News says crude oil price dropped so..

[Pat Barry]

I gather from that that the BTU loss is heat from turbine planes (coal, gas, nuclear), but they have always been like that. The chart actually doesn't look too bad to me, because the real concern of things that you can handle are loss of electricity after it's generated where it gets stranded on the grid, shunted (or whatever they do to it) or just disappears and nobody gets it.

As far as 38/14 as a ratio of BTUs input to potential electrical energy afterward, that's always going to be the case. You just can't do much with a large amount of low level heat to turn it into electricity. Somewhere in my mind, I envision thermal masses absorbing that heat and being used to heat something, but the reality is that you can't move those thermal masses that easily and the way we like to locate plants (far away from everyone), there's no great way to move the heat to urban areas.

If the power plants were closer to urban areas, you literally could have transportable thermal masses, but then you have to have a way for a building to take heat off of a thermal mass and use it. As cheap as gas is, it isn't really worth the trouble, I guess. That's the whole story with all of it, it's cheap enough to get the btu inputs that it doesn't make economic sense to try to harvest the lost energy converting thermal to electricity.

Yes - the biggest issue is the conversion process from heat to electricity for example. Its a shame they can't capture that heat loss and ship some of it to my house here in Minnesota. We're looking at another long cold winter.

[Pat Barry]

We're still using less electricity than 2007 as of 2011. Even a 1% drop in sales is huge for utility companies with billions in sales. Power companies have cited reduced sales as reasons they need to raise rates when they apply for rate increases.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that we at least seem to be leveling off a little bit in total but the residential use over that same period is up 2% according to the data. With regard to prices, they are always going to increase (unless there is a significant new discovery that completely changes the equation). After all, the power companies need to buy oil and coal and have people maintain the plants, etc and those costs are still going up

[David Weaver]

Yes - the biggest issue is the conversion process from heat to electricity for example. Its a shame they can't capture that heat loss and ship some of it to my house here in Minnesota. We're looking at another long cold winter.

That was basically my thought, how do you transport the energy. I've seen small plants where the heat is diverted to local customers, but they are very small plants and very local customers.

[Shawn Pixley]

Exactly - You are making my argument for me.

I don't think so. Irrespective of green energy, electrical demand is not a constant. Electrical demand is low in the middle of the night. Electrical energy cannot be effectively stored currently. Hence the need for peaker plants. On could logically assume that the lowest energy demand period would be in the middle of a weekend night during a temperate time of year. Highest would be a design day during a weekday during the year. In the case of Southern California, that is hot summer wekdays. These likely represent the maximum peaks and valleys of electricity demand with some days having having flatter curves.

As population, number of households, or industry grows, without conservation or alternative (green generation) would grow but still carry the same demand curve but start from an ever increasing base.

Energy conservation can maintain or lower the base of these daily curves. Additionally, energy efficient appliances may somewhat modulate the shape of the curves (say through more efficient refrigerators). But the need to modulate energy generation would not go away. Hence peaker plants are needed irrespective of conservation and alternative generation.

Energy demand is measured real time as used. My point here is that it is not a formulaic model that says I added 50 households so my generation capacity needs to go up by X. Houses or businesses that generate their own energy do not have the same demand as to their equivelant non energy generating counterpart. As the power grid (untility generating side, not distribution) does not see this demand there is no need for increased generation. During the hot summer weekdays (peak demand for Southern California) it is also when solar energy and wind energy are typically at their most efficient. The demand from the buildings / uses with alternative generation is not there for the grid. In fact during design days of last summer my house generated much more electricity than we consumed (~12 KWh / day). My house effectively peak shed for the grid those days.

My house is a practical example. For Southern California Edison (SCE) we have our bill broken out for various components and times of year (distribution vs. generation / summer vs. winter) as well as the tiered charges. Currently, I am a net generator to the grid to the tune of 9.10 KWh / day for the months since we permitted to energize our panels. I still have the fees for being connected to the grid for the times when the panels are not generating (night).

