Bush economy strikes California

ziggy wrote: movement toward more distributive / disbersed generation of electricity and away from builder larger power generation stations and away from more endless networks of long distance power transmission lines.

An interesting topic. Let's discuss. First we need to differentiate between the two.

Distributed power generation is any small scale power generation technology that provides electric power at a site closer to customer’s then central station generation.

Dispersed generation is a decentralized power plant, feeding into the distribution level power grid and sized between 10 to 150 MW.

So which one do you want to discuss first Frank?

Distributed generation, also called on-site generation, dispersed generation, embedded generation, decentralized generation, decentralized energy or distributed energy, generates electricity from many small energy sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_generation

How cost effective is it?

That depends on the type of energy source used Stephanie.

Hubs and I talk a lot about options for producing our own energy and what might possibly be affordable and reliable enough.

Did I ever tell you guys about the folks I knew with property on the Wood River who began generating their own electricity for their commercial building in Hope Valley?

The RI PUC told them they couldn't use the power, that they had to use the electricity provided by Narragansett Electric. I'm not kidding, they had to go to court to be able to use the renewable energy they were producing. They weren't trying to sell it, mind you. I want to say that happend about 15 years ago. How nuts is that?

How nuts is that?

That is about as nuts as I can imagine.

Some jurisdiction require residents to pay a utility service water bill- even when the resident pumps his/her water from their own private well. The theory seems to be, "It is there for you. If you don't use it then it is your own fault. But you still gotta pay for it."

That's what too much government regulation can get you.

And not enough government regulation can have people getting sick from bad water.

Sometimes the medicine tastes bad- but not taking it is worse.

ziggy wrote:

How nuts is that?

That is about as nuts as I can imagine.

Some jurisdiction require residents to pay a utility service water bill- even when the resident pumps his/her water from their own private well. The theory seems to be, "It is there for you. If you don't use it then it is your own fault. But you still gotta pay for it."

Stephanie wrote:That's what too much government regulation can get you.

The problem is Stephanie, you thought from Frank’s statement that he was downing government intrusion…

ziggy wrote:And not enough government regulation can have people getting sick from bad water.

Sometimes the medicine tastes bad- but not taking it is worse.

…when we all know that’s the last thing he would do.

Well Steph you did not mention how they were producing the electricity and how that might negatively affect others.

Were they altering the flow of the river or changing water temp of the river, or dumping pollutants into the river?

Yeah Stephanie, they had to be doing something wrong. Don't you know the government is NEVER in the wrong.

NEVER!!!

NEVER!!!!!

I've done some reading on both dispersed and distributive power generation Frank and I'm wondering, how does a city the size of New York and all of their 27,000 to 30,000 megawatt's of usage per day utilize either type of power?

Even if you put in a strict conservation policy, usage might be cut by 20% but that still leaves the city using 21,000 to 24,000 MW's of power per day. Given that dispersed power plants only put out no more then 150 MW's of pwer, how do you provide that much power without running it a fair amount of distance?

Even if you put in a strict conservation policy, usage might be cut by 20% but that still leaves the city using 21,000 to 24,000 MW's of power per day. Given that dispersed power plants only put out no more then 150 MW's of pwer, how do you provide that much power without running it a fair amount of distance?

150 MWs hours of power per hour, times 24 hours equals 3600 Megawatts a day of power generation capacity. Six or seven such power plants located in or near NYC would serve to meet the demand- based on your numbers above. Add a couple more to take up the slack during down time (maintenance, repairs, etc.) and it is covered.

OK, what kind of power? Liberals in the east are already suing AEP and other coal fired plants in the Ohio Valley right now so I doubt they would agree to build the 9 to 10 coal fired plants necessary to generate the electricity.

A 150 MW solar plant would be too expensive as it requires at least a 500 MW solar plant to make it price comparative to coal. The other problem is a plant that size requires about 1,500 acres each and I doubt you could find what amounts to about 5% of the land of NYC to place solar plants.

Wind isn't reliable enough so about all that leaves is nuclear. A start might be to re-commission Connecticut Yankee. Do you think the residents of NY would favor nuclear to reduce transmission lines and eliminate CO2 emissions?

OK, what kind of power? Liberals in the east are already suing AEP and other coal fired plants in the Ohio Valley right now so I doubt they would agree to build the 9 to 10 coal fired plants necessary to generate the electricity.

What kind of power should be a problem primarily for the people who are demanding the power- not for rural West Virginians to subsidize via eminent domain proceedings against their land so it can be used as power transmission corridors to send "coal by wire" to the northeast.

A 150 MW solar plant would be too expensive as it requires at least a 500 MW solar plant to make it price comparative to coal.

Sooner or later we will stop using coal as the standard measure of comparative price. I thinki that sooner would be better than later. It is a false comparison anyway- because so much of the costs of coal are externalized and are not included in the "market price" of the coal.

The other problem is a plant that size requires about 1,500 acres each and I doubt you could find what amounts to about 5% of the land of NYC to place solar plants.

They would not need to be solar powered. Google "Marcellus shale in PA and NY" and you can see that the east coast is sitting on a natural gas bonanza that is just now starting to be developed. A company called Competitivve Power Ventures is perched to cash in on gas to electricity technologies.

Wind isn't reliable enough so about all that leaves is nuclear.

