save 15% of indias electricity so we can double their 9% growth rate.

Never mind the fact that they can’t supply electricity or telephones as it is, but hey, that smart grid, no problem.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 11, 2008

Ok so you ac’s work on this.

How much did you save?

My AC’s don’t work on this. How much did I save?

Hint. This is not a trick question.

RH

Log in to Reply
floodguy

July 11, 2008

RH – i believe a macro-consumption model within our society, encourages development and the spread of suburbia into rural America. I believe that model is inefficient and creates more problems than it can solve.

A switch towards a more micro-consuming model, will keep urbanites w/i their region and allow rural society supply urbanites more efficiently. A micro-model supports the rural economy and the rural lifestyles, as it incentivize urban centrals to serve themselve more than from sources abroad.

Such is the affect of a more microgrid for our power system. The sprawl in the grid can be reduced from what it would be without. A microgrid forces load centers to carry their own burden more and turning less often to rural society for generation and transmission.

Somewhere along way, the pricing model will create the proper incentives, at a level which will also best reduce overall price customers pay for every kWh.

Log in to Reply
Larry Gross

July 11, 2008

Here’s some choices:

1. – rotating black-outs

2. – higher electricity bills

3. – peak-hour demand-management

Here’s two choices you don’t have

unlimited electricity provided at a fixed price that never changes.

a way to save money from the CURRENT paradigm which IS not sustainable

so basically.. you have the 3 choices – multiple times in the next few years:

1. – higher prices

2. – less reliability

3. – demand management

the first decision has already been made for you – 18% increase in your rates

soon, (next year) Dominion says that they’ll be back for even higher rate increases

.. and this is before they come back to charge for the new plant in Wise and/or the new nuke at North Anna.

.. so the choice you think you have – to be left alone to continue to pay the same fixed price for unlimited amounts of electricity – is not going to be a choice that you retain…

in other words – as floodguy was saying – the current system is not sustainable.

what do YOU want to do about the changes that WILL be required?

you can certain choose to say “I refuse to choose” .. but then your new electric bill will be the default.

Log in to Reply
floodguy

July 11, 2008

“Ok so you ac’s work on this. How much did you save?”

RH, you need to following my replies better than that. I don’t experience any noticable decrease in my power bill because of smart a/c switches. For one, ac load mgmnt in Novec has about a 25% penetration. Does that 25% decrease peak load demand and thus result in Novec having to purchase less, more costly peak capacity? Yes it does. Does that mean less of an increase in overall price per kWh due to other factors forcing kWh price higher? Yes it does. How much? I don’t know but I trust state regulators to realize those price saving when Novec demonstrates the need for price increases due to other forces involving costs related to peak power prices, transmission congestion, the rise of resources and grid expansion.

Moreover, does it cost me anything on my power bill? No,there is no separate charge specific to my smart ac switches, as the material and installation costs are spread out to all of Novec customers. Why does the entire customer base have to be charged for someone else’s smart switches? Everyone, even those with no ac, benefit from the overall lowered peak power consumption since this equates to lower overall power paid because the utility needs less peak power.

My AC’s don’t work on this. How much did I save?

You save the same amount per kWh as everyone else regardless, because decreases in costs your utilities incurs since it now requires less capacity from load mgmt, during peak demand periods. You and I just don’t notice it, for one, because rates are flat.

Log in to Reply
floodguy

July 11, 2008

You got it Larry. Most don’t realize it because the train wreck is not here yet.

And the alarms which are sounding, aren’t based a theory, so the reasoning behind the motives to makeover the grid, isn’t driven by climate fears.

If carbon theories are true, then our problem doubles in size, because the utility industry is hit with another high hurdle it must manage to overcome.

I think it is difficult for someone to comprehend this, not because of ignorance, especially if they are not as “moderized” in their lifestyles as vast majority of society. This is no knock or an insult. A simplier way of living of many older rural Americans, is more greener than any liberal treehunger in San Francisco can ever imagine. If those in a simpler lower consuming lifestyle are not fully dependent on electricity as most of society is moving towards, then these issue are not quite easily realized.

