Comments Engineer has made

Utility assistance?

http://www.cityutilities.net/conserve/overview.htm

Not great (capped at $5,000), but will reduce out of pocket somewhat.

I've had some success with cash short agencies (schools, in particular) by suggesting that instead of a full blown retrofit project, they replace their stock of replacement bulbs and ballasts (assuming you're talking mostly about lighting opportunities) with T8/electronic, then any time a bulb needs to be replaced, retrofitting that entire fixture.

Their incremental cost is a lot lower this way, but it does take a long time to make much progress.

Common sense is an oxymoron...

Hmmm...

SS Credit 3.2 Alternative Transportation: Bicycle Storage & Changing Rooms
1 Point
Intent
Reduce pollution and land development impacts from automobile use.
Requirements
For commercial or institutional buildings, provide secure bicycle storage with convenient changing/shower facilities (within 200 yards of the building) for regular building occupants. Maintain bike storage and shower capacity that is sufficient for the greater of 1% of the building occupants or 125% of peak demand for these facilities.
For residential buildings, provide covered storage facilities for securing bicycles for 15% or more of building occupants in lieu of changing/shower facilities.

It's been a while since I read it...I remembered covered, but you're right, not 'required' for commercial.  Doesn't mean the public couldn't lobby for it, but depends on how close they are to reelection and how much backing they think the bicyclists have.

Common sense is an oxymoron...

Hmmmm......

"different people have different tastes for what is considered acceptable riding (or walking)"

"Wiki-Route" anyone???

Common sense is an oxymoron...

Thou shalt not covert thy neighbor's...

electricity?????  

"you can actually have people buying stored electricity from their neighbor's car"

Not sure I want to try and buy electricity from someone who's digital clock looks like this <blink>12:00</blink>.

My point was more that many GHG reduction strategies (hydrogen production, electric cars, etc.) rely on 'low cost' off-peak energy.

If consumption during that period increases, it will change the economics of the situation, so lower off-peak pricing shouldn't be taken as a given in any analysis.  This would also impact the savings potential of the 'smart grid' initiatives (if the lower off-peak pricing goes away).

Also, generation is ramped down or shut down to follow load as it drops off, so increasing consumption during what is now a lighter load period will require generation to be run at a higher level, with attendant fuel use and emissions.

As renewables are developed and displace GHG emitting resources, that impact will be lowered, but (at least IMO, for some time to come) will still exist.

Which is a long way of getting to the need to get people to think about conservation/efficiency/reduction in use, not just a shift from one resource to another.

Common sense is an oxymoron...

When is off-peak not off-peak?

"electricity can cost a lot less, when it's charged at times of day when the demand is lower."

Admittedly, it would take a long time to get there, but if electric cars in sufficient numbers started charging at night, it would no longer be off-peak (more technically Light Load Hour - LLH), but on-peak (Heavy Load Hour - HLH) and the price differential would reduce or possibly even reverse.

Even now, there are occasionally weird market fluctuations where LLH pricing will exceed HLH prices.  It makes no sense, but happens anyway.

"For instance, during the evening, when windpower is readily availible"

Typically there tends to be a nocturnal pattern to wind generation, with 60% or so of the output occurring during the LLH period, but January reversed that at the project we're involved in, with 60% of the generation occurring during the HLH period.

Common sense is an oxymoron...

Not quite...

4,000W = forty 100W light bulbs (or more ecologically correct, 173 23W CFL's)

2,000 houses could only get about 1/2 of a small night light each.

Not that it isn't a cool device!

Common sense is an oxymoron...

Accountants and Customer Service Reps

Do you think most utilities don't offer a fixed rate because they're not looking at businesses as a primary source of participation?

At my utility it's because the accounting department likes fixed revenue and the customer service reps don't like having to look up or work with anything 'different' (slows down their turn around time on calls).

Once you can get people past those concepts, it makes sense.  Ideally rates are based on the 'cost of service', so a green rate would be based on the cost of acquiring and delivering the renewable power and the 'normal' rate would be based on the costs from those resources.

So, a fuel escalation clause linked to the cost of natural gas shouldn't be reflected in the cost of renewable power.  Of course, in the Pacific NW, most (85% for us) of our electricity comes from hydro resources (which isn't considered renewable in WA), so there isn't a lot of fluctuation in costs.

I propose it every year during the budget process and each year the resistance is a little less, so eventually I'll win.

BTW, my utility made the list!  I usually don't bother to look because we're so small, but we tied for 10th place for the lowest premium for our green rate.

Common sense is an oxymoron...

Full spectrum lamps

Most of the data about the 'benefits' of full spectrum lighting are from the folks selling it (at quite a premium).

Scientific studies have not found those claims to be true so far...

Recent Full-Spectrum Lighting Studies
-In a counterbalanced, longitudinal design, no statistically significant differences in any learning or health measures for 4, 5 and 6th grade children were found between the use of cool-white, warm-white or daylight simulating lamps (Landrus and Larkin, 1990).
-In a carefully controlled experimental study of 208 subjects, no statistically significant differences between cool-white and full-spectrum lamps (Veitch, 1997).
-No significant differences in preferences for full-spectrum, polarized and conventional fluorescent lighting in 2 office lighting experiments (Boyce et al., 2002).

Professor Alan Hedge, Cornell University, January 2007

The Lighting Research Center -  http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/programs/NLPIP/publicationDetails. ...

A Canadian Study -
http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/pubs/fulltext/prac/nrcc44747/nr ...

Common sense is an oxymoron...

Perspective

Just to keep a little perspective on things, CFL's are not the only form of fluorescent lighting. Far more common are the commercial 4 and 8 foot linear tubes which have been in use since the 1940's.

A four foot linear T12 40W (1" dia) tube until the mid 90's contained about 40 mg of mercury, newer ones around 20 mg. Energy efficient T8 32W (5/8" dia) replacements contain about 10-15 mg.

A typical CFL contains 5-10 mg.

Given the amount of commercial lighting compared to residential, the potential impact of mercury from CFL's is small.

Recycle! As far as the cost of recycling, our local landfills take residential quantities of paint, used oil, etc. at no cost, they could add no cost drop off of burned out fluorescents as well.

Common sense is an oxymoron...

Stealth Hummer...

All tactical vehicles run off of JP-8 jetfuel...Tactical military vehicles certainly aren't known for their fuel efficiency.

Done for silence, not fuel efficiency, but...how about a diesel-hybrid Humvee

Common sense is an oxymoron...

Snake river dams...

