backtop

Print 45 comment(s) - last by Zoomer.. on May 31 at 6:27 AM
During peak hours, heavy users get charged more

It is true that California has had serious energy problems in the past.  The state of California is still putting measures into place while trying to avoid rolling blackouts.  Energy problems have led to some companies constructing new and innovative ways that may be able to prevent future blackouts on a serious level.  A PG&E "smart meter" is one of those devices that have received a lot of attention lately.  The smart meter system would allow PG&E to charge more for electricity during the middle of the day, which is when the least amount of power is available.

As expected, businesses feel that the smart meter would unfairly drive up the costs of energy -- especially since many companies are already trying to conserve power.  Along with businesses being monitored, the California Public Utilities Commission would most likely want smart meters installed in every residence in California. 

Even though the system is currently designed for businesses, residential consumers could possibly be next.  However, perhaps everything isn't simply doom and gloom.  Energy experts believe that smart meters and a proper pricing system could actually lower household electricity bills, because consumers would end up using more power when it costs less.  If people refuse to adjust, higher bills would be imminent.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Why is this a problem?
By Guspaz on 5/29/2006 3:39:18 PM , Rating: 2
Here's an idea, how about if California actually produced enough power? You know, build enough power plants to handle current and future demand?

Heck, here in Quebec we have so much surplus power that we EXPORT power to California, and other US states. And now we're building more hydroelectric dams so that we'll have even more electricity to export.

How come California has so much trouble with this when other places don't? Why doesn't California just build a few more nuclear power plants to cover demand?




RE: Why is this a problem?
By Runiteshark on 5/29/2006 3:44:13 PM , Rating: 2
The USA hasn't built a nuclear plant for many many years. The reason why is many people are ill-educated on nuclear power and think it to be just alike to the atomic bomb. They fail to understand that without proper precautions anything with any other power source could go wrong as well. Another attribute to the lack of construction, is that people dont want it in "their backyards".

To be blunt, people are stupid and uneducated. Go talk to some idiot randomly on the street and ask them if they think nuclear power is safe. Chances are they will think you are talking about Iraq.


RE: Why is this a problem?
By stephenbrooks on 5/29/2006 4:11:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To be blunt, people are stupid and uneducated. Go talk to some idiot randomly on the street and ask them if they think nuclear power is safe. Chances are they will think you are talking about Iraq.

One could say that the problem with producing electricity in California is the dense population. ;) The UK has the same problem.


RE: Why is this a problem?
By creathir on 5/29/2006 10:25:49 PM , Rating: 1
Have you ever been to California?
They are not "overpopulated"... that is a massive myth. Sure the cities are... but there is a solution to that, expand outward. There are vast DESERTS (yes, large empty areas of land) where nothing exists but Joshua trees and cactus. Nuclear power plants could easily be built there...

The problem is, as posted above, un-educated people about how safe nuclear energy really is.

- Creathir


RE: Why is this a problem?
By flloyd on 5/30/2006 2:37:35 AM , Rating: 3
It is difficult, if not impossible, to make nuclear power plants in the desert.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Power#Waste_h...


RE: Why is this a problem?
By AndreasM on 5/30/2006 2:54:14 AM , Rating: 2
Have you ever been to California?
They are not "overpopulated"... that is a massive myth. Sure the cities are... but there is a solution to that, expand outward. There are vast DESERTS (yes, large empty areas of land) where nothing exists but Joshua trees and cactus. Nuclear power plants could easily be built there...

The problem is, as posted above, un-educated people about how safe nuclear energy really is.

- Creathir

Dense, as in stupid. And while we're on the subject, lose as in not winning; loose as in not tight (points finger at punko). I'm sorry for sounding grammar nazi-ish, but these things are important; even though everyone is supposedly writing in english, it's becoming harder and harder to understand people when they use their own proprietary versions of english. :/


RE: Why is this a problem?
By bersl2 on 5/29/2006 6:36:40 PM , Rating: 1
Ah, NIMBY. People don't even want wind turbines nearby. Technology is indistinguishable from magic for them; accordingly, they don't understand that progress comes with a trade-off.