The bottomline is, a more intelligent grid will prevent everyone’s utility bill from rising as much as it will, than without; and the more people participate in EEC when the smart grid is fully implemented, the greater the reduction in utility increases we will all face. Are prices going to rise from here each and every decade? Yes, you can count on it. Even more reason for EEC and thus the need for a smarter grid, and most importantly, thus the need for EEC not to be an inconvenience or costly. This will de-incentivize EEC efforts. The smart grid concept intends to remove those perceived inconveniencs and costly expediture thru increase efficienty which will net savings moving forward. When its time to replace older household and building appliances, when roofs age and need replacement, when one’s auto is needing replacement, the smart grid provides the enduser with incentives to opt for a pv solar roofing, smart appliances, and plug-in type hybrids.

Adios, great thread. Thanks Larry & RH.

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 14, 2008

“I don’t experience any noticable decrease in my power bill because of smart a/c switches.”

No, and you never will.
Nuff said.

“I don’t know but I trust state regulators to realize those price saving when Novec demonstrates the need for price increases “

Now there’s agood argument: I trust the regulators to get me the lowest prrice.

” No,there is no separate charge specific to my smart ac switches, as the material and installation costs are spread out to all of Novec customers.”

How is that any different from spreading the cost of peak power over all the customers, something you seem to object to?

“You save the same amount per kWh as everyone else regardless, because decreases in costs your utilities incurs since it now requires less capacity from load mgmt, during peak demand periods.”

Nonsense. Peak demand will still be peak deamand. Some people will reduce usage, but the demand will be the same. What will happen is that a few people will do without because they can;t afford it. the reason they won;t be able to afford what they want (power when they want it) is that they will be forced to pay for smartswitches instead.

All the power that is “saved” will be sold to someone else at a higher price, and when we need more power plants, we will still need more power plants.

Individual energy use in the U.S. has remained flat for the past ten to fifteen years, but total usage has gone up because of more population and more new uses.

Your savings plan is going to buy us next to nothing, and it will buy Dominon some nice PR and higher prices. No wonder industrialists and developers LOVE environmentalists: they are so gullible. They want to beleive their own nonsense so much that they will buy anything.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 14, 2008

“The bottomline is, a more intelligent grid will prevent everyone’s utility bill from rising as much as it will, than without”

Maybe. Will it be enough to notice? Probably not. Will it be enough to prevent the need for more power plants? No. Wllit prevent the tran wreck? No.

“thus the need for EEC not to be an inconvenience or costly. This will de-incentivize EEC efforts.”

You are on the right track. For it to work it will need to lower costs in rality. But the paradox still remains, lower costs throeu conservation will result in greater consumption.

RH

Log in to Reply
floodguy

July 14, 2008

Ah, RH strikes again.

Boy, your selectivity is numbing. Let me tell you how your argument sounds to me.

A motorist suddenly pulls over while driving down a very seldom used country road. One of her tires has blown. She waves the next passing car which happens to you be you.

You pull your car over, hesitate, then casually remove yourself from your 1968 Chevy Impala.

You walk around the lady’s car, checking out the situation. Then you stop, pause, and make this reply.

“Yep, yer tire is done gone awlright.”

“But you still got three good ones on.”

You get back into your car then speed off as the disabled lady motorist stares at the tail wings of your old Impala, just as a cloud of dust begins to choke her.

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 14, 2008

Huh?

I fail to see any parallels between my arguments and your parable.

The paradox I mentioned is real and has a name, I just forget what it is. Savings due to conservation leads to higher consumption.

Incentives do work. When you can show me that smart switches will sae me money, I’m willing to listen. But if the story is that it will save the power company money and we will all share the results someday, then you are blowing more smoke than a coal plant.

The reason we have peak power demand is because that is when most people need it. Sharing that cost makes every bit as much sense as sharing the cost of smartswitches which won’t save us any money.

You can ignore the facts and fail, or you can incorporate what I have to say into your arguments. You still might not succeed, but at least you will fail rationally.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 14, 2008

I actually stopped (while driving my Prius, not my Chevy) last week to help a young couple whose vacation laden SUV was broken down.

