RELATIVITY MADE EASY: Iconic "Renaissance man" and father of late night television Steve Allen used to don a fedora and read the angriest of the Letters to the Editor culled from various New York City newspapers, adding that "the names have been changed to avoid a punch in the nose."
It was one of the first things we thought of when we read a certain paragraph regarding the always annoying topic of "smart meters" in the LTE section of Sunday's local newspaper
We'll follow suit, calling the writer "Einstein." He wrote:
"Here’s a novel suggestion from a customer/owner of KIUC. Instead of spending tens of millions of dollars or more for smart meters, let’s spend that money to purchase a new, modern grid for our island."
Although it was April 1 it was apparently meant seriously.
For those who don't get it, smart meters are the central element of "a new modern grid," aka- the "smart grid." Whatever people may think about safety or "violations of privacy," by definition, this is what smart meters are and do.
We shouldn't really pick on poor Einstein but his letter does show the schizophrenia that exists over the modernization of the electrical grid as typified by the opposition to these devices.
The fact is that, alleged issues of health, privacy and the rest aside, those who want to see Kaua`i participate or even lead the way in alternative, non-carbon, non-fossil fuel energy had better just give it up if the smart grid- and so smart meters- is not part of our energy future.
People can forget about lower electric bills too because we will always be dependent on expensive fossil (and other carbon-generating) fuels for energy generation without the smart grid.
Let's see if we can make this as simple as possible.
Anyone who spends more than thirty seconds thinking about alternative sources of energy will realize that the most abundant and least environmentally disruptive sources here in the islands- solar and wind- are what they call "intermittent." The sun doesn't shine at night and is severely diminished when there are clouds or even rain storms. And the wind doesn't always blow.
It cannot be counted on unless we want to be without electricity at different times. And few will disagree that they want enough electricity to make sure it's there when they flip the switch.
That is why there are limits on how much of this alternative, "free" energy the system can use- because the other side of the equation is how much electricity people want or need.
That's where the "smart grid"- and so smart meters- comes in.
We've finally reached the technological sophistication to allow a computerized system to maximize the amount of intermittent electricity that the grid can handle. With the increasing sophistication of storage mediums, while we may not fully eliminate the burning of fossil and other carbon-waste fuels including bio-fuels, we can reduce them significantly.
But in order to do that, the computer needs to know up-to-the-second supply and demand for electricity.
And yes, that means that we need to know what the demand is from each user, which is where the smart meter comes in.
The other side of this is that if we don't install smart meters for just about every user, we will be limited in the amount of alternative sources we can integrate into the system. That's why there is no more "net metering" available for those who install photovoltaic systems, forcing them to sell back their excess electricity at lower prices than they pay when they take back from the grid, as happens when their intermittent source is not generating anything and they need electricity.
People make a big deal about the money we are spending on these smart meters . But the $11 million that is being spent on them is chump change because without smart meters to integrate all the various "supplies" with known, specific up-to-the-minute demands, it will mean is that we will need to build a new generation facility to meet future demand.
That means not only higher bills due to rate increases related to the investment in the new facility (whether it is "privatized" or not) as happened with the Kapaia plant, but a higher "energy adjustment" on your bill representing the ever increasing cost of a barrel of oil.
Those who go back a decade or so will remember local talk of building a new power plant. It wasn’t a matter of whether to build one but a matter of where and what kind we needed to keep up with future demand- regardless of any controls over our rate of growth or conservation measures.
Only with the advent of viable alternative technologies- not just dreams of the future but actual realities- did talk of building that new power plant cease.
But unless we can figure out a way to integrate all of the various sources of energy- solar, hydro, wind, perhaps waves and, most importantly, storage mediums like batteries, heat-retaining devices and others that are on the horizon- with the demand of the end users, we might as well forget a future of lower bills and higher use of non-carbon, alternative electrical sources.
A smart meter is simply that device that measures demand on a continual basis. Without them we guarantee a future of burning fossil or bio fuels and limited "clean" energy.
People can understand what science shows to be an innocuous use of RF signals, especially as compared with cell and cordless phones as well as countless other devices we use every day. Or they can rely on what they "read on the internet" and make a decision based on that.
Either way even if you "believe" whatever it is you believe about smart meters you'd better ask yourself if that is worth a future where the dream of non-fossil, non-carbon, alternative energy has gone to die.
Showing posts with label solar power. Show all posts
Showing posts with label solar power. Show all posts
Monday, April 2, 2012
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
AND THE EXTRA POINT IS GOOD
AND THE EXTRA POINT IS GOOD: As we approach four years and a thousand posts at this location, most of those who peruse our pages regularly recognize- perhaps with a "there he goes again" eye-rolling now and then- what, to be kind, might be called pet peeves and perennial postulates...
One such "kick" is a result of the fact that, when it comes to Kaua`i Island Utilities Coop (KIUC), the self-drawn target on KIUC's collective butt seems to be subject to re-detailing every time the board meets.
And because they seem to have chronic foot-in-mouth disease and a penchant for opaque operations, they've become easy targets even when their actions are fairly innocuous, as has been the case with the so-called controversy over "smart meters."
Even after going on a quest debunking the health scare- and questioning the so-called "privacy concerns," especially those of Facebook users (a nominee for the the "picture in the dictionary" under "irony"), it's been hard to get those concerned about the energy future of Kaua`i under KIUC on track.
Our long-standing gripe in KIUC's case has been a simple concept that most agree with when they hear it: that the problem with the "coop" is that they still have a business model that says "well sell electricity to our customers," rather than seeing their "job" as facilitating the generation and distribution of power in a manner that empowers the individual "consumers," especially though home generation, at the lowest possible cost and in a manner that's fair to all... cost notwithstanding.
As with many of our repeated rants, we're no closer to actualization than we were the first time we said it than now after the 100th.
But yesterday, after a conversation with founder and facilitator of the "p2pKauai" Facebook group Jonathan Jay, we realized one big problem with this proposed change of philosophy is the lack of- or actually a dispute over- the definition in this context of "consumer."
That's because KIUC is organized as a "coop" and so it is comprised of "members." That's a concept that works well with things like credit unions and organic food distributions where anyone can join based on their desire to participate.
But it is the wrong model for a public utility, where every single person on the island is forced to be a "user."
And especially one on an island with a limited, "closed" system.
Jay told us that even though he lives "off the grid" and doesn't use KIUC's services at home, he is forced to use it every time he goes to the store.
And like a majority of users on the island, he has no voice in the energy decisions being made for him at KIUC. With a population of around 70,000 and the number of "members"- defined as someone who has an electric meter and pays a bill- at around 7,000- only one of 10 have a say in their energy future.
KIUC- to be fair, like other electricity coops- never got around to changing the business model left over from when our system was owned by a for-profit company. Instead they latched onto a common model used across the country, mostly in rural locales.
But changing the business model alone won't really make for a participatory organization where people feel they have a "buy-in" to decisions made in their name.