RE: Why is this a problem?
By joust on 5/29/2006 11:42:44 PM , Rating: 1
Things are worse than you might think. It's not just NIMBYism (Not In My Back Yard) but BANANAism. (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything). Too bad we'll probably have to go through another 1970's oil crisis (or, heaven forbid, another Great Depression) to bring about a change in attitudes.

This is the problem with modern day energy politics. It's totally insane! Voters don't know anything about energy production. They continue to insist that throwing up a couple windmills and solar cells will solve all our problems. They refuse to put up nuclear power plants for fear of a (VERY, VERY UNLIKELY) meltdown. They are staunchly against more coal/oil for (largely overblown) fears of global warming (which is happening, but, for all we know, will be beneficial at best, annoying at worst).

What ever happened to the idea that we should make power AS CHEAP AS POSSIBLE? I am in favor of building coal, oil, gas, and nuclear plants, at the same time. I want as many power plants up as possible I want energy to be so cheap we waste it. I want a 1000 mile trip (in a hydrogen-powered car, of course) to cost me one dollar in terms of fuel. Realistic? No. But just because it isn't realistic, doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to achieve that goal.

As for environmental fears, I think one need only examine the past 300 years of American history to see we are treating the environment much better than we had in the past. It used to be in the 1800's that cities were clouded in smoke. Not smog, but smoke. We cut down most of the tall forest growth, etc. etc. I could go on and on, but the point is that we have already severely changed ("damaged," if you will) the world we live in; don't think that by limiting emmissions or going back to a hippy society that we will change that fundamental fact.


RE: Why is this a problem?
By Wwhat on 5/30/2006 1:30:23 PM , Rating: 2
"very unlikely" accidents happened again and again, and people are still dying from it 20 years later.
If you want to play russian roulette don't play it with a million other people's lives, buy a gun and play it at home.



RE: Why is this a problem?
By aGreenAgent on 5/29/2006 3:53:32 PM , Rating: 2
California didn't have an energy problem until it was deregulated. Many power plants shut down, and I'm not sure if they are still shut down or not.


RE: Why is this a problem?
By Brainonska511 on 5/29/2006 4:04:48 PM , Rating: 2
Deregulation is not always good and Ca is a good example of this with it's power system. There is no incentive for companies to produce excess electricity, so you have shortages in the summer instead of having excess supply (which would occur with regulation).


RE: Why is this a problem?
By andrep74 on 5/29/2006 7:33:07 PM , Rating: 2
Power plant pollution is monitored and regulated in the U.S. When a new (expensive) plant is built, let's say in New York, they can produce the same amount of energy at lower emissions levels than before. That plant can then take the place of one or more older, more polluting plants nearby. Even more strangely, they can then sell their pollution "delta" to other plants elsewhere, say, in Texas, where they can then produce more power (because they can then pollute more).

Deregulation of power plants in CA was for the sale of power, not the production of pollution. In fact, the C[A]ARB regulates emissions more tightly than any other place in the U.S. The fact that plants were closed had nothing to do with the deregulation of energy (prices). It's just that deregulation was so poorly thought out in advance, that companies like Enron (who artificially created some rolling blackouts) came and took the state hostage, and had to commit major crimes by the millions to do it.


RE: Why is this a problem?
By xdrol on 5/29/06, Rating: 0
RE: Why is this a problem?
By DigitalFreak on 5/29/2006 5:01:47 PM , Rating: 3
Did you read the post, you dolt? He said nuclear power plants.


RE: Why is this a problem?
By xdrol on 5/30/2006 6:14:16 AM , Rating: 2
Short question. How many nuclear power plants were built the last 20-30 years, and how many other? Think of it, why. (Don't misunderstand, I would make them build nuklears instead of any else)

Or just tell me I am stupid, while don't even try using any brain, just you did now.


RE: Why is this a problem?
By bob661 on 5/29/2006 6:35:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh, yeah, why brother to lower energy comsumption, if more can be produced. What a great idea. Suck all oil reserves of the planet in 3 years and cut all trees as well, please.
YOU are the problem, dumb ass. With comments such as these, I'm positive your idiocy spreads to other aspects of your life and others lives as well. Do you know how electricity is produced? Do you even know what electricity is?


