Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Politicians and energy policy

R

rickman

Jan 1, 1970
0
I heard a bit of a politician on the radio today. He was governor of
one of the western states. He said some things that I didn't hear any
supporting evidence for. I wonder if there are facts to support these
ideas.

He seemed to think that driving hybrids is the answer to the oil
problem. He describes this scenario. Everyone drives a hybrid which
can be plugged into the power grid and charged at night when the power
grid is way below peak usage. Then they can be driven up to 40 miles
the next day without using any fuel.

He would also set the power rates at lower amounts at off peak times
and higher during the daily peaks. You would be able to sell power to
the grid at the same price that it would cost you to buy it. So if
you weren't driving that day, you could sell power back from your
hybrid to the power company and make a profit!

He claimed that this would eliminate our need for foreign oil.

I don't get it. Sure hybrids can save fuel. If you otherwise drive a
vehicle that gets 20 MPG and you switch to a hybrid that gets 40 MPG,
you save half the fuel you otherwise would use. But a 50% savings on
auto use of petroleum is not a 50% savings in imported oil. There are
many, many other uses of oil. The fuel saved by plugging into the
power grid may not be a savings at all. Where does this power come
from? A lot of power plants burn petroleum. Otherwise they burn coal
which is very dirty or use nuclear energy which is a whole 'nother can
of worms.

I don't remember his name. Anyone here know who this is? Do his
numbers add up? Has he given any real numbers to support his claim or
is this one of those half baked ideas that sounds good in a sound
bite, like having a gas tax "holiday"?
 
L

linnix

Jan 1, 1970
0
Everyone drives a hybrid which
can be plugged into the power grid and charged at night when the power
grid is way below peak usage. Then they can be driven up to 40 miles
the next day without using any fuel.

He would also set the power rates at lower amounts at off peak times
and higher during the daily peaks.

For this to be meaningful, the consumers have to see different rates
for peak usage and non-peak usage. The utility company told us to
pump the pool at night (supposedly non-peak usage), but we are paying
the same either way. Only total kilowatt hours matter anyway.
 
R

rickman

Jan 1, 1970
0
For this to be meaningful, the consumers have to see different rates
for peak usage and non-peak usage. The utility company told us to
pump the pool at night (supposedly non-peak usage), but we are paying
the same either way. Only total kilowatt hours matter anyway.

Didn't I mention that? This guy would require the power company to
both sell and buy at prices dependent on the gross usage compared to
peak.

Turns out the power company here charges based on your peak usage. A
friend works at a dairy which has many electric motors, some of them
quite large. They paid thousands of dollars for control panels that
will bring the motors online sequentially to prevent a huge spike in
the power consumed. This saves them money because their rate is set
by the peak usage at any time during the day.

That is another way to save money, if the power companies start
charging residential the same way they charge commercial, the hybrid
can kick in to supply current during the peak in your residence. But
then most people are away during the day anyway. I guess the AC still
runs.
 
F

Frank Raffaeli

Jan 1, 1970
0
I heard a bit of a politician on the radio today. He was governor of
one of the western states. He said some things that I didn't hear any
supporting evidence for. I wonder if there are facts to support these
ideas.

He seemed to think that driving hybrids is the answer to the oil
problem. He describes this scenario. Everyone drives a hybrid which
can be plugged into the power grid and charged at night when the power
grid is way below peak usage. Then they can be driven up to 40 miles
the next day without using any fuel.

He would also set the power rates at lower amounts at off peak times
and higher during the daily peaks. You would be able to sell power to
the grid at the same price that it would cost you to buy it.

The problem is still the battery technology (longevity, cost, storage
density, safety). Selling power back to the utility at a fair price
was provided for in 1969 by the Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act
(PURPA).

Maybe we could harness that politician's hot air?

Frank
 
B

Bob Eld

Jan 1, 1970
0
rickman said:
I heard a bit of a politician on the radio today. He was governor of
one of the western states. He said some things that I didn't hear any
supporting evidence for. I wonder if there are facts to support these
ideas.

He seemed to think that driving hybrids is the answer to the oil
problem. He describes this scenario. Everyone drives a hybrid which
can be plugged into the power grid and charged at night when the power
grid is way below peak usage. Then they can be driven up to 40 miles
the next day without using any fuel.

He would also set the power rates at lower amounts at off peak times
and higher during the daily peaks. You would be able to sell power to
the grid at the same price that it would cost you to buy it. So if
you weren't driving that day, you could sell power back from your
hybrid to the power company and make a profit!