Energy rates are subject to the California Energy Commission's approval for the three major electrical energy producers / distributors here. Because of this regulation, they are not incentivised to fight conservation nor household generation, but instead to be as efficient as possible. As electrical generation is incredibly capital intensive, efficient is measured by how well they can leverage the operating parameters of their portion of our grid. It is in their best interest to not add plants and to effectively modulate generation to the demand in real time. People and firms do what they are incentivised to do. Alternative energy production does reduce peak demand and reduces / eliminates the need for "peak production." For electricity generation in California, the two largest expense items must be natural gas prices and the depreciation of the capital assets in service.

My point here is that conservation and household / business energy production are not additive to the demand for grid peak production as you maintained. Could this be different in different locations and situations including your own? Yes, of course. But blanket statements are not very applicable in these circumstances and certainly not where I am.

[Brian Elfert]

The lack of demand at night is why power companies give huge discounts for shifting power usage to nights. There are some industries that use huge amounts of power that operate only at night. My church put in an air conditioning system that makes ice at night and then uses the ice to help with cooling during the day. The local utility has some deal where it is way cheaper to do water heating off peak at night. No idea how that works since hot water is typically used during the day.

[Leo Graywacz]

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/hop...MW_latest_news

[Kent A Bathurst]

I don't think so.

Well, now.........your point about idle "peaker plants" was exactly the point I was making. THey have to have capacity that is siting around unused, waiting for peak demand that comes on-line only when there are extended cloudy days, or the wind dies down, or the temp hits >100 for 5 days in a row, or...., or.........., or.........

Those assets have to be built, maintained, and staffed, waiting for the bugle call, per the terms of the regulatory agency.

If it was pure free-market - and I am not suggesting that in this thread - the utilities would not build those plants. There would be a shortage of power at peak, and the supply-demand bits of Econ 101 would kick in with some pretty breathtaking rates. Whomever was willing to pay the most would get the jusice in those peak periods, and the people that were not willing to, or could not afford to, pay would go dark/sweaty/whatever.

SO the regulators require those peaker plants exist, and they allow the generators to include those costs in their rate base, and calculate rates accordingly. I might not like it, but I get it.

[Randy Rizzo]

Here locally 87 is around $3.08. Down from mid to high $3, occasionally briefly in the low $4. And then just yesterday ( barely a week after the election) the state of Michigan announced a doubling of the gasoline sales tax. Actually more than double going from $ .19 to $ .41. Phased in incrementally. Weasels!

[Greg Peterson]

Those assets have to be built, maintained, and staffed, waiting for the bugle call, per the terms of the regulatory agency.

If it was pure free-market - and I am not suggesting that in this thread - the utilities would not build those plants. There would be a shortage of power at peak, and the supply-demand bits of Econ 101 would kick in with some pretty breathtaking rates. Whomever was willing to pay the most would get the jusice in those peak periods, and the people that were not willing to, or could not afford to, pay would go dark/sweaty/whatever.

Endangering lives because of a profit motive is just one flaw with a pure free market. Like any system, the so called free market or free enterprise, has some gaps and doesn't cover all scenarios equally. Extreme heat is likely more of a threat to people than extreme cold. Putting a retired, fixed income person in the dark during extreme heat is simply cruel. I think this is one example of where the free market fails.

Even with all the regulations, power utilities are still a pretty safe and profitable investment.

[Shawn Pixley]

Well, now.........your point about idle "peaker plants" was exactly the point I was making. THey have to have capacity that is siting around unused, waiting for peak demand that comes on-line only when there are extended cloudy days, or the wind dies down, or the temp hits >100 for 5 days in a row, or...., or.........., or.........

Peaker Plants have always been around as electricity use varies daily and seasonally. Solar has no effect on the need for these.

Those assets have to be built, maintained, and staffed, waiting for the bugle call, per the terms of the regulatory agency.