On the other hand, the four lower Snake River dams could be removed, and...restore four species of Snake River anadromous fish

(from a paper by Alan Berryman, Emeritus Professor of Entomology and Natural Resource Sciences at WSU)

"A dramatic collapse of the steelhead population occurred in 1973-5 with only 12,000 fish climbing Ice Harbor dam in 1974. This collapse occurred 2-3 years after the closure of Dworshak dam on the North Fork of the Clearwater River...

Since both A and B runs pass over all the dams on the Snake and Columbia rivers, and since there was no evidence of a collapse of the A run, we are lead to conclude that the collapse was mainly caused by the closure of Dworshak dam, an event that caused the loss of all steelhead spawned in the North Fork of the Clearwater River...

It is surprising that none of the other dams showed any impact on returning steelhead populations. The only other large decrease in the B-run was in 1951, prior to the major dam-building period. In fact the Bonneville steelhead counts have remained remarkably steady for almost 60 years...

Our analysis, as well as simple logic, suggests that the wild B-run is in greatest danger because the construction of Dworshak dam removed most of the spawning habitat for this strain. It is not clear if the low dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers are a real threat to the wild populations. "

Common sense is an oxymoron...

Better late than never...

maybe make a few comments here about the 51 page report...by Dutch electrical engineer J.A.Halkema-

I had gone through the report, then looked at how long my response was and decided not to post it.

Now that this has popped back to the top, I'll pick out a few comments.

"Hence, it is misleading to assert that every year wind turbines in a certain region will produce about the same average number of kWh during a particular period or season... It would be irresponsible to design a system...based only upon an assertion that the wind speed on average will behave as one hopes."

I can't speak to how they perform `due diligence' on wind projects in Europe, but in the US, typically at least two years of meteorological data (wind speed, direction, air temperature, etc.) is required to develop a design for a wind project.  

Each WTG (Wind Turbine Generator) has a specific `power curve', which states how it will perform at various wind speeds.  By combining the met tower data average wind data with the WTG power curve, a reasonably accurate annual forecast CAN be made.

We now have three production years worth of actual output data.  The first year, the wind was below average and the actual output was 11% less than projected.  The next two years, the output was approximately 1% greater than estimated.  I would say that actual output being within 1% of projected is fairly accurate, regardless of the generating resource.

"This means that traditional power stations will remain essential simply because of considerable wind power. Approximately 90% of the installed wind power is needed as a reserve capacity."

I don't disagree with him that some conventional (or at least higher capacity factor) generation will be required as reserves, but current transmission interconnects (`grids') operate with 5-7% reserves and have performed studies that show that with wind comprising up to 25% of the total generation, the reserves only need to be increased 1-3% above current levels.  

A 3% increase above what the reserve levels would otherwise be isn't even close to 90%.  Other wind threads have discussed different proposed technologies for non-fossil fuel reserve capacity.

Common sense is an oxymoron...

I'd rather not have that 'talk' with Homeland Sec.

"How would you go about attacking a spent-fuel pool? Please be specific"

Safety and Security of Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage: Public Report (2006)

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Backgrounder (Spent fuel transportation security is most of the way down...)

Or...GAO Hanford Spent Fuel Report no attack required!

This fuel is currently stored in water basins a about 1,400 feet from the Columbia River, where the deterioration of some of the fuel and the water basins has raised health and safety concerns. The basins were constructed in 1951, are well beyond their useful life of 20 years and are vulnerable to leaks and earthquake damage. Any rupture of the basins, such as from an earthquake or accident, could release large quantities of contaminated water to the soil and to the Columbia River. In fact, it is likely that radioactive materials carried in water leaking from one of the basins have reached the river at least twice in the past.

Common sense is an oxymoron...

Why be skeptical?

Well, if you take this, file off the serial numbers and substitute 'solar' for the Hummingbird Free Energy Generator, the duck is still quacking (IE, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...) Draw your own conclusions.

They are promising delivery in one year (or less) from a factory that still not only hasn't been built, it doesn't have a location or a permit for construction, using an 'innovative' new process that is not in operation anywhere else in the world.

Etc.

Again, draw your own conclusions.

Common sense is an oxymoron...

Actually,..

Enron got it's start in the natural gas industry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron#Early_history

Ken Lay backed Pat Wood for a position on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) which then promulgated rules for the deregulation of the electric industry (FERC Orders 888 & 2000) which led to Enron's involvement there.

Wading through the other report.  There is some factual information there, but with the emphasis on the 'terrible, horrible, no good, very bad' adjectives (from a book my kids loved) it takes a while to sort out the actual semantic content.

As far as the predictability, the projects we're involved in use this company http://www.3tiergroup.com/faq.htm , which has been able to predict the wind speeds at the day and hour ahead level fairly accurately.  Hour ahead is the critical number, as the power schedulers have to provide the transmission system Control Area operator with a day ahead schedule of projected generator output, which can then be modified on an hour ahead basis.

Deviations outside of the schedule result in $100/MWHr system imbalance charges.  At full output (or rather, if you scheduled full output, then didn't deliver), this could cost the project(s) $6,700 per hour in penalties.

There is a temporary wavier in effect for renewable projects, but the imbalance amount has been tracked anyway.  Over the last two years, IF imbalance charges had been applied, they would have totaled around $2,000.

Also note that loads vary continually as well as homes and businesses start up in the morning and turn on lights, computers, etc., so the power system is already ramping generation up and down on a real time basis to match generation to load (and has been since the 30's).  

That's why at lower penetrations, wind has no discernable negative effect, and that at higher penetrations, a slight increase in spinning reserve levels can accomodate the variability.

I disagree with some here on what the ultimate penetration number might be, but we are no where near that level yet and the problem should become noticable as wind generation increases.

Common sense is an oxymoron...

Train, yes - Bus, no...

And yes, we should get our politicans out of planes and back on old-fashioned campaign buses.

Domestic Air Travel - 3,297 BTU/Passenger mile
Transit Bus - 3,496 BTU/Passenger mile
Rail (Amtrak) - 2,100 BTU/Passenger mile

And while a campaign bus is probably newer and better maintained, there are also probably far fewer people on it.

Common sense is an oxymoron...

Compare apples to apples

Is the goal to 'keep up with the Jones' in perceived progress/bragging rights (my RPS is bigger than your RPS!)?  Or to actually accomplish significant reductions?

From an electrical generation standpoint, WA & BC Canada are already a bit ahead of the game.