Tell T. Boone Pickens that. Tell certain European countries that. A well managed power grid can accommodate about 20 percent of its power generation being from geographically dispersed wind power.

A start might be to re-commission Connecticut Yankee. Do you think the residents of NY would favor nuclear to reduce transmission lines and eliminate CO2 emissions?

If the WV, VA and PA utilities regulatory agencies would deny their state utilities companies the authority to construct hundreds of miles of additional power lines via emminent domain against private land owners, I suspect that those residents would reconsider nuclear in short order. But if they can get by forever with exporting the costs and risks of their voracious energy appetites to West Virginia, then they will.

shermangeneral wrote:Well Steph you did not mention how they were producing the electricity and how that might negatively affect others.

Were they altering the flow of the river or changing water temp of the river, or dumping pollutants into the river?

No, no, and no. The PUC doesn't give a crap about the river. That's the DEM and they were fine with it. The PUC wanted to force them to purchase their electricity from the monopoly Narragansett Electric, which has become "The Grid" within the past couple of years.

Just one question Frank.

Why would West Virginia companies want to cut of customers from using electricity generated at plants in West Virginia employed by West Virginians using coal mined by West Virginians transported by West Virginians?

Just one question Frank.

Why would West Virginia companies want to cut of customers from using electricity generated at plants in West Virginia employed by West Virginians using coal mined by West Virginians transported by West Virginians?

I don't know. I don't think that WV companies would want to do that. Or maybe I don't understand your question.

ziggy wrote:
If the WV, VA and PA utilities regulatory agencies would deny their state utilities companies the authority to construct hundreds of miles of additional power lines via emminent domain against private land owners, I suspect that those residents would reconsider nuclear in short order. But if they can get by forever with exporting the costs and risks of their voracious energy appetites to West Virginia, then they will.

Aaron wrote:Why would West Virginia companies want to cut of customers from using electricity generated at plants in West Virginia employed by West Virginians using coal mined by West Virginians transported by West Virginians?

You stated that if WV (among other states ) would deny AEP (the utility company in WV) the ability to ship AEP’s product (electricity manufactured by WV coal) then northeastern states would consider nuclear energy, meaning if we don’t sell our electricity to them, they will be forced to find it elsewhere.

Why would the WVPSC, or any other WV regulatory agency (I should have said agency instead of company-my bad) desire to eliminate WV jobs so long as all regulations are being adhered to, which is exactly what they would be doing in denying these permits.

OK. Now I understand. I appreciate the clarification.

My answer would be that maybe the WV PSC, like the Charleston Daily Mail, could bring itself to realize that, in its legal charge to balance the interests of the utility companies and the general public that:

West Virginia should not automatically be sacrificed so people in large cities can enjoy air-conditioned offices and houses.

What is wrong with building urban wind farms? They would require shorter transmission lines. Or seaside wind farms in the large cities of the East?

There is no fairness in sacrificing the beauty of West Virginia to serve people who don't want to look at where power comes from.

http://www.dailymail.com/Opinion/Editorials/200808150200

But one wonders if the Daily Mail's newly found sense of geographically proportional sacrifice applies to the tens of thousands of acres of barren lands already strip mined for coal, and to the industry contemplated tens of thousands of more such acreages, and to the hundreds of miles of proposed new electricity transmission line corridors through the forests and along and across the valleys and mountain ridges of West Virginia.

West Virginia already exports about 70 percent of the electricity generated in the state. In its legal mandate to balance the public interest and the utility industry interest, the WV PSC could decide that enough is enough. It could deny applications for further eminent domain authority to utility companies seeking new permits for hundreds of miles of additional 500 KV and 765 KV capacity power line constructions- which are designed for the sole purpose of transporting even more electricity from the Ohio Valley to east coast areas.

But it would be at a cost to WV jobs, correct. Addition power carried along these lines will need additional capacity which will require major building and construction. John Amos is investing $3 Billion right now and the one negative is the blue haze that resulted from environmental requirements. If new plants can sequester carbon emissions, why would West Virginia NOT build the plants.

A cost to current jobs? How would that be so?

Not to current jobs, at least not initially. To potential jobs required to build plants.

John Amos is investing $3 Billion right now and the one negative is the blue haze that resulted from environmental requirements.

No, the blue haze results from burning coal in a certain way. Unless AEP decides to address it on its own, it will take probably environmental requirements to be rid of the blue haze.

How so Frank? Because that's not what I've read. I get that it is caused by the equipment installed to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions.

Federal and state officials later concluded the incident likely was caused by emissions from the huge Amos power station.

In a detailed report issued in May, DEP officials concluded that weather conditions transformed sulfuric-acid emissions from the plant into an aerosol, creating the blue mist.

Burning coal with sulfur in it produces sulfur dioxide. Inside plant stacks, some of that sulfur dioxide is converted to sulfur trioxide. When the sulfur trioxide exits the stack, it reacts with moisture in the air to form sulfuric acid.

Over the past few years, AEP has added pollution control equipment aimed at reducing nitrogen oxide emissions, but that equipment also can enhance the creation of sulfur trioxide, increasing the potential for sulfuric-acid emissions.

After the January incident, AEP notified the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that Amos was releasing up to 32,500 pounds of sulfuric acid per day, nearly eight times the company's previous estimate.