I happened to have a tire plug kit in the car, which I gave them, before I drove off.

RH

Log in to Reply
floodguy

July 14, 2008

“The reason we have peak power demand is because that is when most people need it. Sharing that cost makes every bit as much sense as sharing the cost of smartswitches which won’t save us any money.”

Since peak power is the time when people need it most, it costs the most because there is limit excess capacity for it. Since people use it the most, people easily overuse it when they could easily underuse it for other off peak times. If they do this w/o the smart grid, they would not drive up the price for everyone. But there is no incentive because the price for every kWh is the same weeather is it 2pm or 2am. Peak power cost the most. Have you overlooked that?

A smarter grid manages demand so that the spike in the peak is decrease = saving!!!.

The cost for the smart grid equipment is less as an investment per kwh, then investments in additional peak capacity = savings!!!

Unfettered consumption of peak capacity just doesn’t raise utility rates for everyone in the grid, it leads to transmission congestions, which leads to more utility investments which cost all customers more money!!!

Until those investments yield actual grid expansion, transmission congestion is relieved in part with an even greater request for peak capacity, gridwise for reliabilty purposes. This cost yet more money!!!

Furthermore, peak demand is met more with older fossil plants, like diesel, distilled petrol with LNG increasing in share. With ozone regulation passed earlier this yet and carbon regulation around the corner, you can bet peak power prices will cost even more money!!!

With oppostion attempting to stop transmission lines, new coal and nuclear power plants, plans to supplement or substitute older fossil with gas, is getting harder and harder. Meanwhile, like coal, gas is no longer considered an inexpensive resource as it once was. Why, because because of impending increases in price to due decrease excess capacity, greater construction costs, and GHG regulation is narrowing the gap between more expensive renewables. What do renewables need to get fully implemented? A smart grid.

Instead gas is being increasingly looked at as a backup source to intermittent renewables, which will need long term power contracts in order to make them profitable in the market. The smart grid facilitates all of this, creating some easing to the increasing financial burden the market is enduring from its current state of dependence on fossil.

There are many facets to the smart grid. Throwing in a new pricing scheme will incentivize end-users not only to reduce the forces behind rising utility bills, it will give them the option to generate and store their own power, and even sell it back to the grid, when the smart grid sends the request.

Enough of this silly game, “conservation leads to higher consumption”. Demand is increasing not because of careless use per se, but because of population increases and changing lifestyles more dependennt on technological innovations. The industry’s ability to meet this demand is straddle with the looming problem many old fossil powerplants needing retirement. Capacity isn’t there and with opposition to fossil, and the impractical use of intermittent renewables in states like Virginia with a digitally managed grid, increasing “usable capacity” gained thru grid infrastructure efficiencies and by end-users, who defer as much peak capacity as possible, relieves the stress the industry is facing.

Log in to Reply
floodguy

July 14, 2008

And another thing, a dynamic price structure would not be static.

There will be minimum usage structure, residential usage structure, commercial usage.

Another point is, flat-rate utility pricing, does nothing to ease the unfettered use of the grid during peak periods, when meeting that capacity is growing more and more difficult and expensive.

You argument see the mere existance of three good tires are better than one bad, without understanding the fact four good tires is what gets the car traveling down the road.

Capacity, congestion, retirements, economics, independence and security – those are the issues.

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 15, 2008

“Since peak power is the time when people need it most, it costs the most because there is limit excess capacity for it.”

Simply not true. We have the capacity, but capital investment in capacity costs money. Also, peaking plants burn more high quality fuel, which costs more and pollutes less. Capital investment in conservation also costs money, but it will result in more capacity being carried by base load coal plants.

Which is really cheaper?

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 15, 2008

I saw the commotion caused whne Vepco wanted to site a gas fired peaking plant in Fauquier County. It took major bribes to the enviromentalists to make it happen. Do you really believe we can hae a smart grid fed by more localized power plants, like the Mirant plant?

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 15, 2008

“Since people use it the most, people easily overuse it when they could easily underuse it for other off peak times.”

That might be true. But you have a value laden word in your argument when you say “easily”. I’m a scientist. I want to know how easily and what it will cost.

