Here we've pulled most of our dams on major rivers because they're evil... now there's talk about blasting a 145 mile power line corrider through the state so that Massachusetts can have "green" hydro power coming in from Quebec. I'm not for or against it yet I am scratching my head; how are dams bad when they're in Maine, yet environmentally friendly when in Canada? I believe that the answer is spelled "NIMBY."
Quality of Electricity Supply....
- Thread starter 3930dave
- Start date
- Views: 5538
Big difference between "it adds" and "possibly helps"...... devil in the execution details, I think most of us agree about that 
.
50+ years ago, we pretty much only had Big Power Generation - that worked well, when we had govts that were focused on providing reliable low cost power. Big projects got done in a timely fashion, and electricity was relatively affordable. Me, I don't have a problem with that model, but realistically, the genie is out of the bottle, both in terms of free-markets, energy costs, and govts ability to fund major projects.
Add resiliency. A lot has changed in 50 years. Today, you can just stroke a cheque, and have a contractor install a turn-key automatic genset. Or a PV array. Or a PV array, with batteries, and choose to go off-grid when you want, or at least have Island capability when the grid is down. At that is just at home.
In the business/industrial world, co-gen or tri-gen has been in place for a long time, and likely won't be displaced. We have lots of distributed power generation sites connected now, from all sorts of sources. Can we readily support the grid from alternate sources, when a major plant goes down ? The answer obviously depends on many factors, at the time of a specific incident.
IMO, having alternate sources of power is useful, whether just at home, or for a grid system. Storage is a factor, that needs to be improved, it will be interesting to see how things go in Oz.
Ensuring reliability is a challenge for any system. One advantage to smaller generation points is if one (or ten) goes down, the impact can be relatively small, IF the system switching is capable.
So, while I do like the relative simplicity of the old Big Power model, I don't think we'll be going back there. If you described to somebody even 30 years ago sitting in your living room and using a cell phone to turn the light across the room on, they'd have laughed. There's been progress here in the last 20 years with distributed power generation, and I think we are only getting started.....
Rgds, D.
.50+ years ago, we pretty much only had Big Power Generation - that worked well, when we had govts that were focused on providing reliable low cost power. Big projects got done in a timely fashion, and electricity was relatively affordable. Me, I don't have a problem with that model, but realistically, the genie is out of the bottle, both in terms of free-markets, energy costs, and govts ability to fund major projects.
Add resiliency. A lot has changed in 50 years. Today, you can just stroke a cheque, and have a contractor install a turn-key automatic genset. Or a PV array. Or a PV array, with batteries, and choose to go off-grid when you want, or at least have Island capability when the grid is down. At that is just at home.
In the business/industrial world, co-gen or tri-gen has been in place for a long time, and likely won't be displaced. We have lots of distributed power generation sites connected now, from all sorts of sources. Can we readily support the grid from alternate sources, when a major plant goes down ? The answer obviously depends on many factors, at the time of a specific incident.
IMO, having alternate sources of power is useful, whether just at home, or for a grid system. Storage is a factor, that needs to be improved, it will be interesting to see how things go in Oz.
Ensuring reliability is a challenge for any system. One advantage to smaller generation points is if one (or ten) goes down, the impact can be relatively small, IF the system switching is capable.
So, while I do like the relative simplicity of the old Big Power model, I don't think we'll be going back there. If you described to somebody even 30 years ago sitting in your living room and using a cell phone to turn the light across the room on, they'd have laughed. There's been progress here in the last 20 years with distributed power generation, and I think we are only getting started.....
Rgds, D.
hawkeye08
Elite Member
I read recently that only 3% of the dams in the US generate power...
CobyRupert
Super Member
I think what would make the market more "honest", while propelling technological advancement at the consumer level, and making people more conscious of their energy decisions (i.e. less wasteful) would be if EVERYBODY had demand metering as the grid gets more diverse & "dynamic" (i.e.: unstable wind & solar).
What we have now is SOCIALISM!*
That is, when I (who has no air conditioning) pays a flat rate of (say) $0.13/kw-hr, that is the price the utility sets so that they can cover the cost of my fat-*ss lazy neighbor running his AC during peak hours on the hottest days of the year. That is, if I use most of my electricity (off peak) when the utility can buy it for $.05, but my neighbor uses peak electricity when the utility has to buy it for $.20, but they charge us both $.013 to cover the combined average, guess what?: I'm subsidizing my neighbor's usage!
Individual demand metering is the answer.
(*: Not really, sort of, but it's a word that riles TBN'ers :stirthepot
What we have now is SOCIALISM!*
That is, when I (who has no air conditioning) pays a flat rate of (say) $0.13/kw-hr, that is the price the utility sets so that they can cover the cost of my fat-*ss lazy neighbor running his AC during peak hours on the hottest days of the year. That is, if I use most of my electricity (off peak) when the utility can buy it for $.05, but my neighbor uses peak electricity when the utility has to buy it for $.20, but they charge us both $.013 to cover the combined average, guess what?: I'm subsidizing my neighbor's usage!
Individual demand metering is the answer.
(*: Not really, sort of, but it's a word that riles TBN'ers :stirthepot
Same mindset there, that leads to pious people driving EVs, w/o regard to how they get recharged.....