For that, KIUC needs to move off the current model of serving its "members" and begin serving "users."
That's even more important due to the unique nature of the "closed system" we are forced into by virtue of being an island. There are no far flung places to integrate into our "grid" so where and by whom power is generated, distributed and used becomes much more personal. If we want everyone care about decisions on things like conservation and generation issues we need to empower all the users- everyone on the island- not just the few who directly pay a bill to KIUC.
Recently at a KIUC Board of Directors meeting, according to Jay, a "member" questioned the board's policy of only allowing members to speak at meetings. Amazingly the board decided that it will now let any member of the public speak on agenda items at meetings. Of course non-agenda items are still forbidden from discussion so, for all intents and purposes, it is virtually impossible to get the board to engage in a public discussion of concerns- even those of members, much less all users.
It's time for KUIC to take a good look at the philosophies behind their process and let that decision to empower "users" at meetings be a precedent for an attitude adjustment.
One such "kick" is a result of the fact that, when it comes to Kaua`i Island Utilities Coop (KIUC), the self-drawn target on KIUC's collective butt seems to be subject to re-detailing every time the board meets.
And because they seem to have chronic foot-in-mouth disease and a penchant for opaque operations, they've become easy targets even when their actions are fairly innocuous, as has been the case with the so-called controversy over "smart meters."
Even after going on a quest debunking the health scare- and questioning the so-called "privacy concerns," especially those of Facebook users (a nominee for the the "picture in the dictionary" under "irony"), it's been hard to get those concerned about the energy future of Kaua`i under KIUC on track.
Our long-standing gripe in KIUC's case has been a simple concept that most agree with when they hear it: that the problem with the "coop" is that they still have a business model that says "well sell electricity to our customers," rather than seeing their "job" as facilitating the generation and distribution of power in a manner that empowers the individual "consumers," especially though home generation, at the lowest possible cost and in a manner that's fair to all... cost notwithstanding.
As with many of our repeated rants, we're no closer to actualization than we were the first time we said it than now after the 100th.
But yesterday, after a conversation with founder and facilitator of the "p2pKauai" Facebook group Jonathan Jay, we realized one big problem with this proposed change of philosophy is the lack of- or actually a dispute over- the definition in this context of "consumer."
That's because KIUC is organized as a "coop" and so it is comprised of "members." That's a concept that works well with things like credit unions and organic food distributions where anyone can join based on their desire to participate.
But it is the wrong model for a public utility, where every single person on the island is forced to be a "user."
And especially one on an island with a limited, "closed" system.
Jay told us that even though he lives "off the grid" and doesn't use KIUC's services at home, he is forced to use it every time he goes to the store.
And like a majority of users on the island, he has no voice in the energy decisions being made for him at KIUC. With a population of around 70,000 and the number of "members"- defined as someone who has an electric meter and pays a bill- at around 7,000- only one of 10 have a say in their energy future.
KIUC- to be fair, like other electricity coops- never got around to changing the business model left over from when our system was owned by a for-profit company. Instead they latched onto a common model used across the country, mostly in rural locales.
But changing the business model alone won't really make for a participatory organization where people feel they have a "buy-in" to decisions made in their name.
For that, KIUC needs to move off the current model of serving its "members" and begin serving "users."
That's even more important due to the unique nature of the "closed system" we are forced into by virtue of being an island. There are no far flung places to integrate into our "grid" so where and by whom power is generated, distributed and used becomes much more personal. If we want everyone care about decisions on things like conservation and generation issues we need to empower all the users- everyone on the island- not just the few who directly pay a bill to KIUC.
Recently at a KIUC Board of Directors meeting, according to Jay, a "member" questioned the board's policy of only allowing members to speak at meetings. Amazingly the board decided that it will now let any member of the public speak on agenda items at meetings. Of course non-agenda items are still forbidden from discussion so, for all intents and purposes, it is virtually impossible to get the board to engage in a public discussion of concerns- even those of members, much less all users.
It's time for KUIC to take a good look at the philosophies behind their process and let that decision to empower "users" at meetings be a precedent for an attitude adjustment.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
SAIL AWAY
SAIL AWAY: We admit to not paying a lot of attention as we let the six hour plus snoozefest- i.e. last week's Kaua`i County Council committee meetings- play, preferring our murder mystery about a detective with Tourette's Syndrome to the seemingly interminable description of the "Multimodal Land Transportation Plan" that began the meeting.
All we could think was, as Glenn Mickens would say, "as if." But that's another column entirely.
It didn’t seem to get any better as Bill 2415 "relating to exemptions for commercial alternative energy facilities" hit the floor. Apparently some developers are seeing dollar signs and have all this "useless" ag land which can now be developed into large-scale solar farms. And they all want to maximize profits by getting a tax break from the county for installing something that just sits there and creates profit for 20 years with minimal maintenance.
But as the discussion droned on as to whether it was indeed agricultural or industrial use, the fact that there would be a limit to the amount of electricity that our local electrical co-op can handle from an "intermittent source" like solar- which only makes hay when the sun shines- came up.
That got our attention because once again it reminded us of the fact that, as anyone who wants to actually put solar panels on their roof and avoid paying for electricity has found out, they are no longer able to participate in the "net metering" program.
Net metering is when the excess electricity one generates from their photovoltaic systems is sold to the co-op at the same rate the user pays for using the co-op's juice, making the "meter run backwards" as they say.
Anyone who missed the boat on net metering gets paid something for the juice they can't use, but not the same "equal" amount that those who got in early pay.
Unless, that is, you're an ag-land-rich developer.
For some reason, even though the amount that individuals can produce without throwing the whole electrical system into chaos has reached its limit, the amount for those who want to sell electricity to KIUC on a large scale basis has not.
And they're even apparently going to get a tax break.
There are plans of course to figure out a storage medium, whether by using super-batteries or by heating water or a through few other schemes. But these seem to be reserved for those who want to "sell you electricity" which of course is, like investor-owned utitlities, still the core business plan of our local electric co-op, despite the fact that it is now owned by the end users.
Getting "free" electricity from the sun is a great idea. The problem comes when the way we go about it is to make it so that the only one who gets it for "free" is KIUC which then turns around and sells it to us rather than facilitating putting panels on individual users' roofs and providing its members with the "free" stuff.
All we could think was, as Glenn Mickens would say, "as if." But that's another column entirely.
It didn’t seem to get any better as Bill 2415 "relating to exemptions for commercial alternative energy facilities" hit the floor. Apparently some developers are seeing dollar signs and have all this "useless" ag land which can now be developed into large-scale solar farms. And they all want to maximize profits by getting a tax break from the county for installing something that just sits there and creates profit for 20 years with minimal maintenance.
But as the discussion droned on as to whether it was indeed agricultural or industrial use, the fact that there would be a limit to the amount of electricity that our local electrical co-op can handle from an "intermittent source" like solar- which only makes hay when the sun shines- came up.
