Insight Consulting LLC: Recent Comments

Comment on Cap & Trade

Paul Walker — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 12:10:43 GMT

On June 16, the Wall Street Journal included an Op-Ed titled "Captains of Subsidy" which looked at how lobbying is affecting energy legislation.
Key points:
GE, Microsoft & a venture capital firm are calling for Federal R&D budgets to triple, from $5 billion to $16 billion to "fund, build and accelerate the commercialization of advanced energy technologies." The Journal wonders why a $5 trillion global energy market needs that, unless it has something to do with the budgets of GE, Microsoft, and venture capital firms.
The executives also called for a cap-and-trade program to incent energy companies to buy 'advanced' energy technology products.

Comment on A Bridge to Where?

Paul Walker — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:54:26 GMT

Came across an old article, September 3, 2008 in the Pipeline & Gas Journal that relates to this topic.

According to the International Energy Agency, the world needs to spend $22 trillion over the next 25 years to meet our global energy needs.

The U.S. would need to build up to 40 new nuclear plants and outfit new and existing coal-fired power plants with carbon capture and storage, build a dozen liquified natural gas terminals, add pipelines from Alaska and Canada, and make massive investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy. China and India would need all of that as well.

$22 trillion will require a lot of bonds, or a lot of available tax revenues...

Comment on A Bridge to Where?

Paul Walker — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:17:15 GMT

The New York Times reported today that "A decline in [China's] exports has become a serious drag on growth, while government spending has led domestic investments higher at a remarkable pace... Some economists wonder whether China is actually becoming too reliant on investment spending and whether the government's economic stimulus program may be making this worse." [See China's Economy Takes A Sharp Domestic Turn", June 12, 2009 NY Times]

The article points out that Chinese exports fell 26.4% in May (year-on-year) which was a record decline; and that wages and profits in the export-oriented coastal zones of China have slipped.

Comment on The Energy-Water Nexus

Paul Walker — Tue, 05 May 2009 17:55:25 GMT

Great catch - the post has been modified to reflect annual data; and I apologize for the error. As the commenter rightly points out, the error was egregious and resulted in a several factor miscalculation.

As to the argument that "water is too valuable to consume for power generation", I have to disagree.

Power generation and affordable electricity are indispensable to our lives and our economy. That said, I do believe that potable water is very valuable and is not sufficiently factored into the price of power.

Also worth noting is that Arizona's nuclear generation uses reclaimed water - which is treated wastewater. That seems to me the path we should aggressively pursue first - reclaimed water is the only source of water that increases with population; and all too often it is priced at the level of a nuisance. Many communities simply dump it into washes while at the same time pumping groundwater, treating it to drinking water standards, and using that water for grass and outdoor irrigation.

I also agree entirely with the concern about concentrating solar power plants; they use more water than any other thermal generation source, cost much more than natural gas generation, and require enormous amounts of land.

Many policy leaders explain that solar thermal uses less water than agriculture - but frequently these plants are placed on land with water rights but without actual agriculture. So while the landowner has the right to pump water for farming, they often aren't actually farming or using water.

Dry cooling technology, increased use of reclaimed water, and non-water consuming renewables are my preferred approach with one more element - a massive commitment to demand-side management and distributed solar photovoltaics.

Many thanks for the excellent comment.

-Paul

Comment on The Energy-Water Nexus

It's all about the water — Sun, 03 May 2009 17:43:00 GMT

The EIA energy production numbers cited above are monthly totals and are apparently continually updated. January 2009 data were retrieved by your link on May 3, 2009 and don't match the numbers you cite.

Assuming Professor Pasqualetti's consumption calculations are accurate, the ~14,000 a-f consumed is a monthly amount for a likely low energy use month in the winter.

That would render spurious by a factor of 12 your comparison to the annual water consumption for households.

If NPR is to be believed at http://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2009/apr/electric-grid/ Palo Verde alone produces 25.8 thousand MWh annually. Given Palo Verde's outage problems in recent years this number correlates well enough with the monthly figure you quote.

The bottom line is this, water is too valuable to consume for power generation. Arizona is not being adequately compensated for water consumed in the production of power for California and we don't charge enough for power used in state. This is happening at the expense of our future growth. How attractive will Arizona remain when there's a shortage on the Colorado and those shortages trickle through the water providers?

Concentrating solar power plants with wet cooling are not a part of the solution either. They may consume less water than alfalfa but they still consume unsustainable quantities of water.

It's time to bite the bullet and start paying more for power that is produced from plants using dry cooling or non water consuming renewables.

Comment on Smart Grids, Bad Effects

Paul Walker — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 17:07:28 GMT

Well, this won't reduce ratepayer concerns...
Here's a story from yesterday's Albany Times newspaper:
----------
'Smart grid' project kept secret

Apr 23 - McClatchy-Tribune Regional News
Larry Rulison, Albany Times
Union, N.Y.

National Grid is keeping secret large portions of its $240 million plan to test "smart grid" technologies in Saratoga County and the Syracuse area.
The company, the largest utility in the Capital Region, unveiled its smart-grid proposal on Friday, the same day it made a large filing with the state Public Service Commission seeking approval.

"Smart grid" is a concept under which new technologies are used to enable customers and the utility to better mange electric and natural gas usage, saving money and conserving energy.

The biggest breakthrough for homeowners is so-called smart meters that provide real-time electricity prices and usage data that can help them decide when it's cheapest to use appliances. National Grid would install the smart meters in homes in the target areas.

Testing of renewable energy sources would also be done under the pilot program.

National Grid is hoping to get half the money needed for the project from the federal stimulus package, which has set aside $4.5 billion for smart-grid initiatives.

The company also wants customers to pay for at least a portion of the project, although the utility has yet to spell out how that would work. The PSC would have to approve the use of ratepayer money.

National Grid has already submitted hundreds of pages of documents on the project to the PSC, although whole sections of the plan, including one of the three volumes that were produced, have been redacted by the company and are unavailable to the public.

In a letter to the PSC, Catherine Nesser, National Grid's assistant general counsel, said the redactions were done to "protect confidential information for which trade-secret protection is concurrently being sought."

In Volume 2 of the filing, an entire section about "green" technologies, such as solar and wind power, has been blacked out. Nesser writes that Volume 3, which is unavailable, contains confidential materials that accompany the trade-secret request.
----------