I don't agree with shutting down hydro-electric generation. We know better how to design those plants, (as with most other things) compared to Back When, and capturing kinetic energy from water is way cleaner than the PV industry.
Rgds, D.
Given how much of your power is still produced by coal, that's Green Thinking ?
Rgds, D.
I think what would make the market more "honest", while propelling technological advancement at the consumer level, and making people more conscious of their energy decisions (i.e. less wasteful) would be if EVERYBODY had demand metering as the grid gets more diverse & "dynamic" (i.e.: unstable wind & solar).
What we have now is SOCIALISM!*
That is, when I (who has no air conditioning) pays a flat rate of (say) $0.13/kw-hr, that is the price the utility sets so that they can cover the cost of my fat-*ss lazy neighbor running his AC during peak hours on the hottest days of the year. That is, if I use most of my electricity (off peak) when the utility can buy it for $.05, but my neighbor uses peak electricity when the utility has to buy it for $.20, but they charge us both $.013 to cover the combined average, guess what?: I'm subsidizing my neighbor's usage!
Individual demand metering is the answer.
(*: Not really, sort of, but it's a word that riles TBN'ers :stirthepot
I agree with what was done back when, but the Rural Electrification Act (1936) would be considered by most to be more socialist, than free-market
. Same was done here, for the right reasons.....Electricity is an important resource, Then and Now.... the difference today is we have many more options to choose from.
TOU metering - careful what you wish for. Here, it's mostly been used to to greenwash taxes (and other fairy-tale fees) and the real joke is that since most of our heavy industry is gone, as well as much of our light industrial manufacturing, we typically have way more capacity available than we know what to do with.
I'd much sooner have a well run utility, that displays a realistic kwh charge out in the open. TOU can too easily end up being an accounting shell game.....
West Germany (no slouch with technology) took a serious look at TOU metering and decided that it wasn't worth the $billions of dollars required to implement. AND, Green is taken pretty seriously in that country.....
Rgds, D.
CobyRupert
Super Member
The reason I see Demand Metering for everybody as being more "honest" and an "engine for innovation" is people would have to use electricity smarter. Given that people are dumb, devices would get smarter, technology would innovate. This would mean jobs.
Imagine a "smart" washing machine that talks to an app on your smart phone. You set the app so it turns on when energy prices fall below some price setpoint, or app predicts best time (using weather forecasts (temps, solar, wind), news from the mid-east (ha ha) etc...).
The REAL REVOLUTION would come when you have an electric car (or some other large energy storage device) and you figure out that you can SELL (say) 25% of its stored charge at PEAK rates even though you bought them at SLUMP rates. Again, your phone app could do this for you, based on settings. You could actually make money.
This would be the start of a revolution on order of what we saw with the desktop computer in the 90's. Look at where that technology evolved to now.
(p.s. 1/2 of all cars sold in Norway in 2018 were electric.)
Right now, I don't see capitalism (the "market") having a good answer (model) on who pays to keep utility lines up and running if 9 out of 10 of your neighbors eventually figure out a way they don't need to buy kw-hrs. You (the 1 out of 10) gets left holding the bag.
Imagine a "smart" washing machine that talks to an app on your smart phone. You set the app so it turns on when energy prices fall below some price setpoint, or app predicts best time (using weather forecasts (temps, solar, wind), news from the mid-east (ha ha) etc...).
The REAL REVOLUTION would come when you have an electric car (or some other large energy storage device) and you figure out that you can SELL (say) 25% of its stored charge at PEAK rates even though you bought them at SLUMP rates. Again, your phone app could do this for you, based on settings. You could actually make money.
This would be the start of a revolution on order of what we saw with the desktop computer in the 90's. Look at where that technology evolved to now.
(p.s. 1/2 of all cars sold in Norway in 2018 were electric.)
Right now, I don't see capitalism (the "market") having a good answer (model) on who pays to keep utility lines up and running if 9 out of 10 of your neighbors eventually figure out a way they don't need to buy kw-hrs. You (the 1 out of 10) gets left holding the bag.
Grumpycat
Veteran Member
There is a lot more than that going on. TVA's incremental cost of generation is $0.015/kWh. Typical cost delivered to consumer is $0.090/kWh or more, depending on the local last-mile utility's expenses. It is the last-mile utility who deals with the power delivery. The top 3 largest expenditures for operating a power utility is 1) time value cost of money, 2) time value cost of money, and 3) labor. Cost of goods is far down the list. Poles and wires add up.
The industry term you are looking for is not "demand metering" but "Time Of Use" or TOU.
Grumpycat
Veteran Member
Not going to happen. EVs use expensive light battery technology. I know Math Is Hard™ but lets try:
Lets say one can purchase a 100 kWh Tesla battery for $25,000. This battery is claimed to last 500,000 miles and the car consumes 0.3 kWh/mile which is 150,000 kWh over the life of the battery. That means it costs $0.1667 per kWh to store. You will lose money selling power to the grid.
You might break even if you buy battery storage based on value. Automobile EV batteries are too expensive.
Hey! Have at it! Knock yourself out!