BC's electrical generation fuel mix is:
80% Hydro
10% Natural Gas
10% Other
So, depending on the makeup of 'other' between 10% and 20% of their generation produces GHG emissions.  

WA is:
68% Hydro
18% Coal
7% Natural Gas
5.5% Nuclear
1.5% Renewables
About 25% produces GHG's

OR is:
44% Hydro
42% Coal
7% Natural Gas
3% Nuclear
4% Renewables
About 49% produces GHG's

CA is:
17% Hydro
20% Coal
38% Natural Gas
14% Nuclear
11% Renewables
Even with their larger share of renewables, they still have 58% which produces GHG's.

The big culprit in WA is transportation, which produces over 60% of the emissions in the state.  Industry (which includes electrical generation) contributes 22% and buildings 18%.

So, if a cap and trade is predominately aimed at the utility sector, it would only affect 22% of WA emissions, but 49% of OR and 58% of CA.

If you want big reductions, you need to address the big contributors to the problem.

Common sense is an oxymoron...

Some more research...

It has always been easier to get away with criminal actions in rural districts than in cities.  "There is safety in numbers" counts for people as well as zebras.  Sure, cities are notorious for the ease of petty crime, e.g. purse-snatching.  But in true urban environments, violent crimes are an excessively virulent disease that cannot survive.  And they do not.

Well, according to a 2006 FBI report:

By percent change in the number of violent crime offenses in 2005 compared with totals from 2004, cities with populations from 500,000 to 999,999 inhabitants saw the greatest increase, 8.3 percent, and cities with populations of 10,000 to 24,999 saw the smallest increase, 0.5 percent.

In the Nation's metropolitan counties, violent crime was up 2.1 percent, and in nonmetropolitan counties, it increased 1.0 percent.

A further examination of violent crime data for the population groups showed that cities with populations from 100,000 to 249,999 had the greatest increase in the number of murders, up 12.5 percent. Cities with 500,000 to 999,999 inhabitants experienced the greatest increases in both robbery, 9.9 percent, and aggravated assault, 8.5 percent.

Looks like violent crime is not only surviving in the urban environment, but flourishing...

Further research on the glories of urban access to mass transit in reducing per capita energy use is also enlightening.

From the USDOE and Bureau of Transportation statistics, the BTU/passenger mile of various forms of personal and public transit break down as follows:

NYC Subway  - 3656
Transit bus     - 3576 to 4415
Personal auto - 3702

So, an NYC resident saves 46 BTU/mile riding the subway vs. a rural resident in a car.  If they commute 6 miles to work by subway instead of my 5 miles by car, I use almost 14 million BTU's less per year.

Common sense is an oxymoron...

I did look at those...

but they traded off as I remember, coal being slightly down from 2000 to 2005, natural gas being slightly up, neither very far up or down from national averages... So, I left them out for the sake of brevity.

The claim was made that 'energy use' (specifically transportion fuels) was significantly lower...I just pointed out that while on an individual transportation basis it might be lower, but on an overall fermented dinosaur basis, it wasn't.

Common sense is an oxymoron...

Except that...

Giving the money back to consumers with tax relief in other places would fix his concerns.

The usual basis for tax relief is specific credits/deductions for specific items or technologies.

So, instead of a direct subsidy paid to ethanol producers, you would wind up with a tax credit for consumers to purchase E85 vehicles.  The end result is pretty much the same.

The other problem with federal tax relief is it's one size fits all.  So, while a tax break for solar PV cells might make a lot of sense in CA, AZ, NV and other locals, as sunflower has pointed out ad nauseum, it isn't particularly effective in the Pacific Northwest.

Even if the money doesn't go directly to the government, they still write the rules.

Common sense is an oxymoron...

Comparative efficiencies

"The only electric car worth having will run on hydrogen fuel cells"

The 'Full Monty' report is here, but, excerpting the summaries:

"The power-plant-to-wheel efficiency of a fuel cell vehicle operated on compressed
gaseous hydrogen will be in the vicinity of 22%."

"The power plant-to-wheel efficiency of a fuel cell vehicle operated on liquid hydrogen will be in the vicinity of 17%."

"the well-to-wheel efficiency of a hybrid electric car with SOFC range extender operated on Diesel fuel becomes 33%."

"the power-plant-to-wheel or wind-farm-to-wheel efficiency of an electric car with regenerative braking becomes 66%."

Common sense is an oxymoron...

REC's and a Good Faith effort...

we have substantial subsidies available for renewables in the U.S. Wind producers get at least 1.5 cents for each kWh they produce in subsidies...

I touched on this in another thread, private utilities get these credits through the Production Tax Credit (PTC) locked in for 20 years if the PTC is currently in effect when the project begins commercial operation.

Public utilties receive credits through the Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI), supposedly equivalent to the PTC, however, it is reliant on annual funding from Congress and as such to date has provided only about 60% of the eligible amount to operating projects.  Changes made under the 2005 Energy Policy Act (EPACT) will wind up reducing this to about 50%.

So, all subsidies are not created (or at least implemented) equal.  The REC income helps offset the fact that REPI is not fully funded.

It is a question of how much additional renewables the subsidy buys...

many states have standards that require a percentage of their power to come from renewables.

To claim that there is not overlap, that every dollar of green certificates buys an additional dollars worth of green power...

It is the claim that we know with a fair degree of accuracy how many emissions they save...

If you check out the Green-E certification process (no affiliation, I've just read through their information previously when researching REC's), their intent is to not issue REC's to projects constructed in response to a mandate.

Our utility has partcipated in REC sales (not through Green-E) for energy purchased from a wind project not sold through our voluntary green power program.  There is a substantial amount of paperwork involved, including a 'Generator Attestation' form filled with statements such as "to the best of my knowledge, the renewable attributes were not sold, marketed or otherwise claimed by a third party", "the renewable attributes were not used to meet any federal, state or local renewable energy requirement, portfolio standard or other mandate".

At the very least, there is a good faith effort being made to make sure REC's are incremental to RPS mandates and only counted once.

We are also required to submit annual fuel disclosure information to the state for all energy purchased/sold by our utility.  So, at a minimum, the emissions reductions can be calculated from the overall average mix, if they cannot be specifically linked to a reduced purchase or reduced run time from a specific generating unit.

Common sense is an oxymoron...

Light, yes... Insulative, well...

what about lighting tubes. The manufactures claim they are insulative and don't leak.

The specific Solatube reference is a U value of .42 to .48 (R 2.38 to R 2.08) through an nominal R-38 (code around here) to R-49 (our EE program recommendation) ceiling.

