July 3, 2008
Below are a few letters we received on topics that appeared in the past few weeks. They capture the essence of how many readers say they feel.
Canadian Fissures - June 16, 2008
Let it be said that both provincial governments are dually interested in promoting Liberal agendas. Neither provincial government is interested in listening to the federal government concerning Canada's employment situation, let alone Canada's role in the world environment. No member of any liberal government has questioned the validity of the claims of the Global Warming crowd. All liberal governments have jumped on board whole heartedly with imposing carbon tax programs, or serious emissions standards that are monumentally damaging to heavy industry. But does the likes of the liberals question the authenticity of the IPCC, or any of the Al Gore claims, never.
In Ontario or Quebec if you ask, employers and heavy industry are under attack by self interest environmentalists in sheep's clothing, called Liberals. Industries have reduced production or closed down factories not because of world markets, but because they cannot afford to purchase highly expensive energy in these provinces. Just look at the province of Ontario's latest news bulletin, purchasing two new nuclear plants for Darlington. The last time the province put in nuclear reactors it almost bankrupt the province because of cost overruns. This time they say that precautions will be installed, yet everywhere in the world nuclear generation plants have been running more than double the estimated cost of building, and the Liberals are claiming that they will come in at cost. I guess they have a special crystal ball that gives them the added status to do just that.
But lets get back to the emissions, both governments are trying to upstage the federal government for world notice of environmental awareness at the expense of the industries that pay for bulk electricity. Neither provincial government has a very good record since being elected in keeping industries hiring, let alone building new factories in either province. And both provincial governments are very good a social engineering and not at good stewardship of keeping industries viable. Bulk electricity users are coming under serious attack by ignorant governments. The provincial government Liberals have imposed a tremendous reduction in OPG's fossil coal fired plants, paying them to do none generation as if they were generating, and generating power from gas turbine plants at the highest cost of actual production, and with the cost of coal fired production if it were produced. That to me as a consumer is out and out fraud. But for downtown Toronto and the Liberal! s purchasing power at three times the rate is nothing new, except when your industry electricity bill comes in and your cost per unit item is out of this world. Again the Liberals, don't understand industry! We are loosing our industries because power is getting too expensive, and the Liberals want to build premium cost generation in a province that is loosing its ability to pay for it.
Jeff Hagar
Fonthill, Ontario
Canada
Cutting Carbon in Cities - June 20, 2008
With all due respect, you have become trapped in the climate change circle. We are in an economic war that will dictate our economic survival. The Middle Eastern Countries have figured out how to defeat us and they are in a long-term war to destroy us economically. They now know they do not need the U.S. to sell their oil with China, India and other Countries growing economically with our naive help. This is all about the U.S. finding its way to energy independence. That's why we need renewable resources and more of our own fossil fuels, hopefully developed with clean technologies. Climate change issues will follow naturally. We must look to our economic survival first. Otherwise, all the pie in the sky fixes regarding climate change will be irrelevant. We need a voice for energy independence, not climate change.
Ron Corso
Vienna, VA
I've been reading articles from your energybizinsider publication for a while now and many of them tend to focus on the subject of climate change. While we are all entitled to our opinion, you always portray the man-made climate change as absolute fact. Please be a responsible journalist and at least acknowledge the reality that there are thousands of scientists (and growing daily) who are skeptical and outright reject this theory. Therefore all of the efforts made and dollars spent by utilities to cut carbon emissions are wasted. A balanced debate would be welcomed.
Greg Thompson
All-Electric Cars Within Sight - June 25, 2008
Let me first say your daily articles are among the most sensible and informative on energy, in a field where there is a lot of media garbage printed regularly, if not daily.
I liked this article too, in part because I believe the short and maybe long-term solution to cars, gasoline, energy security and global warming are all in the plug-in hybrid. But $70-100K as a cost??!! A Prius can be had for low 20s and aftermarket can convert it to plug-in for 10-12K (see Hymotion and Edrive). Look at the Aptera, a plug-in hybrid that will sell for $30K late this year. (It is a non conventional looking car, but it runs at 85mph, goes 60 miles on the charge, carries two people and will carry cargo, and is reported to go 200 mpg). The Volt will not cost $70K if they want to sell any and GM says late 2010 is still a good date. Sure the Tesla Roadster goes for $109K, but that is not just a car. So when Toyota builds plug-ins and the owner does not have to pay to put in a conventional battery and then pay to replace it with lithium ion, and they can be made thousands at! a time, it will not cost beyond $30K for a plug-in hybrid Prius.
