Smart Meters, Brainy Power

A key public policy goal in Virginia is to generate 12 percent of the state’s electric power from renewable energy sources by 2022. That is an exceedingly ambitious target, especially when you consider all the problems that renewable energy sources pose. Wind turbines blow intermittently, and solar units don’t generate electricity when the sun doesn’t shine.

By contrast, coal- and nuclear-powered generators run predictably, around the clock if need be, while gas-fired generators are configured to power up and power down on short notice. Because Dominion, Appalachian Power and Virginia’s other electric utilities can’t control when the renewable sources produce electricity, they must maintain back-up power sources that can kick in when the renewables slack off. They also need the means to monitor fluctuating electricity production and ensure that the juice flows where it’s supposed to go.

One of the anticipated virtues of a “smart grid” — an electric system with sensors and intelligent controllers embedded at the generators, the transmission lines, the sub-stations, the electric lines and last, but not least, the household meter — is that it will make it possible to smoothly integrate those variable energy sources into the grid. Without it, that 12 percent goal is a pipe dream.

Dominion Virginia Power is taking the first tentative step down the path leading to a true smart grid. Right now, it is proposing to invest $600 million in “smart meters,” a key component of a smart grid. These smart meters won’t be able to do all the razzle-dazzle stuff that smart grid aficionados look for, but Dominion does expect them to offer significant benefits.

For starters, Dominion should save lots of money reading meters and turning meters on and off, and it expects the flow of data to help it trim the voltage delivered to individuals homes, thus actually reducing electricity consumption to a small degree. Further, the smart meters will enable the holy grail of smart grid advocates: variable rate pricing. With smart meters, Dominion will be able to adjust its charges based on what it costs to generate at any point in time, and customers can dynamically respond by shifting their energy consumption. The end result will be a significant shift in consumption from peak loads to off-peak loads, staving off the need to build new base-load plants.

Smart meters represent a paradigm shift. Explains David Green, senior vice president-customer service: “Today, the utility industry views the meter as an end point of the [electric distribution] system.” As manufacturers increasingly embed consumer appliances with chips, they’ll be able to communicate. “With a smart grid, the meter becomes a network node within the distribution system that can talk to appliances, pool pumps, water heaters, and air conditioner units” — ideally working on concert to shave electric consumption.

Green raised one other interesting point. A tidal wave is about to hit the electric power industry and no one outside the industry seems to be paying attention yet. Dominion executives are convinced that mass production of plug-in hybrid vehicles is only two or three years away. What worries them is the prospect of thousands of Virginia commuters returning home from work after 5 p.m. and plugging in their cars to recharge their batteries — and electric demand shooting through the roof.

A solution to the gasoline crisis could quickly turn into an electric generation crisis.

Dominion officials regard variable, time-of-day pricing as a valuable tool to encourage customers to defer the recharging of their batteries. And smart meters are a necessary component of variable pricing. Dominion wants to be prepared for the sea-change in electric demand, says Green. “We want to be at the table with General Motors.”

Says Green: “Most manufacturers are expecting plug-in hybrids to be available on a widespread basis in the 2010-201 time frame. … We were in Detroit just a couple of weeks ago. The mass production is coming from all of the major manufacturers in two or three years. We have to anticipate it. If we don’t, it will exacerbate our peak. … We want to be at the table with General Motors.”

Read my full e-zine story, “Brainy Power.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Dominion officials regard variable, time-of-day pricing as a valuable tool to encourage customers to defer the recharging of their batteries. “

    Now that makes a lot more sense than deferring the run time on the fridge.

    RH

  2. The Green Miles Avatar
    The Green Miles

    Solar thermal plants are already being constructed with heat storage systems so power can be generated at night or during cloudy periods. No one’s saying we should rely only on solar, but it’s like SO 20th century to say “solar units don’t generate electricity when the sun doesn’t shine.”

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Yep, the heat storage plants are good technology. so are solar ponds wich manage both heat collection and storage in one device with no moving parts!

    But, when people think about the costs of generating power using solar or wind, they don’t often include the costs of storage.

    If we already have water problems, what will pumped storage mean? Will we use winmills to pump the Colorado River back up to the reservoirs?

    Will heat storage devices result in big heat islands of their own?

    Renewables have a lot of potential, but they are going to need a lot of potential (pardon the pun).

    RH

  4. The Green Miles Avatar
    The Green Miles

    RH, do you have any idea how much water out coal and nuclear plants already use?

  5. flooguy Avatar

    Nice Jim. The smart grid to Virginia, is like CSP to Arizona, wind to Texas or North Dakota, tidal to Newfoundland, wave to Washington.

    As for renewables, here's one thing that I have mentioned but never explained, that is pv solar + the smart grid. Peak demand and transmission congestion go hand and hand. "Coincidentially", when those two occur, its quite hot and warm. PV solar generation would peak at the same time. Because of federal mandate, all 50 states now require utilities to purchase back end-users' co-generated power. Since peak power is the most expensive, end-users who co-generated would receive a comparable credit. The net would be a cash cow for the utility (generation is resold on the open market + they are guaranteed a % return over margin w/o the huge capital cost since end-users are the ones' with that burden), as well as the end-user.

    The smart grid will help makes the transition smoother by signaling end-users with plug-ins and pv solar generation to hook up!

    RH, I would suggest search Youtube for Severson Borenstein and watch his conference on real-time 'dynamic' pricing.

    GM, thermal storage only adds to the overall cost per kWh, decreasing marketability & penetration. Think may become useful for CSP out west. End-user PV solar roofing + smartgrid in mid-Atlantic, on the otherhand, gives people the dual incentive which will bring market-readiness sooner rather than later.

    Look for the oft-overcasted city of San Francisco to be the first decent-sized locality to see this development.

    I wish Dominion would pick the city of Alexandria as its smartgrid city. Having the benefits of the smart grid come to a reality quicker in a small area like the city of Alexandria, will educate the public sooner rather than thru a long drawn out process to refit the entire state's grid at the same time. Secondly, it would be right under the nose of Congress and w/i a very affluent major metropolitan area. If people see residents and businesses in Alexandria benefiting, that will soon spread. EEC would get a considerable lift in awareness it so desperately needs. Would also help lift Dominion's stewardship in the eyes of many. I've found no details yet of Dominion's plans though I have written them. Jim please break then news if and when you see it!

  6. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Did I hear solar/wind recharged pump-storage/tidal?

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Differential pricing will NOT save consumers money. A program of “Time of Use Metering” was mandated here in New York in the early 90s, and rates tripled during peak hours. It was such a disaster, that a couple of Legislators wrote legislation to eliminate the ability to mandate time of use pricing, and this legislation was passed in 1996. Now the Utilities are trying to put through legislation which will once again allow the Public Service Commission to mandate time of use metering.

    Peak rates went form 15 cents a kwh from 10 A.M. to 6 P.M. to 38.70 cents a kwh, before taxes. That effectively brought the rate to 50 cents a kwh. Homeowners, churches, schools, and senior centers (anyone who paid residential rates) were hit with this program. It affected the elderly who could not stay in their homes without air conditioning, and who were on fixed incomes, and young families with small children, who needed air conditioning for the children.

    Don’t kid yourselves. By the time the Utilities put into effect a “differential” rate program, the price of gasoline is going to look like a bargain.

  8. floodguy Avatar

    Comparing 1990's pre-smart grid TOU to TOU w/ smart grid technologies isn't comparable.

    check out this youtube video from last

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdD4sYvDa08&eurl=http://www.knowledgeproblem.com/archives/cat_electricity.html

    It possible real-time pricing may have some sort of "grandfathered" based tiered consumption rates.

    Also another thing to realize, industry has a better ability to meet new baseline demand, where as they are considerably constrained in meeting new peak demand. Shifting part of the load from peak to off-peak while instituting board improvemens thru increased efficiencies, will ease industry's growing inability to delivery traditional peak generation.

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    It’s my understanding from conversations with people in the electric power industry and their regulators that time of day is not necessarily the biggest cost driver, but rather, it is the time of year. Mid-July to mid August is the peak usage time in the Mid-Atlantic, according to what I’ve been informed.

    That suggests to me there is a major cost difference in electricity consumed on an afternoon in August versus an afternoon in November or March. If so, shouldn’t peak pricing apply only when the electric utility is forced to use expensive, supplemental sources of generation? If not, then aren’t we overpricing electricity for much of the year?

    As fuel prices and power plant construction costs increase, the price of all electricity will increase, thus sending price incentives to conserve. But if we also price daytime peak energy at summer peak rates all year round, we are over-compensating the utility and moving from cost-based pricing to social engineering pricing.