By Ralph The Magician on 5/29/2006 6:57:34 PM , Rating: 2
Electricity is a magical force that comes from the holes in the wall. It's made in evil factories run by the Empire, Darth Vader, and terrorists. Luckily for us, there are switching stations run by Leprechauns that convert the evil into a postive magical force.


RE: Why is this a problem?
By xdrol on 5/30/2006 3:06:44 AM , Rating: 2
Stop calling other people idiots if you cant distinguish stupid people and sarcasm.


RE: Why is this a problem?
By PseudoKnight on 5/29/2006 5:50:53 PM , Rating: 2
"How come California has so much trouble with this when other places don't?"

The rolling blackouts were intentional to hike up prices. There is no realy energy crisis in California.


RE: Why is this a problem?
By andrep74 on 5/29/2006 7:12:49 PM , Rating: 2
The problem here in California is not the production of power, it's the distribution of power. We need to seriously revamp our infrastructure to handle future average loads. While we have neighbors with lots of open space (think Nevada) to put power plants anywhere they want, it's cheaper for us to simply import the power over high-tension, high-voltage lines than to put new ones 1) on expensive land and 2) where people don't want it. Power plants' capacity closely follows distribution capacity, so blame our distribution system.

Nuclear power is vile here in the United States, ever since Three Mile Island. Americans' suspicions were partly confirmed by Chernobyl, but that's because most didn't know that the operators themselves caused the accident in a reactor designed to create weapons-grade plutonium (oh, yeah, and they could also power the neighboring cities, too). I used to be a reactor operator in the Navy, and I can tell you with certainty that Chernobyl had an inherently unsafe design. Ask any American the last time a French reactor had an accident, and they'll be surprised to find out that the French have the most nuclear power plants in the world.


RE: Why is this a problem?
By jkostans on 5/30/2006 1:00:50 PM , Rating: 2
Ever heard of radioactive waste? It's still a problem. As far as I know we just store it for 50 or so years, then eventually bury it and hope it's safe for 100,000 years. But whatever, build more nuclear power plants, I won't be around when there's a real problem. Crossfire X1900XTs here I come....


Install for Homes too
By Brainonska511 on 5/29/2006 3:16:40 PM , Rating: 3
They should install those on homes too, especially for those homes where people leave air conditioners and other high electricity appliances running when no one is around.




RE: Install for Homes too
By punko on 5/29/2006 3:27:49 PM , Rating: 2
There is a problem for most residential users.

The largest single component of our bill, comes from the fixed portion. Most energy supplier provide a base component and a variable amount based on actual usage. A 50% reduction in electrical usage (at my house) would result in only a 10% reduction in the bill, assuming similar rates. For me, the question is: 'why bother'?

Energy companies are loathe to loose the fixed portion, because they would have to move all their costs onto the variable portion, which would encourage users to use much less. What would then happen is that the rate would have to jump in order to cover those costs. Then the users would use less again. There would be substantial backlash against the rates going up and there could be movement at the political level to limit the rate increases. Its far easier for them to announce a "service fee" increase and keep the usage rate the same. People don't react to the service fee increases like they do to rate increases.

Keep in mind that the utility companies want you to use more power, and they are only promoting conservation to satisfy the regulator's wishes.


RE: Install for Homes too
By andrep74 on 5/29/2006 6:41:06 PM , Rating: 2
Umm, if you knew how power distribution works, you'd realize that utility companies actually want you to use less power during the day, and more during the night. It's like someone driving during rush hour wanting 30 lanes instead of the (sometimes as much as) 14 lanes. While that would reduce our traffic problem, it would create an infrastructure nightmare, with costs going through the roof, just to accomodate a peak demand. Another analogy is network bandwidth: if you had to pay twice as much to accomodate peak usage, you'd wish there was a way to use the existing bandwidth continuously at well below capacity. Put another way, it's better to run continuously below capacity than with bursts at (or above) capacity.