My objection is that printing that cost makes it seem like this is in the same class as the fuel cell car. It isn't and within 2 years, there will be regular plug-in hybrids for sale for around $30K from multiple sources.
This break-thru solution is just around the corner, but saying $70-100K makes people think it is another boutique car for rich Hollywood enviros only. It is a practical solution for everyone who can afford a new car at regular prices who cares about their pocket book (how does $.75/gal equivalent sound?), pollution, CO2 pollution, energy security, terrorism, energy independence, to name the ones that come to mind.
Tom Broderick
Flagstaff, AZ
Why is it that you stated "the failed model from a generation ago." when referring to Chevrolet's previous ventures into electric vehicles? I don't know the whole story as it seems GM has kept a closed mouth about the entire deal after destroying all the evidence but I have not read or heard anything from leasees that even vaguely sounded like it was a "failed model." The failure, in my opinion, was when GM pulled the plug on this model.
Second, you stated $70,000 to $100,000 for an electric car. Several companies will convert a $25k Prius to a plug-in hybrid model for ~$30k on a "one-off" basis with a range of ~30 miles - yes, this is less than the 40 mile range you mentioned. The total car/conversion cost is on the order of $55k - and this includes an engine and plug-in charging system - all the benefits without many of the drawbacks of "all electric." This is considerably less than the $70k - $100k mentioned in your article. What gives? If GM, et.al., can't figure out how to do this in production volumes of many thousands for much less money than relatively small companies on a one-off basis they might as well close the doors and turn off the lights right now.
I know there is a lot more to it than what I wrote here but still.
Gary Cler
Mechanical Engineer
I just finished reading your article on electric cars. It seems that in the same article that you stated that in the future, 42% of the vehicles will use the electric utility for energy and that they will cost between $70,000 and $100,000. These seem to be mutually exclusive situations. But worse, you said that hydrogen is much cheaper than today's fuels. From whence comes hydrogen? Right now the cheapest source of hydrogen is cracked from natural gas with the same attendant emissions of CO2 as if the natural gas had been burned outright. Also, how can it be cheaper than natural gas unless you have figured out a way to suspend the first law of thermodynamics? But then maybe if you think you can do that, you can also point me to a hydrogen well. I once asked an environmentalist who would know where he thought hydrogen would come from. His answer was hydrolyzed water from electricity generated by solar and wind energy. Tell me again how hydrogen is going to be so cheap. I w! ould expect this sort of fantasy from politicians but I thought your approach was going to be more technical. Boy am I disappointed.
Rod Hite
GM, Ford and Chrysler should have gotten involved in this initiative at least 10 years ago. Instead, they kept merrily building wasteful pick-up trucks, giant SUV's, etc. And, the biggest dumb move by GM -- in my opinion -- was getting the Hummer.
Darmo Sugeng
Project Manager
Entergy
Thanks for bringing up this important and timely topic. I think we will see a transition from the current hybrid models to plug-in hybrids with minimal electric-only range. At that point, there will be a healthy race by the manufacturers to introduce plug-in hybrids with more and more electric-only range. This will be a key selling point: "The most electric-only range of any car in its class!" Money and marketing will push battery technology to new heights. Eventually, the gasoline engine will be a vestigial appendage no longer needed by many cars and drivers, and the pure electric car will be here to stay.
I don't believe the statements about hydrogen though: "Ultimately, though, the aim is to get to hydrogen fuel cells that burn the cleanest of all -- something in which GM is also researching, saying that hydrogen is already produced to clean up gasoline and that the fuel source would be far less expensive than gasoline."
At the vehicle level, hydrogen is not cleaner than all-electric. Looking at the entire infrastructure for hydrogen versus all-electric, they are both going to rely on the same electric generators to produce their fuel. Converting electric energy to hydrogen before putting rubber to road is a wasteful and unneeded middle stage in the transportation path. The infrastructure is already in place for electric distribution, but not for hydrogen. Hydrogen is the same kind of dead-end as ethanol. From a national and global resource point of view, neither makes sense.
William Quaintance
Interesting that our government needs to take the lead while also providing money for research. You'd think that automobile manufacturers would be better prepared for this change in the industry; after all, didn't this start back in 1973 and then another wake-up call in 1976 or 1977. Ford, GM and others should be prepared for what is happening today! They are offering cross-over full size vehicles that get 23-24 mpg. What a joke! My 94 Lexus SC400 gets 23mpg and it's a V8! I'll replace my car in a couple of years but it WON'T be a vehicle that only gets 40 mpg and has batteries that last 5-7 years with a replacement cost of $2000-$3000. Businesses (companies) need to accept responsibility for their actions or lack of. If they don't have a product that is competitive or a product that is wanted/needed by the world then they don't deserve to be in business. Don't tell me that government money (public dollars) needs to be spent because of stupidity or their lack of foresight! . If they want to be in business tomorrow I would suggest they get to work fast!