    TMT

  10. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    All discussion about smart grids and dynamic pricing aside – many folks will find a panel display of their electric useful very beneficial – even folks not green (environmental) oriented but green (money) oriented.

    A display that shows your average daily usage and daily cost, your high and low days, your peak usage, and your projected end of month usage and bill at the current average rate will spur some folks to take a closer look at what appliances are using how much electricity and when.

    Smart Meters could be even more useful if remote plugs for the major appliances would send that appliance specific usage data to the smart panel display.

    And there can be a treasure trove of data of homes that are “wired” to the utility because data such as the average kilowatt usage per square foot will become available for those with smart meters to compare their usage with – and help them to know if they are at the high,low or middle of typical usage.

    These meters already exist and are available through retail outlets so it’s only a question of time before they become more common anyhow.

  11. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Green Miles:

    When you are doing an analysis all you care about is the differential usage. How much water coal and nuclear plants use now has nothing to do with what new technologies may use.

    A steam plant uses a lot of water, and reuses most of it, but that is going to be a whole different picture than trying to use water as heat storage.

    Differential pricing will reduce energy usage by increasing the cost. Just say it and get it over with, instead of inventing a lot of “consumer savings” that won’t really exist to justify it.

    We could do the same thing with a tax, like a fuel tax, and then spend the money raised on whatever will do us the most good, instead of something that gives much less payback and has a lot of unadvertised costs.

    RH

    RH

  12. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    My only point on thermal storage was that when people think of wind or solar, they think of solar panels and wind turbines, only, and then it looks environmentally friendly and cheap.

    The toatl system costs will be much higher, and that $600 million for smart grid technology is just the starter.

    RH

  13. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Since peak power is the most expensive, end-users who co-generated would receive a comparable credit. The net would be a cash cow for the utility (generation is resold on the open market + they are guaranteed a % return over margin w/o the huge capital cost since end-users are the ones’ with that burden), as well as the end-user.”

    For crying out loud, do you ever listen to yourself?

    Comparable credit. Last I knew, the power companies are NOT required to pay their highest marginal rate for power they buy back, therefore the credit is not comparable.

    The net would be a cash cow for the utility. That’s because the credit is NOT comparable. Why would I want to do something that is a cash cow for the utility?

    They are guaranteed a % return over margin. That’s because the credit is NOT comparable. If you want to make this popular, you need to gurantee the CONSUMER a guaranteed return over margin.

    w/o the huge capital cost since end-users are the ones’ with that burden. Precisely. The end user would get his power cheaper by just buying it from — the power company. Unless the end user can generate more cheaply than the power company, there is NO NET SAVINGS in this. Not in cash, not in energy consumed, not in maintenance, and not in environmental costs.

    If the point of smart grid is to save the power company on capital, what is the point of shifting “the huge capital cost” to the consumer? This has got to be the dumbest sales pitch ever.

    I claim that capital costs represent resources used, and therefore eventually translate to embedded energy and environmental costs. Just because you spread them around instead of having a huge, ugly, (and efficient) plant someplace, doesn;t mean you have actually saved anything.

    If you have excess power from some kind of (phenomenally expensive) home generation system, you might be better off to create your own home storage system, rather than sell it to the power company at a discount, and buy it back at a premium. Make your own hydrogen and store that, I’m sure the HOA would love it.

    In this case you ave reverted to the old “get something for nothing” argument. It is bogus. I think the smart grid does have benefits, but this isn’t one of them, and advertising it as such is a disservice.

    RH

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The right way to do this is to allow me to provide my homegrown power to the grid at my marginal cost, and have that averaged in to the current “grid price” for power. The power company would get paid for operating the grid, and for whatever power they supply to it.

    The net effect would appear to be the same, since the power company would buy my power, mark it up to cover operating the grid, and send it down the line.

    But the difference would be higher power charges to the guy down the line – the one who uses it. Under this plan the power companypays you less than it costs you to make it, and still marks it up.

    But there would be another difference. Everytime you see a neighbor putting in a home system with “huge capital costs” you would cringe because you know it will ADD to your power bill.

    RH

  15. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “will ease industry’s growing inability to delivery traditional peak generation.”

    Nonsense. More renewables will mean more reliance on backup power that can come on line quickly, and that means more gas usage. This is a key component of the Pickens strategy because he is a gas man, not to say a gas bag.

    At the same time, smart grid technology will (supposedly) shift more use to baseline plants, which mean we use more coal and nukes. Those two trends tend to offset each other, and to that we ADD the costs of renewable sources and THEIR storage devices.

    RH

  16. floodguy Avatar

    “For crying out loud, do you ever listen to yourself?”

    Comparable credit related to peak RH. " P E A K " . If peak capacity goes for say 0.70/kwh retail, the utility will have the right to buy for less, the difference being its SCC-appointed profit rate plus the fixed costs typically charged to generators who use the utility's T&D network. So for argument sake, let's say this is 25% less or 0.53/kWh. The point being, since pv solar peaks during the daytime, under a real-time pricing scheme, its resources sold back into the market are more valuable, as the end-user would rec'd similar credit proportional to what the electricity sales for in the open market. Under a flat-rate scheme, it wouldn't be the case, so there no incentive for pv solar roofing and less for a plug-in. You do realize the end-users will not be entering the open market to sell their generated electricity, do you? The utility has to sell it for them, unlike a 500MW peaking generator who sales at wholesale to another utility distributor in the open markets. Totally different. You are confused (again).

    The "huge" capacity costs the utility would pay is absorbed by the end-users' co-generation resource sure; but there will be many end-users co-generating and many would be receiving electricity credits in the return. Of course someone with a 1000 sf home would see less profit and a breakeven point farther into the future then say theowner of a 3000 sf home. A business with a 10,000 sqft flat roof will have even greater incentive. The utility will soon find incentive to lease large roofs own by schools and govt, for the same purpose. Figure out the economics yourself – better yet RH, why don't we just let the MARKET figure it out for us! That's already happening, which is why we are having this discussion today. Dominion has set the wheels in motion and in about 5 to 20 some years, this is what is ahead.

    The capital costs to the user to co-generate under a real-time price scheme, will incentivizes end-user because the source can serve several purposes: supply electricity to oneself, stand alone functional purpose as a vehicle or roof, supply the grid when co-generation is not serving oneself. Why is this so hard for you to handle?

    “Nonsense. More renewables will mean more reliance on backup power”

    Sounds like you have been picking up on my posts RH, good job. The industry goal of renewables thru a smart grid, is to create an alternative baseload generation. Of course it would need backup (that is why VA politicans want to explore in the OCS for natural gas.) It may be more complex, it may cost more per kWh, but that’s the basis for the concept for using renewables and that includes how to make them more marketable in terms of profitability and pentretration.

    With nuclear’s enormous startup costs and the cost for coal generation to triple with ccs, rising electricity prices from traditional resources brings renewables into the marketplace.
    If the cost to strictly generate electricity by renewables is near zero, why not find a way to utilitize it?

    Pickens strategy to defer natural gas for electricity to vehicle consumption is simply bonk. I was totally surprised by that. He obviously doesn’t get the big picture. Most of the U.S. simply isn’t windy as it is in west Texan. Natural gas will always be used as peak source, primarily because of its dispatchability, reliability.

    Shifting load from peak to baseline, eases the spike of peak. Higher spikes in peak leads to congestion, higher transmission costs, system overloads, breakdowns and reliability worries. Traditionally, under our macrogrid, peak demand is the #1 driver for grid expansion. My point was, the physical expansion of the grid for greater peak capacity, will ease with smartgrid, EEC and end-users co-generation resources. Why? Because these alternatives are cheaper, cleaner and more readily available. This will ease the strain the utilities currently face when expanding under the traditional grid. Completely, no, but ease, yes. Less macro, less cost, more micro, less congestion, less peak, more baseline, more clean coal, more nuclear, more renewables, more reliable grid, cheaper electicity, more sustainable economy, less GHG emissions.

    If you build it (smart grid) they will come. Research RH, you need to spend some time doing R E S E A R C H, instead of spending all your time figuring how to contradict everything.

  17. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “The “huge” capacity costs the utility would pay is absorbed by the end-users’ co-generation resource sure; but there will be many end-users co-generating and many would be receiving electricity credits in the return. “

    You really are out of your mind. This is the same “get something for nothing argument again.” it is completely circular logic.

    The point is that the end users huge generating costs collectively will be even more huge than the power company’s huge generating costs, and therefore there is no collective savings. Together we will wind up spending more for the same power than we could get by just buying it from the electric company. – Unless and until individual units are more efficient than the power company’s units.

    I don’t need any research to figure that one out.

    The whole problem with individually owned units is that they work whenever they work, and that may or may not coincide with peak. As a result the power company will need more expensive gas fired peaking capacity, not less. That is why Pickens wants more wind power: so he can sell more gas. He has a great strategy, and probably one that will work.