I agree that the fixed portion costs a lot, but there is a legitimate need to maintain equipment regardless of usage. If there's an industry worthwhile going in to for making money, it's the electrical industry: thank the unions.


RE: Install for Homes too
By johnsonx on 5/29/2006 7:56:28 PM , Rating: 2
Your fixed portion of the bill is 80%? I guess everywhere is different. I don't think I've ever heard of such thing around here (southern california). There is a 'baseline rate', which is the rate at which the first so many kWH are charged at, then higher rates for more total energy usage (over baseline, 2x baseline, 3x baseline, etc.). But the baseline rate is still a rate, not a flat fee. I'm not sure there are ANY fixed charges on my bill, and if there are they're quite small compared to the usage portion.

And no, they don't really want you to use more power, at least not more peak power. If everyone's 'normal' power use goes up all the time, fine, the power company wins as soon as they build plants to meet the increased general demand. But they have real problems paying for enough capacity to meet peak demands, and still being able to pay the bills on all that capacity on off-peak times. Many types of generating facilities have a load point at which they're most efficient, usually in the 85% range if I recal correctly. A big part of power plant control software is deciding when to run generators past their most efficient load points versus bringing more generators on-line (which of course takes time and energy, and the 'extra' generators may be older or less-efficient units as well).

So, it is generally in power company's own best interests to encourage energy savings. It's not just to satisify regulators or greenies.


RE: Install for Homes too
By OrSin on 5/30/2006 10:21:02 AM , Rating: 2
Look I worked for the electric company int he past and they donlt want oyu to use more power. First the more power you use the more plants they have to build. They don't want to build any more plants in most area. The reasoning is that most place all the power is used in the cities. And thier is not room near city so build and plants. And even out lining areas don;t want power plants near any home. It forces companies to build huge plants very far from where the pwoer isacutally needed. The farther they have to send the power the less that actually make to the destination.

The pwoer companies want every one to cut back so thye enver need to build any more plants. I worked in the DC area and we have no power problem and still the company would almost away and pwower saving device for below cost to conserve. I'm pretty sure CA is even worst off.

You got your facts so very very wrong.


RE: Install for Homes too
By jtesoro on 5/30/2006 8:47:25 PM , Rating: 2
I think I understand some of the concerns of power companies based on your comment. However, I can't accept the thought that they don't want people to use more power. So are you saying that they wish that there was no growth in the company? And that they are content with whatever revenue they are making now and that if this were flat for the next several years they would be happy? Or is the plan to get people to use less power but get the growth by jacking up prices all the time? Sounds like there's something wrong here.


My thoughts...
By huges84 on 5/30/2006 12:47:04 PM , Rating: 2
I think that what needs to happen is for people to have a paradigm shift about energy production. The centralized model has a lot of drawbacks:
-It takes anywhere between 10-30 years to plan for and get everything aproved to build a large-scale power plant. It takes another 10 years or so to actually build the thing. So utilities are taking a big risk whenever they build a baseload power plant, and are hesitant to do so.
-Most baseline electricity plants in the US are coal. A coal plant releases approximately 100 times the nuclear radiation than a nuclear plant does (as long as there isn't a meltdown!)
-A large coal plant is only about 40 percent efficient. Smaller ones are worse. That is a lot of wasted resources.
-A lot of cost and time goes into building and maintaining electrical infrastructure. If a disaster strikes or part of the grid goes down, it can sometimes cause whole regions to lose electricity.
-There is a lot of electricity lost in the infrastructure.

In Michigan we have a pending energy crisis. The current energy demand trends indicate that we will require more electricity than we can produce in about 2 years. And there haven't been any plans in the works for new capacity. So we will end up having to import unregulated electricity, which will cost a ton.

Luckily, one company has gotten smart and decided to build a group of large wind-turbines in the thumb area. This location has good wind resources (both average wind speed and surface roughness). Also, it is near existing high voltage transmission lines, which normally take a lot of money and several years to construct. Also, wind turbines are quick to put up and the thumb area is sparsely populated. So Michigan is fortunate.