I want to knw what the actual payback will be, other than lowering the costs for Chinese users.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 15, 2008

“With oppostion attempting to stop transmission lines, new coal and nuclear power plants, plans to supplement or substitute older fossil with gas, is getting harder and harder.”

There would not be as much opposition if they were paying a fair price for what they get, instead of stealing it through the use of eminent domain, combined with highly retrictive decisions on what constitutes property rights.

You are fighting the wrong battle.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 15, 2008

“A smarter grid manages demand so that the spike in the peak is decrease = saving!!!. “

Show me the savings on my bill, and give me a contract that guarantees it.

Then I’m on your side.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 15, 2008

“If they do this w/o the smart grid, they would not drive up the price for everyone. But there is no incentive because the price for every kWh is the same weeather is it 2pm or 2am. “

The value laden word here is IF.

If horses were wishes, then beggars woudl ride. As I undertand it, the price for the smart grid will be the same for evey customer, too. Where is the incentive for them to participate?

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 15, 2008

“Unfettered consumption of peak capacity just doesn’t raise utility rates for everyone in the grid,”

Value laden statement. Dismiss with prejudice.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 15, 2008

“it leads to transmission congestions, which leads to more utility investments which cost all customers more money!!!”

So does $600 million in intrusive capital investments, but it does not provide me with power when I need it most.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 15, 2008

“Until those investments yield actual grid expansion, transmission congestion is relieved in part with an even greater request for peak capacity, gridwise for reliabilty purposes. “

You want to try that in English?

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 15, 2008

“and that alternative is far more expensive in many ways more than one.”

Ahh yes. This is the old “infinite cost” argument. No matter what this costs, it’s worth it.

This is an argument of desperation. If you want to win, don’t ever use it again.

RH

Log in to Reply
floodguy

July 15, 2008

Simply not true. We have the capacity, but capital investment in capacity costs money. Also, peaking plants burn more high quality fuel, which costs more and pollutes less. Capital investment in conservation also costs money, but it will result in more capacity being carried by base load coal plants.

We have the capital? Of course we have the capital but it can’t build enough powerplants quick enough buck-o. Remember those “issues” I cited? Miss that one too did you?

Capital investment in capacity cost money??? Well duh!

Peaking plants burn a higher quality? I’m sure there are some newer gas plants out there, but the one’s that aren’t, burn some pretty dirty fuels. In our neck of the woods for example, Mt. Storm and 3 of Possum Point’s units which run intermittently, are dirty dirty dirty.

DC’s peaking plants at Benning and Buzzard Pt, dirty than sh!t, that’s why they are going down.

EEC defers more demand from peak to baseline. Finally getting thru aren’t you? With efficiency and carbon scrubbers just around the corner (see Germany & Poland), nuclear expansion, and gas backup for renewables, that will be a cleaner scenario than relying on flat-rates unfettered demand for yet more peak capacity.

Smart grid will marry the renewables when available, and easily implement the transition to backup w/ DSM and co-generation and storage resources. Doesn’t that sound beautiful?

RH, you’ve missed this totally my friend. The oldest, most polluting plants are taken offline until the summer months. This way the regulators don’t dump a bunch of fines on them.

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 15, 2008

“Furthermore, peak demand is met more with older fossil plants”

Mostly, they are gas turbines. Where old diesel plants are still in use, they provide a dual purpose because they provide local back up power when the grid fails locally.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 15, 2008

“We have the capital? Of course we have the capital but it can’t build enough powerplants quick enough buck-o. “

We know how to build power plants. We can throw them up overnight if they don’t take 18 months of hearings and bribes like the one in FAuquier county?

The smart grid is still unproven, and I can guarantee it will wind up costing more than planned.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 15, 2008

“With ozone regulation passed earlier this yet and carbon regulation around the corner, you can bet peak power prices will cost even more money!!!”

Raising the price of alternatives does not equate to making the other alternatives cheaper.

A clean environment is going to cost a lot of money. What else is new?

Some of that “lot of money” will be well spent, other parts of it will not be. Environmentalists need to learn the difference.