That got our attention because once again it reminded us of the fact that, as anyone who wants to actually put solar panels on their roof and avoid paying for electricity has found out, they are no longer able to participate in the "net metering" program.
Net metering is when the excess electricity one generates from their photovoltaic systems is sold to the co-op at the same rate the user pays for using the co-op's juice, making the "meter run backwards" as they say.
Anyone who missed the boat on net metering gets paid something for the juice they can't use, but not the same "equal" amount that those who got in early pay.
Unless, that is, you're an ag-land-rich developer.
For some reason, even though the amount that individuals can produce without throwing the whole electrical system into chaos has reached its limit, the amount for those who want to sell electricity to KIUC on a large scale basis has not.
And they're even apparently going to get a tax break.
There are plans of course to figure out a storage medium, whether by using super-batteries or by heating water or a through few other schemes. But these seem to be reserved for those who want to "sell you electricity" which of course is, like investor-owned utitlities, still the core business plan of our local electric co-op, despite the fact that it is now owned by the end users.
Getting "free" electricity from the sun is a great idea. The problem comes when the way we go about it is to make it so that the only one who gets it for "free" is KIUC which then turns around and sells it to us rather than facilitating putting panels on individual users' roofs and providing its members with the "free" stuff.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
BURN BABY BURN
BURN BABY BURN: Ian Lind used to call it a "two newspaper day" when, first of all Honolulu had two newspapers and, they apparently got different information resulting in a different "lede" in each.
But even after the so-called merger of the two, today's treatment throughout the state on Kaua`i Island Utility Coop's (KIUC) announcement that they're going to try to take money they borrowed for a generation unit and instead build "the largest solar installation in the state," yielded at least two distinctly different stories nonetheless.
The local Kaua`i newspaper's Business Editor Vanessa Van Voorhis started by regurgitating the KIUC press release announcement, writing in her lede
Kaua‘i Island Utility Cooperative on Wednesday announced its intent to pursue the development of a 10-megawatt solar farm, which would be the largest of its kind in the state.
“KIUC would have more solar PV concentration (per capita) than any utility in the U.S., if this project can be successfully developed,” KIUC CEO David Bissell said in a press release.
The co-op intends to construct the integrated PV and Battery Energy Storage System project by reallocating a $68 million previously approved loan from Rural Utility Service. RUS had approved the funding for a 10-MW “Gen X” or “CT2” combustion turbine generator.
But then well into the article she pulls the following fact from, well, apparently nowhere:
KIUC says the combustion turbine was originally hoped to be fueled by renewable bio-diesel, but that technology has not developed quickly enough to realistically use the RUS funds in the approved timeframe.
Who "KIUC" is in this case is unknown since the press release doesn't say a thing about what kind of fuel the "10-MW 'Gen X” or “CT2' combustion turbine generator" uses. Perhaps Van Voorhis was confused by an announcement a year ago that KIUC had signed an agreement to buy bio-diesel for their Ele`ele power plant. But the term "combustion generator" sounds like something quite different from burning bio-diesel. Then again what do we know.
The Honolulu Star-Advertiser wasn’t much help since they apparently didn't even bother to call anyone, re-upchucking the original KIUC chuck.
But, as many have found, there's a new kid on the block.
At the on-line "newspaper" Civil Beat we apparently get the real story from reporter Sophie Cocke. She spoke to KIUC Production Manager Brad Rockwell, before writing the following headline and lede.
Kauai Scraps Biomass Plant for Solar Farm
Biomass is out, solar is in.
The Kauai utility is planning to use $68 million in funds that had originally been allocated for a biomass plant to build the largest photovoltaic array on the island – 10 megawatts.
Jeez- was that so hard? And all in 38 words.
Two different "newspapers of record" and one can't bother to make any phone calls and the other calls only the spokesperson for KIUC and seemingly gets the story wrong.
The usual excuse at the paper on Kaua`i is that, as local people often say to their often FOB reporters, "you ain’t from around here, are ya?". But Cocke isn't exactly from Makaweli either.
Guess it's just another "can't anyone here play this game?" day.
But even after the so-called merger of the two, today's treatment throughout the state on Kaua`i Island Utility Coop's (KIUC) announcement that they're going to try to take money they borrowed for a generation unit and instead build "the largest solar installation in the state," yielded at least two distinctly different stories nonetheless.
The local Kaua`i newspaper's Business Editor Vanessa Van Voorhis started by regurgitating the KIUC press release announcement, writing in her lede
Kaua‘i Island Utility Cooperative on Wednesday announced its intent to pursue the development of a 10-megawatt solar farm, which would be the largest of its kind in the state.
“KIUC would have more solar PV concentration (per capita) than any utility in the U.S., if this project can be successfully developed,” KIUC CEO David Bissell said in a press release.
The co-op intends to construct the integrated PV and Battery Energy Storage System project by reallocating a $68 million previously approved loan from Rural Utility Service. RUS had approved the funding for a 10-MW “Gen X” or “CT2” combustion turbine generator.
But then well into the article she pulls the following fact from, well, apparently nowhere:
KIUC says the combustion turbine was originally hoped to be fueled by renewable bio-diesel, but that technology has not developed quickly enough to realistically use the RUS funds in the approved timeframe.
Who "KIUC" is in this case is unknown since the press release doesn't say a thing about what kind of fuel the "10-MW 'Gen X” or “CT2' combustion turbine generator" uses. Perhaps Van Voorhis was confused by an announcement a year ago that KIUC had signed an agreement to buy bio-diesel for their Ele`ele power plant. But the term "combustion generator" sounds like something quite different from burning bio-diesel. Then again what do we know.
The Honolulu Star-Advertiser wasn’t much help since they apparently didn't even bother to call anyone, re-upchucking the original KIUC chuck.
But, as many have found, there's a new kid on the block.
At the on-line "newspaper" Civil Beat we apparently get the real story from reporter Sophie Cocke. She spoke to KIUC Production Manager Brad Rockwell, before writing the following headline and lede.
Kauai Scraps Biomass Plant for Solar Farm
Biomass is out, solar is in.
The Kauai utility is planning to use $68 million in funds that had originally been allocated for a biomass plant to build the largest photovoltaic array on the island – 10 megawatts.
Jeez- was that so hard? And all in 38 words.
Two different "newspapers of record" and one can't bother to make any phone calls and the other calls only the spokesperson for KIUC and seemingly gets the story wrong.
The usual excuse at the paper on Kaua`i is that, as local people often say to their often FOB reporters, "you ain’t from around here, are ya?". But Cocke isn't exactly from Makaweli either.
Guess it's just another "can't anyone here play this game?" day.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
THE AGE OF NEFARIOUS/LET THE SUNSHINE IN
THE AGE OF NEFARIOUS/LET THE SUNSHINE IN: When we wrote about a Kaua`i County Council discussion of a potential recommendation to the state legislature to close the loopholes in the law requiring solar hot water heaters on all new homes- loopholes that are disproportionately used to obtain variances on Kaua`i and Hawai`i Island- we thought there wouldn't be much more to say.