However, there is a solution that can be more universally applied: distributed generation. What people can do is install some kind of device in their home that generates electricity or reduces electricity consumption. For example, to generate your own electricity you could have solar panels or even solar shingles installed on your roof. They provide electricity during the peak demand hours, and so they are the best compliment to a grid infrastructure. Solar hot water heaters can be used to reduce electricity consumption. Afterall, the two biggest electricty loads in a home throughout the year are the water heater and the refridgerator.

And before a bunch of people say that solar isn't viable for them, they need to look at some actual facts. Amorphous silicon solar panels are very good at absorbing diffuse light (ie they perform well even when it is cloudy). Also, Detroit gets more hours of sunlight during the summer than Miami does, though our yearly avergage is much less. But peak electricity usage happens during the summer anyways, so solar panels make for a good fit.

If you actually do your research you will find that solar panels are practical in many locations. And you eliminate many of the sighting issues because it is your own house that you are putting them on. The main things that hold solar back are uneducated consumers and the capital cost. Solar right now is both economically and environmentally beneficial in the long run. In fact, there is an 8 month backorder on solar panels because countries like Germany and Japan are buying them up like crazy.


RE: My thoughts...
By huges84 on 5/30/2006 1:06:33 PM , Rating: 2
As for the price of electricity, I believe that the price should be variable based on the time of day, the time of year, the load on the grid, and the percent of capacity being used. In other words, a user should be billed according to the strain that they are putting on the grid. That way, the worst offenders will automatically be the most encouraged to make changes, and it will be more economically advantageous for the userto do so. When the changes are in place the user gets a lower bill, the utility has more uniform demand and is more profitable, and the public gets a more reliable grid as well as having a natural economic encouragement for energy saving/generating technology.

Those that use the most electricity have the most money and are therefore more likely to spend the money needed to reach a net payoff down the road. The heaviest users are industry and those with huge, inefficient houses. Industry can spend money to buy more efficient equipment and/or they can change schedules and operate more during the night, when variably priced electricity can be as low as 2.5 cents per kilowatt-hour! Those with big homes obviously have a lot of disposable income anyways, so they won't be drstically effected. Those with the lowest income levels are also the ones that use the least amount of electricity, so they should not be affected. Besides, the law is meant to provide advantages to those that don't consume much power.


I know flying pigs are off topic but...
By dice1111 on 5/29/2006 3:55:06 PM , Rating: 2
So when is this Cold Fusion thing to pan out BTW?




By emergethis on 5/29/2006 4:10:10 PM , Rating: 2
I think you answered that one with the post title. Never. They are barely able to sustain a regular fusion reaction for 25 seconds (I think) where as 400 seconds are required for it to yield actual net gain.


RE: I know flying pigs are off topic but...
By xdrol on 5/29/2006 4:42:05 PM , Rating: 2
They currently say the first with a positive energy balance in 25-30 years. Although they said 25-30 years 10 and 20 years ago, as well.


RE: I know flying pigs are off topic but...
By bob661 on 5/29/2006 6:37:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They currently say the first with a positive energy balance in 25-30 years. Although they said 25-30 years 10 and 20 years ago, as well.
Who is "they"? Where is the information that backs this post up? I bet you typed that blurb with a smile.


By Ralph The Magician on 5/29/2006 6:59:09 PM , Rating: 2
The Leprechauns.


By xdrol on 5/30/2006 3:04:54 AM , Rating: 2
smart appliances
By Souka on 5/30/2006 12:25:49 AM , Rating: 2
I know they're looking at "smart" appliances.

These appliances would turn themselves off during peak power loads for a few seconds to a few minutes. Electric water heaters and air-conditioners would be most benifical.

I read about this a few months ago in Consumer Reports.... the appliances are monitored and controled by the Power company...

Peak power consumtion is the problem....which goes back to the distribution problem listed above. Such smart appliances could help with peak load very effectivly....