But, they are relatively small compared to typical skylights and seem to provide better (and more controllable) lighting, so the trade-off of increased heat loss vs. decreased lighting energy probably looks better than it normally does with a skylight.

Leaks? Like sunflower, I'm located in the rain capital of the lower 48 , which does make you think more about holes in the roof...the mfg information shows lots of flashing options to prevent leaks.

Common sense is an oxymoron...

Well...

3 sockeye salmon returned to Idaho in 2007. 3 individual fish!...It used to be more than a million each and every year.

I hate for a mere engineer to disagree with a scientist, but where did you get the information for this figure?  Data back to 1938 at Bonneville dam (the last dam on the Columbia before the ocean) show total returns of all salmonoids at approximatly 600,000 per year, with cyclical variations through 1998.

If the total returns for the entire Columbia and Snake river drainages combined have not exceeded 1 million fish over the last 68 years, a claim that wild fish returns to Idaho alone consistantly exceeded 1,000,000 seems somewhat counterintuitive.

An 1894 U.S. Fish Commission report counted 14 adult salmon in the Redfish Lake area.  The Sunbeam dam (1913) was built to support mining operations in that area.  According to a Corps of Engineers report, "Biologists believe that Sunbeam Dam was responsible for the complete loss of the early running stock of sockeye in Redfish Lake and no doubt was very detrimental to the late running stock that still exists".  This dam was removed in 1934.  

While this obviously had an impact on the sockeye, it had nothing whatsover to do with the Lower Snake River dams under discussion.

During the 1950's the Idaho Department of Fish and Game planted rainbow trout (to bring in tourism dollars from sport fishing, the same claim being made now for removal of the dams to restore salmon runs), which compete with the salmon, constructed migration barriers to block the salmon from upstream areas and introduced opossum shrimp as a food source for the trout, which compete with kokanee and sockeye fry for zooplankton.  The IDFG also poisoned lakes to kill off all species besides trout, arguing at that time that the sockeye "had virtually disappeared" anyway.  

Impact, yes...Lower Snake dams, no...

Removing the 4 lower Snake River (4LSR) dams will provide the greatest benefits for all these endangered Snake River stocks than any other single action

How about an opinion from another scientist...(from a paper by Alan Berryman, Emeritus Professor of Entomology and Natural Resource Sciences at WSU)

"A dramatic collapse of the steelhead population occurred in 1973-5 with only 12,000 fish climbing Ice Harbor dam in 1974. This collapse occurred 2-3 years after the closure of Dworshak dam on the North Fork of the Clearwater River...

Since both A and B runs pass over all the dams on the Snake and Columbia rivers, and since there was no evidence of a collapse of the A run, we are lead to conclude that the collapse was mainly caused by the closure of Dworshak dam, an event that caused the loss of all steelhead spawned in the North Fork of the Clearwater River...

It is surprising that none of the other dams showed any impact on returning steelhead populations. The only other large decrease in the B-run was in 1951, prior to the major dam-building period. In fact the Bonneville steelhead counts have remained remarkably steady for almost 60 years...

Our analysis, as well as simple logic, suggests that the wild B-run is in greatest danger because the construction of Dworshak dam removed most of the spawning habitat for this strain. It is not clear if the low dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers are a real threat to the wild populations. "On David James Duncan rows through a wheat field to save salmon -- and we've got pictures posted 2 years, 10 months ago 16 Responses

Ummm...did you even read the whole post?

who says the four dams' generating capacity can't be made up by conservation and renewables?  It certainly can.

Certainly it is possible...I didn't say it couldn't be done, what I did was provide actual data on the magnitude of the issue.

As I said, at the cost of wiping out the past 25 years worth of existing accomplishments.  Even assuming we can quadruple the rate at which we acquire new conservation (which is problematic as the region has been working on it for a long time) it would still take over 6 years just to get back to where we are now!

While some power is sold out of the state during the spring runoff months, the amount of power during those times also allows regional coal plants to be shut down several months out of the year.

Take out the dams and guess what?  Now those coal plants run year round.  This is preferable to hydropower?

I also covered the renewable side of the equation, noting that 3/4 of the identified potential for wind would be required to offset the power produced by these four dams.  The other 1/4 is already on line, under construction or in the permitting process.  If most of the renewable potential in the region is constructed just to make up for the power lost by removing these dams, what happens when the load grows?  We are seeing 2 percent annual load growth across the region WITH conservation programs in place that have cut demand by 1,500 aMW.

All in the name of 'restoring' a fish population that has actually INCREASED since the dams have been in place!

I mean, if the fish populations had gone from 200,000+ to 27,000 after the installation of the dams, fine, take them out.  But the numbers go in the other direction.

So, one more time (and I'll type R-E-A-L  S-L-O-W) what is the problem that will be corrected by removing the dams?  I've had people claim I'm using biased data provided by 'pro-utility' agencies, so, go to the Fish Passage Center website (famous for Sen. Larry Craig attempting to zero out their budget for advocating a position, rather than just reporting data) and see if their numbers agree (hint, they do!)
On David James Duncan rows through a wheat field to save salmon -- and we've got pictures posted 2 years, 10 months ago 16 Responses

Define 'trivial'... and 'decline'...

But perhaps more importantly, the groups and individuals who support lower Snake dam removal also support ensuring that any resulting loss of power is fully mitigated for -- through conservation and renewable energy sources.

Per the Corps of Engineers (which operates the dams), the annual energy output from the four Lower Snake River dams is 1,231 aMW.  Per the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (which, among other duties, tracks the conservation programs in the NW), the cumulative annual energy savings from electric utility conservation programs between 1978 and 2004 is 1,500 aMW.

So, the 'trivial' amount of hydropower lost (as it is usually referred to) will offset pretty much every kilowatt-hour of the combined energy savings acheived by all of the electric utility conservation programs in the Pacific Northwest region since 1978...

We are at the 'load-resource' balance point in the region right now.  Going back to square one and negating 25 years of conservation efforts is not something that can be replaced quickly.

One MW of installed wind capacity will provide approximately .33 aMW of delivered energy, so would require approximately 3,730 MW of installed capacity to replace the four dams.  To put that in perspective, the recently completed Fifth Power Plan for the NW region, identifies roughly 6,500 MW of potential wind capacity in WA, OR, ID and MT west of the Rockies.  Over 1,500 MW of which is already built or currently under construction and an additional 2,500 MW already in the planning stages.  To meet current load and load growth, NOT to replace these dams.

