Electricity Price Increases

[jyoutz]

They can't give coal away now....

U.S. rejects Navajo company's bid to buy 167 million tons of coal on public lands

The Department of Interior said in a Tuesday statement that last week’s $186,000 bid from the Navajo Transitional Energy Co. (NTEC) did not meet the requirements of the Mineral Leasing Act.

www.kjzz.org

It’s no longer the lowest cost energy source.

 

[CliffordK]

Around here, EWEB has a unique history...

A typhoid epidemic that struck Eugene in the first decade of the 20th century provided the catalyst that led to the creation of EWEB. When the outbreak was traced to the privately owned water company, outraged citizens sprang into action, voting in 1908 to buy the system and create a municipal, citizen-owned water utility.

The Eugene City Council ordered the construction of a hydroelectric power plant that would power the pumps necessary to ensure adequate water pressure. When the Walterville Hydroelectric Plant on the McKenzie River was completed in February 1911, the City Council transferred control of the utility to a separate citizen board, which met for the first time on March 11, 1911.

The sister city, Springfield has their own utility. SUB.

My parents were on a private utility in the 1980's, but it was taken over by a public group, Emerald Public Utility Company covering a portion of rural Lane County. A couple of other public and non profit companies are around.

The federal government controls most of the regional hydroelectric and flood control dams, and are under the umbrella of Bonneville. Power Administration (BPA), and sells wholesale power to the regional utility companies. In theory we pay the long term amortized capitol costs of the dams as well as general maintenance and power distribution costs. The Columbia River generates A LOT OF POWER. But, there are also other regional dams. A few dams on the McKenzie and Willamette river drainage.

That article talks about the Walterville/Leaburg dam. After a century, the city is now trying to shut the dam down due to a lack of earthquake tolerance for the canal system.

EPUD has a natural gas generation project at the local garbage dump.

Short Mountain Power Plant

The Short Mountain Power Plant has long been touted as a “win-win” for the Lane County community. The project not only captures methane gas at the County landfill, it turns...

www.epud.org

Although, apparently they now fear a new recycling plant being planned will reduce the future methane available.

 

[lman]

I expect they are better now… only know one early adopters person and it was plagued with problems…

My gas cost works out to be about $80 per month… PGE sends me a small solar check every year at true which covers all my electric monthly meter fees, etc.

Having extra insulated walls and triple pane windows pays off…

My heat pump water heater is $12/month.

 

[orezok]

Not an opinion, just some internet facts. A mature tree stores 1 ton of CO2 per year of life. That could be 100 tons of carbon that is rereleased into the atmosphere when it is burned. Is this better or worse than NG, LP or coal. I don't know.

In addition, burning wood produces a lot of PM5 and PM10 (smoke) which is a health hazard.

I can understand why an agency would ban wood burning. Me, I still burn wood so I guess I'm a polluter.

 

[Eagle1]

I am surrounded by forest and the population density is less the 31 per square mile for the county and I would say closer to <10 per square mile here in the southern end. I pretty sure the trees around here absorb way more than we generate
All I know I can not keep with the dead or fallen trees enough to worry about cutting live trees. Except when they are in a bad place.

 

[WinterDeere]

No solid fuel burn bans or prohibitions on installing wood stoves, fireplaces, etc. where you are?

No! Quite the opposite, in fact. I received a tax credit for installing the current pair of wood stoves, due to their ultra-high efficiency.

It’s code here and was expanding to gas fired appliances until a recent pause.

I understand stricter laws are required due to the absolutely staggering population density that is southern California. But at the same time, it's such a shame what folks have done to such a beautiful state. California would be a wonderful place to live, if not for so many of the Californians!

 

[not2old]

There are tremendous health benefits to physical activity. I put two years worth of wood into the wood shed this summer. I am 78, and still hand split my own. It took me a couple hours a day for 3 weeks, I ricked it to dry in direct sun all summer, and moved it into the wood shed before it got rained on. I'm fortunate that my health allows that much activity, but it maintains my health. Judging from family members, I will have to rely on the heat pump by the time I am 90, but meanwhile a healthy and active body is worth the price of admission.

I get my exercise dirt biking in the summer and snowmobiling in the winter. I'm 77 and need the rush from more thrilling exercise than splitting wood. I quit chasing girls because I'v gotten too slow to catch them.

 

[lman]

I get my exercise dirt biking in the summer and snowmobiling in the winter. I'm 77 and need the rush from more thrilling exercise than splitting wood. I quit chasing girls because I'v gotten too slow to catch them.

You need to find slower girls. That's scary.

 

[jyoutz]

Not an opinion, just some internet facts. A mature tree stores 1 ton of CO2 per year of life. That could be 100 tons of carbon that is rereleased into the atmosphere when it is burned. Is this better or worse than NG, LP or coal. I don't know.

In addition, burning wood produces a lot of PM5 and PM10 (smoke) which is a health hazard.