RE: smart appliances
By jtesoro on 5/30/2006 5:35:03 AM , Rating: 2
Here's an idea for patent trolls in the audience (or Tivo). Since we already time shift TV, one might be able to make a cost effective device to suck up power during off-peak hours and distribute it during peak hours. You first program the pricing schedule into the machine. Then based on your home's usage patterns it will know how much power to store or send from the batteries.


RE: smart appliances
By Zoomer on 5/31/2006 6:21:07 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, batteries are very inefficient devices. A better way would be to use the grid as a buffer. Produce your own power during peak times, and get it back when you need it at night.


I don't blame folks...
By rushfan2006 on 5/30/2006 10:20:54 AM , Rating: 2
Seriously...can you really blame folks for not wanting a nuclear power plant in their back yard (or cell phone tower, or wind turbine or whatever you call those things)...I'll be honest I don't want to see that stuff staring out my bedroom window.

Well nuclear power can be very safe, if proper procedures and maintenance is adhered to -- there is always going to be in the back of anyone's mind who read/experience/researched about nuclear power plant disasters..what can happen. You can't just make people forget by going "you idiots -- nuclear power is actually very safe". Yeah well "skyscapers are very safe to work in to you idiots and so is travel in planes...".

I mean stuff happens.

Aside from that aspect...nuclear power plants are not exactly beautiful landmarks to have in your neighborhood. Finally from a financial/real estate side -- your house value will drop like a stone if a nuclear plant is built within 5 miles of it.

Gotta say I don't blame folks for not wanting this stuff near their homes...and for the folks that are saying its ridiculous -- I wonder if they would ok it to be built in THEIR back yard? :)




RE: I don't blame folks...
By Zoomer on 5/31/2006 6:25:18 AM , Rating: 2
I would be okay with a power plant more than 5 miles away, and a nuclear plant perhaps 30 miles away.

That's not a lot of loss in transmission....right?

For a cell phone tower, I'll rather that they plant it on top of MY building than at a neighbering building. Remember the antenna radiation pattern. :)

Wind turbines next door -> What's bad about that?

As for stuff happens...you'll be more likely to die from an automobile accident than in a plane, or from nuclear fallout. So, should we ban all cars and walk everywhere we go? Stuff happens.


Nuclear Plants are safe for a while.
By Chudilo on 5/30/2006 12:25:47 PM , Rating: 2
Nuclear plants are safe while they are maintained and a are well taken care of. (not the case with Chernobyl)
What happens 30, 40 , 100 years after a nuclear plant is built.
That used or created Uranium / Plutonium has got to go somewhere. Nuclear plants are a timebomb one way or another even without a core meltdown. There are leaks and all sorts of other smaller incidents. You do not want to be anywhere near one. PPL say that small amounts of radiation exposure is harmless and that everything around us creates radiation of one type of another. Maybe so. But what do we know over the long run? What we do know so far is that radiation causes cancer, kills the bone marrow, gonads, and causes birth defects. Yes lots of other stuff casses the same things, but that doesn't make nuclear power any safer.




By Zoomer on 5/31/2006 6:27:07 AM , Rating: 2
It's better to have highly concentrated waste so that we can take good care of it instead of having it fly all around us.


By protosv on 5/29/2006 4:33:27 PM , Rating: 2
It would be interesting to see if utilities companies charged residential customers for their peak hours of usage, which are usually in the late afternoon/early evening. According to their logic, this would make sense, as it encourages lower consumption by residents. On the other hand, charging residents' peak usage similar to a business, i.e. during the middle of the day, it would provide motivation for people not to leave the air conditioner on while they're not home or waste energy in other ways, while still ensuring that residents aren't forced to pay colossal energy bills.




By SchrodingersDog on 5/29/2006 5:21:59 PM , Rating: 2
Don't most of us have the growroom go dark during the hottest time of the day anyway? When the rate goes up from 8pm-8am I'll be upset.




Just change it back
By Trisped on 5/30/2006 4:14:02 PM , Rating: 2
After the Enron price fixing and the major rate hikes, just buy all the power plants back and let it be a government controlled utility again.

And before you replay, think about how much more you are paying now then before they broke the energy system up. We pay 3x




"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard









botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki