Comments Kristina & Jason Makansi has made

howzabout mishandling another 7.8 billion?

The Pentagon just keeps on amazing us all with it's brilliant business acumen...

(AP) An internal audit of some $8 billion paid to U.S. and Iraqi contractors found that nearly every transaction failed to comply with federal laws or regulations aimed at preventing fraud, in some cases lacking even basic invoices explaining how the money was spent.

Of the money paid during a five-year period - from 2001 through 2006 - $7.8 billion in payments skirted billing rules with some violations egregious enough to invite potential fraud, warned the Defense Department's inspector general.

The findings provided fresh fodder for anti-war Democrats, who say President Bush's administration has turned a blind eye to the problem of corruption and fraud by relying too heavily on contractors to manage the war.

"There is something very wrong when our wounded troops have to fill out forms in triplicate for meal money while billions of dollars in cash are handed out in Iraq with no accountability," said Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Results of the investigation were released at a committee hearing on Thursday, the same day the House approved legislation by Waxman intended to strengthen anti-fraud measures and increase transparency in contracting. Waxman's bill was passed as part of a major military policy bill, which authorizes $601.4 billion in defense spending.

In its report, the IG estimated the Army made more than 180,000 commercial payments from stations in Iraq, Kuwait and Egypt in the five-year period. The payments were made for various supplies and services, including bottled water, food and trucks.

In one example, $11 million was paid to a U.S. company without any record of what goods or services were provided, the IG wrote.

Overall, investigators estimated that the Army made some $1.4 billion in commercial payments that lacked even minimum supporting documentation, such as a certified voucher or invoice.

"Payments that are not properly supported do not provide the necessary assurance that funds were used as intended," the IG concluded.

CBS News - Audit: Iraq Contract Skirted Fraud Rules

Pearl Street::Jason and Kristina Makansi Read Lights Out reviews

A smart step

toward a more rational electricity policy involves working both the supply and demand side of the equation.  On the demand side, smart meters are an essential (and smart) step. Instead of the "a chicken in every pot" mantra from the old days, we need "a smart meter in every house" policy. Only when consumers understand the true price they're paying and the value that electricity adds to their lives will they become engaged in demanding a more rational approach to electricity.  

Pearl Street::Jason and Kristina Makansi Read Lights Out reviews

another aspect of trading

...more food for thought on the whole idea of trading from our April Pearl Street Power blog...

Citi, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley made big news recently with the announcement that they will not finance new coal plants without carbon capture and sequestration. Their reluctance may be due to stated concerns about global warming. However, the same financiers are also skittish about providing the debt financing for nuclear plants which don't produce any CO2. The skeptic in me began wondering about their sudden desire to go green and got me thinking about what else might be at stake for Wall Street.

To understand what else might be driving the financiers, it is instructive to review a couple of things that happened in the wake of the California Energy Crisis and Enron meltdown. First, Wall Street firms picked up a fleet of gas-fired power plants for pennies on the dollar. Those plants represent about 80% of the generating capacity owned by Wall Street, which turns out to be about 5% of the total generating capacity in the U.S. Secondly, most of the electricity trading operations picked up stakes and moved from energy-based firms in Houston to financial firms on Wall Street. Third, Wall Street has begun salivating at the prospect of trading carbon credits and allowances.

We know that corporations and investment firms have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of their shareholders. In this case, that fiduciary duty has conveniently converged with the growing movement to limit CO2 emissions from coal, lingering fears of nuclear energy, dominance of the electricity trading market and, by extension, dominance of any proposed cap and trade system, and a portfolio of gas-fired plants.

I don't think it's farfetched to guess that some very smart financiers see that if no new coal or nuclear plants come on line, and reserve margins continue to shrink, then the best way to reliably keep the lights on is with electricity generated at gas-fired plants. Seen from this vantage point, it makes perfect sense that the financial firms suddenly care about reducing CO2 emissions. If you (1) own the gas-fired power plants, (2) control the trading of gas and electricity, and (3) acquire and control the carbon credits, going green is, in fact, your fiduciary duty.

As a bonus, going green means more transactions. A carbon cap and trade system will generate more transactions, which generate more fees, which, in turn, create "transactional value," which is, it is important to note, very different from intrinsic value. Wall Street, we must remember, specializes in financial engineering, not infrastructure engineering.

So, Wall Street is driving the financial push toward lower CO2 emissions while also pushing for a transaction-based cap and trade system which they will control. The catch is that rather than investing for the long-term with more sensible options such as renewables with storage, no-CO2 nuclear, or even so-called clean coal, we're served up increasingly expensive electricity from gas-fired plants with a shiny, new cap and trade system on top.

Pearl Street::Jason and Kristina Makansi Read Lights Out reviews

Independents

I haven't heard of too many independents (in fact, I haven't personally heard of any) who will ever vote for Hillary. I have, however, heard of plenty of Independents and even more than a few Republicans, who are voting today for Obama.

Who ever wins in November will need every Independent and cross-over vote they can get...

-k

Pearl Street::Jason and Kristina Makansi Read Lights Out reviews

a little sex wouldn't hurt either

To rally the troops, everyone needs a strong, compelling and exciting message. But, a little sex wouldn't hurt either. Okay, I'm not really talking about "sex"...I'm talking about rallying the troops by making caring about the environment fun, trendy, exciting--and important. Too often, environmentalists are seen as crabby, holier-than-thou finger-pointers. Gristers know that's no fun. Who wants to be a part of that?

While we can look at the original Apollo program for inspiration,(and appreciate/support the new Apollo Alliance) the reality is that going to the moon was something that the government alone could do--Americans supported that through our taxes, but we didn't sit around the dinner table making rocket components. Today our challenge is that while government and business must address climate change, the real change must come from individuals. Consumption and consumer demand drives most of the energy use. Everything we eat, wear, and use was grown, sewn, or manufactured and must be disposed of with the assistance of electricity. Changing the decisions individuals made every day (bottled water or tap? paper or plastic? bike or drive?) will ultimately make the difference.

The mantra at our household has become Think: Less! it may not rally the troops to action, but it helps to remind us that every decision has a consequence. Anyway, at the end of the day a little more fun would be good...and a little sexier message wouldn't hurt either...

-k

Pearl Street::Jason and Kristina Makansi Read Lights Out reviews

webcast

I'm working on getting my daughters' school to join in!

-k

Pearl Street::Jason and Kristina Makansi Read Lights Out reviews

Evolved?

There's an awful lot of talk about things evolving in that piece...and here I thought Bush's compatriots were as suspicious about evolution as they were about global warming.

Maybe what Baker meant when he wrote "In Bush's Final Year, The Agenda Gets Greener" is that they're going to print their agenda on pretty green paper.

-k

Pearl Street::Jason and Kristina Makansi Read Lights Out reviews

cute, but...

What's wrong with a few smiles while you do something good for the environment? I've seen many reports that say people choose hybrids--particularly the Prius--because it is so "identifiable" with concern for the environment and it makes these people feel good--it might even make them smile--to be doing good. Hybrid owners not only want to be good eco citizens, they want to be perceived by others as good eco citizens and to call attention to the cause that they feel so strongly about.

So, what's so different about a Smart car? It only gets 40 miles to the gallon, and it only seats 2? (I don't know why this is a problem...40 miles per gallon will be a SERIOUS upgrade from our two old cars and there are lots of cars that only seat two and people seem to keep buying them.)

We currently have 3 drivers (and a fourth off in college) and we live in a city with limited mass transit. We currently have three cars, but we are making a concerted effort to Think: Less! in our lives and so we are "downsizing" to two by trading in our 8-year old Acura as well as our 14-year old Volvo stationwagon. Since the two adults in the household have offices in our home (and, we work together), we don't think we'll feel the pinch of two cars/three drivers too badly. Our third car is a three-year old Scion that gets pretty decent mileage and can seat four. So...why not have a fun second car that makes a "think-less" statement?

Besides, we've looked at the alternatives to the Smart and it looks like, at least in our area we can get the safety features and a few nice upgrades (heated windows for wintery weather) for less than comparable four-seaters with similar mileage. We put our $99 deposit on a FourTwo several months ago, and we can't wait to get it.On Eensy-weensy Smart car getting a big embrace from U.S. drivers posted 1 year, 11 months ago 9 Responses

interest and investment follows price

GreyFlcn wrote:

Of course it will go down.
And up.  And down. and up again.
However whats important is the trend.

Another part of that trend, unfortunately, is that once the price goes down, much of the enthusiasm for alternative fuels goes down as well. So, the question is how do we keep the current momentum for alternative energy moving forward whenever the price of oil does go down? We've seen it happen before...the price goes up, people start buying smaller cars, supporting alternative fuels, calling for energy independence. And then, the price goes down, and the average Joe kinda sorta forgets what all the big fuss was about.

Whether the price goes up or down, we've got to make sure investment in new energy stays on track this time around--the horizon for infrastructure development projects stretches out from 20-40 years into the future. The decisions we make today will affect the kinds of decisions we're able to make in the future. So, how do we make sure this time it's different? How do we make sure that the alt. energy movement doesn't lose steam when the price at the pump doesn't hurt quite so much?

Pearl Street::Jason and Kristina Makansi Read Lights Out reviews

but...

...what we're really talking about is something like a Carbon Tax. Call it a Defense Avoidance Tax or a Defense Duty or whatever. By putting a price tag on the cost of defending lengthening supply lines--for both oil and natural gas--we're adding in the sizable externality that often seems to go unrecognized--or at least undiscussed. We understand that shippers add in a terror premium that is reflected in the insurance costs, and that traders add in a terror premium as they trade gas and oil on the international market--but, we're talking about something that is "real" and "visible" to American consumers. We're talking about quantifying the price we all pay for dependence on foreign sources of fuel and pegging that to what we pay at home and at the pump.

We use tariffs to protect all sorts of domestically-produced goods, including food, cotton, furniture, etc. Why not add a defense tariff that represents the amount we have to pay to protect our fuel supply lines--in both blood and treasure--so we can protect domestically produced fuel sources and encourage the continued development and application of alternative/renewable energy.

Generally speaking, we're not big supporters of tariffs. But, in this case, more is at stake than protecting a single industry or a single product. By exposing the true cost of our dependence on foreign sources of fuel, we can more readily see how this situation has affected us--our economic status, our relationship with other nations, and our vulnerability to changing international conditions. Plus, we can also more easily quantify how investing in domestic fuel sources, investing in R&D, investing in new ways of thinking about fuel, our relationship to our environment and to our global neighbors can affect our future.

Pearl Street::Jason and Kristina Makansi Read Lights Out reviews

LNG continued

Yes, we do agree that there is definitely room for efficiency improvements in electricity generation--even coal-fired generation. Although, we believe that managing demand and efficiency on the user side of the equation is, given the regulatory environment, easier than permitting and building new, more efficient generation capacity. As we said,

Adding the "terror premium" into the cost of importing LNG is one way that renewables, domestically sourced natural gas, nuclear plants, and even advanced coal plants (there are far better ways to use coal than those proposed by plants that are currently on the drawing board) can compete. If our electricity prices are going to be high, they might as well be high for good reasons -- support for domestic, renewable, and carbon-free sources of electricity.

And there definitely is a role for natural gas to play in the fuel mix. However, the larger point is that we should not rely on imported LNG. If our goals are to combat global warming and become more energy independent, then imported LNG is simply not the way to go.

We've now been through the cycle of exhilaration and despair over the potential of alternative energy and energy independence three times since we've been active in the industry--since 1977. Each time the engineering community gears up,  the financial community ponies up, and the government looks like its going to truly support new ways of generating electricity, the price of oil goes down. We have to figure out a way to make this round of excitement sustainable--no matter which dirction the price of oil goes. While many are willing to talk about carbon taxes and carbon trading, we need to also talk about pricing in the negative externalities of defending our supply lines on a global scale. Especially as we see that our global supremacy is being challenged, and countries like China, specifically, are ascending.

As GreenEngineer pointed out with his link...

Yet another reason to be concerned about relying too heavily on LNG shipped in from overseas: http://tinyurl.com/26jtr6

...security at sea is a rising concern. For an interesting perspective on this issue, check out the article, America's Elegant Decline in the November issue of The Atlantic Monthly.

Pearl Street::Jason and Kristina Makansi Read Lights Out reviews

history of regulated markets (and shameless plug)

For a good explanation of the history of the power industry and how the market came to look like it does today, check out Lights Out: The Electricity Crisis, the Global Economy, and What It Means to You.

The book takes a hard look at the state of the grid today, the advantages of distributed generation, microgrids, and smart grids; the energy, environmental, and economic trade-offs of coal, nuclear, LNG, wind, and solar; the importance of energy storage and demand-side management; and it offers a roadmap for getting outselves out of the mess we're in. In fact, there's something in it for everyone to agree (or disagree) with!

Pearl Street::Jason and Kristina Makansi Read Lights Out reviews

living standards and electricity

We'll withhold our own views on the book until we've read it, but one thing is sure, unless we address the connection between living standards and energy use, the efforts to confront global warming will go nowhere fast.

As we write on our think-less.org site:

But, the problem is that people around the world, people in China, India, Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America--places where the population is growing exponentially--want to have and enjoy the same goods and services that we enjoy. We've exported our movies, our music, our cars, and our clothes and now, as incomes rise and hopes are kindled, the American way of life that we've projected around the world is being embraced by billions of people who want what we have. They may not like America's politics, but they want America's lifestyle.

Today, our planet supports approximately 6.6 billion people. Out of all those people, less than 20% live in what are referred to as developed countries. In fact, the 10 nations with the highest standard of living are host to a mere 8% of the total global population. That leaves 80%, or about 5.3 billion people, struggling to get through the day, improve their lives, and someday, maybe, achieve a standard of living that approaches what they see on TV, in movies, or on billboards.

We're not Malthusian doomsayers. In fact, we are fervent believers in the idea that technological developments, inventions not yet off the drawing board, and ideas not yet formulated will go a long way toward alleviating much of the population and resource pressures our little blue ball is experiencing now or will experience in the future. But, it doesn't take much imagination to understand that if even a small a percentage of the 1.3 billion Chinese or 1.1 billion Indians begin buying their own cars, living in bigger homes, moving to the suburbs, building highways, driving farther to work, eating Whoppers and Big Macs, buying and running big screen TVs, refrigerators, washers and dryers, etc., that it will make an impact on our global environment. Because each step they take toward becoming participating members of the modern, global economy is dependent upon electric power.

Pearl Street::Jason and Kristina Makansi Read Lights Out reviews

on federalizing the grid

I mean several things by "federalizing the grid." What I don't mean is federal ownership of the grid (a la TVA or the other federal power agencies). What I do mean is one or more federal roles. For example, there is a clear federal role as a market and reliability monitor of the grid. I would liken this to the FAA, which is responsible for monitoring the skyways and airports with respect to landings and takeoffs. I think there is a role for the federal government to ensure that the nation's grid is a firm infrastructure "backbone" on which markets operate. The Interstate Highway system supports the deregulated and competitive trucking and transportation system, for an analogy. The federal government should continue in its role of oversight of nuclear power plants; however it could be vastly more efficient in how it does this. Federal government should subsidize both large scale nuclear and renewables as part of a comprehensive carbon management policy. Finally, the federal government should consider large-scale electric energy storage as a "strategic electricity reserve" much like the strategic petroleum reserve, not for market manipulation but for national security.

Almost every industry is backstopped by the federal government in some way. The entire banking system depends on the Federal Reserve. The airline industry depends on the FAA. Transportation and agriculture, health care (through medicare and medi-caid, Blue Cross, Housing with the Federal Home Mortgage Association and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (now quasi-governmental). Natural gas transportation. By contrast, active participation in electricity is still left to the states. Interstate electricity transfers of electricity and inter-state utility holding companies (large utilities) are regulated at the federal level, require federal permits, etc, but stay out of any active day to day operations and management of the system. The one thing that came out of the Blackout of 2003 was that NERC (North American Electric Reliability Corp) was made responsible for "grid reliability." However, enforcement and reporting is still large voluntary, as NERC has no budget to provide active enforcement,and instead develops and promulgates standards based on industry consensus.

Pearl Street::Jason and Kristina Makansi Read Lights Out reviews

post/federalizing the grid

good idea on turning it into a post...and we'll respond on federalizing the grid. Gotta go for now...be back soon.

(Oh, and thanks for the comment re: Lights Out!)

Pearl Street::Jason and Kristina Makansi Read Lights Out reviews

average house size

The average American house size has more than doubled since the 1950s; it now stands at 2,349 square feet.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the American lifestyle" (or do you mean the American quality of life?), but I'm sorry to say that I don't think the rest of the world sees the US lifestyle as ideal at all.

The rest of the world may not find "the American lifestyle" ideal, but economies that are modernizing are increasingly looking to enjoy many of the same energy-intensive "luxuries" that we enjoy...such as electricity that stays on more than a few hours a day, modern health care, meat for dinner, running water, bigger houses, cars, more roads, TVs, computers, cell phones, etc...

If the rest of the world is moving toward more modernized economies, their lifestyles will inevitably require more energy...maybe we should all Think About It
.

Pearl Street::Jason and Kristina Makansi Read Lights Out reviews

Keeping my fingers crossed!

I hope the market is moving toward accomodating families, although 1300 sq. ft, 4 people (that need two offices) and two dogs might just possibly work...where do I put the family heirloom...the Steinway Grand?  As for the market leading, I think that's the key on so many of the issues we face today. Even though we live in a fairly dense city neighborhood, we'd like to go to a smaller yard and a smaller space to heat/cool near a coffee shop that serves NY style bagels. So, every condo/loft I look at, I leave my card and tell them to call me when they've got something family friendly! I'm still waiting.

Pearl Street::Jason and Kristina Makansi Read Lights Out reviews

The problem with condos

Whether they (the condos) pack people in or not, they don't seem to have much of a use for people like me. Although St. Louis has been experiencing a downtown "renaissance" with new lofts and condos sprouting up like the weeds in my garden, they are all targeted at people who can live in a two bedroom or who have a minimum of $800k to drop on housing. We'll, we're looking to be packed in. We want to live in an area where we can walk everywhere. But, we've been condo/loft hunting for three years and we've yet to find anything that would fit a family of four with two "work-at-home" adults, two dogs and a grand piano.

A little creativity for those who are not single, just starting out or are not empty nesters would make me a very happy, high-density, condo/loft dweller.  

Pearl Street::Jason and Kristina Makansi Read Lights Out reviews

oh, and one more thing

If we want to change consumption behavior and drive efficiency from the demand side, we need to change the way people think about electricity. As one industry expert put it recently, one simple way to drive home the real value of electricity is through sub-metering, so that electricity is seen as providing a "service" instead of just a baseline commodity, With sub-meters applied to individual appliances or systems, the REAL costs of electricity will be much more easily understood. Imagine, getting your monthly electricity bill and instead of giving you a base kwh rate per hour, you got something like this:

Light - $ .02/kwh
Refrigeration - $ .04/kwh
Heating - $ .05/kwh
Cooling/Air Conditioning - $ .08/kwh
Computing - $ .04/kwh
Plus:
Computing Power Reliability Surcharge - $ .02/kwh
CO2 Emissions Reduction Surcharge - $ .08/kwh

Would the average consumer change their electricity usage habits? Chances are, when it is spelled out so vividly, the answer would be yes.

It's not just a question of no pain/no gain; it's about no knowledge about consequences/no reason to change behaviors. Giving consumers the tools and the knowledge to make educated decisions about their energy usage is the only clear way we can expect them to make the choice to use a lot more of what some are calling the 'fifth fuel'--energy efficiency.

Pearl Street::Jason and Kristina Makansi Read Lights Out reviews

ditto deregulation NOT

Amen, GreenEngineer. However, there were people out there sounding the warning bell. Some of us were writing and speaking out about the inevitable failure of the deregulatory programs being adopted, and many of us warned early on that these programs would lead to higher prices. But...oh, well. Anyway, if the past is prologue, some of the steps these states are taking to "remediate" the problem may just make it worse. And so the problem just continues to build on itself as average consumers become increasingly convinced that deregulation didn't work...when there was no true deregulation in the first place.

When giving talks around the country, one of the first questions is, "Why are my rates going up?" There have been several times when the explanation--covering various deregulation debacles as well as every day costs of doing business such as emissions control equipment, maintenance and upgrades, investments in new technologies, competition for scarce talent, and, of course, grappling with CO2 reduction--just doesn't seem to make any sense. For some consumers the bottom line is that electricity should be always on, always reliable, always clean, and always cheap.

We believe that there are ways to fill all those bills--but the prescription (outlined in Lights Out) requires a lot more personal accountability and political will than is so often evident.

Pearl Street::Jason and Kristina Makansi Read Lights Out reviews

thoughts on the fires in Greece

We enjoyed our second visit to Greece earlier this summer, traveling throughout some of the hardest hit areas including Olympia, Aeropolis, and Arcadia. The fires are heartbreaking (we have family in the Peloponnese) and will be economically devastating to the country. We, of course, don't know whether or not the fires can be attributed to arson or global warming, or whether there were forest fires in antiquity or not(other than those set by the average maurading, raping/pillaging warrior), but today southern Greece is hot and dry with few running rivers, and, it is, it seems, a perfect tinderbox.

There are still beautiful forests in Arcadia, and the Taygetos mountains of the Mani, where the deadly fire in Aeropolis claimed multiple lives, are spectacular. And, of course, Greece is covered with the glistening silver of olive groves, many of them with thick, gnarled trees that are hundreds of years old.

Sitting on our porch in June, facing the Lakonian Gulf, the air was so hot and dry we called it the Saharan Blast because it seemed to be coming straight from the heart of the African desert. It could literally take your breath away. According to the local bank temp display, temperatures hit 104 F while we were there--and we spent most of our time in a village right on the sea. One can only hope that, with help from the EU, the fires will soon go out...

Pearl Street::Jason and Kristina Makansi Read Lights Out reviews

ooops...ausubel covered elsewhere

While I was writing on the Ausubel article, others were already busy posting elsewhere...it appears that his thesis is generating a, shall we say, healthy debate here:

Fatally flawed attack on renewables by Jesse Ausubel

Pearl Street/Jason and Kristina Makansi Learn more and order Lights Out at http://www.jasonmakansi.com/lightsout_endorsements.html

on life cycle costs

The true impact of our reliance on oil can't be calculated unless you also factor in the costs -- in environmental impact, dollars, and blood -- of protecting petroleum supply lines.

Pearl Street/Jason and Kristina Makansi Learn more and order Lights Out at http://www.jasonmakansi.com/lightsout_endorsements.html

and....on passenger trains

We agree completely with the comments on Amtrak v. freight rails. As former Amtrak-(and NJTransit)-dependent commuters now living in car-dependent middle America, it is incredible how little emphasis is placed on passenger train service in particular, and mass transit in general. Because of waiting for freight trains, it takes considerably longer to take the train from St. Louis to Chicago than to drive--sometimes as much as 2-3 hours longer! For the average guy, support for train travel probably diminishes proportionately to the time sitting on the siderails watching a [coal-laden]freight train amble by.

Pearl Street/Jason and Kristina Makansi Learn more and order Lights Out at http://www.jasonmakansi.com/lightsout_endorsements.html

on trains and coal and supply lines

From Lights Out

Over the last 10 years, many coal-fired power stations switched to a low-sulfur coal available from a vast mine and reserve known as the Powder River Basin (PRB) in Wyoming. This is an energy source that is relatively cheap to mine but expensive to transport. In fact, more than two-third of the cost of a typical trainload of PRB coal goes to the railroad company, not the coal supplier.

In many ways, this switch has proven to be a Faustian bargain. Plants managed to postpone the cost of expensive pollution controls, but usually this coal has less energy content than the coal it replaced, and more pollutants that were not as tightly regulated at the time. In fact, the reason why the coal has less energy is because it contains more water--roughly 3 percent of the material is water. So, put two and two together. We're paying to transport huge quantities of water that eventually end up as water vapor (also a global warming gas, by the way) discharged through the power plant smokestacks.

...Each year, more than 40,000 unit trains carrying PRB coal move around the country. The diesel fuel to power those trains also represents a significant energy impact. Look at it this way: One third of that diesel fuel is moving water because one third of the load is moisture in the coal.

PRB coal supply has not only greatly extended the supply lines for U.S. power stations, it has reduced the efficiency of the plants that burn it and causes them to run in a derated condition, meaning that the plant cannot achieve the electricity output it was designed for....Coal shipments now account for more than 40 percent of the nation's railroad freight by tonnage; 58 percent of the coal-fired power stations in the United States are fed only by rail lines...

By the way, Lester Lave, Professor of Economics and the Co-Director of the Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center reviewed  Lights Out and said, "Jason Makansi gives us a succinct, insightful view of recent electricity problems. His lively, provocative writing explains the mysteries of the technology, the politics, the regulation, and the market manipulation. Parts of the book may make you mad, but you won't be able to put it down and you will always be learning something."

That's my shameless book plug for the day...

Pearl Street/Jason and Kristina Makansi Learn more and order Lights Out at http://www.jasonmakansi.com/lightsout_endorsements.html

storage technologies

Interesting link on the PG&E research. We are big fans of the idea of utilizing "recycled" batteries to form storage banks. Besides using storage banks in electric utilities, there is a real need for storage in high-tech industries such as telecommunications and data centers and in manufacturing facilities that must have 24/7 high quality, reliable energy. The stored energy helps to combat short-term voltage sags and can operate in a peak-shaving role for the manufacturing facility. Flow batteries (such as vanadium redox, zinc bromine, and others) all have potential in these areas. Flow batteries are also attractive because they don't appear to have any problems with fast and frequent charging and discharging and they are "long lived."

In fact, the potential scalability of flow batteries to 100 MW facilities could create a commercial storage option between large-scale bulk (pumped hydro and CAES) and smaller scale distributed systems. Just five years ago, at least two companies (Regenesys-no longer in business and VRB Power Systems) were hard at work blazing this trail.  While some of these are in use today, additional demonstration facilities for newer systems have been proposed around the country, but, as with many things in life, getting the job done requires dollars that are often in short supply when it comes to storage.  

We see very few prospects for pumped storage because of permitting issues. There hasn't been a pumped storage facility permitted since the early 1980s. The only other "bulk" storage technology ready for primetime is CAES. In a recent post (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/7/7/152836/1112/#6), we discuss CAES and TCAES further.

In terms of other types of storage, there are:

-SMES (superconducting magnetic energy storage) which, although expensive, can be effectively used for grid stability and for preventing voltage sags at manufacturing facilities;

-flywheels are primarily used in the auto and aerospace industry, but are being considered for power delivery in the 500kW range. Flywheel systems are attractive because they are compact and have lower maintenance costs and requirements than battery systems.

-thermal energy storage. This is not a new idea and, in its ice-based form, is already widely used. The other format, using molten salt as the medium, is in development.

As for lead-acid batteries mentioned above, they're attractive because they have relatively high storage efficiency and low capital costs. But these batteries require tender loving care when integrated with power electronics, because they require constant charging to ensure that you use the maximum life of the battery. Lead-acid battery-based storage systems are designed for slow, deep cycle discharges of between 50-80%. Generally speaking, a lead-acid battery has about a 4-year life cycle under normal operating conditions, and because their usefulness is affected by response time, discharge rate, temperature and life cycle costs, their ability to serve broad energy management applications has been limited. (FYI: we strongly support distributed energy and distributed storage systems.)

By the way, a couple of years back we put out an extensive "state-of-the-art" Executive Briefing Report titled, Energy Storage: The Sixth Dimension of the Electricity Value Chain, on the technologies, their applications, and their market potential.  We still have a few left over that are available at a steep discount. If you're interested in one, let us know.

Pearl Street/Jason and Kristina Makansi Learn more and order Lights Out at http://www.jasonmakansi.com/lightsout_endorsements.html

more on CAES

Sorry it's taken a few days to respond, but here goes:

You say: "The problem with our current generation of compressed air is that it is not adiabiatic. To recover power from the compressed air you have to heat it before feeding it into a turbine. So you end up recovering a fairly low fraction of the power you put in (40%-50%), and you still have get about half the power in any turbine you use the compressed air in from natural gas."  

This comment is true. However, in current systems the stored air is heated using an open cycle gas turbine (GT) reducing the heat rate (fuel consumption-Btu/kW/hr) from 9215 Btu/kW/hr to 3900 Btu/kW/hr for the total plant. (90MW of GT will have a plant rating of 220+ MW). The GT hot exhaust (1000 degrees F) is recovered to preheat the stored air before adiabatic expansion. The expander exhaust has no combustion products and the stored wind or renewable energy remains "green". Biomass pelletized fuel can also be used in air preheaters as well, making the system CO2 neutral.

As current CAES systems are utilized to extend the wind energy capability and provide dispatchable capacity, more development can be focused on TES (thermal energy storage) and the ideal storage media. There is no lack of investigation here--some very smart people have been working on this idea since the 80's. It is time to really take another look at development of this technology.

"The EU is fundng research on storing heat generated during compression. They hope eventually to be able to recover 60%-75% of the power that is input, without any need to burn fuel during recovery. But there is not even a prototype at present."

Quoting from the EU report on the research cited above, the project "addresses the development of a technology enabling cost-effective and efficient medium to long-term storage of electrical energy through the medium of compressed air. The project incorporates a consortium broad and strong enough to simultaneously address all of the issues to be solved. It studies the development of heat storage devices enabling effective adiabatic CAES technology; adiabatic or quasi-adiabatic compressors able to deliver compressed air at sufficiently high temperatures (400 °C / 650 °C) and pressures (8 - 16 MPa); and expansion turbines enabling fast start-up, high power-ramps, and high efficiency over a broad range of inlet pressures. It couples these component developments with generation of basic data allowing for accurate process simulations and traceable performance tests for turbo machinery and heat storage devices; a reliable economic model describing all the benefits of electrical-energy storage; and a study of geological and geographical constraints.

The approach is to evaluate very different technical solutions in a first phase, to concentrate on 2 - 3 technically and economically viable solutions for different market scenarios in a second phase and to establish a conceptual design for the economically most attractive product in the third phase of the project. Emphasis early in the project is given to the critical issues of market and economic analysis and to the critical technical issue of the heat storage device."

The result of this study defined the viability of current sized air compressors and IP steam turbine designs that will expand the air adiabatically. The part that is lacking is the Thermal Energy Storage (TES) from compression. When the cost of TES is controlled and suitable media can be developed, then the system can be quickly deployed (note that TES systems have been researched and utilized with Solar-Towers--though the cost is still high.)

The current thinking within the research community is to utilize the 30 MW/150 MW/300 MW systems using NG to preheat the air before expansion.

However, adiabatic CAES has been demonstrated www.eniswindgen.com. While this is small scale, units of 500kW and increments thereof are available. The resultant cold air from expansion can be used for TES (one kW electrical power generation will provide one kW of thermal energy) other uses are cold storage warehouses, HVAC and desalination of brackish or salt water. The stored energy (CAES) in pressure vessels or large diameter pipe is harvested from wind during night time or excess spilled wind. The efficiency is less important than the ability to deliver capacity on demand--as is the reduction of CO2 emissions.

There are many variations of CAES that can be utilized today, and improved with TES. As the renewable industry realizes the "value-add" component of capacity and dispatch guarantees during high demand, increased acceptance and demand for wind energy will help offset the higher initial costs for storage systems.

Pearl Street/Jason and Kristina Makansi Learn more and order Lights Out at http://www.jasonmakansi.com/lightsout_endorsements.html

affordability and clean coal

You're certainly right that coal is losing it's affordability edge, but that is primarily because it's only used for one thing--to generate electricity.  Let's face it, America has a lot of coal and what we we advocate is that every single ounce of value in this resource be extracted and that the unusable discharges (like CO2 and ash and gypsum) be safely managed at or as near to the coal mine site as is possible or recycled into products needed in other industries.

We advocate applying the principles of industrial ecology (no, it isn't an oxymoron) to coal and to carefully evaluating every aspect/step needed to extract the full potential of coal while mitigating the environmental impact to the greatest extent possible--that includes recycling, minimizing transportation, and sequestration among others.

It might be noted that while you mentioned that adding in the cost of sequestion will add to the cost of electricity generated by coal, if we take a similar tack and add the cost of our defending our supply lines for Middle Eastern oil into the mix, I'd bet coal turns out to be the better bet. Our abundant resources of coal are going to be a part of the electricity mix well into the future, we advocate using it in the most efficient way possible.

For more on industrial ecology, visit http://www.is4ie.org/.

Pearl Street/Jason and Kristina Makansi Learn more and order Lights Out at http://www.jasonmakansi.com/lightsout_endorsements.html

An informed public and our energy future

I completely and wholeheartedly agree with Billhooks statement:

"Yet maybe it needs saying that there is much that doesn't get said because experts feel it is "too complex" for Joe Public to get his head round."

Electricity, especially, needs to come out from behind the wall socket and into the public sphere. That's why I recently published my third book on electricity--this one written specifically for the general public and emphasizing the need for "Joe Public" to become informed and active in shaping the conversation over our electricity future. The book is titled Lights Out: The Electricity Crisis, The Global Economy, and What It Means To You (Wiley, 2007) and it just hit the bookstores last week.

The premise is that electricity is the bedrock of our economy and our modern way of life and that if we want to continue to provide economic opportunities to future generations, we've got to get electricity production right. We've got to fix the grid, address global warming, and make sure that electricity is not subject to the same geopolitical pressures as oil. (So, just say no to LNG.) All these things need to be addressed now. It's that important.

Like any balanced book, there are things you might like and things you might hate, but as Barry Worthington, Executive Director of the United States Energy Association said:

"This new work is provocative, factual and will make you think about the situation we face. It is a must-read for anyone even slightly interested in the adequacy of the U.S. power sector and what the future may hold. The book clarifies where we are today, how we got here and paints a plausible if not scary scenario of the future. Industry, regulatory and political leaders need to read this to see the possible end results of their decisions."

We believe so strongly in the importance of and educated public -- and an educated Congress -- participating in this conversation that we are sending complimentary copies of the book to the Chairmen and Ranking members of all the energy-related subcommittees in both the House and the Senate.

Pearl Street/Jason and Kristina Makansi Learn more and order Lights Out at http://www.jasonmakansi.com/lightsout_endorsements.html

Joe Public and the Grid

Yes Joe Public is for market economics until it hits home--in Joe's own pocket book. But, today (except for in a very few instances) Joe Public has no way of really knowing what he is paying for his electricity. One of the ironic pieces of deregulation was to freeze electricity prices for consumers and now, with deregulation dead/dying in states like Illinois, consumers are being confronted by higher and higher rates. But they still don't really have the power to do anything about that--except to use less electricity.

If, however, we were able to couple smart meters with a smart grid, then we would be able to empower both the consumer and the grid/service provider. With smart meters that enable two-way communications between Joe and his service provider, Joe can rely on "time of use" information to decide to run the dishwasher and the dryer when demand is low, and the grid will respond with two-way communications that allows thermostats or water heaters to automatically adjust to peak demand pricing.

Demand-side management is a critical piece to getting Joe Public involved in creating solutions for an overburdened electricity infrastructure as well as allowing Joe to make more educated choices about his electricity usage.

Pearl Street/Jason and Kristina Makansi Think: Less

Friedman on being green

You might be interested in a post on Pearl Street Power Blog about Friedman's piece in the The New York Times Magazine, April 16, 2007. In it we take a look at a couple of Friedman's illusions regarding going green:
  "The journalist Thomas Friedman deserves a tremendous amount of credit for raising awareness of energy and environmental issues within a global framework. His piece in the The New York Times Magazine, April 16, 2007, highlights many of the issues we face as a nation in the "greening" of Main Street. However, even an advocate for a green America like Friedman fails to recognize perhaps two of the greatest illusions under which we're all living."
Read more at http://pearlstreetpower.blogspot.com/On Spotlight on Thomas Friedman posted 2 years, 5 months ago 5 Responses