But with the matter appearing for final disposition at tomorrow's council meeting we just had to comment on the "funny if it wasn't so sad" session at last week's committee meeting.
It was another example of what money in politics can do to say the least, with the Gas Company and their campaign cash having apparently swayed the council to repeat the mantra of "options" and "choice" ad nauseum.
Of course with all that dough and the testimony of those who are beholden to the GasCo for their livelihood, it wasn't hard to see why councilmembers were sticking to their mantra, even if it really meant it was "dare to be stupid" time.
We knew it wasn't going to be possible to get to the meat of the matter when, during public testimony, the latest council regular, Lonnie Sykos, dared to be smart in suggesting a reason why there is a 50% variance rate on Kaua`i and the Big Island and only 5% on O`ahu and Maui.
He suggested that perhaps changing the state law might be convoluted and time consuming but finding out why Kaua`i is granting all those variances and perhaps correcting whatever we're doing just might be wise.
But much like those proverbially too busy pulling bodies out of the river to go upstream and finding out who was throwing them in, Council Chair Jay Furfaro, as if to say "stop making sense," interrupted Sykos- as he is wont to do when someone says something he doesn't want said- telling him that he was off the subject on the agenda since the matter was listed as pertaining to asking the state to change the law, not finding out why they didn't really need to change the law
But that only foreshadowed events to come that would show who was really in charge of the show.
It started with Ronald Sakoda who, although he said he was speaking only for Ronald Sakoda, is actually the proprietor of Ron's Electric and Sen. Dan Inouye's representative on Kaua`i.
Saying "excuse me if I cry a little" before plopping his sack of crocodile tears on the table, Sakoda anecdotally bemoaned how young people "making the biggest investment of their lives" couldn’t afford the extra money added to their mortgage when they could be using the money for "a new car (or) food for the baby."
So now the solar hot water heater is going to leave us with starving infants.
Now we know, as talking Barbie used to say, "math is haarrd." When we were young we were thinking of majoring in math and if it weren't for the fact that we stunk at basic arithmetic we might have.
It's not out of the realm of possibility that those on the council might have similar problems so let's try to see about this claim that installing solar water heaters on new homes will lead to famished-keiki syndrome.
A new retrofitted solar hot water system costs $8000 according to the list of building permits in Kaua`i Business Report. There are rebates galore and, according to the state Department of Business and Economic Development (DBED) it's also cheaper to install one during construction than to retrofit one.
But let's even use the 8 grand figure.
We took that $8000 and plugged it into a 30 year mortgage since we're supposedly talking not about rich people building million dollar homes, but about a family just starting out that is struggling to make the payments, so is keeping them as low as possible.
When we divide $8000 by 360 months (30 years times 12 months a year) we come up with $22.22 a month. Add another just under three bucks a month for interest (even though the credit union provides interest free loans according to Councilmember JoAnn Yukimura) and you get a final cost of about $25 a month. That's the actual amount one would additionally pay each month for the extra $8000 in cost.
It could be $20 or even lower with the savings cited above but we'll go with $25.
We wanted to know how much gas the average standard water heater uses so we called the Gas Company and asked. We were told that on average people used 3/4 of a gallon of "gas" per day. We were also told that gas- actually propane- costs $6.56 a gallon.
So when you "do the math" that comes out to a whopping $147.60 a month- we know, that seems high to us too- for a plain gas water heater.
Now the standard figure from DBED is that a solar heater on average will provide only about 80% of the hot water needed. So take 20% off the $147.60 and you wind up with a real figure of $118.12.
So the choice is between paying about $25 bucks- and don’t forget that's an inflated figure due to rebates, the savings of not having to retrofit and the interest-free loan- and paying $118.12 a month, giving baby an extra $93.12 to spend on Similac and Gerbers.
Next was a presentation from Richard Degarmel of the Gas Company who presented a totally baffling "Cost Guard study" claiming costs were much lower than a similar DBED study suggested.
The problem was the study compared a solar system supplemented by an electric water heater and one of those "on-demand" systems rather than comparing it with a solar system supplemented by a gas heater.
This wasn't just comparing apples and oranges. It wasn't even comparing oranges and tennis balls. It was more like comparing shoe horns and rocking chairs, being that neither item really mattered to someone looking for the lowest cost to heat their water.
The fact that no one on the council seemed to "get" is that no matter what kind of water heater you're using- electric, standard gas or on-demand gas- you will save money, even month by month, by supplementing it with a solar system.
Whether or not the eyes of councilmembers were clouded by the fact that the recommendation was opposed by the deep pockets at the Chamber of Commerce, the Kaua`i Developers Council, the Contractor’s Association of Kaua`i and 99 others who provided written testimony, is a matter for speculation.
But it does seem odd that the council couldn't do the basic math to determine the savings of a solar hot water installation over not having one, but when counting up the numbers of those who butter their bread, their arithmetic is apparently impeccable.
-----
Correction: The Hawai`i Tribune Herald is not "the only union shop in the islands" as we wrote yesterday. According to Ian Lind:
The Tribune-Herald is the only union newspaper on Hawaii Island, but not the only one in the state. Reporters at the Star-Advertiser and Maui News are also represented by the Pacific Media Workers Guild, which took over from the Hawaii Newspaper Guild, and printers at the S-A are also unionized. I don't know about the Maui News.
We apologize for the error.
But with the matter appearing for final disposition at tomorrow's council meeting we just had to comment on the "funny if it wasn't so sad" session at last week's committee meeting.
It was another example of what money in politics can do to say the least, with the Gas Company and their campaign cash having apparently swayed the council to repeat the mantra of "options" and "choice" ad nauseum.
Of course with all that dough and the testimony of those who are beholden to the GasCo for their livelihood, it wasn't hard to see why councilmembers were sticking to their mantra, even if it really meant it was "dare to be stupid" time.
We knew it wasn't going to be possible to get to the meat of the matter when, during public testimony, the latest council regular, Lonnie Sykos, dared to be smart in suggesting a reason why there is a 50% variance rate on Kaua`i and the Big Island and only 5% on O`ahu and Maui.
He suggested that perhaps changing the state law might be convoluted and time consuming but finding out why Kaua`i is granting all those variances and perhaps correcting whatever we're doing just might be wise.
But much like those proverbially too busy pulling bodies out of the river to go upstream and finding out who was throwing them in, Council Chair Jay Furfaro, as if to say "stop making sense," interrupted Sykos- as he is wont to do when someone says something he doesn't want said- telling him that he was off the subject on the agenda since the matter was listed as pertaining to asking the state to change the law, not finding out why they didn't really need to change the law
But that only foreshadowed events to come that would show who was really in charge of the show.
It started with Ronald Sakoda who, although he said he was speaking only for Ronald Sakoda, is actually the proprietor of Ron's Electric and Sen. Dan Inouye's representative on Kaua`i.