The infinite cost argument is bankrupt, by definition.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 15, 2008

“Everyone knows that EEC isn’t a miracle bread basket.”

Exactly. How much is this loaf of bread really worth? Ore should I just wair for the loaves and fishes?

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 15, 2008

“With oppostion attempting to stop transmission lines, new coal and nuclear power plants….”

More opposition. If you don’t agree with us, we are going to oppose you until the cost is so high you have to acquiesce.

Why do I NOT think this is going to save me money?

I see you are oposed to nukes too, not just coal. Pretty soon we run out of options ther than the ones that are cold and dark.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 15, 2008

“Why, because because of impending increases in price to due decrease excess capacity, greater construction costs, and GHG regulation is narrowing the gap between more expensive renewables. “

Again, you want to try that in English? I can’t argue with nonsense.

I think I see the arguement that says we are going to regulate you into submission, combined wth the argument that we can do this because the price of the alternative is infinite.

Why do I think this is NOT going to save me money?

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 15, 2008

” Now those options no longer exist. “

They still exist today. If morons would stop fighting the wrong battles we could win the right ones overnight. Several states have already taken steps in the right direction.

For starters, don;t let the same SEC judges that permit utility lines set the prices to be paid fo eminent domain takings.

RH

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 15, 2008

“Instead gas is being increasingly looked at as a backup source to intermittent renewables, which will need long term power contracts in order to make them profitable in the market.”

We are going to regulate the bad cheap guys out of the market with regulations based on the infinite cost argument. Then we are going to subsidize intermitent power with long term contracts structured to offset their capital intensive disadvantage. We are going to burn more high cost gas in order to prevent burning “dirty coal” on the more stable baseline we created with smart grid demand management. Never mind that high cost gas creates one CO2 for each C burned —– same as coal.

Why do I think this is not going to save me money?

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 15, 2008

“Demand is increasing not because of careless use per se, but because of population increases and changing lifestyles more dependennt on technological innovations. “

And the smart grid is going to fix this, how?

I did not invent the conservation/usage paradox. It wa developed and named after someone even more famous than I.

You, of coure, are free to deny its existence, if you wish to live in denial.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 15, 2008

I’ll tell you what.

Set up EEC as an independent corporation, and let them fund themselves by selling stock to the public.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 15, 2008

“What do renewables need to get fully implemented? A smart grid. “

They are going to need a lot more than that to get fully implemented.

Best estimates are only 20% penetration, at present, and that penetration is far in the future. In the meantime that $600 million initial investment in smart grid will be sitting ther doing next to nothing.

As you point out, your smart switch has saved you nothing, yet.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 15, 2008

“four good tires is what gets the car traveling down the road.”

My experience is that three good tires and a ten cent plug in a “bad” tire will work for a very long time.

I suspect that is also the experience of my new-found friends. I’ll bet they travel with a tire patch kit from now on.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 15, 2008

“The industry’s ability to meet this demand is straddle with the looming problem many old fossil powerplants needing retirement. Capacity isn’t there …”

Because of mindless opposition. Same as with refineries, and a lot of other needed infrastructures.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 15, 2008

I see in the news today, someone coverted their 4-runner to run on wood pellets, using a firebox made from welding two frying pans together. Cost of operation? 10% of that from burning as.

I wondered how long that would take. Now I wonder how long before it is outlawed.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 15, 2008

“In our neck of the woods for example, Mt. Storm and 3 of Possum Point’s units which run intermittently, are dirty dirty dirty.

DC’s peaking plants at Benning and Buzzard Pt, dirty than sh!t, that’s why they are going down.”

Be sure to let me know when S___ stops happening and we can get something for nothing. Or else when S___ gets outlawed because it promotes GHG.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 15, 2008

“And another thing, a dynamic price structure would not be static.

There will be minimum usage structure, residential usage structure, commercial usage.

Another point is, flat-rate utility pricing, does nothing to ease the unfettered use of the grid during peak periods, when meeting that capacity is growing more and more difficult and expensive. “

Once again, you want to try that in English?

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 15, 2008

I’m not bucko.