Roger Grissom
Project Engineer
Thank you for your article today on electric cars. You indicated that only 2% of the nation's energy is generated by oil. What percentage is from natural gas? That is the commodity which mirrors oil and kills our price in Texas. Let's look at the whole picture: our natural gas is driven by oil prices.
Keep up the good work. Let's cheer on a national base load of 70% nuclear.
Kirk A. King, PE
Forward Energy Group, LLC
They should consider a smaller constant speed gas engine generator or even a microturbine generator to provide on board charging the batteries at will. It can continue to charge even while running on pre-charged batteries for purpose of extending the range. Much of efficiency loss is during stopping/starting, and other mechanical gear. Exhaust heat from engine or microturbine should be used to gasify the gasoline before the combustion chamber. This engine generator may be shut down while driving through crowded areas to reduce pollution.
Jasbir Singh Bhatia
Siemens
Regarding your article "All-Electric Cars Within Sight", has anyone ever done a study of the amount of electrical energy available nationwide to recharge batteries? Some power generators are skirting the edge of disaster at times of maximum demand (air conditioning season in USA, winter heating in most of Canada). How much spare capacity do they have at the best of times? A small number of demonstration vehicles can be charged today, but how long will that situation last?
There is also the question of the availability of lithium. Different websites have diametrically opposite opinions of lithium resources worldwide. The following site was interesting because it pointed out the matching need for phosphate, a mineral also needed for agriculture (shades of corn-sourced ethanol):
http://scitizen.com/stories/Future-Energies/2008/06/World-Lithium-Supplies-and-Electric-Vehicles-/
As for hydrogen, the supply situation is rarely mentioned. If supplied by electrolysis, where will the electricity come from? And if from reforming natural gas, it will be a dependency on a fossil fuel.
Ian L. McQueen
Glenwood, NB
Thanks for the good article on electric cars. The internal combustion engine is massively inefficient and the fuel for electric vehicles will be a fraction of the cost of gasoline (presently less than $1 in most places for the electricity equivalent to one gallon).
Moreover, plugging our cars into the grid as it exists will reduce our carbon emissions 42% on average according to National Renewable Energy Lab authors in their study on PHEVs included in Tackling Climate Change available from www.ases.org.
In a study a couple of years ago, the Pacific Northwest Laboratory has suggested that over 80% of our light vehicle fleet could be powered from our grid as it presently exists.
The Japanese (including Mitsubishi) are working on lower cost electric and plug in hybrids. It would be good to hear more about those efforts.
The following websites will give the interested reader a good start at learning more:
www.calcars.org
www.evworld.com
Please keep the articles coming on electric transportation. It is one of the big keys to rapid decarbonization.
Leslie Glustrom
While I agree with you that some form of plug-in vehicle will begin appearing in significant numbers soon, I'm not as optimistic that Jim Rogers, his utility colleagues and their regulators will be able to meet the challenges of charging so many vehicles without having to build a lot of new infrastructure. It's a more complex problem than simply putting in place rates that are lower off-peak than they are on-peak. Effective strategies have to distribute the charging load so that it neatly fills the valleys without creating new peak demand periods at night that ultimately require substantial amounts of new generation.
The average utilization of our fleet of power plants currently stands at about 50%. Plug-in vehicles will only make economic and operating sense when the industry and its regulators start thinking in new ways and get really serious about using prices to influence customer behavior. Command-and-control might work when there are a few hundred power plants to deal with. It's not going to work when there are hundreds of thousands of end-use devices to deal with.
Jack Ellis
Resero Consulting
Futuristic Energy Jobs - June 27, 2008
This piece of writing, "Futuristic Energy Jobs", will be framed. Your "meanwhile back at the ranch" acknowledgement carries perfectly throughout. The drums are humming and the natives are restless. Solving the energy supply dilemma is of utmost priority for millions of American minds right now. Yankee ingenuity will get us through this one too. Difficulties are illusions, solution is a process. The process of renewables is now in vogue and gaining momentum. Ethanol is not the biomass answer. Corn and soybean futures have multiplied rapidly. It's a great time to be an American because we are all part of this solution.
Jim Reardon
Your piece is right in that filling the energy and utility workforce will continue to be a challenge. Your closing statement seems right too. New graduates who want the fast bucks will go for web-based companies or financial ones. Utilities mean a long learning curve and hard work.