Saying "excuse me if I cry a little" before plopping his sack of crocodile tears on the table, Sakoda anecdotally bemoaned how young people "making the biggest investment of their lives" couldn’t afford the extra money added to their mortgage when they could be using the money for "a new car (or) food for the baby."
So now the solar hot water heater is going to leave us with starving infants.
Now we know, as talking Barbie used to say, "math is haarrd." When we were young we were thinking of majoring in math and if it weren't for the fact that we stunk at basic arithmetic we might have.
It's not out of the realm of possibility that those on the council might have similar problems so let's try to see about this claim that installing solar water heaters on new homes will lead to famished-keiki syndrome.
A new retrofitted solar hot water system costs $8000 according to the list of building permits in Kaua`i Business Report. There are rebates galore and, according to the state Department of Business and Economic Development (DBED) it's also cheaper to install one during construction than to retrofit one.
But let's even use the 8 grand figure.
We took that $8000 and plugged it into a 30 year mortgage since we're supposedly talking not about rich people building million dollar homes, but about a family just starting out that is struggling to make the payments, so is keeping them as low as possible.
When we divide $8000 by 360 months (30 years times 12 months a year) we come up with $22.22 a month. Add another just under three bucks a month for interest (even though the credit union provides interest free loans according to Councilmember JoAnn Yukimura) and you get a final cost of about $25 a month. That's the actual amount one would additionally pay each month for the extra $8000 in cost.
It could be $20 or even lower with the savings cited above but we'll go with $25.
We wanted to know how much gas the average standard water heater uses so we called the Gas Company and asked. We were told that on average people used 3/4 of a gallon of "gas" per day. We were also told that gas- actually propane- costs $6.56 a gallon.
So when you "do the math" that comes out to a whopping $147.60 a month- we know, that seems high to us too- for a plain gas water heater.
Now the standard figure from DBED is that a solar heater on average will provide only about 80% of the hot water needed. So take 20% off the $147.60 and you wind up with a real figure of $118.12.
So the choice is between paying about $25 bucks- and don’t forget that's an inflated figure due to rebates, the savings of not having to retrofit and the interest-free loan- and paying $118.12 a month, giving baby an extra $93.12 to spend on Similac and Gerbers.
Next was a presentation from Richard Degarmel of the Gas Company who presented a totally baffling "Cost Guard study" claiming costs were much lower than a similar DBED study suggested.
The problem was the study compared a solar system supplemented by an electric water heater and one of those "on-demand" systems rather than comparing it with a solar system supplemented by a gas heater.
This wasn't just comparing apples and oranges. It wasn't even comparing oranges and tennis balls. It was more like comparing shoe horns and rocking chairs, being that neither item really mattered to someone looking for the lowest cost to heat their water.
The fact that no one on the council seemed to "get" is that no matter what kind of water heater you're using- electric, standard gas or on-demand gas- you will save money, even month by month, by supplementing it with a solar system.
Whether or not the eyes of councilmembers were clouded by the fact that the recommendation was opposed by the deep pockets at the Chamber of Commerce, the Kaua`i Developers Council, the Contractor’s Association of Kaua`i and 99 others who provided written testimony, is a matter for speculation.
But it does seem odd that the council couldn't do the basic math to determine the savings of a solar hot water installation over not having one, but when counting up the numbers of those who butter their bread, their arithmetic is apparently impeccable.
-----
Correction: The Hawai`i Tribune Herald is not "the only union shop in the islands" as we wrote yesterday. According to Ian Lind:
The Tribune-Herald is the only union newspaper on Hawaii Island, but not the only one in the state. Reporters at the Star-Advertiser and Maui News are also represented by the Pacific Media Workers Guild, which took over from the Hawaii Newspaper Guild, and printers at the S-A are also unionized. I don't know about the Maui News.
We apologize for the error.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
STRIKE THREE?
STRIKE THREE?: What's really unfortunate about the underhanded, secretive and sleazy way Kaua`i Island Utilities Co-op (KIUC) and their partners in corruption Free Flow Partners (FFP) have gone about hydroelectric development is that it will inevitably delay- if not kill- immanent development of the cheapest, most dependable of carbon-free energy systems.
Add to that the fact that, because of the unique position of Kaua`i as the world capitol of various endangered bird species, there will never be large scale wind farms on the island and even backyard windmills may eventually be banned, once the county catches on to the fact that our "probation" with the feds- as a result of a settlement federal suit- probably requires us to severely restrict, if not ban, them too without prohibitively costly "take permits."
And with home windmills gone that leaves roof-top solar as the last, best bet to reverse the "we sell you electricity" business model KIUC seems to be hell-bent on perpetuating as if it were an investor based utility.
But today any hope for making it easy to put photovoltaic systems on people's homes took a kick in the nuts when Governor Neil Abercrombie put HB 1520 on the "Intent to Veto" list.
In April, as the bill went to conference committee, we detailed a decade long fight, first with the solar installation firms and currently with the utility companies to pass a bill requiring on-bill financing for home solar electric systems.
And even though the bill was watered down further in committee- changing the wording from directing the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to "consider implementing an on-bill financing program for residential electric utility customers" to "investigate an On-bill Financing Program (Program),"- and passed the legislature it appears on today's list.
Strangely it is one of a very few bills on the potential veto list for which a reason hasn't been given, as yet.
But a veto isn’t certain and you can call Abercrombie at 808-586-0034 or write him him using a handy-dandy form (http://hawaii.gov/gov/contact/contact-gov) and urge him to get the ball rolling on home solar generation with on-bill financing.
Add to that the fact that, because of the unique position of Kaua`i as the world capitol of various endangered bird species, there will never be large scale wind farms on the island and even backyard windmills may eventually be banned, once the county catches on to the fact that our "probation" with the feds- as a result of a settlement federal suit- probably requires us to severely restrict, if not ban, them too without prohibitively costly "take permits."
And with home windmills gone that leaves roof-top solar as the last, best bet to reverse the "we sell you electricity" business model KIUC seems to be hell-bent on perpetuating as if it were an investor based utility.
But today any hope for making it easy to put photovoltaic systems on people's homes took a kick in the nuts when Governor Neil Abercrombie put HB 1520 on the "Intent to Veto" list.
In April, as the bill went to conference committee, we detailed a decade long fight, first with the solar installation firms and currently with the utility companies to pass a bill requiring on-bill financing for home solar electric systems.
And even though the bill was watered down further in committee- changing the wording from directing the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to "consider implementing an on-bill financing program for residential electric utility customers" to "investigate an On-bill Financing Program (Program),"- and passed the legislature it appears on today's list.
Strangely it is one of a very few bills on the potential veto list for which a reason hasn't been given, as yet.
