Politicians and energy policy

[MooseFET]

We're (US) already getting a considerable fraction of our oil from Canada.
Isn't most of this from tar sands?

No, I think it is where the biggest growth is but Canada has a fair
amount of lighter stuff that is cheaper to produce. As oil passed
about $70 a barrel, oil sands started looking good. At $100 they are
worth investing in. At $200 they are very attractive.

 

[Richard Henry]

No, I think it is where the biggest growth is but Canada has a fair
amount of lighter stuff that is cheaper to produce.  As oil passed
about $70 a barrel, oil sands started looking good.  At $100 they are
worth investing in.  At $200 they are very attractive.

Except for the fact that the media's popular price (lately over $130/
barrel) has little relationship to the price the oil refiners are
actually paying for the stuff.

 

[krw]

On May 24, 11:12 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <[email protected]>
wrote:
[....]
The bottom line is that even leaky houses don't leak
unless something is pushing the air.

Hot, wet winds are enough. Unless you want to calk every door and
window shut, there WILL be ingresion of humid air. If you seal it up
that tight, the humidity will rise from human breath, and sweat. If you
think 90 is bad, smpend some time down here after ahurricane when it's
over 100 degrees, with no electricity.

You forgot to mension temperature cycling. In Florida, a very air
tight house would still pump its self full of water in a few weeks
from that. All of the wall spaces etc will be full of humid air in
fairly short order after the house is built.

The idea of using a "smart" electric meter to achieve the same power
reducing effect as rolling blackouts is bogus.

Only if you don't understand how it works. I live alone right now.
The water heater comes on after midnight for about 1.5 hours, and gives
me usable hot water for the full 24 hour day.

Some places they are talking about having the utility send signals
around that tells the optional loads like water heaters to come on and
off with a finer grain than just a fixed time. This allows the load
to be made much more level.

That's what we were discussing (networked power meters that
controlled appliances in the house).

Oh. I thought the "smart power meter" was just the ones that varied
the rate depending on time of day.

I know it was already mensioned but a low tech version was in use for
many years. Many areas may still have some of the wiring for the
"flat rate water heaters". It seems like that would be a good idea to
bring back.

No wiring needed anymore. RF or carrier current signaling are all
that's needed. I'm undecided about the merits. What's the cost
differential (i.e. make it an option)?

All the plans I have seen have a ***ZERO*** cost differential. Some
10 years ago, I was offered to have the power company install a
similar device on my hot water heater for free. But it did nothing
for me, so I declined. Other than the governor I mentioned in my
first post, I have not heard anyone talking about a lower rate in any
way, shape or form.

Then anyone accepting such a thing is a fool.

Even if they do lower the rate a bit for the off peak usage, how much
will they raise the peak rate??? I was in a house where the water
service changed their pricing to save consumers money if they
conserved water, in essence a reversed sliding scale, higher rates
with higher usage. It worked so well that they were bringing in less
money and had to raise the rates for everyone!!! I swear this is the
gosh honest truth. I was in college at the time and it was not a good
thing since none of us had much disposable income.

If the high-demand hours cost more, so be it. That electricity cost
more to produce it should cost more to consume. In the case of your
water company, if the intention is to lower the usage, then their
plan worked. If their intention was to put off needed upgrades, it
failed (miserably). Economics doesn't care squat about your
disposable income.

Even if we save the construction of a few power plants, the power
company will always be raising rates. Near here in Baltimore they
deregulated electric and the rates doubled!!! The whole idea of
deregulation was to save consumers money. Instead it just allowed the
utilities to make *more* money! But that is a whole 'nother story and
we won't talk about that.

"Deregulation" isn't. Look at the mess Grayout Davis made with CA a
few years back.

 

[krw]

Our power producer (Hydro One) is pushing a scheme where you install a
(free) web-enabled thermostat so they can reduce peak demand by
cranking down your A/C at peak periods.

Are they giving discounts? Why would I want one?

 

[krw]

[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...

On May 24, 11:12 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <[email protected]>
wrote:
[....]
The bottom line is that even leaky houses don't leak
unless something is pushing the air.

Hot, wet winds are enough. Unless you want to calk every door and
window shut, there WILL be ingresion of humid air. If you seal it up
that tight, the humidity will rise from human breath, and sweat. If you
think 90 is bad, smpend some time down here after ahurricane when it's
over 100 degrees, with no electricity.

You forgot to mension temperature cycling. In Florida, a very air
tight house would still pump its self full of water in a few weeks
from that. All of the wall spaces etc will be full of humid air in
fairly short order after the house is built.

The idea of using a "smart" electric meter to achieve the same power
reducing effect as rolling blackouts is bogus.

Only if you don't understand how it works. I live alone right now.
The water heater comes on after midnight for about 1.5 hours, and gives
me usable hot water for the full 24 hour day.

Some places they are talking about having the utility send signals
around that tells the optional loads like water heaters to come on and
off with a finer grain than just a fixed time. This allows the load
to be made much more level.

That's what we were discussing (networked power meters that
controlled appliances in the house).

Oh. I thought the "smart power meter" was just the ones that varied
the rate depending on time of day.

I know it was already mensioned but a low tech version was in use for
many years. Many areas may still have some of the wiring for the
"flat rate water heaters". It seems like that would be a good idea to
bring back.

No wiring needed anymore. RF or carrier current signaling are all
that's needed. I'm undecided about the merits. What's the cost
differential (i.e. make it an option)?

Back in the days of the flat rate water heaters, the price difference
was huge for the power. The voltage on the flat rate wire was always
less than or equal 220V and the power company could change it in steps
other than on/off. The advantage for the power company was that it
could change the loading to hold it more or less constant over time.
This made the power plant design a lot simpler since it didn't have to
change power outputs very quickly.

The non-carbon based power plants are all harder to vary the power out
of so I can see this idea coming back. Things like solar, wind, and
hydro-electric generally cost a lot to build but the last watt is
basically free. For them it makes a lot of sense to have a load that
the power company can control.

Our power producer (Hydro One) is pushing a scheme where you install a
(free) web-enabled thermostat so they can reduce peak demand by
cranking down your A/C at peak periods.

That sounds like not too bad of an idea so long as the peak demand
doesn't last too long. The down side is that a lot of people arrive
home just about the time of the peak so they may set their timed
thermostats to cool the house earlier. The peak demand will be
lowered at the cost of more average demand.

A higher average demand isn't a problem for the power company. The
power company wants to optimize their infrastructure. In fact, it's
another win for the power company. ;-)

 

[krw]

1) Free setdown thermostat which you can control remotely too.

$25 worth.

2) $25 on top of that.

Ok, $50.

3) It will cut your power bills (but only at the nominal rate, AFAIK).

Seems like they're looking for the incredibly cheap.

I might consider it it returned more than the nominal rate and the
hours of peak demand were when I wasn't usually home. Otherwise, I
don't see the advantage, and it's a bit creepy.

That's how I see it. No thanks. I have $50 of my own.

 

[rickman]

I have never heard anyone from a power company describe it as "turning
down" the AC. They never let on that the temperature of your house
will rise and you will not be as comfortable as you would like. In
reality, the power company effectively will have control over your
thermostat since the thermostat will be asking for AC all the time and
the power company will be determining how long your unit will run, not
your thermostat. Anything else won't cut the peak load.

That sounds like not too bad of an idea so long as the peak demand
doesn't last too long. The down side is that a lot of people arrive
home just about the time of the peak so they may set their timed
thermostats to cool the house earlier. The peak demand will be
lowered at the cost of more average demand.

The peak load is not a few minutes or even an hour. The kind of peak
loading that will prevent the construction of new power plants will
require peak load management for 4 to 8 hours a day on the worst
days.

Personally, I think this is a technology that has limited practical
utility. It would be far better to promote methods of conservation.
That has actually worked in CA. I have heard that conservation has
allowed them to put off the construction of several nuclear plants.
Instead of fighting them in the courts, conservation was promoted to a
point that the nukes were no longer needed. Of course, that was 10
years ago and the population has grown considerably, so other
solutions are now needed. Utilities conning people into thinking that
letting them control your thermostat won't make there homes
uncomfortable is not my idea of an energy solution.

This thread started with the idea that if hybrids were much more
common, their batteries could be used to *practically* level the load
on the electric grid. What is wrong with that idea?

 

[rickman]

On Mon, 26 May 2008 20:06:47 -0400, the renowned krw

I might consider it it returned more than the nominal rate and the
hours of peak demand were when I wasn't usually home. Otherwise, I
don't see the advantage, and it's a bit creepy.

Actually, I am not so sure we have any say in the matter. When I was
a kid, 1984 was still in the future and the book was still somewhat
futuristic. I remember that the "third" country of Oceana was
basically where the "Pacific Rim" is now. So Orwell had some degree
of vision in his writing. The cell phones most of us carry (even I
got one the other day) can provide info on our whereabouts at all
times (do they ever "really" turn off???) and many of our actions can
be tracked in real time via our use of credit cards.

So it may well be inevitable that Big Brother will be in control of
our thermostats. I actually had this once. I was in an apartment
that had been chopped out of a fairly large residence. I was never
able to get much heat by adjusting the thermostat. Turns out it was
just a wall decoration and the only thermostat was in their part of
the house. It was not a good feeling to have no control over my
comfort.

 

[rickman]

On Mon, 26 May 2008 20:06:47 -0400, the renowned krw

$25 worth.


Ok, $50.


Seems like they're looking for the incredibly cheap.


That's how I see it. No thanks. I have $50 of my own.

The "nominal" rate thing is red herring. Just like the water company
that I dealt with, if they lower your rates for installing their
thermostat, they will only have to raise rates for everyone. Then
when ultimately everyone has these units installed mandatoraly,
everyone's will be paying just as much as before.

 

[Don Klipstein]

The "nominal" rate thing is red herring. Just like the water company
that I dealt with, if they lower your rates for installing their
thermostat, they will only have to raise rates for everyone. Then
when ultimately everyone has these units installed mandatoraly,
everyone's will be paying just as much as before.

But if this eliminates need to build a power plant, then the ratepayers
won't have to pay for that.

Regulatory agencies largely guarantee utilities a certain amount of net
profit and rate of return on their stocks. If utilities don't have to
spend as much on fuel and plant building, the ratepayers will pay less.
Maybe more per KWH but still less.

However, I do find it less creepy to conserve energy more manually than
described here.

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])

 

[rickman]

In <[email protected]>,

On Mon, 26 May 2008 20:06:47 -0400, the renowned krw



But if this eliminates need to build a power plant, then the ratepayers
won't have to pay for that.

Yes, that will keep rates from going higher, but it won't reduce
them. In fact, rates may still go up since maintenance costs increase
as plants get older... nothing lasts forever. So you pay for new
stuff or you pay to maintain old stuff.

Regulatory agencies largely guarantee utilities a certain amount of net
profit and rate of return on their stocks. If utilities don't have to
spend as much on fuel and plant building, the ratepayers will pay less.
Maybe more per KWH but still less.

That is true for *regulated* utilities. The movement is to de-
regulate electric utilities. Also, the profit set by rate commissions
is often governed as ROI which means the more they invest in capital,
the more profit they can take. Have you seen many utilities that are
under capitalized? Just the opposite, they often are very *over*
capitalized. Some of the electric company trucks I see are way bigger
than they need to be. If the cable companies provided electricity,
they would do all the basic service from a mini-van :^)

In the end, you can't say anything about what consumers will pay
because electricity is not a competitive industry... even when de-
regulated.

However, I do find it less creepy to conserve energy more manually than
described here.

I prefer to find more efficient ways of *using* energy. That is
something that I am going to look into over the next years. I have
reached a point in my career that I can decide the direction I want to
go and energy seems like an interesting field.

Rick

 

[Don Klipstein]

In <[email protected]>,

Yes, that will keep rates from going higher, but it won't reduce
them. In fact, rates may still go up since maintenance costs increase
as plants get older... nothing lasts forever. So you pay for new
stuff or you pay to maintain old stuff.

If demand is allowed to increase proportionately with population growth,
then the ratepayers have to pay both for new plants and maintenance of the
aging ones.

That is true for *regulated* utilities. The movement is to de-
regulate electric utilities.

If actually effectively deregulated, then the ratepayers would only pay
necessary costs and a fair profit. Again, avoiding need to build new
plants by keeping demand in check will save the ratepayers money.

Also, the profit set by rate commissions
is often governed as ROI which means the more they invest in capital,
the more profit they can take.

That makes a case for utilities taking in less money if need for new
plants is reduced.

<SNIP from here for now>

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])

 

[MooseFET]

[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...

On Mon, 26 May 2008 07:48:51 -0700 (PDT), MooseFET

On May 24, 11:12 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <[email protected]>
wrote:
[....]
The bottom line is that even leaky houses don't leak
unless something is pushing the air.
Hot, wet winds are enough. Unless you want to calk every door and
window shut, there WILL be ingresion of humid air. If you seal it up
that tight, the humidity will rise from human breath, and sweat. If you
think 90 is bad, smpend some time down here after ahurricane when it's
over 100 degrees, with no electricity.
You forgot to mension temperature cycling. In Florida, a very air
tight house would still pump its self full of water in a few weeks
from that. All of the wall spaces etc will be full of humid air in
fairly short order after the house is built.
The idea of using a "smart" electric meter to achieve the same power
reducing effect as rolling blackouts is bogus.
Only if you don't understand how it works. I live alone right now.
The water heater comes on after midnight for about 1.5 hours, and gives
me usable hot water for the full 24 hour day.
Some places they are talking about having the utility send signals
around that tells the optional loads like water heaters to come on and
off with a finer grain than just a fixed time. This allows the load
to be made much more level.
That's what we were discussing (networked power meters that
controlled appliances in the house).
Oh. I thought the "smart power meter" was just the ones that varied
the rate depending on time of day.
I know it was already mensioned but a low tech version was in use for
many years. Many areas may still have some of the wiring for the
"flat rate water heaters". It seems like that would be a good idea to
bring back.
No wiring needed anymore. RF or carrier current signaling are all
that's needed. I'm undecided about the merits. What's the cost
differential (i.e. make it an option)?
Back in the days of the flat rate water heaters, the price difference
was huge for the power. The voltage on the flat rate wire was always
less than or equal 220V and the power company could change it in steps
other than on/off. The advantage for the power company was that it
could change the loading to hold it more or less constant over time.
This made the power plant design a lot simpler since it didn't have to
change power outputs very quickly.
The non-carbon based power plants are all harder to vary the power out
of so I can see this idea coming back. Things like solar, wind, and
hydro-electric generally cost a lot to build but the last watt is
basically free. For them it makes a lot of sense to have a load that
the power company can control.
--
Keith
Our power producer (Hydro One) is pushing a scheme where you install a
(free) web-enabled thermostat so they can reduce peak demand by
cranking down your A/C at peak periods.

That sounds like not too bad of an idea so long as the peak demand
doesn't last too long. The down side is that a lot of people arrive
home just about the time of the peak so they may set their timed
thermostats to cool the house earlier. The peak demand will be
lowered at the cost of more average demand.

A higher average demand isn't a problem for the power company. The
power company wants to optimize their infrastructure. In fact, it's
another win for the power company. ;-)

The good of the power company isn't something I consider a priority.
Making a more uniform load means that the "peaker" plants don't have
to be run. The "peakers" use hydrocarbons and polute the most. It is
a very good thing not to run them. The average demand is usually
handled by plants that are environmentally better and less costly.
"better" and "less" really mean "less bad" not "good".

We need a way to store power. A hot water tank is fairly good but not
great. If more people drove electric cars, charging the batteries in
the cars would be a good way to store the energy. Batteries are a
good way to store energy when you look at them from one cycle to the
next. They are bad from the point of vies of their high cost.

 

[MooseFET]

In <b3c7f0c9-2e90-41fa-8cfd-1b0ba73cc...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, [....]

That is true for *regulated* utilities. The movement is to de-
regulate electric utilities.

If actually effectively deregulated, then the ratepayers would only pay
necessary costs and a fair profit. Again, avoiding need to build new
plants by keeping demand in check will save the ratepayers money.

That may be a "if a sled had wheels it would be a wagon" argument. To
be really deregulated, the system would have to be broken up into many
small parts and kept broken up. This makes coordination of the
operation hard to do. If one entity controls a significant fraction
of the whole market, it isn't really deregulated. A monopoly (or near
monopoly) really should be thought of as just another regulator. They
would be just a non-governmental regulator. They would still be able
to set prices for their part of the system.

 

[Eeyore]

How about this one?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...forced-carry-carbon-ration-cards-say-MPs.html

But of course you can be sure that politicians will be exempt.

Graham

 

[MooseFET]

So it may well be inevitable that Big Brother will be in control of
our thermostats. I actually had this once. I was in an apartment
that had been chopped out of a fairly large residence. I was never
able to get much heat by adjusting the thermostat. Turns out it was
just a wall decoration and the only thermostat was in their part of
the house. It was not a good feeling to have no control over my
comfort.

So you would have been happier if you hadn't found out.


If energy prices rise to the point where you have to choose between
eating and being warm, you will have the same feeling only perhaps
worse. The choice between two bad options is a very poor sort of
choice. For many, letting the power company shut off the air
conditioning may be a very good option because it will allow them to
remain reasonably comfortable and still eat.

 

[Eeyore]

We need a way to store power. A hot water tank is fairly good but not
great.

It's only good if you need hot water you twit.

In fact, if you want to store heat effectively you should use certain waxes whose phase
change from solid to liquid occues at a practical temperature for heating. Energy stored as
a phase change is vastly more effective.

If more people drove electric cars, charging the batteries in
the cars would be a good way to store the energy. Batteries are a
good way to store energy when you look at them from one cycle to the
next.

The energy density of even the very best batteries is *dismal*.

They are bad from the point of vies of their high cost.

Batteries are crap from the point of lifetime too. You could be having to replace these
expensive batteries every 3-10 years. There's a serious environmental cost associated with
making batteries too.

Just the usual green 'feel good' propaganda lies again.

Graham

 

[Martin Griffith]

On Tue, 27 May 2008 06:17:17 -0700 (PDT), in sci.electronics.design

snip

We need a way to store power. A hot water tank is fairly good but not
great. If more people drove electric cars, charging the batteries in
the cars would be a good way to store the energy. Batteries are a
good way to store energy when you look at them from one cycle to the
next. They are bad from the point of vies of their high cost.

This is one way to store it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_power_station


martin

 

[Richard The Dreaded Libertarian]

Interesting. Gas prices have a ways to go yet. Perhaps $5.00 per gallon.

Oh, well, when gasoline hits mayb $50, $100/gal, people will drive less,
thereby palliating the "global warming" problem, right? >:->

OOps - "climate change" - they really don't know if we're all going to
freeze to death or cook, but as long as we all pay obeisance (and our
money) to prince Al, he'll make it all better.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[krw]

Where can you get an IP thermostat for anywhere near that cheap? It
might be good for the cottage, if the cottage had broadband ethernet.

IP? The issue was a set-back thermostat (I'm not the one who wants
to set it remotely). I don't think I like the idea of an IP
thermostat.