And, remember, the nominal point of removing the dams is to 'restore the declining salmon runs', not (hopefully) a Luddite anti-technology bias.

From the link I posted, listing the actual fish numbers in the Lower Snake river, in 1963, shortly after the first Snake River dam (Ice Harbor) was completed, there were no Chinook salmon, no Coho and 74,539 steelhead.

In 2002, more than 25 years after all four of these 'fish-killing' dams were in place, how much had the salmon populations declined?

They had 'declined' to 127,062 Chinook, 191 Coho and 202,173 Steelhead.

What was the reason for taking out the dams again?On David James Duncan rows through a wheat field to save salmon -- and we've got pictures posted 2 years, 10 months ago 16 Responses

In defense of the techies...

I have also noticed lots of techno-gadgetry on the Mill of late... liberally interspersed amongst the political wonkery (interesting wonkery that it is)...Maybe this is the time of year the boys fantasize about a new car, and being able to ride said new, spanky car around in Spring's fertile sunshine.

I mean, by all means, the engineers and the economists should be allowed their fun.  So if they want to shoot the breeze regarding biofuels and biodiesels and electro-mobiles and super-hybrids...I mean, you know, guys like to push around their toys.

I agree with you about the discussion.  It has gone all technical and very much sounds like a bunch of guys poking under the hood and arguing about minor statistics and the like...There seems to be less politics and more cars.  I was thinking that I seemed to have stumbled on to the auto pages.

Mea Culpa... except that considering the primary focus here is global warming and the transportation and power generation sectors contribute most of the human generated CO2, I find it slightly difficult to envision how the discussion of the reduction of those emissions could take place without delving into the technical aspects of the various and sundry devices in those sectors.

Of course, I am burdened by mis-matched chromosomes and an engineering background, so my perspective is undoubtedly skewed.

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!

Advances in materials will be needed!

It will be interesting to see if they can actually build one that large...and the pieces will probably need to be lifted inside the tower and assembled in place.

The 1.3 MW units used for the wind project we're involved in (the third phase just completed its bond sale and will use 2.3 MW Siemens turbines) had a generator unit that weighed 53 tons and were lifted onto the 200' towers by a large crane.  With 100' blades, the blade/hub assembly weighed 12 tons.  Trying to lift even 4 times as much weight to a height of 1,000 feet could be a challenge!

The rotating mass (without significantly lighter/stronger materials) might affect the low end of the power curve (IE, how much wind is required before the blades will begin to turn).  And, the generator would need to operate at a much lower RPM or the blade tip speed would become extremely high.

We have experienced a large number of main gear and bearing failures with the 1.3 MW units, longer blades will provide a larger moment arm which will cause even greater stress.

It could be interesting to install one taller tower in a project and see how much the capacity factor improved just by raising an existing technology turbine into a better wind regime.

The separation figures I used came from the inital assessment study for the most recent wind project we're involved in.  Given the visual appearance of most wind projects I've seen, it must be fairly applicable to any site.

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!

Think of it like the MasterCard commercial

You know, solar panels $160K, Prius $27K...

Are solar panels cost effective in the Pacific Northwest?  Nope.  Does buying a Prius count as an 'indulgence' to offset a wasteful home? Nope.

But, cost effective or not, people who would not normally consider energy OR cost effectiveness are now doing so.  What I like about any type of net metering installation is the fact that when people reach the point of looking into generating their own power, most of the time they actually start looking into how much electricity their equipment consumes and begin taking steps towards trying to reduce their consumption.

Depending on the electric load of the home in the photo, I doubt the solar panels will generate enough output to actually run the meter backwards.  Yet, how recently would someone trying to put PV's on their roof have meant a complaint to the zoning folks?  Now, the comment from most neighbors is probably 'cool!'

I see these things as a positive sign that, at least as far as appearances go, the underlying mindset is changing.  Things that used to be considered the province of the 'dirty hippie' are going mainstream.  So, these panels in and of themselves may not change much.  But it does signal that they care enough to try and do something.

People actively taking positive steps to reduce energy use?

Priceless!

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!

The 'net' in net metering...

change the rate structure so those who generate renewable energy are payed the same rate for excess power that they are charged, even if it results in a profit for the homeowner.

Most states have net metering laws, requiring the utilities to connect customers with their own generation (usually limited to renewables under a certain capacity limit).

By allowing (requiring) the customer generation to slow the meter down, or even run it backwards, the customer automatically gets the same rate (IE, the utility can't distinguish the kWh's to bill them at different rates) for generation as consumption.

Washington recently enacted a law (it was Senate Bill 5101, not sure what the actual RCW number is) allowing customers to apply to the State Department of Revenue for a credit of $0.15/kWh for renewable energy generated, paid through the utility, which gets the tax credit.  It also contains provisions for increasing the payment up to $0.54/kWh for using equipment manufactured in WA.

This requires installing metering to measure generation as well as consumption, but given that most retail rates are well below $0.15, it works in the customers benefit.

Under this law, the green tags/REC's/TRC's remain with the customer.  In most markets though, they must be sold in full MWh increments.  Given that the market for tags now is in the $3-$4 range, the per kWh payment is mouch more lucrative.

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!

Not mutually exclusive

if the grid goes down, the solar system goes down too--don't want to backfeed for safety reasons.

Agreed, you don't want a backfeed.  

But, it is fairly easy and not terribly expensive to add a disconnect or transfer switch to isolate a backup generation system, be it renewable or fossil fueled, from a backfeed situation.  

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!

Not exactly...

The solution...(is)...to get the utility to ramp up an aggressive low-income weatherization and conservation improvements program.

So, we can implement a tiered rate and increase their costs.  Which then get paid by the local Community Action funds or some other social service organization.  Or, they wait until they get a shut off notice, then put the bill in someone elses name (usually that was already living there...).

None of which saves any energy or emissions.

All you do by reverting to flat rates is reward energy pigs of whatever income level.

Most utilties perform a Cost Of Service Analysis (COSA), which is a complicated process, but the basic concept is to break down the costs of serving a particular class of customers (purchasing the power, delivering it, reading the meter, etc.) and collect revenue to cover those costs through the rate.

Since our wholesale costs are flat, a tiered retail rate is social engineering, not cost of service.

And, if we need to build/buy new resources at a higher cost, doesn't it make more sense to charge a higher flat rate for new construction, since without the growth, we wouldn't need those resources?

And, again...define energy pig!

Say you set a tier at 1,000 kWH.  A single person in a 500 sq. ft. apt with gas heat and no laundry facilities on their meter uses 900 kWH and doesn't hit the higher tier.  A family of 4 in a 1,500 sq. ft. all electric house uses 2,000 and gets the higher rate for the extra 1,000.

Yet, based per capita consumption, the single person is a much bigger 'pig' as far as electrical usage goes!

Penalties can be useful, but the rules need to be the same for both sides!

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!

Too late...

"Who's in it for a start-up???

http://www.bigskyco2.org/

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!

Oops...typing faster than thinking...

"stalling traffic until that section could have the fault cleared and be re-energized."

Nope...battery operated cars, not full electric, dependant on the delivery system!

My bad.

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!

Urban myth?

http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/nomination.php?str...

I could find nothing in the Nobel database for 1939 about this (or any) cartoon being nominated.  However, it was interesting to find that Adolph Hitler WAS nominated for the Nobel Peace prize in 1939!

The "Vegetarian/Meat Eater" part struck me as odd for 1939.  I couldn't find exact statistics, but one vegetarian site said vegetarianism was not common in the US until 1971 (the publication of "Diet for a Small Planet"), so being considered mainstream enough for inclusion in a cartoon is questionable.

The owl reading "Thou Shalt Not Kill" to the squirrel is way too disneyfied, considering the usual diet of owls...

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!

A tax credit is least likely to be gamed.

I like the concept of a tax credit.  I suppose at some point it could be expanded to require documentation of the registered vehicles and not be able to be claimed if the mileage didn't reach a certain threshold.  Kind of an end-use CAFE.

Of course, that would require people to accept some personal responsibility for their choices...what am I thinking...

Oh, and on the Insure/Ensure usage, one of my girls was an English major.  "ENSURE and INSURE are interchangeable in many contexts where they indicate the making certain or inevitable of an outcome, but ENSURE may imply a virtual guarantee <the government has ensured the safety of the refugees>, while INSURE sometimes stresses the taking of necessary measures beforehand <careful planning should insure the success of the party>.

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!

A little googling...

for 'oil subsidies during clinton administration' will provide a list of articles by Ralph Nader, Democracy Now, Greenpeace and the Sierra Club (to name just a few) making the same complaints/accusations about the oil policies of the then democratic administration (which included Mr. Gore) now being made about the current republican administration.

Changing the spots on the top critter is not necessarily going to make the problem(s) go away.

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!

Tell us how you REALLY feel...

utilities love to devise sure-to-fail voluntary green power programs in order to be able to discredit the concept while covering their collective flanks with public relations

Not to pick nits, but it wasn't a utility devised program.  State regulators, prodded by public interest groups waving around the survey results showing customers wanted green power (80% of them), but the utilities weren't providing it and claimed people would buy it if the utilities were mandated into providing it.

So far, they are conspicuous by their absence.  I'm not surprised a majority of customers don't go for it, cost is number one with them.  What frustrates me is that the groups and individuals clamoring for this and advertising themselves as 'environmentally conscious' are not particpating.  If you want to talk about market signals, the overwhelming market signal is that customers aren't interested.

And not all utilities just bought REC's, some (mine included) bought into projects to build new renewable resources.  And have continued to buy into additional projects well in excess of what our customers are currently purchasing as optional green power.

And, frankly, the state PUC's write the implementation rules that the utilities must comply with, so if the programs are ineffective, is it the utilities fault?

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!

It's more economics than philosophy

And working utility engineers, with their day to day reality based outlook, start getting excited about the possibilities.  Admit it you guys ARE excited.

There is more interest and momentum towards renewables within utilities than I think people on the outside are willing to admit...or at least more than they see (witness my somewhat less than lukewarm reception here when I announced I was a utility engineer).  
However, recognize that well over 90% of the customer base wants two things from the utility.  They want the lights to come on when they throw the switch and they don't want too large of a bill at the end ot the month.

Beyond that, they don't care.  We began offering a optional green power program before it was mandated by the state.  Surveys had shown that over 80% of people were in favor of green power and would pay more, if it were offered.

To date (almost 3 years since we began offering it), participation in that program is less than 1% of our customers. We promote it in our quarterly newsletter, we have ads on the radio, we have sign up sheets at the local county fair, we have lobby displays and that's the best we've managed so far.

When the campaign for I-937 was in full swing (the initiative drive in WA state to require utilities to meet 15% of their load with renewable energy), I would always ask supporters (who were viewing me as the Antichrist, since I work for a utility) if they were participating in the green power program.  Even among the group of folks actively campaigning for a renewables requirement from utilities, an admittedly unscientific poll result was less than 10% were spending their own money to actively support renewable energy.

The largest 'group' purchasing power through our program are utility employees!

Just convince your industry to speed up renewables, that will be fine. Thanks!

Remember the two rules above.  And if the lights are on, cost is the number one concern.

If you saw my post on the cost of renewables under a different topic, current wind is $2.5M/MW of capacity and conventional generation is $1.5M/MW, but is creeping towards $2.0M/MW.

Sounds like a pretty small differential, right?

But remember that energy is different than capacity.  And that you need 3 times the nameplate capacity figure to try and provide an equivalent amount of energy (we'll leave out the discussion of reserves and backup).

So, for a given amount of delivered energy, you are now looking at $7.5M/MW for wind (currently the most cost effective renewable) vs. $2.0M/MW for conventional generation.

All of the sudden, you are looking at a huge price difference and a major impact on rates.  And remember that however much the particpants on this list might feel that is an acceptable cost, there are low and fixed income customers out there that require assistance with their bills with rates at current levels.

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!

Data tables don't match Powerpoint conclusions

I only skimmed this, but, per the Powerpoint, integrating up to 25% wind can be done with little or no impact to their reserve levels at little to no cost.  Sounded pretty good.

So (silly me!), I had to open the report and head for the data tables...must be a personal shortcoming.

The data table for reserve levels shows no required increase in operating or spinning reserve requirements and for 3441 (15%) to 5688 (25%) MW of installed nameplate capacity only a 20 MW required increase in regulating reserves and 24 MW of load following reserves.

But, at the bottom of the table, there was a 386 MW increase in the "Operating Reserve Margin" that wasn't assigned to any particular category, but increasing as the wind penetration increased.  So, reading between the lines, approximately a 7.5% increase in overall reserve requirements is projected, despite the Powerpoint saying little to no impact on reserves.

And, when they got to the modeling data to project the actual capacity contribution, the numbers were not particularly encouraging.