But a veto isn’t certain and you can call Abercrombie at 808-586-0034 or write him him using a handy-dandy form (http://hawaii.gov/gov/contact/contact-gov) and urge him to get the ball rolling on home solar generation with on-bill financing.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
LET IT FLOW
LET IT FLOW: The palpable disappointment of many in the wake of the defeat of Pat Gegen and Ken Stokes in the recent Kaua`i Island Utilities Coop (KIUC) Board of Directors' election serves for some as another example of voter apathy and the elections-as-popularity-contest syndrome.
But what can we expect when those who walk the walk like Gegen and Stokes have to compete with those who simply talk the talk like the three reelected incumbents who have led us nowhere when it comes to the twin goals of switching to non-carbon renewable energy and lowering electric bills?
At the risk of sounding like a broken record (what's a record grandpa?) the real issue has never really been discussed by candidates, including incumbents supported by the progressive community like Ben Sullivan, Carol Bain and Jan TenBruggencate.
It's really the core of KIUC's governance that's at issue- their very business plan... one based on the concept of "we sell you electricity."
That remnant of the for profit Citizen’s Electric enterprise model persists today even though the "shareholders" have disappeared to be replaced by members.
That means that the infamous "fiduciary responsibility" that board members are constantly reminded of, is to the members and their best interest, not the growth of the "company" in order to accommodate a self-perpetuating vision of a "selling electricity" future.
Even in terms of non-carbon renewables the talk is of borrowing money from the federal government to use for something called "PACE" bonds which will enable the construction of large scale solar farms and the selling of "shares" when what the coop should be doing is facilitating ways to accommodate self-generation in people's homes through solar, wind and other emerging self-contained technologies.
Instead the coop has taken a stance supporting caps on direct "net metering" where excess power is fed into the grid and, upon demand, back to the user at the same rate both ways in favor of exorbitant "feed in tariffs" that make the buy back of the power created by home generators far more costly than it need be.
The bugaboo of "intermittency"- as in what do you do when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn’t blow"- is simply a red herring with other emerging technologies in storage and distribution- technologies to which KIUC seems so risk-averse that it will never happen until the rest of the world is way ahead of us... as they already are in places in Northern Europe like Germany and Sweden.
Instead of being THE leaders in a state that touts itself as a leader in solar and wind, the most potentially progressive of utility governance structures- our coop- is in fact bringing up the rear and foot dragging on the dual goals stated above.
Instead of discouraging home generation and forcing those who want to "invest" in solar or wind join large scale ventures, our coop should be offering zero percent loans to construct windmills and solar installations in people's yards and on their homes and allow members to pay them off monthly with a charge on their bills equitable to what they pay now.
The fact is that instead of encouraging self-sufficiency the board enters into power purchase agreements at prices tagged to inflated fossil fuel costs rather than the actual cost of the alternative generation itself.
Next election, ask your candidate how they view the business model and how they would serve the goals of lowering the amount we pay while encouraging carbon-free energy. And if their answers are more of the same, remember- that that's exactly what we'll get.
But what can we expect when those who walk the walk like Gegen and Stokes have to compete with those who simply talk the talk like the three reelected incumbents who have led us nowhere when it comes to the twin goals of switching to non-carbon renewable energy and lowering electric bills?
At the risk of sounding like a broken record (what's a record grandpa?) the real issue has never really been discussed by candidates, including incumbents supported by the progressive community like Ben Sullivan, Carol Bain and Jan TenBruggencate.
It's really the core of KIUC's governance that's at issue- their very business plan... one based on the concept of "we sell you electricity."
That remnant of the for profit Citizen’s Electric enterprise model persists today even though the "shareholders" have disappeared to be replaced by members.
That means that the infamous "fiduciary responsibility" that board members are constantly reminded of, is to the members and their best interest, not the growth of the "company" in order to accommodate a self-perpetuating vision of a "selling electricity" future.
Even in terms of non-carbon renewables the talk is of borrowing money from the federal government to use for something called "PACE" bonds which will enable the construction of large scale solar farms and the selling of "shares" when what the coop should be doing is facilitating ways to accommodate self-generation in people's homes through solar, wind and other emerging self-contained technologies.
Instead the coop has taken a stance supporting caps on direct "net metering" where excess power is fed into the grid and, upon demand, back to the user at the same rate both ways in favor of exorbitant "feed in tariffs" that make the buy back of the power created by home generators far more costly than it need be.
The bugaboo of "intermittency"- as in what do you do when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn’t blow"- is simply a red herring with other emerging technologies in storage and distribution- technologies to which KIUC seems so risk-averse that it will never happen until the rest of the world is way ahead of us... as they already are in places in Northern Europe like Germany and Sweden.
Instead of being THE leaders in a state that touts itself as a leader in solar and wind, the most potentially progressive of utility governance structures- our coop- is in fact bringing up the rear and foot dragging on the dual goals stated above.
Instead of discouraging home generation and forcing those who want to "invest" in solar or wind join large scale ventures, our coop should be offering zero percent loans to construct windmills and solar installations in people's yards and on their homes and allow members to pay them off monthly with a charge on their bills equitable to what they pay now.
The fact is that instead of encouraging self-sufficiency the board enters into power purchase agreements at prices tagged to inflated fossil fuel costs rather than the actual cost of the alternative generation itself.
Next election, ask your candidate how they view the business model and how they would serve the goals of lowering the amount we pay while encouraging carbon-free energy. And if their answers are more of the same, remember- that that's exactly what we'll get.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
...AND WARMER STILL
...AND WARMER STILL: A week ago Monday, in focusing on “the price of the electricity that Pacific Light & Power’s (PLP) proposed ‘solar thermal’ power plant sells us” we critiqued the corporate model of “we sell you electricity” under which Kaua`i Island Utilities Co-op (KIUC) still operates.
We asked way, assuming the veracity of the rhetoric that limits the number of homeowners’ photo voltaic systems that receive “net metering” (the meter running forward and backward at the same price)- something we’re not convinced of- why we would use up a portion of that limited solar power we can practically use on a huge investor owned project rather than promote the consumer friendly net-metered home units.
But after talking to many over the last week and after reading a piece by Greg Wiles in Sunday’s Honolulu Advertiser we’ve come to see another bigger problem with the“power purchase agreements” that KIUC will undoubtedly be signing with the PLP and many other “alternative energy” investors in the future.
Wiles writes:
A 10-megawatt solar power project that would have boosted the amount of renewable energy on Kauai isn't moving ahead at this time.
The reason? The Kauai Island Utility Cooperative wouldn't agree to pay what the developer wanted for the electricity.
The stalled project provides a glimpse into a not-so-often discussed portion of green energy as the state drives toward adoption of sustainable power projects: Going green could translate into higher electricity prices in the short run for Hawaii residents.
Utilities are being offered and, in some cases, agreeing to wholesale power purchase contracts that could translate into people paying slightly more for power than they do now. Proponents say it will help stabilize energy costs and lower energy bills in the long run.
"The prices that they're agreeing to are higher than what they might pay if it were fossil fuel," said Dean Nishina, who as head of the state Division of Consumer Advocacy regularly spars with utilities on proposed rate increases.
