Why should Republicans ever compromise with Congressional Democrats? If the GOP obstructs long enough, it gets everything it wants anyway. Why should Republicans ever compromise with Congressional Democrats? If the GOP obstructs long enough, it gets everything it wants anyway.
Look at funding for the Iraq War. Look at unprecedented spying powers for Bush/Cheney with immunity for their telecom pals. And now look at energy policy:
Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), fresh from his GI Bill victory, said that he is now making energy a major priority. “We need to look at all our assets,” he said, suggesting a large package including expanded offshore drilling, alternative energy, nuclear power and technology to make coal cleaner.
Give Big Oil the right to drill for oil anywhere it wants, fight for massive subsidies for nuclear power, and give lip service to renewable energy and the myth of non-polluting coal. If all that sounds familiar, it should. It's exactly what Dick Cheney's been pushing for these last eight years.
Does Sen. Webb realize oil and gas drilling on America's public lands has already shot up 260 percent in the last eight years? And what have we gotten for it? Gas is more expensive than ever. Our economy is more at the mercy of international oil price swings than ever. Global warming's threat to our children's future grows by the day.
It's time for a new direction in our country's energy policy. Barack Obama's New Energy for America plan would double fuel economy standards. That one action would save three times the amount of oil as even the most optimistic scenarios of drilling offshore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Shouldn't Sen. Webb get behind Sen. Obama on energy?
I think you are ignoring how much we consume and the fact that we have a super expensive infrastructure already in place to deliver refined oil products and natural gas. We have a transportation structure and a lifestyle built around this consumption. There are no current substitutes for gasoline that can replace all or a substantial part of our transportation demand for the product. In the near to mid term, we will still be heavily reliant on oil and we will still use billions of BTUS of natural gas. World demand is going to continue to grow for these products. In order to ameliorate the price impact of that and not tank our economy, we are going to have to do something on the supply side too.
If we had done more back in the Reagan Admin, maybe we wouldn't even need to think about expanding extraction. But we didn't. Transforming our economy is going to take a lot of time. The oil and gas pipelines that criss-cross our country took a lot of money to build and a lot of time. The interstate pipeline system did not create itself over night. The same will be true of this new energy infrastructure. And it will take billions and billions of dollars and many year to complete. Also, we are not out of our current capital crisis. This alone is a severe hindrance to new, massive capital projects.
I also think you are overreacting to a tiny quote of Senator Webb's. We haven't seen what the full scope of what he will be advocating is yet.
We do have substantial infrastructure in place that represents a huge investment for many of the big businesses (and some small ones) that drive/support our way of life. They will be very, very unhappy to lose said investments through evolution to other energy sources. I think this may be the biggest challenge - to overcome the incredible pressure these groups will bring in order to maintain the status quo.
To a degree people can adapt to changes in energy consumption. Look at the effects of high gasoline prices - people are starting to car pool more, take more public transportation, stop buying SUVs, etc. Given our previous habits I doubt this is what people want to do, but they are adapting to a monetary challenge. If utility prices increase people will turn down/up their thermostats and focus on other power savings as they adapt. People generally don't like change but we are fairly good at it when forced to.
Yes, there is a real limit to how much of this change our society/economy can support before it starts to collapse. This is where I agree with you that we will still need to rely on existing systems for some time to come. But I do not believe we need to maintain current usage levels of those systems and we can let our consumption drop somewhat - meaning we don't absolutely have to meet current (or projected future) demand through new drilling or other desperate measures.
Also, from an economic perspective, a hard push to new technologies, new infrastructure, green energy, etc would form an incredibly strong employment base. It's going to take a lot to get from here to there. As you point out, there is a problem with capital right now, so that is a real challenge to get a new green economy going. But once it gets rolling, it will be a powerful economic engine that can easily offset economic losses due to cut backs in current infrastructure usage.
In a nutshell - let the current energy infrastructure/reliance start slowly dropping off, allow people to grudgingly adapt, and invest the money/effort in new green technology instead.
Price impact on consumers has driven them to cut their spending on other items. Consumer spending is the engine that drives our economy. To the extent that Americans have to spend all their disposable income on housing costs, energy costs, food costs, and health care costs, that leaves nothing to vast array of goods and services that make up our massive GDP. We need to do everything we can and at our disposal to address this problem. If we don't, our quality of life will be diminished. Less consumer spending, drives down business revenues, encourages businesses to scale back, increases unemployment, decreases government tax revenue, and so on...
Also, with all of this, you have inflation. And inflation makes debt a bad investment. This at a time when our credit markets are already in turmoil. If we do nothing to ameliorate the price impacts, then debt financing will remain a barrier to changing our infrastructure for years to come.
It's not a question of whether we need to maintain our current usage levels of our existing infrastructure: we will. And we will be reliant on it for continued economic growth for the mid-term until we have this new infrastructure up and running. In the meantime, we have to contend with increase competition for the commodity from the developing world. And unless we can come up with additional supply in the mid-term, energy prices will cripple not just our economy, but the global economy.
I am with you on investing in new infrastructure, in new green technology, in more green power, but all of those things will not start to make a dent until at least 5 years from now if not longer. Our economy still needs to grow. And we are at a point, where I have changed my mind on the subject. Natural Gas prices are higher this Summer than they were in the heating season; we are in upside down world at this point. We need to do everything we can at this point.
Perhaps by 2020 to 2030 alternatives will overtake new demand and hold new fossil steady. But between now and then, it seems in order to ensure economic stability, prevent harm from increased foreign dependency, all while a secure infrastructure provides for reliable energy, something has to done to meet those vital concerns.
On top of that, what is the alternative plan when the call comes to replace all the aging powerplants over then next 25 years? Retrofitting alot of them with new technology to increase efficiency & capacity production, and as well as decreased emmission doesn't entirely resolve that problem. There will just be too many and too old units out there by that time.
I just listened to an energy discussion on CNBC following Bush's speech on his latest executive order on OCS. Again, sadly both sides, 2 interest group reps, were in total disagreement, holding positions which correctly address the problem only as they see them, but not the other. Both are right in identify "a" problem, but not the whole problem and therefore their solution fall short.
Who would make for the best advisors to policymaking? Federal and state regulators. Occassionally they speak to both houses energy committees on energy. Just like the financial market and more of everyday Americans listen to fed board chairman speak, we need to listen closely to those energy regulators' testimonies.
As for my point above, I'll re-iterate: I'm not looking to meet current demand. Let it fall off - just up until the point of failure. Snarky version: People will not like turning off the 20 TVs scattered through their McMansion with thermostats set at 60 degrees all summer, but they can. Alternate version: Although it doesn't fit the model we've been working under, people have the capacity to cut back demand if need be. How much? As much as possible before the economy goes down the sh*tter. Yes, that'll make for tough times and unwanted conservation and some discomfort. But there is no way that demand is just on the edge right now, that if people cut back somewhat, that the economy would tank. We've got excess demand that makes us feel good and we can certainly cut some of that without a major impact.
How much leeway does "as much as possible" give the industry time to plan, propose and go thru the regulatory hurdles, "before the econmy goes down the sh*tter", especially when you have every joe, dick and harry busting balls trying stop new coal, gas, and nuclear?
The problem with straight conservation is that it can not be measured until after the fact, and there with no guaranteed continuity moving forward. When reliablity load flow models are generated for planning, actual supply #s, actual demand #s, and actual #s in connection or disconnection queue's, need to be true or the models will not be worth a damn. Then there's the FERC bulldogs ready to hand out fines to anyone not meeting regulatory reliability standards unless they file an emergency petition and receive a waiver.
How fast can a freight train come to dead stop? Our problem is the track grade is on a decline, not an incline.
How fast can a ocean-liner pull a u-turn in open waters? Our problem is this vessel is cruising at maximum speed and both political parties want to maintain that speed.
We have just put in place an huge expanded economy and infrastructure, built off of $10-$60/bbl price for crude since the early 90's thru 2005. Our national consuming appetite will demand 30-35% more energy by the year 2030.
What is it that I'm missing Eric?
And it is true that we've built (or navigated into) our current economy by going full speed ahead with consumption. No doubt about that. And it's this aspect that I keep coming back to.
If we look at desire vs necessity, want vs need, comfort vs survival we get two drastically different consumption models. There is a wide spectrum of how much energy is required for an individual to merely stay alive vs how much they require to live in comfort and convenience while enjoying energy consuming entertainments.
We've been living near the far end of this spectrum (on the massive consumption side) for quite some time now, and the notion that keeps gnawing at me is that, given the energy/environmental/economic problems we face today, that we could/should move down this spectrum somewhat.
I'm not suggesting, and never was, that we need to go to the other far end and consume almost nothing. And I know that every notch we move back there will be ramifications - some bad and some merely uncomfortable or inconvenient. Although I do believe that these problems would be temporary as the money invested in other means (well documented in this post and many others) would start paying off and bring the economy and our level of comfort back while being environmentally friendly and energy smart.
I do hear what you and Tx are saying loud and clear - especially that our society is not geared toward a cut back. But I also can not believe that we as a society are simply stuck consuming this much energy, with no way out, for years or decades.
If the thermostat is someone's house is set to 65 all day long right now, is it impossible to cut it to 75 during the day (when no one is home) and then to 70 when they get home? Of course not - it's just less convenient (they have to change it twice per day) and less comfortable (they have to have a slightly warmer house). How many lights need to be on in a home? How many playstations, computers, televisions, cell phones, stereos, DVD players, etc. etc. need to be on at once? Or even used as much as they are? People like these things. Hell, I like most 'em. I'm not suggesting that we throw them out, but if conservation meant using them less I believe Americans are capable of conserving. We don't want to, we really don't want to, but I find it hard to believe that it's impossible for individuals to cut their energy use.
Ok, much easier said than done because most people, as economic theory 101 states, will act in their own self interest. You know, conservation is great for someone else. And this is where I get stuck. While what you and Tx are saying about utilities and grids and all those technical complications is true, the real challenge I see with what I'm suggesting is that it's a social engineering problem. I seriously doubt society will cut back on it's own and any government action along these lines would quickly be reversed when conservation friendly leaders are replaced with consumption friendly leaders.
I don't want to give up on the concept because in theory it could/would work. But the more I think about it, I suppose I will concede that in practice it is very unlikely to happen due to human nature - which is more or less saying we're all fucked because we can't break this cycle. Damn it.
Our energy problems involve climate, energy independence, energy security and economic stability, have had a long time to develop. Over the course of that time, we've blown all of our nation's wealth on a war, our banking industry has become a complete mess, and OPEC now has more influence over our economy than it has ever before. I don't think America will be the same for quite some time, unless we get real lucky (like a united Congress).
Our energy policy is heading into some darkening clouds. People have a good idea on how bad it could get, but they can't seem to get the nation prepared for likely the storm ahead. I don't think people shouldn't hold the next president to a limited # of resources tackle these problems. If the storm is worse than what we are prepared for, changes will have to be made. And the way energy policy-making goes (recall my freight train & oceanliner example above), if we are thinking of those possibilities for tomorrow, we might as well act on them today, so they are available at our disposal tomorrow.
Eric, backing down from your stance because you see the big picture, doesn't make your position on energy weaker, it strengthens it. Others will find out later. A car can only travel so far with three good tires.
Anyway, let's look at what we've done historically in terms of energy efficiency, combined with shifts in the structure of the economy. According to EIA, in 1973 the United States consumed 75.7 quadrillion Btu (quads) of energy on a gross domestic product (GDP) of $4.3 trillion ($2000, chained). In 2007, we consumed 101.6 quads of energy on $11.6 trillion of GDP (also $2000, chained). In other words, from 1973 to 2007, U.S. energy consumption increased just 34.2% while GDP increased 169.8%. Because GDP increased so much faster than energy consumption, the overall U.S. energy/GDP ratio was cut by more than half, from 17.44 thousand Btu (per chained $2000) in 1973 to 8.78 thousand Btu (per chained $2000) in 2007. That's impressive, although it could have been even better if we had made a major push for vehicle, home and business energy efficiency.
Now, let's compare the United States to a few other major world economies (statistics for 2005 in Btu/$2000, purchasing power parity exchange rates):
Saudi Arabia: 17,979
Russia: 14,935
Canada: 13,825
South Korea: 12,471
United States: 9,113
Australia: 9,045
China: 7,906
France: 7,243
Germany: 7,021
Japan: 6,539
Brazil: 6,312
United Kingdom: 6,048
Italy: 5,788
In short, the United States isn't the most energy intensive (or least energy efficient, depending on how you look at it) country in the world. However, we could do a lot better, as is obvious by looking at countries like China, Germany, Brazil and the UK. Let's just say, for argument's sake, that we magically cut our energy intensity from 9,113 to 6,048. Given the same GDP, that would mean we'd consume 34% less energy, a reduction of about 35 quads from current levels. Just to put that in perspective, 35 quads is more energy than any other country except for China consumes in a year. It's more than Japan and the United Kingdom COMBINED consume in a year. In other words, it's a heck of a lot of energy, and we could "save" that much if we simply reduce our Energy/GDP ratio to that of the United Kingdom.
How do we cut our energy consumption by 35 quads without hurting our economy? Low hanging fruit #1: the vehicle fleet. Double the vehicle fleet's fuel economy and we'd cut our energy consumption by about 13-14 quads. Triple the fleet's fuel economy - or combine a cut in miles traveled with less of an improvement in fuel economy - and cut our energy consumption by about 18 quads. That gets us about half the way towards 35 quads.
Low hanging fruit #2: the electric power sector, which currently consumes about 41 quads of energy. We need to tackle this one on both the generation and consumption sides. On the generation side, coal-fired power plants currently achieve thermal efficiency of around one third (33%) - e.g., only a third of the energy value of coal is actually converted into electricity, the rest is lost as waste heat. In contrast, a gas turbine in conjunction with a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) can achieve thermal efficiency as high as 60%. My understanding is that, theoretically, a gas turbine could achieve efficiencies of up to 65% - TWICE as efficient as an average coal-fired power plant, in other words. Let's just say, for argument's sake, that we increased our power generation efficiency by about half, to around 50%. That would cut our energy consumption by about 20 quads. Combined with the 18 quad savings from our transportation sector, that gets us past the 35 quad goal we stated at the outset of this discussion. And we haven't even addressed the power demand side of the equation, where we could achieve enormous reductions in consumption through home and appliance energy efficiency upgrades.
In short, we can achieve enormous energy efficiency gains in the transportation, power generation and residential sectors, slashing our nation's overall energy consumption. As an added bonus, we'd slash our carbon dioxide emissions as well. As another added bonus, these expenditures on energy efficiency would be INVESTMENTS in the sense that we'd reap the benefits in terms of lower energy costs, reduced pollution, and geostrategic benefits for a long time to come. Now, all we need to do is to stop screwing around and whining about what we "can't do," quit wasting our time with red herrings and political feel-good nonsense, and get moving in the American "can-do" spirit. If we do, we'll all be better off.
Inefficiencies also exist in the T&D equipment affecting 12% of all capacity delivered. Even the EEI requested the DOE in 2006 to mandate the installation of new transformers on a scheduled basis. But it doesn't look like the DOE is going to move on that, as it appears utilities already have too much on their hands.
Another source of utility inefficiency, is the decommissioning of generation sources in load centers. This and other factors lead to the misplacement of investment and a greater reliance on transmission from generation sources farther away. Decrease electricity is delivered and this is called line loss. The new Loudoun proposal, for example, is 28 miles longer than the original, and will supply less electricity to NOVA.
On the flip side, decommissioning w/o new transmission, leads to increased congestion and that is very inefficient. To combat this, the grid relies more on peak capacity and peak capacity is technically the most expensive kWh produced and the dirtiest.
Instead of more transmission and more peak capacity, the grid could alleviate congestion thru higher capacity transmission lines. Urban underground superconductors carry 6x more capacity that their overhead counterparts. Higher aluminum composite transmission carries 2 to 3x more electricity than the typical steel reinforced technology born early last century.
All these things are coming, but they require allot of time and money. You won't hear me complaining about my skyrocketing electric bill in the coming years.
What your pointing out on how natural gas fired generation is more efficient than coal is a great point. But we need more natural gas in order to have more natural gas power plants. Not only does this include recovery of natural gas from non-conventional sites. But it also means expanding conventional exploration and production. And you can't switch generation or build new plants in an instant. It will takes years for that to happen, and even then we'll still need some balance because natural gas is used in industrial applications (though less so as we lose our industrial base) and in residential heating applications.
We can raise CAFE standards, but it will take years for the total population of vehicles in the US to turn-over. And we can encourage people to improve their own efficiency, but as I have pointed out most people don't have several thousand dollars sitting on the table to make all of these improvements. And if you wanted all of these things to happen in 5 years, you are talking about an astronomical cost for federal and state governments and a tax burden that people are probably not willing to bare.
Also, Europe and Japan are bad comparisons to us. They have a completely different lifestyle. For one, the average square footage of their homes is 1000 sq ft or less. Their population density is much higher than ours. They have much better systems of public transportation and public rail networks than we do. Their cities are not like most of our cities. About the only thing we can mirror immediately is that we could set all of our office thermostats to 80 (that's what Japan does). If you want us to mirror them, again a lot of money, a lot of time, and a change to people's lifestyles that not everyone will like.
This is why to solve the problem, we need to throw everything at it. One, because it allows us to build a consensus among both Democrats and Republicans to solve this challenge. And two, because no one piece is going to solve the problem.
Anyway, I hope I haven't come across as saying that conservation is the only way to address our energy problems. During the past few days alone we've covered a lot of ground on various methods of approaching the problem and we definitely need a multi-pronged attack.
While we're doing all sorts of R&D, while we're building smart grids, while we're modifying our infrastructure to support new technologies, while we're implementing new CAFE standards, and so on, we do need to balance energy supply and demand. Unfortunately, it seems our way of achieving that balance is to add to the current infrastructure rather than cut consumption and make do with the existing one. In one sense both of these approaches get us to the same point - a balance of supply and demand. But the time and money put into building out the existing system, IMO, would be better spent on creating and building the new systems.
Unfortunately it seems the only way people will conserve en mass is if they are forced to. Government laws/taxes won't do the trick because, as noted above, government officials are easily replaced if people are upset about being forced to conserve. The high price of gasoline, which is mostly outside of anyones control, is forcing people to modify their behavior. It can happen, but I'm sure it won't happen voluntarily.
The good news, if we can call it that, is that there is a lot of unnecessary energy usage in our society and if we could cut it back we wouldn't have to invest in building out the existing infrastructure. Again, much easier said than done because there will be incredible resistance to giving up any comforts and conveniences, but in theory it is possible.
It really is in our collective best interest to take a conservation approach to balancing energy supply and demand. We'd be directing effort and resources toward moving forward instead of adding to the system we will be replacing. That's a smart long term investment and would no doubt moving us along our path much faster than taking the time to build onto the existing systems.
Again from my perspective, industry and regulators believe because of the severity of the problem, made worse by the delayed national energy policy enactment, the time required to implement the solutions calls for the entire set of resources at our disposal. The delay allowed the demand curve and the problem of the aging infrastructure, to grow too steep to resolve with less.
The falling dollar and narrowing excess capacity in oil & gas markets, is threatening the economic stability of our nation, while OPEC gains influence over our policymaking. Both factors threaten our ability to resolve the already difficult energy challenge facing the grid and climate.
The existance of new coal w/o ccs, does not or should not come at the expense of renewables, for example. It will or should only be added because EEC and renewables can't fill the void in the near and mid-term. This message was made clear to state regulators by FERC not too long ago. The chairman's statement was compelling - it was the last warning shot to regulators and utilities, towards any set of belief which holds reservations about the feasibility of renewables. But as you can see, the point does go both ways.
We can build 10,000 MW of wind today, but what good is that investment if only a fraction of this capacity is usable while transmission and the smart grid are inadequate. This is of course dependent on region. The desert southwest can use 10,000MW worth of capacity in solar arrays today, the upper Plains can use 10,000MW of worth of turbine capacity today, etc, because they have certain advantages over states like Virginia.
In our state, we have an inefficient grid because of a poor investment history in EEC and T&D equipment. With its proposed $600M, Dominion is attacking this aspect. New dirty coal, gas and nuclear doesn't need a smart grid, and all of them are better than old dirty coal. That's the best concession we can hope for before maximizing intermittent renewables resources become as reality in our region.
I don't think we would be having this discussion it was 1997. But our Congress was too divided then, and all the nation wanted to do was "Live la vida loca". Remember?
It took 9/11 and a blackout in 2003 to act. Ten years is quite a buffer but that doesn't exist anymore, other dangers have arrived, and the pricetag is higher. Our problem took well over two decades to develop, and it will take the same time to recover.
My message to you:
* Push for the decommission of old dirty coal and replace it with new dirty coal, gas and nuclear.
* Educate the end-user on EEC: residential a/c load management and large end-user demand response.
* Push the expansion of the smart grid by narrowing those investments into one or more jurisdictions. While this brings the smart grid to only a few users in the near-term, I think it goes a long way towards educating the entire state/region with something real and something sooner, and not a concept long in the making as Dominion seems to elude. (fyi, Dominion has not revealed the details yet however.)
* Create a special fund(s), which will supplement any federal funds, to be awarded or granted later when the smart grid is statewide. The fund would be used as incentives towards end-users for purchasing smart appliances, co-generation (pv solar roofs) and storage resourcs (plug-ins), when the smart grid is state-wide.
* Incentivize utility grid upgrades before any new generation or transmission proposal.
* Create a joint venture with neigbhoring states for an offshore power generation pilot. The project would be a demonstration how offshore wind, wave, ocean thermal, and tidal turbines and generators, could each be sited within the same seven acre space, lessening the financial burden of underwater transmission costs.
* Explore opportunities for offshore LNG for the sole purpose to back up the future offshore power farm.
* Save the economy in the meantime, by exploring all ways to keep petroleum affordable.
I do like your list of actions - with a few minor exceptions. I won't dig into that because I'm sure you can guess which ones I'm not crazy about. Overall though, a good list.
But it does leave out a few big ticket items - one of those being conservation. It's easy to identify excessive uses (i.e. almost pure waste) of energy. Beyond that there is still much to be saved if people began to sacrifice some of their comfort and convenience.
Again, I'm not suggesting that we go back to the Stone Age or that conservation is the only thing we should be doing. But I am curious why you haven't included it as one of the items we should be doing to address our significant problem.
Amongst EEC, i have highlighted a/c load mgmt & demand response, and note the list was for the short & mid-terms before going totally green is a reality. Those two seem to be very available & doable and if fully implemented, can stave off grid expansion due to peak demand.
Demand response participants save money on both their bill and received a payback from the utility. As of 2006, our grid (PJM territory) utilizes 40% less demand response than it did during its peak in 1997. Shocking but true.
A/c load management is just a super easy & smart thing every joe, dick and harry can do. It creates no discomfort and participation is voluntary. And if one find it doesn't work for them, the end-user can still call to have it disabled or have the smart switch device removed from the outdoor a/c unit.
The more end-users are involved in ac load mgmt & the bigger ones in demand response, the greater impact on decreasing peak demand, the primary driver which leads to more power plants and transmission lines. Also, by decreasing peak demand, transmission congestion decreases and both substantially lessens the purchase of peak capacity, the most expensive electricity on the market.
The net result, lowers the price per kWh each and everyone pays! And with growing utility rates due to increase price for fossil generation and the growing assortment of investments to the grid coming very soon, it will certainly help ease some pain.
Check out this scenario
Dominion builds 5000MW generator.
Dominion charges $1 for every MW of output
But because of inefficiencies, Dominion delivers 2500MW.
2500MW of delivered power = $5000 or $2/MW paid by customers
Grid needs more power, repeat cost above.
Net = 5000MW of delivered power = $10,000 or $2/MW.
In reality inefficiencies is more or less like 57% 45% for typical generator + 12% due to T&D inefficiencies. Perhaps 7 to 12% is recoverable.
Grid calls for 250MW to address growing peak demand.
Option #1, new peaking generator based on above realities
Net = 250MW delivered = $500 or $2/MW
Option #2, new EEC investment in a/c load managment & demand response cost $1 for every MW (Its available today!)
Net = 250MW gain = $250 or $1/MW
TOTAL = 5250MW delivered = $10,500 @ $2/MW OR $10,250 @ $1.95/MW, respectively.
Mmm, puny savings, but now the price of fuel or regulation drives up Dominion's generating cost from $1 to $2.
New total = 5000MW delivered for $20,000 @ $4/MW
Meet new peak demand thru option #1 new generation OR option #2 EEC per above
TOTAL = 5250MW delivered for $21,000 @ $4/MW or $20,250 @ $3.85/MW, respectively.