I just don’t believe in miracles.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 15, 2008

“that will be a cleaner scenario than relying on flat-rates unfettered demand for yet more peak capacity. “

Maybe, but that is the only halfway sensible thing you have said tonight. So far, we do not know the answer. Too manypeople are being sold, based on half truths, maybes, and a complete muisunderstanding of the time value of money.

RH

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 15, 2008

I “conserved” 12 tons of hay today by putting it in the barn, but I fully expect it will be “burned” later, during peak hay time.

Now I’m tired of arguing with you.

RH

Log in to Reply
floodguy

July 15, 2008

Who says the 4th tire has a simple nail hole thru it? That’s yer problem. If you only took a closer look, you would have seen that the lady motorist also failed to get a proper alignment on a periodic basis. The trend has since worn thru the first and second layer of belt fiber on its inner edge. And being that the nail hole has driven thru this narrow section of tire, the dangone plug won’t stay secure fer no more than a few miles. We tire plugger know better than that.

Also, have you had the chance to revisit this logic yet?

“Let’s see.
Dominion Generates 5000MW.
The smart grid lets them sell – 5000 kw.
And we got more usable resources – where?
We didn’t…You have to do better than that. It is a transparent falsehood.”

I forgot to ask, what power plant operates at 100% efficiency, and what type of T&D equipment delivers capacity with 0% line loss? Transparent falsehood! Them be fighting words buck-o!

Investment+operation per kWh in peak power is cheaper than baseline and EEC? That’s a hoot.

Oh and how about this one: “conservation yield greater consumption”.

I think us professional tire pluggers will know what to expect, the next time we strike up a conversation with a peak hay producer.

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 15, 2008

“Let’s see.
Dominion Generates 5000MW.
The smart grid lets them sell – 5000 Mw.

My original had a typo in it kw instead of mw. Sorry if that confused you. you seem to get confused easily.

The logic is still valid.

Dominion can’t sell more than they make. How much they lose due to inefficiencies in genration or transmission is another matter, but they cant sell more than they make.

Smartgrid does not Make Electricity, it just lets Dominion charge more for it and redistribute who gets it and when. They will STILL need new power plants and they will probably be coal or nuclear.

“Investment+operation per kWh in peak power is cheaper than baseline and EEC? That’s a hoot.”

I never said that, but it is clear you don’t care what I said. Investment in peak power gives you one thing, and investment in base power pluss EEC gives you something else. If what most people want is peak power, (which is why we have peak demand) then satisfying that demand is worth more than moving it someplace else in the grid or timeclock.

You may also want to inveset in base power and EEC, but it is NOT a substitute for the other, anymore than transit is a substute for autos.

All these are pretty basic concepts. If you want to live in denial, knock yourself out. If you want me on you side, show me what I get for what you want, and make sure I want it as much as you want your stuff. It is a pretty simple deal called a fair trade.

If I can ever distill one from all your gibberish, I’ll be happy to let you know. So far I don’t see it, and we have no deal.

You can’t get something for nothing, and nothing is worth an infinite price.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 15, 2008

conservation yield greater consumption

I didn’t invent that one. you can argue it with some Nobel Prize winner, or you can open your eyes and look around to see what happens in the world.

RH

Log in to Reply
floodguy

July 15, 2008

Dominion builds 5000kw generator.
Dominion charges $1 for every kw of output
But because of inefficiencies, Dominion delivers 2500kw.
2500kw of delivered power = $5000 or $2/kw paid by customers

Grid needs more power, repeat cost above.
Net = 5000kw of delivered power = $10,000 or $2/kw.

Agreed? Actually I disagree, the average power plant has an inefficiency rate of about 45% + 12% in t&d delivery. Reality is more like 57%. And yes, we professional tire-pluggers realize only 7-15% of the total inefficiencies are recoverable.

Grid calls for 250kw to address growing peak demand.

Option #1, new peaking generator based on above realities
Net = 250kw delivered = $500 or $2/kw

Option #2, new EEC investment in a/c load managment & demand response cost $1 for every kw
Net = 250kw gain = $250 or $1/kw

Total = 5250kw delivered = $10,500 @ $2/kw or $10,250 @ $1.95/kw, respectively.