    “the utility will have the right to buy for less,”

    Why is that? Why would I want that? Let them buy it for what it costs (based on the individuals huge capital investment, let alone his insurance and maintenance costs) and then add their SCC appointed profit rate to that.

    THEN the individual investor would have incentive. What you propose is negative incentive. Of course there is one little problem: it would actually raise the average rate charged for electricity on the grid, BUT you would have more renewables on line and less pollution. You would have more local generation and less loss in transmission. It would cost more, but, as Larry says, “So what, it’s cleaner.”

    You missed my point entirely by going off on a tangent about flat rates. I don’t care what the rate structure is, there is no incentive for me to sell electricity to the power company for less than it costs me to make it.

    “The industry goal of renewables thru a smart grid, is to create an alternative baseload generation”

    Nonsense. Base load is just that. You cannot have alternative baseload. It is a total oxymoron. Alternative power will have peak production that does not match peak use, and a smarter grid can help smoothout the bumps, somewhat. That much I’ll give you. When you have enough alternative power it can depress base production somewhat. That much I’ll give you.

    But, how is that going to happen, primarily? By transmitting power farther, with more resulting losses, (which smart grid can help alleviate but not eliminate.)

    Gas is more epensive than coal, and alternative is more expensive than gas (so far). So what happens is that alternative competes with Gas for everything that is variable, that is ABOVE the base load. You do NOT get alternative base capacity.

    Eventually, you might get enough installed alternative capacity to depress the base capacity somewhat, but that is going to come with larger and larger swings in variability or energy security based on the alternative output. That higher variability means you need more quick acting gas turbines to fill in the larger and large power gaps that can occur. Which is why Pickens loves the idea: he sells gas.

    So the smart grid is supposed to reduce the need for peak power, but alternative power will increase the need for quick acting back-up, so one counteracts the other. Even though the smart grid will help smooth out the bumps, more alternative power means bigger bumps and more quick acting gas (peaking) units. And it was the elimination of these that started the whole idea.

    You will wind up with MORE peaking gas units to fill in the bumps in alternative production. The end result is that you get to pay for the peaking units anyway, you get to pay for the alternative units and THEIR storage backups, and when all that doesn’t work you fall back on burning expensive (and valuable for other purposes) natural gas.

    You could not make a better recipe for higher prices.

    ————————-

    “The point being, since pv solar peaks during the daytime, under a real-time pricing scheme, its resources sold back into the market are more valuable, as the end-user would rec’d similar credit proportional to what the electricity sales for in the open market.”

    I’m not even going to bother arguing that one: it is totally circular logic.

    ———————

    “If the cost to strictly generate electricity by renewables is near zero, why not find a way to utilitize it? ” First of all, it isn’t near zero. Second, the way we will find to utilize it is to build a huge infrastructure to support it. All of that counts as part of the cost of renewables.

    Less macro, more micro.
    More local, less congestion.
    Less peak, more baseline.
    More reliable grid.

    So far I’m with you 100%. Then you jump off a cliff.

    It is going to cost more money and make electricity more expensive, and this is the REAL purpose of this charade. More expensive electricity means less use, less baseline, and less coal, and less GHG emissions.

    That is the real story, and you might as well come out and say so, unless you have been so brainwashed you can’t see it.

    It is NOT going to be less cost, it will be more cost, and it will not make for a more sustainable economy, just because it reduces GHG. That is going to take profits, which the individual generator isn’t going to get. Not this way, anyway.

    ————————

    “You do realize the end-users will not be entering the open market to sell their generated electricity, do you? The utility has to sell it for them” Well, exactly, and the utility should get a fee for re-selling it. I don’t have a problem with that. I just don;t think the end users will jump to sell electricity for less than it costs them.

    ————————
    Why is this so hard for you to handle?

    Well, it maight have something to do with the solar panel sales man who said (honestly) “This isn”t about saving money, it is about making a political statement.”

    I’d actually buy a solar panel from that guy, because I know he is honest.

    —————————–

    “why don’t we just let the MARKET figure it out for us!”

    Well, now there is a good question.

    The smart grid was MANDATED as a say to put renewables and conservation on an equal footing with more generation.

    “the utility will have the right to buy for less” sounds like a great free market technique.

    WE will give the utility a varable rate scheme to sell on, and a fixed rate to buy on. Great free market there.

    “but there will be many end-users co-generating and many would be receiving electricity credits in the return.” And each one will lose a little on each sale, but it’s OK because over all we will make it up on volume.

    “It may be more complex, it may cost more per kWh, but that’s the basis for the concept for using renewables …to make them more marketable in terms of profitability and pentretration…. Because these alternatives are cheaper, cleaner and more readily available. ” There is a circular marketing plan that makes my head spin.

    Tripling the cost of CCS brings renewables into the marketplace.

    Yessirree buddy, there are some good free market concepts right there. Remind me to get you a job working for one of my competitors.

    While we are at it, Why don’t we charge full price for transit and let the market figure that one out?

    ——————————-

    ” It may be more complex, it may cost more per kWh, but that’s the basis for the concept for using renewables….”

    That is the one true thing you said. Your sales strategy would have been better, more honest, more believeable, and probably more marketable – even at a higher costs if you just stopped right there.

    You don’t make a good idea any better by covering it up in manure: just check out the latest Microsoft operating system.

    Look, I don’t have a problem with renewables or the smart grid. I think 12% by 2022 is a big task, but I think we can eventually make these things work for us, and do it well.

    What I hate is hack salesmen who overpromte, obfuscate, lie, and violate the laws of physics to make a sale at any cost to everyone.

    The only reason I take so much time arguing with you is that your statements are SO full of holes even the most ardent supporter ought to be able to see them.

    Step back. Take a deep breath. Start from scratch and look at the WHOLE SYSTEM. then come back and explain to me exactly how EVERYONE benefits and how much that benefit is worth. Then tell me how much it costs.

    Be at least willling to admit that it might not be worth it, and search dilgently for the errors you might make.

    THEN you get me on your side.

    ——————————-

    Here is a simple example.

    Eventually wind power…could reliably supply up to twenty per cent of America’s energy needs—but only if new transmission lines were built, allowing the efficient movement of power from the places where it’s generated to the places where it’s consumed. Don’t count on that happening anytime soon. Most of the land that the grid would pass through is owned by individuals, and nobody wants power lines running through his back yard. We have some serious property rights issues to resolve to make this thing work, and we are going to lose a lot of that “free power” while we are delivering it.

    Here is another –

    What’s a beer bottle worth after someone drinks the brew?

    Not much. The market price for recycled glass is so low that it doesn’t make financial sense for bars and restaurants to recycle the container for the world’s favorite alcoholic beverage.

    Clear glass is worth $25 a ton to recyclers, and brown glass is worth $15 a ton, Kissell said. That’s less than it costs to carry it to the buyer, a fiberglass-insulation manufacturer. Then there’s green glass, worth a whopping nothing.

    Aluminum cans, meanwhile, fetch $1,400 a ton.

    Businesses generally want to do the right thing. It’s just learning to do it and figuring out how to afford it or IF they can afford it.

    But this hasn’t got anything to do with businesses doing the “right thing” this has to do with NOT DOING something that is environmentally and economically stupid.

    In my view it means BEING WILLING TO RECOGNIZE that there is such a thing as being politically corrent and environmentally stupid , and then avoiding that condition like the plague.

    This is NOT a matter of me being opposed to environmental initiatives, or any political position. It is simply a habit I have of looking to see where things are most likely to go wrong, and staying away from there.

    It is a habit of asking simple and direct questions, and refusing to accept circumlocutions for an answer.

    It is a recognition that hard things are hard and expensive, not cheap and free. That doesn not mean that they aren;t worth what they cost, but we will never know the costs with the kind of whitewash you put up.

    —————————

    Now, when I sell power back to the grid, it will be from a natural gas burning engine. I will use it to direct drive my heat pump, and use the waste heat from the engine to augment the heat exchanger or heat hot water. When it is not running I will buy power from the grid because it is cheaper than making my own, but when it is running, the most efficient engine speed may allow me to run the heat pump AND generate some power to sell back.

    This system is commercially availabe today, and it does not depend on subsidies, smart grid or variable pricing to make it highly efficient. I would prefer a steam driven engine running on renewable fuel, but we aren’t there yet. We probably never will because once you make the steam you might as well heat with it as drive an engine, except for the air conditioning, which I don’t have anyway.

    Now take a deep breath and repeat after me; “It may be more complex, it may cost more per kWh, but that’s the basis for the concept for using renewables…”

    “It may be more complex, it may cost more per kWh, but that’s the basis for the concept for using renewables…”

    “It may be more complex, it may cost more per kWh, but that’s the basis for the concept for using renewables…”

    RH

  18. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I had a couple of questions if we can fit them into the 1000 word tomes …

    What would be cheaper – for you to put a solar panel on your roof or for Dominion to put it somewhere else and distribute it to you?

    Is there any reason to think that Dominion could build and operate solar units cheaper than a homeowner could?

    Second question – similar.

    Is it cheaper for Dominion to burn gas for peak power than it is for a homeowner to have a gas-powered backup generator?

    Bonus Question –

    If enough homeowners had gas-powered backup systems that were part of a “smart grid” then when the grid needed peak power – would it be cheaper to “turn on” customers backup generators than to burn gas remotely and distribute it?

    now a request – keep the answers SHORT!!! got his RH?

    no 1000 word tomes that wrap around the axle…

    thank you.

  19. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    As usual, you are asking a question that cannot be answered correctly as posed.

    The short answer is that even with solar panels there is an economy of scale, so Vepco can put up big arrays cheaper than we can put up many arrays. We would need switchgear for every array to feed to the grid, Vepco could consolidate that.

    The contervailing question is how far do they have to deliver, and there wil be a trade off, but it probbly will not trade well at the individual dwelling unit.

    Putting solar PV on your roof is most likely a dumb-ass idea that will wind up costing you dearly. It is right up there with putting grass on your roof.

    As for the second question: it depends. The allure of the home powered gas generator is that you et to use the waste heat, on the other hand the unit itself is not as efficient as a big turbine. If your home has a big hotwater demand (five girls in the family) it might be very cost effective, but if you are asingle commuter, seldom home, then no.

    “would it be cheaper to “turn on” customers backup generators than to burn gas remotely and distribute it?” Probably not, but it depends how far you have to transmit. The units I describe primarily drive heat pumps, and generate power on the side. It would be wasteful to power them up solely for the power, which you cna generate more cheaply with a big turbine someplace else.

    Reciprocating engines need more maintenance than turbines. And al that maintenance is now diffuse, meaning more travel is involved to do the same work.

    Or a LOT more cheaply burning coal someplace else, even if you have to clean up after.

    The reason we have power companies is that they can do it better than us – ususally.

    RH

  20. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    How much of the cost of electricity is distribution?

    bonus question:

    is it “cheaper” to string new power lines through Va Piedmont than it is to build “peaker” natural gas plants “locally” in NoVa?

  21. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: the cost of peak power

    from a consumer point of view – if Dominion was going to charge 9 times more for peak power would it be cheaper for the consumer to buy a natural gas backup generator and not pay peak power?

  22. floodguy Avatar

    RH, I think you simply get a rise out of being a contrarian. You method of arguing to mischaracterize my position by focusing on just one issue while ignoring others, fails to consider who they are interdependent.

    Another flaw with your thinking is time. No one is espousing, with the exception of the far-dreaming environmentalist, that alternative energy and its concepts are going to make a dent before say 2020-2030. It took nearly 3 decades for the problem to develop and it will take the same amount of time to fix. And with time, you seem to fail to realize price will be affected. The problems forecasted today, are clearly stated in Dick Cheney’s energy plan of 2001 – like him or not, read it, its there.

    Today coal generation is around .07/kWh, with carbon regulation costs will rise to around .09-.12/kWh. Why the range. Depends on the grid, the provider and its dependency on coal. Gas is around .08/kWh and with carbon regulation, will rise to .09-.10/kWh. Nuclear is around .09/kwh and w/ carbon regs, it will remain at .09/kWh.

    Now enter into the equation the cost for ccs technlogy. Today with ccs coal w/ carbon reg is forecasted to triple to .21-.36/kWh. (Why triple? I’m not going to tell you. Let’s see if you know instead of me offering the reason, you learning of it, then arguing as if you already knew. ) Because of this, the profitability of other alternatives enters into the equation. This is why the industry is developing the smart grid and considering a pricing model, which motivates conservation and the move to become more energy efficient. Those costs would be cheaper than the forecast priced paid for traditional power. It isn't that smart grid and EEC is driving electricity higher, its development has several, but in this discussion, it is to widen resources because prices would likely provide marketability for them.

    Also because of coal’s growing price and opposition, there is the strong likelihood higher demand for natural gas will send its costs soaring. This is already beginning as excess capacity today is being purchased and exported overseas. America's luxury of cheap natural gas has disappeared and like oil, expanding capacity cannot meet growing world demand, closing the gap b/n excess capacity and demand and driving prices higher. Cheap prices are gone. Nuclear has extremely high startup costs because of regulation and they are bound to grow, so in order to stave off crippling high electricity costs from coal, gas and nuclear, in combination to widen resources to increase grid reliability, increase energy resiliency, and perhaps clean the air and reduce C02, alternative resources provided thru smart grid enhance EEC and renewables make clear sense.

    How it is that pv solar roofing + smart grid + real-time pricing circular logic? Its power can be generated when most homes sit unoccupied during the daytime and a plug-in vehicle storage is unavailable. Is it possible another storage device will exist? Possibly, but the storage device will only facilitate such users to defer consuming grid power during off-peak when its the cheapest. It would be more profitable to sell the electricity back to the grid at a higher rate during the day w/o storage, then it would be to pay the grid for usage during off-peak. With falling pv solar prices, rising peak prices, and a national mandate for utilities to accept & buyback co-generation, the market is proving this logic works.

    It is true one renewable source is unreliable, but with a combination of renewables plus the resources gained thru load mgmt and demand response thru digital management, you have a supply which is increasingly reliable – perhaps the 1st 1/3 is 100% reliable, the second 66%, the final 1/3 33%, whatever. My logic and this concept does not overlook this, however, you seem to fail to realize the reliability issues the existing macro has without it. With forecasted higher prices of traditional resources, the combined cost to build and operate the alternative will become price competitive and with it comes other positive affects with eases threats and price inflation spurred by resource scarcity.

    It appears Picken's is your savior. But his plan supplants the grid's reliance on gas and replaces it with wind, and uses that gas to substitute the transportation sector's reliance on petroleum. You don't see a problem with that? For one both sectors will increase its natural gas usage, as will the world, which will drive prices very high. I’m sure if Pickens wants to really get into policymaking, he plan will transform into some more comprehensive. Otherwise, he offers nothing more than what Al Gore offers.

    Picken's wind plan has one huge problem and you don't have to tell me this. From the first post on Bacon’s Rebellion, I have discussed the problems in transmission. First post RH. The entire basis for his ad campaign, is to bring awareness to wind as a viable alternative (in his neck of the woods), and bring public awareness and future support for massive transmission it requires and the acceptance of higher utility costs which the public would have to pay. Currently his wind venture is only one-third under contract and he's a long way off from a payoff.

    Lastly, please keep in mind, RH, each region is different. What works in west Texas or in Arizona, Washington, North Dakota, or Maine, doesn't necessarily work in Virginia. Bits and pieces might, or a different % of combinations might, but the solution calls to develop everything, while each region discerns what will fit their needs. This is why everything needs to be on the table.

    I would suggest you investigate the matter on your own. Go to the DOE website, read the federal initiatives and development articles in some of their labs out in Northwest and the Idaho labs among others. Check out the Smartgrid newsletter and Gridwise websites. Check out the US Demand Respond Coordination Committee website.

    Subscribe to the FERC, DOE and SCC news feed. Check out the NERC, PJM Interconnection, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners.

    Read independent concept development from Rocky Mountain Institute and the Galvin Electric Institute. Industry consultants EEI and EPRI are good.

    Free trade news media outlets like Electric Energy Online, Energy Daily, DOE's Energy Assurance, and Platts are very useful.

    Can't read, check out videos on Planet Gore or Energy Policy TV.

    Open your mind by opening up your eyes or your ears.

  23. AREAYCH Avatar

    No your wrong. Smart grid is stupid, not smart. Solar roofing is a dumb. It won’t work. Floodguy you sound like a hopeless environmentalist tree-hugging liberal. Dream on. Its not going to work, pipedream, contradicts the laws of physics, contradicts human societial habits, contradicts, it it it , you are paying more for less dammit, can’t you see it. I don’t have air-condition so its not worth it. That’s right. I’ll give you some of the smart grid, but its not going to work! You’re just upset floodguy, I must have hit the mother lode!

  24. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “RH, I think you simply get a rise out of being a contrarian.”

    I make my living thinking about all the bad things that can happen to big expensive systems and planning ahead to avoid them. Adding the contingency stuff always costs more money and leads to still more things that have to be avoided. It is a hideously complex business that depends extensively on fully understanding ALL of the interdependencies.

    I may have mischaracterized the situation, but herei is how I see it, as opposed to merely attackingyour thoughts.

    Smart grid can achieve some effiencies through peak shaving. Those efficiencies may result in lower capital costs for the utility due to the need for fewer peaking plants.

    Increasing volatile renewable energy sources like wind and solar will increase the need for fast acting gas powered plants for backup power.

    Even if we use many local sources the location (and timing) of power generated from renewable sources and used will not match the location or time of demand. Therefore more long distance transission will occur and be needed.

    Therefore renewable power will require MORE gas backup and MORE transmission capability, some of which will come from smart grid.

    The appropriate place to put those costs is with the cost of renewable energy, and this will make it look much less attractive.

    It will always cost the individual more to produce power than the power company, outright, and that isn’t even including all the hidden or exterality costs. Therefore the idea that an individual can create power and save money is an outright fraud. Maybe that will change someday, but I can’t see how.

    Most energy use is not particularly optional, and peak energy use occurs for a reason. Variable rates will cause some peak shaving and for those that are able to do it, the new rate structure will allow them to avoid the newly created costs. That isn’t the same as saying they are saving money.

    Most people will simply wind up paying more for the same electricity they use now, even if they also pay less for the power they use off peak. Paying more for electricity will cause them to use less.

    If my AC runs 5 minutes out of fifteen, I may not care which five minutes it runs. To that extent I won;t notice any change in comfort. But if it runs 20 minutes out of the hour it won’t make any difference which twenty minutes when the whole hour is charged at peak. Variable pricing may be great for the utility, it may reduce power usage over all, but to the individual it will just cost more. Only if there are gross overall economies and only if the SCC is charitable enough to distribute them wll we see any difference in lower rates.

    If that happens, then Jevon’s Paradox kicks in and usage goes up. Then you don’t have enough base production, and coal usae goes up. In the meantime the increased usage of gas creates higher prices for fertilizer and other chemicals, all of which ought to be charged against the true cost of renewables.

    Areaych is right. You would have to be stark raving mad to put solar panels on your roof. Someday, it might be different if you design and construct new homes with specially designed and proven products in mind. For now, you DO NOT want solar panels on your roof where they are hard to clean. You DO NOT want anything bolted to your roof that will eventually leak. You DO NOT want a bunch of big sails retrofitted to your roof to help blow it away, unless properly engineered.

    This is not being contradictory, it is looking at what happens in the world and thinking about it realistically. I hate to be a grinch, but that’s my job.

    ——————————

    When you sound like a hopeless, rosy-lensed, tree hugging liberal you do NOTHING to help the cause of conservation, and even worse you (most probably) do more damge than good.

    I believe there are ways to make this work, and to make it pay. After all, cleaner air is worth something, but the evalue is not infinite, and neither is our ability to pay for it. But, increasing the cost of using coal DOES NOT make renewables cheaper. What happens is that we pay whatever generation and delivery costs, (probably using coal) and anything ABOVE that cost is not for energy , but for clean air.

    We need to advertize what it REALLY is we are selling, and make sure THAT is competitive in the real world market.

    The kind of garbage that usually gets published (by you and Larry and others)just makes me PO’d, and I’m on your side. Use just a little imagination and see what the other side thinks.

    “They are laughing at you out there, boy” Dustin Hoffman in Midnight Cowboy.

    Worst of all, Dominion is laughing the most. Dominion and Developers LOVE whacko environmentalists. You and others like you are being duped, and you are being very successful at it. As a result everyone is going to pay the (now higher) bill.

    RH

  25. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    How much of the cost of electricity is distribution?

    Depends on how far, and what value you place on being able to export pollution.

    Use 50% as a rule of thumb, but then you have to subtract from that the cost of producing it locally instead – probably with higher land costs and higher externality costs.

  26. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    if Dominion was going to charge 9 times more for peak power would it be cheaper for the consumer to buy a natural gas backup generator and not pay peak power?

    No, I doubt it. Small generators are WAY less efficient than big ones. last hurricane I used my portable generator for two days and burned 16 galllons of gas. I could have paid my electric bill for a month for what the gas costs, let alone the generator. Natural gas would be cheaper, but still…..

    Anyway, not ALL peak power actually costs nine times as much. If Dominion charges that much we are being ripped off.

    The cheapest thing to do is probably not charge 9 times as much and just average the cost. I know that is heresy to you, but it is probably the case, unless Domnion does a helluva a job at offloading peak.

    The reason a cogenerator works is that you primarily use it to geneate direct mechanical energy which you use to turn the compressor on the heat pump. Any electricity you generate is an additional benefit that otherwise would simpley have been wasted as excess engine HP. You really hate to use High Grade mechanical energy and convert it to electricity, deliver the electricity and convert it back to mechanical energy.

    The cogenerator avoids this, AND it captures the waste heat. If it isn’t being overworked, then you also get some electricity to sell back, but that is a side gig, not why you bought the unit. All of this is possible today because we can now make durable engines that are much lighter in weight and with far less vibration than only a few years ago.

    RH

  27. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    is it “cheaper” to string new power lines through Va Piedmont than it is to build “peaker” natural gas plants “locally” in NoVa?

    Depends on whther you pay for the land you need for the transmission or steal it through eminent domain.

    Depends on how much damage the new local pollution does in NOVA. How many new caes of asthma, how many extra new paint jobs, etc. etc.

    Depends on how far you transmit the power.

    The real problem is that NOVA is so big you don’t need peaker plants, you need baseline. But now you have to compare the cost of shipping coal with the cost and losses of shipping electricity.

    RH

  28. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    And with time, you seem to fail to realize price will be affected.

    Nope, I explicitly consider the effect of time and the time value of money. there is a correct time and an incorrect time to switch over, and switching over too soon costs more than it saves – even considering the time value of the investment.

    I’m really not to interested in spending a hundred EXTRA dollars today just because it MIGHT save me that hundred back 20 years from now.

    RH

    RH

  29. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Because of this, the profitability of other alternatives enters into the equation.”

    No it doesn’t. That is a common perception and it is completely wrong. I’ll leave it to you to do the research to figure out why.

    RH

  30. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “because prices would likely provide marketability for them. “

    Nonsense, for the same reason.

    “Also because of coal’s growing price and opposition, there is the strong likelihood higher demand for natural gas will send its costs soaring.”

    The first half is nonsense, the second half is true. But you need more gas to back up the renewables, and that makes renewables less attractive.

    Pickens isn’t my savior, I could care less one way or another what happens: most of it will be outside my lifespan anyway. But Pickens has a good clear business model, and you don’t.

    Don’t waste your time picking on me, I’m not worth it, just improve your business plan.

    RH

  31. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Nuclear has extremely high startup costs because of regulation ” That is an unproven assumption. One could equally assume new technlogy makes it much safer.

    RH

  32. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    How it is that pv solar roofing + smart grid + real-time pricing circular logic?

    Put it in a spreadsheet with real costs. I guarantee that either it will not close, or throw a circular logic error.

    RH

  33. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    You DO NOT gain resources through load management and demand response. If you have an unrelaiable source, then you have an unrelaiable source to load manage and demand response. You can’t sell something you don’t have.

    RH

  34. floodguy Avatar

    "No it doesn't. That is a common perception and it is completely wrong. I'll leave it to you to do the research to figure out why.</i"

    Yes it does. The "common perception" considers ccs technology and carbon regs or tax in some point in time. If neither was a likely reality, I wouldn't be posting.

  35. floodguy Avatar

    “Adding the contingency stuff always costs more money and leads to still more things that have to be avoided. It is a hideously complex business that depends extensively on fully understanding ALL of the interdependencies.”

    By 2020, coal will cost .20-.30/kWh, natural gas will always be on the verge of new price spikes, and one new nuclear reactor with its $20B price tag and waste will always weigh on its expansion. The operational cost per kWh by renewables + EEC thru digital energy mgmt plus the new infrastructure, will be just as competitive because its affect on land and the air is substantially reduced. Out west, renewables on land may have hurdles such as new transmission ROW, on the eastern seaboard, renewables sited offshore may alleviate those concerns for a comparable price.

    ”Smart grid can achieve some effiencies through peak shaving. Those efficiencies may result in lower capital costs for the utility due to the need for fewer peaking plants.”

    And will decrease the amount of expensive peak capacity utilities are forced buy, saving customers the same.

    ”Increasing volatile renewable energy sources like wind and solar will increase the need for fast acting gas powered plants for backup power.”

    We know that, this is why OCS access for new gas is good to put on the table. Let the next debate after a full inventory is made, decide whether or not to move forward.

    ”Even if we use many local sources the location (and timing) of power generated from renewable sources and used will not match the location or time of demand. Therefore more long distance transission will occur and be needed.”

    No sane person has ever suggested renewables will totally substitute traditional baseline relability or dispatchability. New baseline due to growth and retirements should encompass new coal w/ ccs, new powerplant efficiencies, nuclear, and smart grid enhanced alternative resources.

    ”Therefore renewable power will require MORE gas backup and MORE transmission capability, some of which will come from smart grid.”

    Less gas @ peak w/ a higher price, in exchange for greater gas @ baseline w/ a lower price. More macro, more transmission, increased costed and inefficiencies. More micro, less transmission, decreased costs and inefficienices. Micro = increased smart grid + distributed resources (EEC & co-generation).

    Imagine a offshore energy farm with one windturbine per seven acres above the surface (don’t know the name of the comparable area over water is called), and below within that same space, a wave generator bobbing at the surface, and a tidal turbine and geothermal turbine spinning below the surface, all with its intermittency, independent to the other, while sharing the same transmission? That energy resource envisioned in part or in full off the east coast, complimented via a smart grid signalling grid users to response to fluctation in the power flows with demand response, co-generation and other utility enhanced load controls thru smart appliances and a/c load mgmt, may not be 100% reliable, but it may indeed offer 33% reliability all year long, 66% reliable during 2/3 of the year and 100% reliable during 1/3 of the year. The net result is, low operational costs, zero emissions & C02. Backup the resource with existing dispatchible fossil generation, and together it comes at a competitive cost to traditional baseline power forecasted by the year 2025-2030.

    ”The appropriate place to put those costs is with the cost of renewable energy, and this will make it look much less attractive.”

    This fails to consider the coming realities affecting the price of coal, nuclear and gas generated electricity.

    ”It will always cost the individual more to produce power than the power company, outright, and that isn’t even including all the hidden or exterality costs. Therefore the idea that an individual can create power and save money is an outright fraud. Maybe that will change someday, but I can’t see how.”

    Firstly, outside of the capital cost, the operational cost for most if not all renewables will be cheaper than most traditional baseline power resources by 2030. Implementing a mass scale of such will have to be determined by regulators and utilities. It is also dependent upon things such as price, availability and geographics which moreorless dictate reliability. True, the field of choices narrows considerably when applied to the individual end-user who intends to generation electricity himself, and this would include small low-emissions gas turbines, but not for all renewable resources, especially pv solar roofing. But not only are there federal and state incentives to lessen the need for end-user’s capital, but manufacturing prices are falling considerably each and every year. When it is time to replace a roof, for example, the dual purpose of a pv solar roof, considering the distributing utility must buy back and credit the power if the end-user choses to supply the grid, will make sense only if the market prices it that way. If peak capacity costs more to use, then supplying the grid at peak periods is more valuable. The markets in California are already pointing in that direction.

    ”Most energy use is not particularly optional, and peak energy use occurs for a reason. Variable rates will cause some peak shaving and for those that are able to do it, the new rate structure will allow them to avoid the newly created costs. That isn’t the same as saying they are saving money.”

    Agree, but if the customer uses less of what costs more, then they don’t have to spend as much! This goes for utilities as well.

    ”Most people will simply wind up paying more for the same electricity they use now, even if they also pay less for the power they use off peak. Paying more for electricity will cause them to use less.”

    That’s just your simple speculation. The concept of real-time pricing doesn’t have to equate to reality meaning, 100% real-time or without it, 100% flat-line. Obviously there will be some sort of grandfathering or a tier base consumption rate. This doesn’t upset establish business activity and doesn’t harm end-users such as retired residential, who may be more dependent on peak power at home than others.

    “If my AC runs 5 minutes out of fifteen, I may not care which five minutes it runs. To that extent I won;t notice any change in comfort. But if it runs 20 minutes out of the hour it won’t make any difference which twenty minutes when the whole hour is charged at peak. Variable pricing may be great for the utility, it may reduce power usage over all, but to the individual it will just cost more. Only if there are gross overall economies and only if the SCC is charitable enough to distribute them wll we see any difference in lower rates.”

    No, I have several times, already explained to you the fundamentals of a/c load management. The greater the participation, the higher the impact. It is clear those impacts result in decreased needs by the utility to purchase peak power on the open markets, the most expensive power there is. This means the utility has less of the variable expense from the high price of peak power, to distribute amonst all of its customers under the existing flat-rate price structure. The immediate capital costs for smart a/c switch components, is surpassed within 2 or 5 years (depending on the number of volunteering participants and grid-size) through savings in decrease peak power purchases.

    ”Areaych is right.”

    OMG, I posted Areaych, sorry. That was my mimick of you, Are-Aych! Get it?

    “You would have to be stark raving mad to put solar panels on your roof…For now, you DO NOT want solar panels on your roof where they are hard to clean. You DO NOT want anything bolted to your roof that will eventually leak. You DO NOT want a bunch of big sails retrofitted to your roof to help blow it away, unless properly engineered.”

    PV Solar roofing shingles. Don’t tell me you think I was referring to the huge glass solar panels we saw from the 70’s or 80’s? My goodness RH, get the cobwebs off.

    ”This is not being contradictory, it is looking at what happens in the world and thinking about it realistically.”

    Again, you fail to realize what the utilities and regulators are telling the nation. This same failure hits the left. The age of cheap electricity, cheap gasoline, cheap natural gas, are gone. Economic sustainability, energy resiliency, energy security, and climate (if that’s a concern to you), are vital factors pressing against the energy industry from all four sides.

    ”Worst of all, Dominion is laughing the most. Dominion and Developers LOVE whacko environmentalists. You and others like you are being duped, and you are being very successful at it. As a result everyone is going to pay the (now higher) bill.”

    Your perspective skills are quite poor RH. #1 Dominion couldn’t careless about extremists, other than they obstruct their progress which cost them legal fees and valuable time. Dominion knows what they need to accomplish and sane state democratics, powerful democratics I might add, agree with them.

    #2, this comment (#1) should clearly demonstrate that I am far from an extreme environmentalist you imagine I am. But what is an environmentalist? Someone who likes the the land, water and air so much they could careless what their actions are to everything outside the that? No, those people are called extremists. Who is someone who cares about the land, water and air, but understands the reality we are in?

    #3, higher bills ARE in store w/o smart grid enhance alternatives regardless, and smart grid enhanced alternatives are only coming to the surface because they are becoming price competitive.

  36. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Yeah, OK, you can believe whatever you like.

    RH

  37. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Keeerist!

    Outside the capital cost, my farm makes an operational profit. But it will never, ever pay for itself.

    When I cut hay, it comes in rows with lumps in it. I can rake three rows into one (load management) and this smooths out some of the lumps, then I can rake it again to smooth out the remaining lumps (peak shaving).

    This gives me a more uniform row, a better product, and operational efficiencies when it comes to baling.

    BUT IT DOESN”T GIVE ME ANY MORE HAY.

    It costs me money to get that efficiency and it matters whether one is greater than the other. My customers may never see or recognize the difference, but they will pay the price, if I’m lucky.

    RH

  38. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    You are puttin g words in my mouth again about extremists.

    Dominion basically works on a cost plus basis. Anything we do to increase their costs increases OUR cost and increases their profit. we justput them in the environmental business AND the power business, with guranteed customers.

    I wish I could operate like that.

    RH

  39. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I have several times, already explained to you the fundamentals of a/c load management.

    No you haven’t. Show me how changing the time my AC runs saves me money, if all the run time is during peak. It does not matter how many people participate in that experient, the answer is the same.

    RH

  40. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I know about solar roofing shingles, I once worked on related technology as a chemist.

    My remarks stand.

    RH

  41. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I’ll give you this, solar panels for space applications are far more efficient than the best commercial ones on earth.

    They are also far,far, far more expensive. But, given that the technology exists, it is a question of time before it becomes commercially viable. WHEN THAT HAPPENS, the rules will change dramatically.

    When your arguments come close to ringing true, I will be first in line, just as with my Prius. Hybrid technology was around for decades, before it was really practical. When Sikorsky invented the helicopter, he had visions of one in every garage, and we aren;t there yet.

    So far, you haven’t sold me, in fact, ridiculous arguments turn me off. If I had the $40k to spend, a tractor would be a better buy than solar PV, bad as farming is. But I don’t have the money, and I object to having it taken form me prematurely by mandate.

    At least if it doesn’t work out, I can sell the tractor and recover some of my money.

    How do I sell solar shingles?

    RH

  42. AreAyche Avatar

    Yeah, even though floodguy you’ve explained pv solar roofing shingles won’t be marketable until 20 years from now, if I had $40k like RH, I would still buy a tractor today.