Unfortunately, that is an incorrect assumption. In California, the Utility Commission does not require that they have the capacity to produce all connected load including that of facilities with alternative energy generation. (A similar situation likely exists in your house. I would bet that the total connected load on your panels is far in excess of your service capacity).

If it was pure free-market - and I am not suggesting that in this thread - the utilities would not build those plants. There would be a shortage of power at peak, and the supply-demand bits of Econ 101 would kick in with some pretty breathtaking rates. Whomever was willing to pay the most would get the juice in those peak periods, and the people that were not willing to, or could not afford to, pay would go dark/sweaty/whatever.

The situation above is exactly what happened to California in the early 2000's (before significant sources of alternative energy by the way). In addition, Enron created artificial shortages by asking power plans to shut down so that Californians would have buy power from other states at exorbitant rates and pass that on to the consumer. They raped us economically. It is unfortunate that people didn't go to jail for that.

We studied this intently at my employer as we were considering a CoGen facility at the time. We (two others and I) developed a rather sophisticated Monte Carlo Analysis around this to determine under what conditions would this be wise economically. Here, electricity price is very closely connect to natural gas prices. Our variable was largely around our ability to produce product if we didn't have power from the grid. Additionally the fees to remain connected to the grid were a differentiator to various scenarios. When the electricity market stopped being manipulated by Enron, much of the challenge disappeared. We didn't build the CoGen plant.

California got much more sophisticated in our regulation as a result. The methods and approaches to these changes are largely un-germane to this issue. Many of our public buildings have solar panels on them. The use of alternative energy is an economic benefit to the taxpayor and the general population (lower demand to the grid obviating the need for additional grid generation, lower taxes due to the reduced need to buy electricity for government buildings, cleaner air, etc...

SO the regulators require those peaker plants exist, and they allow the generators to include those costs in their rate base, and calculate rates accordingly. I might not like it, but I get it.

Again, an incorrect assumption. Peaker plants exist because electrical demand varies, not because of alternative energy generation. They are desirable to avoid excess generation of electricity that must be shunted off.

[DOUG ANGEL]

Fuel costs in the US are a small component of most consumption budgets.

I believe the reason most of us beef about gas prices, is that we're burning
it to travel to jobs we don't much care for - so we can afford gas.

There's a real disconnection between most of us, and the things we consume.
The handling chain, from extaction to refining happens somewhere out of sight.

It's not as if the stuff comes out of the ground, ready to fill up your "Canyonero".

This complaint isn't new, and is easily explained by the amount of time consumed in each step.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ke-refineries/

Try driving 36 miles to work and another 36 home at $3.85 a gallon. Even if you get 26-30 MPG, it takes a big bite out of any budget......love your job or not! Like I told a co-worker that was complaining about gas prices "we're going to pay it, because there is no alternative".

[Leo Graywacz]

That's why my shop is 2 miles from my house.

[Marvin Hasenak]

America has 5% of the worlds population, but we consume 20% of the worlds energy. It boils downs to the fact we waste more energy per capita than any other industrialized country.

[Brian Elfert]

We probably waste more energy as a country because we use more energy. Waste is different based on who you ask. Some might say that heating and cooling huge enclosed shopping malls is a waste, but others would disagree.

We could probably do more to reduce fossil fuel use by reducing waste than by switching to solar and wind. My office building is pretty wasteful because it is heated and cooled essentially the same 24x7, but 75% of the building is empty after 6 pm. The office tower we are moving to shuts off the ventilation at night to save energy. (This causes us issues because certain departments are staffed until midnight or 1 am.)

[Jason Roehl]

America has 5% of the worlds population, but we consume 20% of the worlds energy. It boils downs to the fact we waste more energy per capita than any other industrialized country.

What percentage of the world's food supply do we produce? I'm not saying we don't waste energy, but there are many areas where energy usage is essentially zero, because the production of goods and services is also near zero in those areas.