At the 15% penetration rate (3441 MW) modeled output with 2003 actual wind data resulted in an effective capacity of 719 MW.  OK, a bit lower than I expected, but not too far out of line.  However their model using 2005 wind data only resulted in an available capacity of 156 MW!

The 25% penetration level (5688 MW) had a projected effective capacity of 962 MW with 2003 wind conditions, but only 234 MW under 2005 conditions.

An annual realization rate of just over 5% of firm capacity to nameplate is 95% in the wrong direction!

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!

Not as much of a change as you think...

Rail is linear, point-to-point technology.   I cannot run a "rail truck" from a distribution center to every loading dock in the county.

No, but, you could use rail transport cross-country to regional truck distribution centers, then use truck transport from there to the loading docks.  That should reduce fuel use for product distribution substantially.

In terms of the overall efficiency of load moved to fuel consumed, rail (and ocean shipping) are far more efficient than individual trucks.

A rethinking of the distribution process might help also, considering many times you will see trucks moving identical products in opposite directions on the freeway.

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!

Shouldn't be too hard to start a study...

As more and more wind systems are coming on line across the US, if the plant operators are willing to share output data, the correlation study should only be a matter of obtaining the hourly output data and graphing it.

Public utilities usually have no problem releasing data, privates could probably be convinced if the results were only released in aggregated form that doesn't release specific data from individual locations.

That should provide at least a preliminary figure for what firm regional output could be expected compared to nameplate and a corresponding figure for the reserve level required as well.

There must be a grad student somewhere looking for a project...

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!

Yeah, but...

Electronic media cannot be assumed to be environmentally benign either!

You may have read in the news lately about new internet data servers locating in the Northwest.  Those data centers are approximately a 50 MW load each (my utility has an average load of 75 MW for 31,000 customers).

So, there is still a fairly significant environmental impact even if you convert to an electronic format.

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!

Sorry it took a while to get to this...

What is the construction cost and energy production of wind systems?

The first phase of the Nine Canyon project was 48 MW with a construction cost of $70M.  The second phase was 15.6 MW at an additional cost of $21M.  Estimated annual output of those phases combined is 175,000 MWh annually.

The pricing model for these projects isn't a flat per MWh cost.  They were constructed by Energy Northwest, a Joint Operating Agency (JOA) of which we are a member.  Due to the financing agencies concern about reliability, output, etc., we were required to sign a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) obligating us to a percentage share of the annual operating budget in return for a percentage share of the annual project output.  We are obligated to pay the operating budget even if the facility cannot generate any energy!

We then have to pay for transmission costs to have the power delivered to our system and costs for losses, plus ancillary service charges for storage and shaping the variable output into full MW blocks for transmission scheduling.

Currently the shaping is done through the BPA hydro system, which is an ideal system to compensate for wind!  Unfortunately, there are increasing restraints on river operations to maintain specific flows for salmon, so BPA has declared a moratorium on providing any additional shaping services for wind.

Taking the last two years output divided by the last two years costs comes out to just over $60/MWh.  Which probably looks great to most of you, but our wholesale cost for power out of the Columbia River system is just over $30/MWh, so we are paying approximately double our current wholesale cost for our wind energy.

The in progress projects are estimated at $65-75/MWh.  The still in planning stages project may wind up as high as $85/MWh.  Several factors in that...general construction costs are up, steel prices are up and with more and more states implementing Renewable Portfolio Standards, competition for wind turbines is up.

Incentives are interesting.  Private developers can get the Production Tax Credit (PTC) which is locked in for 10 years at $18/MWh if the PTC is in effect for the tax year in which the project is completed.

On the public side, we are eligible for the Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI), which is equivalent in amount ($18/MWh), but subject to annual funding by Congress.  To date, we have received about 60% of our REPI eligibility.  With the changes made to REPI under EPACT 2005, estimates are we will receive about 50% of our eligible funding for the balance of the project, which will increase the actual cost somewhat.

So, the intial projects were about $1.5M/MW, which will increase to about $2.5M/MW for the more recent ones.  Conventional generation is in the $1.5M/MW range.

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!

Let's talk about actual accomplishments...

Don't wait TOO long engineer.  and 100s of billions will be spent on the status quo power systems that got us into these troubles.

Considering we have known about the problems with the status quo energy saystems since the 70s, maybe the mindset you are using is a bit too careful?

Status quo power systems?  I work in the Pacific NW (almost 60 out of 72 hours at one point during this latest storm!) where we are over 80% hydro power.  We have the only landfill gas electrical generation system in the US and (although with all the new construction this might have changed) both the largest privately funded and publicly funded wind farms in the US.

We began our conservation efforts in the early 80's...as an intentional effort to avoid the construction of new generating facilities.  Just exactly how set do you think our mind is on the status quo?

intentionally finding faults that are not there with renewable distributed power generation

If you refer back to the sections I picked out of the presentation to the CARB it appears the faults ARE there.  That doesn't mean they can't be fixed and turn this into a workable system, but for crying out loud, what do 'alternative' folks have against facts?

Why does it seem to be that the people who say they advocate for a free and open exchange of ideas scream the loudest if anyone has an idea different than theirs?

Are engineers 'captured by the system with their creativity breed out of them'?  Or, maybe, just maybe, do they understand how it works...and therefore what it takes to KEEP it working?

Wake up and either help or get out of the way.  We don't have time to coddle you all along.

LOL... Coddle ME along?  Get out of YOUR way?  

I increased the actual kilowatt hours saved by our conservation programs almost 300% within a year of taking over 16 years ago.  We are not a very large utility, but have averaged a little over two million kWh per year of energy savings each year for the last ten years.

I've participated in the planning process for five actual wind projects, two of which are on line now, one of which is nearing completion, another just completed it's bond sale and will start construction shortly.  I attend another planning meeting for the fifth one next month.

What are YOUR actual accomplishments in energy savings and renewables?

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!

Spinning reserves...

There seems to be a slight misunderstanding of the term 'spinning reserve'.

Electricity 'grids', such as the Western Electric Coordinating Council (WECC, one of seven such entities in the US), develop operating rules for interconnected transmission systems that all Control Area (CA) operators abide by.

These rules govern such things as reserve capacity.  Operating reserves are those generating resources that can be brought on line to take the place of other generating facilities taken off line for scheduled maintenance.

Scheduled, since from a 'cold start', a coal plant (I know, I know, but like it or not, they are out there for some time to come) can take as much as 48 hours to reach full output.  Natural gas combustion turbines are faster, but can still require as much as 8 to 12 hours.

Operating reserve requirements are 5% of the overall system capacity for hydropower, 7% for thermal generation.