"Initially you'll see that bumping of costs. But in the long run the hope and vision is that we will be thinking 'it's great we have these renewable energy projects.'"
The main theory of course is that oil prices will be sky rocketing and so we can bet on that by locking in a price that is higher now but will almost assuredly be lower in the future.
Almost assuredly? All right- that sounds right. But the real question is why we are gambling and playing games with the investor and setting up winners and losers in the first place?
Of course KIUC isn’t alone in this mindset. It’s going on across the electricity generation and delivery “industry”.
But in many ways Kaua`i is unique in that not only is KIUC owned by the users under the co-op model but, much more importantly, we operate in a closed system. We cannot bring in or ship out electricity which means the choices we make- and how we make them- can’t be plugged in to an existing model.
The article is full of phrases like “complex set of variables...variety of factors...very complex problem...no one is willing to say...may result in higher prices” but that’s because we are choosing to play this “winners and losers” game with secret negotiations and everyone “stuck with” whatever is worked out behind closed doors.
It need not be like that although Kaua`i doesn’t have a very good track record when it comes to what’s needed here- smart growth.
It comes down to being a planning issue and like the county’s planning department and commission we are being driven by the decisions of the “developer” rather than the community.
There are any number of people “investing” in “green energy” these days and if we simply use those “complex set of variables” and “variety of factors” to determine the actual cost of the energy and add on a fair rate of return on the investment- something the State Public Utilities Commission has been doing for years- we can come to an agreement that doesn’t gamble on our energy future.
No one, neither the consumers or the investors- needs to “put one over” on the other and wager as to future oil costs- as a practical matter the price of solar energy has absolutely nothing to do with the cost of oil.
Yet somehow we’ve allowed those numbers to become part of the model where what we pay for alternative energy- which in the long run is probably going to be cheaper than even the current price of using fossil fuel for generations to come into the equation.
And if these “investors” are intransigent and refuse to negotiate a fair price independent of what oil is costing us- a type of extortion when you really think about it- there’s a new bill moving in the U.S. Senate that “would allow an entity such as KIUC to construct a large scale PV farm with member investment, and the individual member investors can take the tax credit” according to KIUC Board Member Ben Sullivan.
Current incentives are all pro-corporate investment so KIUC has had a harder time self-performing on PV projects because the tax credits, which KIUC cannot use directly, cover as much as 65% of the cost of these project.
The bill would enable KIUC to allow individual member investors to take advantage of the economy of scale of a solar “farm” without having to have units in their yards or on roofs and keep the much of the savings that individualized units would provide if not more.
When assessing the PLP project perhaps it’s wiser to, instead of having them and KIUC pull a price our of their, er, ear and tie it to the exorbitant prices we’re paying for oil, using smart growth principles to tell them where to go with their oil-price-based “investment” return.
We asked way, assuming the veracity of the rhetoric that limits the number of homeowners’ photo voltaic systems that receive “net metering” (the meter running forward and backward at the same price)- something we’re not convinced of- why we would use up a portion of that limited solar power we can practically use on a huge investor owned project rather than promote the consumer friendly net-metered home units.
But after talking to many over the last week and after reading a piece by Greg Wiles in Sunday’s Honolulu Advertiser we’ve come to see another bigger problem with the“power purchase agreements” that KIUC will undoubtedly be signing with the PLP and many other “alternative energy” investors in the future.
Wiles writes:
A 10-megawatt solar power project that would have boosted the amount of renewable energy on Kauai isn't moving ahead at this time.
The reason? The Kauai Island Utility Cooperative wouldn't agree to pay what the developer wanted for the electricity.
The stalled project provides a glimpse into a not-so-often discussed portion of green energy as the state drives toward adoption of sustainable power projects: Going green could translate into higher electricity prices in the short run for Hawaii residents.
Utilities are being offered and, in some cases, agreeing to wholesale power purchase contracts that could translate into people paying slightly more for power than they do now. Proponents say it will help stabilize energy costs and lower energy bills in the long run.
"The prices that they're agreeing to are higher than what they might pay if it were fossil fuel," said Dean Nishina, who as head of the state Division of Consumer Advocacy regularly spars with utilities on proposed rate increases.
"Initially you'll see that bumping of costs. But in the long run the hope and vision is that we will be thinking 'it's great we have these renewable energy projects.'"
The main theory of course is that oil prices will be sky rocketing and so we can bet on that by locking in a price that is higher now but will almost assuredly be lower in the future.
Almost assuredly? All right- that sounds right. But the real question is why we are gambling and playing games with the investor and setting up winners and losers in the first place?
Of course KIUC isn’t alone in this mindset. It’s going on across the electricity generation and delivery “industry”.
But in many ways Kaua`i is unique in that not only is KIUC owned by the users under the co-op model but, much more importantly, we operate in a closed system. We cannot bring in or ship out electricity which means the choices we make- and how we make them- can’t be plugged in to an existing model.
The article is full of phrases like “complex set of variables...variety of factors...very complex problem...no one is willing to say...may result in higher prices” but that’s because we are choosing to play this “winners and losers” game with secret negotiations and everyone “stuck with” whatever is worked out behind closed doors.
It need not be like that although Kaua`i doesn’t have a very good track record when it comes to what’s needed here- smart growth.
It comes down to being a planning issue and like the county’s planning department and commission we are being driven by the decisions of the “developer” rather than the community.
There are any number of people “investing” in “green energy” these days and if we simply use those “complex set of variables” and “variety of factors” to determine the actual cost of the energy and add on a fair rate of return on the investment- something the State Public Utilities Commission has been doing for years- we can come to an agreement that doesn’t gamble on our energy future.
No one, neither the consumers or the investors- needs to “put one over” on the other and wager as to future oil costs- as a practical matter the price of solar energy has absolutely nothing to do with the cost of oil.
Yet somehow we’ve allowed those numbers to become part of the model where what we pay for alternative energy- which in the long run is probably going to be cheaper than even the current price of using fossil fuel for generations to come into the equation.
And if these “investors” are intransigent and refuse to negotiate a fair price independent of what oil is costing us- a type of extortion when you really think about it- there’s a new bill moving in the U.S. Senate that “would allow an entity such as KIUC to construct a large scale PV farm with member investment, and the individual member investors can take the tax credit” according to KIUC Board Member Ben Sullivan.
Current incentives are all pro-corporate investment so KIUC has had a harder time self-performing on PV projects because the tax credits, which KIUC cannot use directly, cover as much as 65% of the cost of these project.
The bill would enable KIUC to allow individual member investors to take advantage of the economy of scale of a solar “farm” without having to have units in their yards or on roofs and keep the much of the savings that individualized units would provide if not more.
When assessing the PLP project perhaps it’s wiser to, instead of having them and KIUC pull a price our of their, er, ear and tie it to the exorbitant prices we’re paying for oil, using smart growth principles to tell them where to go with their oil-price-based “investment” return.