They can use some MBA's, and those who choose that business will find it challenging and interesting. But the majority of the jobs in engineering, operations, maintenance, QA, etc. do not require a Ph D. and success depends on work and learning from experience.
Some of the top executives came up through the ranks, learned their trade and stood out in their performance.
Dave Rossin
No utility that I know of, except perhaps in such as Eskom, support further education of its engineers. Salary levels as compared to software programmers are also low -- few utilities in India or other countries have politically neutral management. In India there are hundreds of cases when top appointments are political. Engineers, no matter how competent, are often at the whim and fancy of such administrators. On top of this, there are people in administrative services who may be MA in History yet are heading the Energy Department. All this causes lot of heartburn and now the engineering profession in utilities, once considered a elite appointment, is no longer so. The result is that Electrical Engineers from top colleges opt for software jobs and head to the US sooner or later.
Today India has just 30% utilization of its installed generating capacity, 50% theft of energy and a government about to lose its seat because it has been opposed on its proposal to sign a nuclear deal with the US. Think again whether all the talk of nuclear is really justified! Massive interference, both politically and economically, into the power sector has made it one of the sickest in the world! We will find ourselves lucky if one gets electricity for 14 hours at rates which are reaching 10 cents!
Who is now running the major part of power sector? Contract employees not even qualified to do the job, supplied by labor contractors! I do not know whether you do this in US as well but after some years there will be nothing left as there is no maintenance and blowouts are normal!
Alok Misra
Cleaning the Transmission Process - June 30, 2008
Good article, but I wish we could also consider additional transmission needs - from coastal or far off-shore wind facilities. Many of these facilities could be situated off the New England and East Coasts, serving the nearby load centers. Yet when project organizers go to plan such projects, the cost of transmission to on-shore load centers is one of the biggest hurdles. We need to get the energy to where the loads are, whether from the Dakotas or the Gulf of Maine.
Brian D. Kuhn
Aeronautica Windpower, Inc.
Your article notes:
"The Midwest ISO, in fact, has determined that adding 5,000 miles of new transmission to transport wind from the Dakotas to the New York City area would result in substantial savings for customers. While the generation and transmission costs would total $13 billion, the grid operator says that customers would save about $600 million annually."
So, the rate of return on the investment, not considering O&M on the line, is 4.6%. The return is clearly inadequate and the project fails any reasonable test of financial viability. Once again, the problem is that wind energy is not economic.
Christopher Pflaum
Renewable energy is a terrific idea in theory. It doesn't pollute the air or the water, it doesn't release carbon, and it won't run out any time soon. However, it's not a panacea, either. In spite of its many advantages, renewable energy is still controversial. It arguably despoils landscapes; it's intermittent, which means it must either be accompanied by expensive storage or it must be backed up by fossil-fired generation; it requires enormous investments in transmission infrastructure that is difficult to site and enormously expensive; and at high penetration levels it requires new ways of operating electric grids in a secure, reliable manner that have yet to be developed.
I think we should continue to build a variety of renewable resources, but as with fossil-fired plants, locating large electric supply resources far away from where electricity is actually consumed is foolish. Transporting electricity over long distances is needlessly costly and it makes our electric supply more prone to disruptions from man-made and natural disasters. Moreover, we need to be realistic about the role of renewable resources and the types of renewable resources that make sense from economic, operating and reliability perspectives. Renewable energy is a good idea, but it is not and will not be the only way we obtain energy to heat and cool our homes, run our businesses, and maintain our quality of life.
Jack Ellis
Resero Consulting
I live in an area of Virginia that is going through a big battle over a new transmission line. I have seen no mention about the use of technology outside of High Voltage Alternating Current transmission. It may well be time for our transmission carriers to consider converting to High Voltage Direct Current transmission to accommodate higher demand and to facilitate solar and wind integration into the grid without inversion.
HVDC has been found to be ideal and more economical for bulk energy transfers over long distances. HVDC is inherently more reliable than AC; it can carry more power per conductor; there is much reduced energy loss per mile compared to HVAC; it has lower maintenance costs; direct burial is more feasible through environmentally sensitive areas; HVDC allows for asynchronous links between distribution regions and provides easier new alternative energy tie-ins - all this in turn can help stabilize the connected AC grids. HVDC is the future of "smart" bulk electrical power transmission.