For unscheduled outages, there is the spinning reserve requirement, which is 50% of the operating reserve, or 2.5% of hydro capacity, 3.5% of thermal capacity.

It is called spinning reserve as it is supposed to be running, ready to be switched into the grid within seconds in case of a sudden, unplanned outage with another generator.  Could be fuel problems, mechanical problems or even the loss of the transmission line feeding from the generator, but it needs to be on line, ready to go, not 'gee, maybe we ought to see if this is available'.

Just a little information/clarification.  

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!

Better to look for problems BEFORE implementation!

Mr. Engineer keeps looking for problems:

It's my job!  Or, rather, during my career in the industry, I've found it's a good idea to have others look at your idea and see if they can spot any flaws BEFORE the project is implemented.

Having BTDT for 30+ years in the industry, I'm attempting to make sure all the potential problems have been discussed before we spend a few billion dollars and find out it doesn't work quite the way we thought.  I've found over the years having someone play 'Devil's Advocate' is useful in that process.  

All in all, I think you're looking at phenomena and choosing to see them as problems instead of opportunities.

Well, I will admit I haven't done a lot of research on V2G, but based on your comments here, I did a quick Google search and found a presentation by Willett Kempton, a professor at Delaware University in September 2006, so fairly recent, to the California Air Resource Board regarding the implementation of V2G by Sacramento Munincipal Utility District.

A few applicable quotes from his Powerpoint are:

• Uncertain ability of the electrical distribution system to manage bi-directional
  flow of power (what % of a feeder's load can be back fed through transformers?)
  
• SMUD: 570,000 households; 3,300 MW peak load; Proposed 200 MW + wind
  
• Assume 1/2 of households have V2G-capable cars, of which 1/2 are available when needed, each with 1/2 storage
  
• assumption that 100% of wind capacity needed for regulation, but for less than 1/2 hour. V2G could fill in for 250 MW of wind for 8 hours
  
• Given SMUD diurnal cycle of wind/load and 30 miles average drive, this would eliminate significant electric-range--so PHEV may not be suited for diurnal wind storage.
  

I would say that sounds a lot closer to some of my statements than some of yours...

142,500 vehicles to back up 250 MW for 8 hours?  Are that many vehicles actually going to stay plugged in for that long?  What about the 72 hour periods of no wind I mentioned?

There may be problems with the back flow on the distribution system? Gee, that sounds familiar!  I believe you referred to my concern as trivial?

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!

Decentralization

>Instead of huge power plants and trillions
>in grid upgrade, use vehicles people have
>already purchased to backup renewables.

>But I think that the whole 64mw would hardly
>ever  need to come from backup, it could come
>from other renewable sources like solar and
>wind/wave power from a further distance.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of renewables and distributed generation, but a lot of the 'just do this and it will all be OK' ideas don't quite fit with real life electrical systems.

Distributed generation reduces the need for big centralized electrical generation facilities, however attempting 'grid-wide' use of V2G, solar, wind/wave, etc. as a source/reserve INCREASES the need for transmission lines as you are then trying to move more power from one area to another.  

Which then creates problems with system protection.  Receiving a system fault signal and tripping a relay with an Point A to Point B line is relatively simple.  However, with a spiderweb of small generation sources feeding into the grid trying to move from Z-Q or M-P is several orders of magnitude more difficult.

And, while each generation source (rooftop solar, V2G, backyard biodigester...) may only be a couple of kW, dozens of those feeding into the distribution system will hit a substation somewhere and be aggregated into the 64 MW backup and stepped up to 115 kV, which is not trivial.

>You mean it's going to have to come from
>something dispatchable.  No argument there,
>but the options are not as limited as your list.

Not forever, no.  For the next 10 years, probably.  I've seen data from the research project being conducted by Oregon State University for a pilot wave energy project off the Oregon coast.  Good stuff and very probably will do great things.  BUT, they are still playing with laboratory prototypes.  Commercial scale projects are a long way off.

Regarding solar as a backup, remember the CF on solar is 15-18% and peaks at +/- 11 AM to 1 PM depending on your latitude and season.  Great for net metering and reducing your personal energy consumption, offsetting an A/C peak, but as a 'reserve' level backup, not terribly useable.

>And do you lobby for small scale green power,
>bio-diesel, or other alternatives?

Yes I do.  My utility was an 'early adopter' for the Nine Canyon wind project.  IE, we committed to it long before there was any discussion of mandates, renewable portfolio standards, etc.  We marketed the output through a voluntary green power program for our customers even though we were exempt from the state requirement to do so.

That project was developed in three phases and we are one of only two utilities to participate in all three phases.  We have also signed an 'Expression of Interest' in another wind project which is in its preliminary stages.

We have adopted net metering specifications so customers who wish to construct distributed generation have a financial incentive to do so and have a standardized interconnection setup to try and minimize complications for them.

Washington state recently adopted a 'feed-in' law offering tax incentives to utilities which voluntarily make payments to customers who install distributed generation.  We are voluntarily particpating and have actually had to wait for the state to finish its rule making to work with our net metering customers to make payment to them.

We have been offering energy conservation programs since the early 1980's and have participated in (and in some cases initiated) pilot programs to expand the available programs and technologies.

Personally, I am a member of a couple of regional technical advisory boards dealing with conservation and renewable energy.  I have been involved with and/or supervising the energy conservation and renewable activities at my utility since the late 80's.

One of our family cars is a Prius and what I would ideally like to see is a diesel-electric hybrid running on bio-diesel.  I checked into the PHEV expanded battery system, but that is an additional $9,500 on top of the $27K we paid and so far is only available to fleet operations.

And voids the warranty.On It's all about electricity posted 2 years, 11 months ago 72 Responses

A small issue of reliability

I know no one wants to hear from the utility industry on this, but the fact of the matter is, people tend to prefer it when the lights stay on.

Wind (at the BEST sites) has a capacity factor (the amount of time it puts out its actual nameplate rated output) of 30-33%.  Which means there are times when it doesn't blow at all.

Solar is at 15-18% (both of those numbers are Washington State).  

This means no matter how much 'renewable energy' you deploy, somewhere between 60 to 80% of the time, some other more reliable source of generation needs to be on line to keep lights (and refrigeration and computers and wide screen high definition TVs...) on.

Conservation is a must!  One wide screen HD TV offsets the energy savings of over 130 CFL's!  Renewables can contribute, but are not baseload generation, no matter how much people want them to be!On It's all about electricity posted 2 years, 11 months ago 72 Responses