Now the price of fuel or regulation drives up Dominion’s generating cost from $1 to $2.

New total = 5000kw delivered for $20,000 @ $4/kw

Meet new peak demand thru new generation and EEC per above
Net = 5250kw delivered for $21,000 @ $4/kw or $20,250 @ $3.85/kw, respectively.

Did customers save any money per kw thru an EEC investment as an alternative to fossil peak, as the price of generating kw doubles? Only the ignorant ones will say no.

You implied I am for regulation because I’m an environmentalist, so therefore I am pushing the smart grid. That’s a “transparent falsehood”. Please spare me, what on Earth do I have to do with the rising cost of fossil fuels or increased regulation due to GHG?

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 16, 2008

Dominion delivers 2500kw.

With or without smart grid Dominion sells 2500kw.

If the smartt grid costs money, the same electricity costs more. All you have done is shift who buys it and when. The same electricity gets used.

You have not saved a dime, and all the people who want peak power now pay more for it. What you have done is defer construction a little bit, but that “savings” will disapear in the dust compared to our other problems.

Yes, you reduced the bow wave a little bit. The bulbous bow did the same thing or ships, and it was a tremendous savings, then and for every ship built since. I don’t deny that. But we still need to build a lot more ships, and compared to THAT problem, the bulbous bow is small potatoes.

You still need new plants and new transmission lines eventually. Environmentalists will still fight these to the death, thereby raisng the costs. And eventually, whoever gets “taken” through eminent domain will still get a screwing.

You are fighting the wrong battle and you are using nonsense, invented, and mostly wrong, and insignificant, facts to do it.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 16, 2008

“..only 7-15% of the total inefficiencies are recoverable.”

End of story. Almost.

So you maybe save 7 to 15% and then you are right back tosquare one: where do I build the next power palnt and the next trasnmission line.

AND you still can;t answer the question of the true full cost of that supposed savings. For example you dismiss out of hand that there might be any cost associated with not getting your power during peak periods.

To get that % number 14 and 15 is going to cost exponentially more than geting % 1 through 7. We really do not know what the cost of all this “savings” is, and we concede that the energy saved will just be sold to someone else, but now at a higher price.

This has got to be the dumbest thing I ever heard of.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 16, 2008

You implied I am for regulation because I’m an environmentalist, so therefore I am pushing the smart grid. That’s a “transparent falsehood”.

You are pushing or arguing for the smart grid though. I never meant to imply that you are an environmentalist, and I apolgize if it seems that way.

RH

Log in to Reply
Jim Bacon

July 16, 2008

Ray, as a point of information, Dominion expects the $600 million investment in “smart grid” technology to more than pay for itself by better controlling the operating voltage on its distribution circuits, providing savings in three ways: (1) immediate savings through reduced fuel consumption, (2) longer-term savings by reducing the need for future investment in generating capacity, and (3) longer-term savings by enabling variable pricing and other strategies that encourage residential customers to either conserve energy or shift it to off-load periods of the day.

That’s the theory. The State Corporation Commission will take up this issue shortly. Meanwhile, we can look to the example of California, where the power companies are a step ahead of us, to see how it all works out.

Log in to Reply
floodguy

July 16, 2008

Jim, RH’s is unable to juggle the discussion of the varying points and complexities which is our energy problem. Look at both the number of posts and the content. In his case, a verbal discussion would be more beneficial and I am certain would produce a favorable conclusion. But through a typed discussion limited by this low functioned narrowed pop-up window, I understand it can be difficult for some.

RH, I’m giving you the benefit of doubt. Now onto fighting for inventorying natural gas off the Atlantic shoreline, which the clean energy revolution so desperately needs.

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

July 16, 2008

“as a point of information, Dominion expects the $600 million investment in “smart grid” technology to more than pay for itself “

Yes, I understand that, don’t disagree, and don’t doubt it is true.

My question is – So what?

How does the smart grid reduce fuel consumption? Reduce high qualiy gas consumption from peaking plants, yes. But if it is actually reducing fuel consumption then there is most likely a reduction in energy produced and energy used, and this is due to the new pricing scheme, not to the smart grid. You coud produce the SAME result by just increasing prices: use the money for transit if you want, same as proposed for increasing the prices on (undesireable) parking.

No, it won’t reduce the need for future investment in generating capacity, once the system abosrbs the 5 to ten percent you save. You may postpone it a little and there is a savings in that.

I never said it was a totally bad idea, but you it it on the head in point three: ” variable pricing and other strategies that encourage residential customers to either conserve energy or [use it when they need it less]. “

This amounts to saying outright that the bottom line is that you get less for more money.

Which is the entire point of my argument. If you want people to sign up, then they need to see that they will REALLY get more for less, otherwise you will have exactly the kind of opposition flood guy has mentioned. I don’t think selling less for more is good strategy.

Floodguy has danced around this a hundred ways, but the bottom line is always the same. The consumer is going to get less and pay more.

The long term “savings” are insignificant, and they won’t ever hit the customers bill either. Meanwhile people still stand to be royally screwed by the eminent domain rules that wiii be employed when the eventual expansions occure. I argue that because of these rules the power plants are not paying their full locational costs. If they were paying those costs, then power prices would be higher, people would conserve more, and you could save $600 million on dumb grid ideas.

This comes down the question of whether you should pay more for what you don’t use, or get paid for what you do lose. Should the power company get paid when we conserve, or should we? Should we as consumers bear ALL of the cost of power, including the full cost of land taken, or should we ignore that and go full bore ahead with smart grid which essentially takes more property from most people in the form of higher fees.

I think floodguy’s single minded insistence on the goodness of smartgrid technology has blinded him from looking around.

I would normally tend to agree that smartgrid technology is a good thing, not much but something anyway. But, when I see it promoted with hyperinflated and faulty arguments I begin to say to myself that there must be something wrong with it if people are willing to perjure common sense and physical reality to sell it.

We are going to save money and power by charging some people more and other people less, and then we are going to sell the power we save.

Please don’t try to sell me something that violates the laws of physics and common sense. This is screwed up and I don’t see why it is so hard to understand that it is screwed up, unless you are so emotionally invested that reality has no meaning.

Some people would say that California is a terrible example and that that bad example is why Phoenix and Houston are growing so fast by comparison.

RH

Log in to Reply
floodguy

July 16, 2008

“If the smartt grid costs money, the same electricity costs more. All you have done is shift who buys it and when. The same electricity gets used.”

No. If smart grid cost money, the same electricity doesn’t cost more, because the smart grid squeezes out the unused excess to serve other demand. That other demand is from general increases and peak demand. If it weren’t for efficiencies, the new demand would have to be met by more expensive investment, which cost more money.

What is wrong with you? Did you not see my example? Its that simple. Those examples given, are based on real life examples, which exist today, DR and A/c load mgmnt, and those outcomes are real.

Then there’s this:

“We are going to save money and power by charging some people more and other people less, and then we are going to sell the power we save.”

If you can reduce your peak usage during those 6 to 10 days out of year, the utility spends less money to power its grid.

If you can’t help but use more power during those periods, 6 to 10 days in the summer, and you can’t help the grid when the signaled is transmitted, then you’ll have to pay more, because that power is more expensive. Those costs, you costs, are bled down thru the entire grid. You’re use of unfettered peak consumption, is costing me money, even though my house is vacant with virtually no electricity usage during the day.

If my wife and kids are home all summer long and leave the lights on everywhere, exceeding a bulk power consumption usage for an average residential customer, then the electricity used beyond that level, is more expensive, because my wife and kids are forcing our utility to not only buy more power, but buy more of the most expensive power.

What will my wife do to reduce the usage and bring the consumption levels back to the average residential level to avoid spikes in our bill? Don’t use the certain appliances during the daytime, especially when the utility transmitts the signal.

If not, Dominion will have to expand Fauquier County gas peaking plant. It will have to run more transmission lines. It will undoubtedly burn more fossil-fuel to continue to serve its customers so it won’t get penalized for failing to keep its grid reliable.

Log in to Reply

Bacon's Rebellion

The Latest Salvos in the Energy War

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

The Latest Salvos in the Energy War

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Read More