Nicholas Tesla's AC technology won out over Thomas Edison's DC when our nation adopted its early electrical transmission grid structure. AC's advantage was found in high voltage transformers that could step up voltages high enough to economically transfer power over long distances. HVDC technology developed much slower, with the first commercial installation only in 1954 between mainline Sweden and Gotland Island. Many technical challenges and advances have occurred since that time, until today there are over 90 HVDC installations around the world. Most are in other countries or in cross-border energy shipments.
Patented in 2004, a new scheme called Tripole is intended for conversion of existing HVAC transmission lines to HVDC. A Tripole conversion of an existing AC line purports to allow up to 80% more power to be transferred using the same transmission right-of-way, towers, and conductors. HVDC is proven and feasible. It's time for our nation to start investing for our future.
Lawrence E. (Larry) Liles
Marshall, VA
Heat of Battle - July 2, 2008
Of course demand side management is better than "any" other generation option. His reference about renewables, however, puts him in the camp of not wanting the US to go to renewables because they tend to be smaller facilities and PURPA -- the 1978 Public Utilities Regulatory Power Act establishing the right of third-party developers to build, own and operate qualifying facilities and sell the power to utilities at "avoided energy costs" -- has shown utilities are lethargic and only capable of "big" generation projects which even then have significant overruns. Qualifying facilities and exempt wholesale generators have long been a pain in the side to utilities because it makes them no money; it just saves the customer from ever-higher utility prices from large centralized boondoggles. He therefore opposes what is environmentally right, but utility wrong.
Martin A. Buckley
Aeronautica Windpower, Inc.
The general public does not have a sense of urgency as to the overall problem of energy supply and demand. Their focus revolves around the price at the pump and little else. National leadership has failed to make this a major issue and topic of resolution to minimize consumption at all times as well as hours of peak load on the grid.
There exists enough technical talent in engineering and physics in the universities and colleges of the US to solve almost any problem if mobilized to do so.
The administration and the congress need to get off their collective butts to get thing moving in the best interests of the nation as a whole, election or no.
William S. Hornbaker
Knoxville, TN
The heat of battle is not being fought just within the utility industry. Dramatic increases in the cost of electricity and natural gas, not to mention the costs of fuel and food make the utility bill an important battle field on the home front as well. The news is filled with tragic articles of increasing numbers of families who have lost the battle as utilities cut off the power when bills can not be paid.
The use of intelligent conservation at home however can provide dramatic relief from the terror of the dreaded utility bill. During the first half of 2008, the use of a combination of existing and proven technologies to improve energy efficiency in my average household has resulted in a reduction of my electricity use by 70% and my utility bill by 40%.
It is the combination of numerous strategies for reducing energy consumption that provides the total package of savings that leads to individual family financial health, reduced individual carbon footprint, and reduced need for additional expensive utility infrastructure.
Important energy saving technologies employed to date include: replacement of electric heat pump/electric furnace with natural gas fire place for winter heat; installing space suit material blanket over insulation in attic; use of power smart pricing so that optional electric use for washing clothes and dishes and air conditioning only takes place during cheap electric rates at night; replacement of incandescent bulbs with fluorescent bulbs; and replacement of inefficient appliances with energy star compliant appliances.
Although there appears no end in sight for rising utility bills, consumers must become more proactive in doing what we can to make a difference.
Kimery C. Vories
The following paragraph in the article fails to make some important distinctions.
"Many utilities therefore are working with their state utility commissions to quantify the value of that benefit. The companies would like to pass through much of the cost of energy efficiency plans in the same manner they do other capital expenditures such as power plant and transmission development. While they understand such programs do not obviate the need for new infrastructure, the utilities reason that efficiency programs are far less costly and are effective tools by which they can meet environmental standards. "
First point: Capital expenditures for power plants and T&D infrastructure are placed into a utility's "Ratebase," and they design tariffs to charge-off depreciation of the investment over the life of the investment and to earn a "return" on the un-depreciated balance. This is far different than earning a profit on an annual operating expense. (This is not to say that the latter is inappropriate - just that is different). Note also that PSE&G is leasing solar PV systems to customers, and other utilities lease solar DHW, CHP, and GHP systems. This is a win-win approach - with long-term financing at low interest, customers get positive cash flow (bill savings are larger than lease payments), and utility stockholders earn a return.
Second point: It is flat-out wrong to say energy-efficiency, demand-response, and renewable-energy programs "do not obviate the need for new infrastructure." The cost-effectiveness argument on which these programs are based is that they can replace the need for some supply-side investments when they are done on a large scale, as is the case in California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Missouri, etc. (The statement is true for small-scale programs.)
William H. Steigelmann, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Martin Business Process Solutions
Energy and Environmental Services
Respond to the editor.
Blog About This