Monday, April 12, 2010
GETTING WARMER
GETTING WARMER: Now that the Kaua`i Island Utilities Co-op (KIUC) election is over one of the first issues that the new board may have to grapple with is the price of the electricity that Pacific Light & Power’s (PLP) proposed “solar thermal” power plant sells us.
If the article in the local newspaper this weekend is accurate KIUC’s President and CEO Randy Hee is balking at paying whatever PLP is asking- although apparently no one will say much that is.
Naturally, alternative, carbon-free energy advocates are up in arms and accuse Hee of having no interest in getting off fossil fuels and based on the current foot-dragging Hee and the board it’s no wonder.
Westside activist Bruce Pleas is quoted in the article as saying that paying a small amount more in order to get off oil might be acceptable while many of the comments on the article were typified by the person who said:
All who are not onboard with solar power are basically neanderthals (sic) protecting themselves from extinction, nothing more than that.
Time to step aside all you freaks who want to hamper progress your day is done.
The problem here is that few are recognizing that framing the issue as one of price alone is a Hobson’s Choice at best.
The main “problem” with solar power is the night according to many. Solar Thermal addresses a little of that challenge.
According to PLP’s press release for the project
Solar thermal parabolic trough technology works by precisely arranging mirrors to capture the sun’s heat. These mirrors focus sunlight onto a tube filled with heat transfer fluid, which is passed to a heat exchanger that generates steam to power Rankine and Organic Rankine cycle turbines. In this closed system arrangement, there is no need for new supplies of water, as the water cycle back through the system.
But that doesn’t mean that the generator continues to produce power throughout the night. The release says:
PLP Kauai 1 will include up to 3 hours of heat transfer fluid storage with the flexibility to shift power generation during the day in a manner most valuable to KIUC.
That means that even in the summer it will produce electricity only until about 10 p.m. which, though it gets well into the peak” hours still requires supplementation, especially in the winter when that goes only until 8 p.m..
The question is whether this type of system- where the price per kilowatt to consumers is apparently a lot higher than the cost to produce it- in a “we sell electricity to you” utility model is a better investment overall than facilitating true net-metering for photo-voltaic (PV) systems on people’s roofs.
Hee’s KIUC has been uncompromising on enforcing the cap on net metering where the meter runs backward and forward at the same price. Those slots are all used up so that now new PV system owners buy back their “excess” electricity at a premium, supposedly because of the problems of providing energy when the sun doesn’t shine.
But at the same time KIUC is only too happy to embrace a solar thermal system which, while it provides a few more hours a day of juice still faces the same challenge- and does it at a price that will raise a few eyebrows especially among those that advocate carbon free energy but can’t afford more than the “top rate in the nation” they currently pay.
A $70 million investment plus a goodly premium for “clean energy” is a lot of money to invest in something that really doesn’t help the individual co-op members with their electric bills the way home generation does.
Though plans for a revolving fund loan system to enable home PV systems to be built and paid back over the life of the unit are underway, they won’t fully benefit homeowners unless the rate of buyback is the same as the feed-in- plus a small fixed amount for use of the storage capacity of the grid.
If all we’re getting is that extra three hours of steam heat storage, that capacity doesn’t have to be part of a $70 million project where the cost per kilowatt is outrageous.
Steam and other storage mechanisms currently in use and/or under development can just as easily bring us clean solar that will last 24 hours a day as a solar thermal unit which may be obsolete in a few years. And it can do it in a way that serves the individual consumers rather than investors.
All it takes is a change in the current mindset at KIUC from that “we sell you electricity” investor-owned model to one of a true co-op that serves the needs of the members first.
If the article in the local newspaper this weekend is accurate KIUC’s President and CEO Randy Hee is balking at paying whatever PLP is asking- although apparently no one will say much that is.
Naturally, alternative, carbon-free energy advocates are up in arms and accuse Hee of having no interest in getting off fossil fuels and based on the current foot-dragging Hee and the board it’s no wonder.
Westside activist Bruce Pleas is quoted in the article as saying that paying a small amount more in order to get off oil might be acceptable while many of the comments on the article were typified by the person who said:
All who are not onboard with solar power are basically neanderthals (sic) protecting themselves from extinction, nothing more than that.
Time to step aside all you freaks who want to hamper progress your day is done.
The problem here is that few are recognizing that framing the issue as one of price alone is a Hobson’s Choice at best.
The main “problem” with solar power is the night according to many. Solar Thermal addresses a little of that challenge.
According to PLP’s press release for the project
Solar thermal parabolic trough technology works by precisely arranging mirrors to capture the sun’s heat. These mirrors focus sunlight onto a tube filled with heat transfer fluid, which is passed to a heat exchanger that generates steam to power Rankine and Organic Rankine cycle turbines. In this closed system arrangement, there is no need for new supplies of water, as the water cycle back through the system.
But that doesn’t mean that the generator continues to produce power throughout the night. The release says:
PLP Kauai 1 will include up to 3 hours of heat transfer fluid storage with the flexibility to shift power generation during the day in a manner most valuable to KIUC.
That means that even in the summer it will produce electricity only until about 10 p.m. which, though it gets well into the peak” hours still requires supplementation, especially in the winter when that goes only until 8 p.m..
The question is whether this type of system- where the price per kilowatt to consumers is apparently a lot higher than the cost to produce it- in a “we sell electricity to you” utility model is a better investment overall than facilitating true net-metering for photo-voltaic (PV) systems on people’s roofs.
Hee’s KIUC has been uncompromising on enforcing the cap on net metering where the meter runs backward and forward at the same price. Those slots are all used up so that now new PV system owners buy back their “excess” electricity at a premium, supposedly because of the problems of providing energy when the sun doesn’t shine.
But at the same time KIUC is only too happy to embrace a solar thermal system which, while it provides a few more hours a day of juice still faces the same challenge- and does it at a price that will raise a few eyebrows especially among those that advocate carbon free energy but can’t afford more than the “top rate in the nation” they currently pay.
A $70 million investment plus a goodly premium for “clean energy” is a lot of money to invest in something that really doesn’t help the individual co-op members with their electric bills the way home generation does.
Though plans for a revolving fund loan system to enable home PV systems to be built and paid back over the life of the unit are underway, they won’t fully benefit homeowners unless the rate of buyback is the same as the feed-in- plus a small fixed amount for use of the storage capacity of the grid.
If all we’re getting is that extra three hours of steam heat storage, that capacity doesn’t have to be part of a $70 million project where the cost per kilowatt is outrageous.
Steam and other storage mechanisms currently in use and/or under development can just as easily bring us clean solar that will last 24 hours a day as a solar thermal unit which may be obsolete in a few years. And it can do it in a way that serves the individual consumers rather than investors.
All it takes is a change in the current mindset at KIUC from that “we sell you electricity” investor-owned model to one of a true co-op that serves the needs of the members first.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