I can understand why an agency would ban wood burning. Me, I still burn wood so I guess I'm a polluter.

Thinning an overly dense forest to produce fuelwood, biomass and lumber reduces wildfire severity. Severe wildfires release far more pollutants than burning fuelwood or biomass.

 

[CliffordK]

Not an opinion, just some internet facts. A mature tree stores 1 ton of CO2 per year of life. That could be 100 tons of carbon that is rereleased into the atmosphere when it is burned. Is this better or worse than NG, LP or coal. I don't know.

In addition, burning wood produces a lot of PM5 and PM10 (smoke) which is a health hazard.

I can understand why an agency would ban wood burning. Me, I still burn wood so I guess I'm a polluter.

We have a number of clean burning wood stove requirements. I don't know the overall impact, but it does reduce the visible smoke a lot, and I believe also reduces any harmful particulate matter.

The carbon cycle is very different from fossil fuels.

For the fossil fuels, the carbon has been sequestered for millions of years. Put it in the air, and does anybody want to wait a few million years to get it buried again?

For the tree, perhaps sequestered for a few dozen years, or a century or two. I'm not cutting any living trees at the moment. Most of my cutting is something that has fallen to the ground in one manner or another. If left on the ground, that wood will rot, and over a few years, or perhaps even decades all the carbon will be released by the bacteria, fungi, and various borers that feed on it.

But with the carbon cycle, if I cut something down, then it regrows, then over a period of time that carbon is sequestered again. Or, perhaps if I simply thin a few trees, then the growth of the neighboring trees will make up for the lost trees.

 

[WinterDeere]

We have a number of clean burning wood stove requirements. I don't know the overall impact, but it does reduce the visible smoke a lot, and I believe also reduces any harmful particulate matter.

The carbon cycle is very different from fossil fuels.

For the fossil fuels, the carbon has been sequestered for millions of years. Put it in the air, and does anybody want to wait a few million years to get it buried again?

For the tree, perhaps sequestered for a few dozen years, or a century or two. I'm not cutting any living trees at the moment. Most of my cutting is something that has fallen to the ground in one manner or another. If left on the ground, that wood will rot, and over a few years, or perhaps even decades all the carbon will be released by the bacteria, fungi, and various borers that feed on it.

But with the carbon cycle, if I cut something down, then it regrows, then over a period of time that carbon is sequestered again. Or, perhaps if I simply thin a few trees, then the growth of the neighboring trees will make up for the lost trees.

Good post. And like you, I'm not cutting live trees for the purpose of generating fuel. Probably 90% of my fuel wood comes from trees that are downed by storms or disease, and the other 10% are trees that folks are removing for other reasons (home safety, additions, etc.). So, if I or someone else isn't burning it, it's going to be chipped and mulched.

 

[jyoutz]

Good post. And like you, I'm not cutting live trees for the purpose of generating fuel. Probably 90% of my fuel wood comes from trees that are downed by storms or disease, and the other 10% are trees that folks are removing for other reasons (home safety, additions, etc.). So, if I or someone else isn't burning it, it's going to be chipped and mulched.

Throughout the west we need to cut live trees to restore forest health and reduce high severity fires. In many locations the forests have 5-10 times the trees per acre that was present historically and this accounts for the many uncharacteristically severe fires that occur every year.

 

[ultrarunner]

No! Quite the opposite, in fact. I received a tax credit for installing the current pair of wood stoves, due to their ultra-high efficiency.


I understand stricter laws are required due to the absolutely staggering population density that is southern California. But at the same time, it's such a shame what folks have done to such a beautiful state. California would be a wonderful place to live, if not for so many of the Californians!

Is that a Federal Tax Credit or State Credit?

If new installs or replacement is provided by the Air Quality Management Board covering 9 counties and 12 million people I don’t see being able to install one today.

 

[ultrarunner]

You need to find slower girls. That's scary.

A wise elder once told me don’t worry about what people think about you because they seldom do.

 

[ponytug]

That's a good benchmark, but was this factoring in any incentives of tax breaks derived from the installation, or actual full invoice? I think the paper that called it a financial loser at the residential scale was using full invoice costs, knowing that even if you're not paying for it out of your own pocket, the community is as taxpayers.

We got a 20% tax break. So, call it a little over 5.6 years without the tax break.

When I first ran the numbers fifteen years ago here, the ROI was never, but the precipitous drop in $/kW for solar eventually made it a breakeven, and then by the time we had the installer and permits lined up, advantageous.

Have watched friends, acquaintances, and relatives go through the analysis is why I came to the conclusion that whether or not solar makes sense is often very local. A friend who lives out your way was in a rural area where either he had to do the full installation himself, or deal with a solar installer that was charging about twice what we paid in California (monopoly pricing). He couldn't make it pencil out and he didn't have enough time or expertise to really DIY a solar installation. Lake effect areas of the Great Lakes can have basically no solar capacity during the winter, and some of those areas, like Ohio have historically had low power costs, though that's changing.

Unlike @ultrarunner, we can burn wood most days here, but we can't upgrade our fireplace to an enclosed stove due to insurance reasons. Go figure.

Personally, I find it interesting how local energy solutions can be, and the sheer diversity of what works.

All the best,

Peter

 

[WinterDeere]

Is that a Federal Tax Credit or State Credit?

I don't remember for sure, this was back around 2015. But I remember the credit being discussed on another forum by users all over the country with many on the west coast, so I suspect it was Federal.

 

[CliffordK]

Throughout the west we need to cut live trees to restore forest health and reduce high severity fires. In many locations the forests have 5-10 times the trees per acre that was present historically and this accounts for the many uncharacteristically severe fires that occur every year.

Forest health is complex with no easy answer.

Old growth and climax forests can be relatively resistant to forest fires. But if people's homes or other assets are built into the forests, the fire blowing through isn't popular. While there are some do not fight restrictions in wilderness areas, fires tend to move from where they may be deemed as "safe" into places where people really don't want the fires.

On the outside, clear cuts would seem to produce good fire breaks, and perhaps they do. But, then the forests are replanted with high density mono-culture trees (and perhaps some natural reseeding to further increase the density, and one has a mess.

In the places that Alder, Maple, and other hardwoods grow when the canopy is opened up, if they are the primary colonizers, they will provide much less fire resistance.

Nonetheless, the high density tree growth following clear cuts is far more vulnerable to fires than the ancient forests were there before everything was cut.

When I was younger, Eastern Oregon (East side of the Cascades) had very dense lodgepole pine forests. They all seemed to be equally sized small trees packed in very densely. I don't really know if they had always been there, or if it was the result of prior logging practices. Pine beetles were particularly devastating to those forests, and they've changed significantly. Currently near Sisters Oregon there are some majestic old growth Ponderosa pine forests. While they do heavy forest management of those areas, they are all big enough trees that they could likely survive fires. Did we lose those forests elsewhere in Eastern Oregon?

 

[jyoutz]

Forest health is complex with no easy answer.

Old growth and climax forests can be relatively resistant to forest fires. But if people's homes or other assets are built into the forests, the fire blowing through isn't popular. While there are some do not fight restrictions in wilderness areas, fires tend to move from where they may be deemed as "safe" into places where people really don't want the fires.

On the outside, clear cuts would seem to produce good fire breaks, and perhaps they do. But, then the forests are replanted with high density mono-culture trees (and perhaps some natural reseeding to further increase the density, and one has a mess.

In the places that Alder, Maple, and other hardwoods grow when the canopy is opened up, if they are the primary colonizers, they will provide much less fire resistance.

Nonetheless, the high density tree growth following clear cuts is far more vulnerable to fires than the ancient forests were there before everything was cut.

When I was younger, Eastern Oregon (East side of the Cascades) had very dense lodgepole pine forests. They all seemed to be equally sized small trees packed in very densely. I don't really know if they had always been there, or if it was the result of prior logging practices. Pine beetles were particularly devastating to those forests, and they've changed significantly. Currently near Sisters Oregon there are some majestic old growth Ponderosa pine forests. While they do heavy forest management of those areas, they are all big enough trees that they could likely survive fires. Did we lose those forests elsewhere in Eastern Oregon?

Much of what you’re describing is west side coastal and mesic forests that are different in terms of fire ecology than most of the interior west. And your observations are in line with those forest types. Eastern Oregon is more characteristic of most of the interior west. Lodgepole pine is a high severity fires type: it grows dense, matures, and is regenerated by bugs and fire. The ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests that dominate most of the west were historically open forests and uneven aged. They experienced frequent low severity fires that thinned and maintained these open conditions under a natural fire regime. These are the forests that are burning with uncharacteristic high severity fires now because of high density. After high severity fires, they often don’t regenerate and must be artificially reforested by tree planting. These forests need thinned so they survive fire and function more naturally.

 

[Yander]

A wise elder once told me don’t worry about what people think about you because they seldom do.

That's very true. I also told my boys not to worry about what people think about them; they often think what they want to. I have a soon-to-be 80-year-old MIL who has been paralyzed by what people think about her. She is mentally ill IMO.

 

[Yander]

Good post. And like you, I'm not cutting live trees for the purpose of generating fuel. Probably 90% of my fuel wood comes from trees that are downed by storms or disease, and the other 10% are trees that folks are removing for other reasons (home safety, additions, etc.). So, if I or someone else isn't burning it, it's going to be chipped and mulched.

You've got my interest here. How do you get the word out, or where does your customer base come from? I have thought I would like to start doing tree cleanup work to get off the couch since I have a sedentary job.

I worked for my brother as his cleanup crew years ago when he had a tree business. I rather enjoy it, honestly. I am about to get a third function installed on my tractor.

We also cut, split, and sold a lot of firewood when I was a teenager. My dad burned wood until he was 75 years old. My wife is against a wood stove, so I'm missing out, in my opinion.