    And even though I was totally confused like RH about huge dirty glass solar panels blowing off my roof, I stand with RH on pv solar shingles anyways. Makes perfect hay producing sense to me and my new tractor.

  43. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I wasn’t confused. Solar panels are still the predominant option today. Solar shingles, if anyone is crazy enough to buy them are most probably an otion only for new homes that have the option of being placed facing south.

    If you think Levittown is boring, wait til you see solar designed Levittown.

    And it isn;t just the tractor, I’d have a whole list of priorities that would come before solar at this point. Like a new Prius.

    RH

  44. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “The New York Times reports today that there may be as many as 34 new nuclear plants built in the U.S over the next decade. Nuclear power offers global environmental benefits (less greenhouse gases per unit of power generated) but imposes local environmental costs on the communities close to the new plants (extra radiation risk). Who will be the “lucky” communities where these power plants will be built?

    If local communities have the right to veto the placement of a nuclear power plant close to them, how will such communities be “bought off” or more politely compensated for taking the extra risk and providing public goods (less global warming) for the rest of us? Will Berkeley, California allow a nuclear plant to be built there?

    I’m eager to see more urban planners get involved in research on how to handle this issue that we will need to site plenty of new power plants, wind turbines and solar panels and they will take up a lot of land. We will need transmission lines to run from these to the grid. Which land should be used for this purpose? Do you trust the market to make these decisions? Do you trust local government?

    The market of course would place the new sites where land is cheap to purchase.”

    From the environmental and Urban Economics Blog.

    It all boils down to property rights, once again.

    RH

  45. floodguy Avatar

    “Yeah, OK, you can believe whatever you like.”

    And so will the market.

  46. floodguy Avatar

    No you haven’t. Show me how changing the time my AC runs saves me money, if all the run time is during peak. It does not matter how many people participate in that experient, the answer is the same.

    Oh yes I have. See this link from this blog http://baconsrebellion.blogspot.com/2008/07/latest-salvos-in-energy-war.html#c4857129653898357525

    From Piedmont Electric Coop http://www.pemc.org/loadmanagement.php

    From Northern Virginia Electric Coop http://www.novec.com/page.cfm?id=544

    Constellation load management and DR http://postclick.newenergy.com/Producer.aspx?sid=50&sky=F73PEJVT&pgi=1207&pgk=1B8OWLG3&rid=114886&rky=78J67EAE&tky=128625431122693750&cid=40&utm_source=Yahoo&utm_medium=CPC&utm_term=load%20managment&utm_campaign=Demand%20Response%20-%20California

    California State DOE load management independent consultant report 2007 http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-200-2007-007/CEC-200-2007-007-F.PDF

    Brattle Group news story on overall load reduction benefits http://www.pwmag.com/industry-news.asp?sectionID=760&articleID=500445

    TECO a/c load mgmt http://www.tampaelectric.com/business/saveenergy/loadmanagement/

    Are all these utilities lying to customers?

  47. floodguy Avatar

    From the DOE/EERE

    PV SYSTEMS AND NET METERING

    “Net metering is a policy that allows homeowners to receive the full value of the electricity that their solar energy system produces. “

    “Homeowners with PV systems can thus offset their electric bill with any excess electricity they produce. As the homeowner’s PV system produces electricity, the kilowatts are used first to meet any electric requirements (e.g., appliances, lights) in the home. If more electricity is produced from the PV system than the home needs, the extra kilowatts are fed into the utility grid.”

    “Under federal law, utilities must allow independent power producers to be interconnected with the utility grid, and utilities must purchase any excess electricity they generate. Many states have gone beyond the minimum requirements of the federal law by allowing net metering for customers with PV systems.”

    “At the end of the month, if the customer has generated more electricity than that used, the utility credits the net kilowatt-hours produced at the wholesale power rate. But if the customer uses more electricity than the PV system generates, the customer pays the difference.”

    With a real-time pricing model, imagine the payback incentive?

    “Net metering allows homeowners who are not home when their systems are producing electricity to still receive the full value of that electricity without having to install a battery storage system. Essentially, the power grid acts as the customer’s battery backup, which saves the customer the added expense of purchasing and maintaining a battery system.”

    “Some utilities are opposed to net metering because they believe it may have a negative financial impact on them. However, a number of studies have shown that net metering can benefit utilities. These benefits include reductions in meter hardware and interconnection costs, as well as in meter reading and billing costs. Grid-connected PV systems can also help utilities avoid the cost of additional power generation, increase the reliability and quality of electricity in the grid, and produce power at times of peak usage, when utility generation costs are higher and they often need the extra power.”

    Are you kidding me? RH are yhou telling me you are right and is the U.S. Dept of Energy simplying telling us an outright fraud?

  48. floodguy Avatar

    Cost
    A grid tied 3KW pv solar roofing system goes for about $25,000 in materials and $7,500 for labor installed. This would produce 30% of the electricity an average 2-story 3-bdrm American home would need, which consumes 18,000kW per year. Note, however, 100% of this electricity would be generated near peak or during peak periods.

    What needs to be studied, is the average consumption of a typical home, off-peak and on-peak, X average price per kWh, both under a flat-rate pricing model and a real-time pricing model, then decipher at what price level would such a solar system be economical if ever. Of course this study would have to consider the range of increasing costs for electricity into the future, the falling material costs of pv solar roofing, and whatever incentive or cost exemption exists thru the federal and/or state gov’ts.

    Perhaps the economics of pv solar roofing are currently about as viable as tire gauges are to energy independence. Perhaps, this will not be the case by 2020. I’ll tackle this soon, but right now, I gotta go.

  49. floodguy Avatar

    More lies from the state of California

    Press release from the state of California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)

    CPUC gives customers greater control over their electricity bills with dynamic pricing rates for PG&E

    August 5, 2008 – The CPUC continued its commitment on July 31 to empower energy consumers by setting a timetable for Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) to propose new “dynamic pricing” rate structures for all of its customers. Dynamic pricing will enable PG&E customers to take advantage of the new advanced meters that PG&E is installing throughout its service territory. With the new advanced meters, customers will no longer have to wait until the end of the month to see how much energy they used. The new meters will tell customers how much energy they are using from day-to-day and hour-to-hour. Dynamic pricing will give consumers a tool to take advantage of the new meters and reduce their electricity bills.

    Dynamic pricing refers to electric rates that reflect actual wholesale market conditions. One example is critical peak pricing (CPP), which is a rate that includes a short-term rate increase during critical conditions. Another example is real time pricing – a rate linked to actual hourly wholesale energy prices.

    Dynamic pricing can enable customers to better manage their electricity usage and reduce their bills. Dynamic pricing does this by charging customers more when power is in short supply, such as on a hot summer afternoon, and less when supplies are plentiful, such as at night and in the winter. Thereby, customers that can cut their electricity use during peak periods will be rewarded with a reduction in their bills.

    Dynamic pricing also connects rates with California’s greenhouse gas policies. When wholesale energy prices are high, the most inefficient generation sources with high greenhouse gas emissions are operating. By linking retail rates to wholesale market conditions, dynamic pricing encourages customers to avoid consuming polluting power.

    July 31's decision adopts a timetable that requires PG&E to propose dynamic pricing rates for all commercial, industrial, and agricultural electric customers by 2011. The decision also requires PG&E to introduce new dynamic pricing options for residential customers in 2011.

    “California’s Energy Action Plan identifies demand response, along with energy efficiency, as the state’s preferred way to meet growing energy needs,” said CPUC President Michael R. Peevey. “These new rates will give consumers a new tool to control their energy bills and reduce their impact on the environment."

    “Every PG&E customer will be getting a new, smarter meter during the next four years. Dynamic pricing will give customers a new tool to use the real-time usage information from the meters to manage their energy use and cut their bills,” said Commissioner Rachelle Chong.

    Are you kidding me, another lie RH?

  50. floodguy Avatar

    Is Georgia Power losing its mind?

    Press release from Georgia Power, August 4, 2008

    Georgia Power Files Diverse Energy Plan: Includes nuclear, potential biomass, expansion of Green Energy

    [The plan includes] renewable energy, energy efficiency and demand response programs that could meet between 11 to 18 percent of future resource needs over the next 10 years.

    RH, is there a conspiracy alive here in the electric utility industry? Are you the only one who really knows the truth?

  51. floodguy Avatar

    Look even the residents of D.C. cannot escape the lies from this utility conspiracy

    Smart Metering and Demand Response Pilot Goes Live in Washington D.C.

    Albuquerque, NM, August 4, 2008 – UtiliPoint® International, Inc. announced the successful launch of the PowerCentsDCTM residential smart meter and smart pricing pilot, where 1,400 customers will use a combination of technology and innovative rate structures to reduce electricity usage. The pilot is sponsored by the Smart Meter Pilot Program, Incorporated, a non-profit corporation consisting of the District of Columbia Public Service Commission, Office of People's Counsel, Consumers Utility Board, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and Pepco Holdings, Inc.