Did customers save any money thru an EEC investment as an alternative to fossil peak, as the price of generating fossil doubles? Only the ignorant ones will say no. You and I know better. But more importantly, we have avoided the use of fossil for another power plant.
Why does generation cost more than EEC? Because power plant construction cost more than switches and utility payments. Also re-regulation bill allows Dominion to receive a flat % of profit on the resources it sells from EEC after expenses. Also a power plant needs transmission lines and those cost gets filtered into the rate.
Hard to understand? Hopefully not. Hard for you to explain to your friends and neighbors? Yes definitely - that's why having Dominion smart grid resources funnelled into one jurisdiction like the city of Alexandria, is important in my opinion. Its quicker to implement versus the entire state. And if people see the realities of the smart grid come to life, whether or not they live Alexandria or not, they will still learn about it. This education is what is lacking in EEC in general. Make sense?
"The problem with straight conservation is that it can not be measured until after the fact, and there is no guaranteed continuity of it moving forward. When reliablity load flow models are generated for planning, actual supply #s, actual demand #s, and actual #s in connection or disconnection queue's, need to be true or the models will not be worth a damn."
This is unlike a/c load mgmnt and demand response contracts. Both cases provide the utility with tangible numbers which can be used in load flow models.
General decreases from conservation, need to be visibly experienced by utilities over a longer period before planning can reflect its impact. I would not say this is solely left to the local utility to decipher. The Regional transmission operator (RTO) will probably have the final say about its impact and what that will translate into. Regardless, its not very reliable and any impact will require a sound change in consumption habits for a longer period, in order to have the affect we want - decrease reliance on fossil if renewables can't meet demand. If everyone buys electric plug-in hybrids vehicles, their individual conservation effort isn't very visible to the grid.
I think you can't be serious and this is just a moment of being displeased with other individuals' choices. Because how will we know when we are the tipping point? I think given the perfect storm of economic events going on at this time, we are already at the tipping point. It is shaping up to be the 1970s part 2. We need to try everything. Have you been to the grocery store lately? I have spent 16% more on my grocery bill this YTD compared to prior YTD. I'm not hurting yet and I am sure that given median income in NoVA at least half of us aren't. But the average Virginian must be feeling a whole lot of pain. And they are the drivers of this economy. And sh*t, if my grocery bill keeps going up by 16% a year, I really will be hurting or not eating.
High energy prices are good for pushing us towards renewables. That is where the jobs are going to come from as well.
It is about time people in this country started thinking about the future.
Bush is over. Cheney is going to jail.
Personally, I'm more than willing to accept some amount of new offshore drilling if that's what it takes to get better fuel economy standards passed and start switching from coal to nuclear. We need an energy bill ASAP. Compromise is how we'll get it and Jim Webb is just the man to cut the deal for us.
I'm getting pretty sick of all the attacks around here against Jim Webb for his lack of ideological purity. If you want someone who only votes for exactly what the left wing base wants every single time, then go stuff envelopes for Denis Kuchinich and see where that gets you. If Jim Webb did exactly what you wanted every single time then he would be a nobody in the Senate. His value in that body lies with the fact that he gives you and I the finger now and then in order to forge compromises and pass bills that really do something.
It's pretty easy for you to throw stones and complain about what's on the table for his energy bill when you aren't the one who has to go out there and convince 10 or 12 Republican Senators to buck their leaderships and vote for cloture.
If Jim Webb's staff is reading this, I think you guys are doing a great job. Never mind the purity police.
Do we get anything in the "compromise"? Or is this like the Iraq funding compromise, the FISA compromise, and the torture compromise?
With Democrats like you, who needs Republicans? No wonder we get steamrolled.
In the big picture, your end goal is mine, and is the goal I believe most every informed and decent person on both sides of the spectrum. But surviving with what we have today, all while we make the transition to where you are pointing, imo, unfortunately requires everything. Its taken high oil to motivate alot of people into your camp, but with higher oil and a failing powergrid threatening the economy, the problem has grown so large that it won't be an easy transfer. Congressional energy commmittee members have known about these problems since the late 90's, but couldn't get their act together, because they and their parties are too divided, such are their supporters. We basically are not listening to eachother and subsequently build taller walls to block the other, which only results in the problem as a whole to grow worse.
Look at what regulators got from Duke in NC and the major utility in WI. New coal for old coal. The SCC got some concessions out of Dominion regarding Wise County, but some grids are different then others, because demand growth rates are different, available resources are different, transmission grid setup is different, neighbor's demands are different, etc. Next decade, the state of Virginia will have 4 large coal plants in their 60's.
From my lowly perspetive, I would like to see greens push for the shutdown of all of these 60+ year old power plants, and replace them with whatever new technology there is. Why? Because as to your concerns for one, they are so much more cleaner and less C02 producing.
Secondly, while we all want renewables available to us, a state like Virginia needs a more intelligent grid. Our state isn't located in the sunny desert southwest or the windy upper Plains. Our beaches have puny waves unlike the Pacific northwest, and our tide doesn't change like the northeast. In order to make use of what similar renewables would offer in our region, we need a digitally powered grid to manage the fluctuations of these intermittent resources will have around here. If you build it, they will come.
If I had a picture I wanted to see come to life, it would include a fully implemented small grid statewide followed by a large offshore Mid-Atlantic power field consisting of thousands of wind turbines spinning above bobbing wave, while tidal props turn deep below the surface. These three resources wouldn't get in each way, because the one single 200-300' foot turbine requires some 5 to 7 acres of land each, for practical purposes. The same "right of way" for 1 turbine could still overlap with wave and tidal generators, all while using the same transmission line. Perhaps a geothermal ocean generator spanning from the surface to the bottom can be fit in there somewhere.
Farther out from the power field, lie platform drilling rigs pulling natural gas which would then be used to backup the renewable power. The smart grid manages it all in the cheapest, cleanest and least expensive way. Slowly our need for coal and oil will wane under such a power model.
How long from now do I expect to see this happen? The year 2030 to 2050. Until that time, the economy needs to make the money to make it all happen. Oil b/n $150-$200 is going to make that real tough.
I am not going to defend anyone proposing a stupid policy at the same time as the Republicans are attempting to use that VERY SAME IDEA to embarrass the Democrats.
Do the brilliant minds here even know if we have the refinery capacity to process the additional oil?
I am not attacking Jim Webb or complaining about a lack of ideological purity. If you are on Facebook, consider yourself slapped for that ridiculous remark.
Expanded oil drilling when the existing leases are not being used is a bad idea. High gas prices are an incentive for us to find alternatives. Are we not familiar with basic economics here?
This should take you to the refinery utilization page:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/...
For April, current utilization is 86.2%
Dear Ms. Levandoski:Thank you for contacting me to express your views about drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska.
The ANWR was established to preserve wildlife and unique wilderness areas. The ANWR is inhabited by 45 species of land and marine mammals, including the polar, grizzly, and black bear; wolverine; muskox; and the free-roaming caribou. Thirty-six species of fish live in Arctic Refuge waters, and 180 species of birds have been observed on the refuge.
I am a strong advocate for environmental conservation because I know that nature is a valuable resource that must be preserved for the benefit and enjoyment of our present and future generations. From the protection of flora and fauna and their habitats to the conservation of our forests, land, air, and waterways, I am committed to preserving our natural environment. Thus, while I agree that our nation needs to take steps to reduce our dependency on foreign sources for oil, I do not support drilling in the ANWR. The minimal oil the ANWR produces cannot make a major difference in our foreign oil demand, and the environmental costs associated with drilling there far outweigh the benefits. Instead, I believe that improved conservation and greater use of alternative energy sources would help make the United States become a more self-sufficient nation.
I would argue that same environmental risks for such minimal return also apply to the Atlantic OCS and especially Virginia, home to $1.23 billion fishing industry and where tourists spend over $890 million a year, to say nothing to the Navy's ardent objection to drilling offshore Virginia.
Plus Webb needs to also consider the fact that there is no leasing scenario or regulatory framework that would allow development of natural gas and not simultaneously promote the development of offshore oil. Historically, there have been no instances where the industry has not removed both gas and oil before capping a productive well. "[I]f you take out the natural gas, you don't cap the well and then go back for the oil," said Jeff Eshelman, spokesman for the Independent Petroleum Association of America.
Twelve Reasons Why Offshore Drilling is Wrong for Virginia
http://www.hrsierraclub.org/No...