    The program is managed by UtiliPoint International, Inc. and eMeter. It is the first in the world to test smart metering with three different advanced residential rate options: Hourly Pricing, Critical Peak Pricing and Critical Peak Rebate. Each of these pricing options is coupled with technology provided by Sensus and Mincom to measure usage and bill the customers in the pilot. Comverge (NASDAQ: COMV) is providing smart thermostats to enable participants to save through automatic, remote control of their air conditioners.

    UtiliPoint provides project management and rate design services for the effort. The rates were designed and tested by UtiliPoint. The overall systems integration and testing were managed by UtiliPoint and done in close collaboration with Pepco, the local distribution utility. "UtiliPoint is a strong believer that the distribution utility is changing not only in North America, but globally as smart grids become a reality," said Jon T. Brock, President & COO of UtiliPoint. "A strong project management office that has good working relationships with the utility and multiple vendors will be required to succeed in pilot and production efforts moving forward."

    "PowerCentsDC strongly emphasizes the consumer experience," explains Chris King, President of eMeter Strategic Consulting. "The program promotes a holistic approach to energy conservation, combining prices that encourage load shifting to off peak times with tools and information that supports reduced energy consumption at all times of the day. Participants should also decrease their carbon footprint using the program's features."

    Sensus provides the two-way smart meters and radio network for communicating with the meters. "Key components to the smart grid of the future include a guaranteed communication network. With FlexNet, this pilot will benefit from our Primary-Use licensed system, which allows real-time information to be exchanged reliably and quickly between our iCon smart meter and the utility, and ultimately to the consumer so that they can react to pricing options," said Doug McCall, Director AMI Marketing at Sensus.

    Mincom's SmartBill system provides billing for the three rate options, integrating with the local utility's legacy system to maintain billing accuracy and business process continuity. "The rollout of the PowerCentsDC program proves SmartBill's ability to deliver a real-time, complex billing solution for a residential demand response application, while preserving the utility's investment in enterprise CIS," said Stan Royal, Sr. Vice President of Mincom Utility Solutions.

    Comverge supplies the smart thermostats for the program. In addition to controlling air conditioners remotely, these thermostats provide vital information to PowerCentsDC participants, including monthly usage to date, monthly bill to date, and the price currently in effect.

    "This is a positive example of strategic alliances that move us forward for the greater good of the community," said Robert M. Chiste, president, chairman and CEO of Comverge. "With the Comverge SuperStat® smart thermostat, we bring the consumer into the alliance, creating a seamless deployment for the end user and ultimately, a reduction in the overall congestion of the electricity grid.

    RH, these lies are coming from every direction!! What are we going to do??

  52. AreAyche Avatar

    engage To’ Mater voice now

    Gaw darn RH, I found this electric cumpny who is handing out $100 dollar bills to folks who do that dangone air condishining stuff.

    This ain’t right. Its jist all lies, LIES I tell ya.

    What we gonna do RH? What are we gonna do??!!

    http://www.ncelec.org/coolreturns.asp

  53. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Are the utilities lying? Yes.

    “Albuquerque, NM, August 4, 2008 – UtiliPoint® International, Inc. announced the successful launch of the PowerCentsDCTM residential smart meter and smart pricing pilot..”

    Have you ever seen a press release for a failure?

    RH

  54. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    RH, these lies are coming from every direction!! What are we going to do??

    I’d duggest we be more discerning witht the truth and a lot less free with spin.

    RH

  55. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “During summer peak demand periods in late afternoon and early evening, the air conditioner’s compressor is cycled off for eight to 12 minutes each half hour. The air conditioner’s fan continues to operate during this period so that comfort in the home is maintained. Because the switch allows the air conditioner compressor to cycle, NCE has received very few comments concerning comfort issues from members who have a switch installed on their system.”

    I’ll ask you again. the ari conditioner still runs enough to keep comefort and it is still run during peak period.

    The real purpose for the switch is to get to the point where we can aloo variable rate pricing. When that happens the air conditioner will run just as much, but I will be charged far more for running it.

    For th utility it is deal: they charge more for the same electricity. For me it is a screw job.

    That NCE has received very few comments concerning comfort issues doesn’t mean there aren’t any. This is what I mean by discerning truth and spin.

    RH

  56. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Look, let’s cut to the chase.

    Your argument is that variable rate pricing will allow people to save money. When peak rates are installed, if the company knows how much MORE to charge at peak then they should also know how much less to charge off peak.

    Take those companies listed above and tell me what the peak rate is and the off peak rate. then I can tell you waht the possibility (and the probability) that the rate changes could possibly save me money.

    In other words, show me the companies that have LOWERED the off peak rate when peak rates went into effect, and by how much.

    RH

  57. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “programs that could meet between 11 to 18 percent of future resource needs over the next ten years.”

    My how to read advertising instructor would rip this to shreds.

    1) they might and might not meet those goals.

    2) Over ten years the goals will change, so that 11 to 18% should be discounted.

    3) 11 to 18 % is a 65% variation. Do these people know the answer or not. If I showed up with a cost estimate like that, I wqould get fired.

    4) There is no consideration of costs. The statemnt makes it appear as if we will meet that demand for free.

    5) Why do I care what the power company saves? If it is going to cost me more money, then I want something for my money other than vague promises about GHG.

    Sure, I’d like to see GHG reduced, but I don’t want to pay the utility $80 a ton to do it (just because they are MANDATED) when other methods are availabel at $20 a ton. And the Utilities are cost plus, for Crying Out Loud. This is a license to steal.

    RH

  58. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Are you the only one who really knows the truth?

    Utility executives know the truth, but I’m the only one telling.

    I’m also the only one who has no reason to lie, no agenda, no political position, and no chip on my shoulder.

    RH

  59. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “And so will the market.”

    You mean like those 34 new nukes?

    RH

  60. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    You talk about how “we ” will “eventually” save a lot by spending more and charging ourselves more nowe.

    What I’d like to know is how I’m to derive so much utility from the expectation that people I do not even know will be better off in the future if I make sacrifices today?

    RH

  61. floodguy Avatar

    I’m all for nukes, especially thorium nukes. Besides what the journalist doesn’t realize, most nukes will be sited on land own by the state, or are already owned by the utility, or adjacent to existing nuclear power stations – such is the case with the North Anna expansion. DVP owns the land! Dominion and the Va Dept of MME think 7 units will be there some day. Sounds like a worthy plan RH, if the demand is there. If it isn’t a worthy plan, then people shouldn’t demand the electricity. Its that simple.

  62. floodguy Avatar

    Utility executives know the truth, but I’m the only one telling.

    I’m also the only one who has no reason to lie, no agenda, no political position, and no chip on my shoulder.

    Then its an honor to be talking with the only honest guy who knows the truth!

    Well, time to discuss the benefits of a/c load mgmt with the owner of the building I work in. Toodle-lu.

  63. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I knew it.

    A salesman with a dog in the fight.

    RH

  64. floodguy Avatar

    I own no dog and there’s no fight. He choses to join, he choses to quit. I’m just spreading cheer and goodwill.

  65. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    So, OK. there is an article in this weeks Time magazine about a fellow in California who installed $65,000 worth of solar panels. He paid for it with a zero down, 15 year, low interest loan provided by the panel manufacturor, and a $16,000 tax credit.

    The article stated his payments would be $550 a month but after 15years his electricity would be free.

    Well, not exactly, because his present electric bill is “only” $300 a month. Even if you figure electricity will go up substantially he would likely use electricity for much longer than fifteen years before he used enough for the loan to break even.

    Then there is the $16,000 tax credit that someone is going to pay for.

    Who would buy 20 years worth of minutes on their cell phone – up front? This is financially insane.

    Even if you think PV technology prices will come down, and electricity will go up, the thing to do is wait, bdcause you r total costs and payback will both be better.

    Maybe Larry can explain why a zero down subsidized $65,000 loan for a solar system is OK but the same loan terms on a condo conversion would be bad.

    RH

  66. Smart meters are better than dumb meters, but think twice about yet another meter that offers no real time information and no way to convey real time information to your smart house.

    This is a HUGE missed opportunity. If our smart house can understand real time usage, a tidal wave of innovation will be unleashed saving billions in energy. Imagine coordinated appliances scheduling themselves.

    As it is, “Not so Smart Meters” do away with meter readers and help out with load leveling.
    Now if we are lucky, the utility will share useful information… or perhaps make it into a “profit center” selling you your information.

    Smart consumers need access to their real time usage information to make real time decisions.

Leave a Reply