He claimed that this would eliminate our need for foreign oil.

I don't get it. Sure hybrids can save fuel. If you otherwise drive a
vehicle that gets 20 MPG and you switch to a hybrid that gets 40 MPG,
you save half the fuel you otherwise would use. But a 50% savings on
auto use of petroleum is not a 50% savings in imported oil. There are
many, many other uses of oil. The fuel saved by plugging into the
power grid may not be a savings at all. Where does this power come
from? A lot of power plants burn petroleum. Otherwise they burn coal
which is very dirty or use nuclear energy which is a whole 'nother can
of worms.

I don't remember his name. Anyone here know who this is? Do his
numbers add up? Has he given any real numbers to support his claim or
is this one of those half baked ideas that sounds good in a sound
bite, like having a gas tax "holiday"?

His idea is way over simplistic, furthermore, it doesn't put one gallon of
fuel into the system. If implemented 100% it would transfer oil energy to
coal energy and may save a little money but create may other problems.

The governor of Wyoming wants to make synthetic gasoline out of Wyoming
coal. That actually makes more sense because it powers existing vehicles.
With the Hybrids the total fleet would have to change.

But, coal in NOT the answer. The better answer is biofuels. They must be
fully developed an implemented.
 
R

Richard Henry

Jan 1, 1970
0
His idea is way over simplistic, furthermore, it doesn't put one gallon of
fuel into the system. If implemented 100% it would transfer oil energy to
coal energy and may save a little money but create may other problems.

The governor of Wyoming wants to make synthetic gasoline out of Wyoming
coal. That actually makes more sense because it powers existing vehicles.
With the Hybrids the total fleet would have to change.

But, coal in NOT the answer. The better answer is biofuels. They must be
fully developed an implemented.

No answer can compete with nuclear. For people who are worried about
its safety, we have a couple of useless states in the middle of the
country that could be turned into energy farms.
 
Please step one state to the right and on the other side of the
Appalachians, That way the fallout wipes out the beltway and not me.
I agree that nuclear is the way to go in the long term. The concept
of anyone government or utility other then a well disciplined military
having quanities of reactors scares the heck out of me. You need
something like the NAVY to do it, Rickover had the personnel model and
the safety inspection system right. I know a few ex navy ROs, and
they know how to do it right. Also copy the French system and use one
standardized reactor.

If you want to see why I state this

A. I like Akron the way it is, not glowing,
B. Do a google on "Davis-Besse Reactor Lid."

Short answer, nobody noticed that the reactor cooling chemistry etched
a 6" deep hole almost through the top plate on the reactor over a
period of years.

Steve
 
R

rickman

Jan 1, 1970
0
What is it about this group that instead of some sort of intelligent
conversation, any discussion of interesting topics always turns into a
s**t tossing contest?

Does anyone here have anything constructive to say instead of just
bashing others and spewing a bunch of dogma?

If you like Nuclear, how about telling us *why* it is good. If you
don't like Nuclear, how about telling *why* it is not such a good
thing. Do you guy always have to argue like a bunch of school
children?
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
linnix said:
For this to be meaningful, the consumers have to see different rates
for peak usage and non-peak usage. The utility company told us to
pump the pool at night (supposedly non-peak usage), but we are paying
the same either way. Only total kilowatt hours matter anyway.

Separate peak / off-peak electricity pricing has been available in the UK
for as long as I can remember. You actually used to get a meter with 2
dials.

You pay a small premium (20-30 % ?) for peak period use and the off-peak
comes at about 1/3 the usual cost which is VERY attractive if you can make
use of it.

Given modern technology, it would be easy to have 'intelligent meters' that
charged flexibly by time of day right down to the minute. I'm sure this will
come.

Graham
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
rickman said:
What is it about this group that instead of some sort of intelligent
conversation, any discussion of interesting topics always turns into a
s**t tossing contest?

Jim Thompson didn't have anything to do with it by any chance did he ?

Graham
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
Please step one state to the right and on the other side of the
Appalachians, That way the fallout wipes out the beltway and not me.

No western power reactor has ever created any 'fallout' worth mentioning.
TMI was simply turned into a scare story by the media for example.

Graham
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
Also copy the French system and use one standardized reactor.

France is undoubtedly the industry leader now in nuclear power generation
by a country mile.

Areva (formerly largely Framatome) has to be a company to invest in.

Graham
 
S

Spehro Pefhany

Jan 1, 1970
0
France is undoubtedly the industry leader now in nuclear power generation
by a country mile.

Areva (formerly largely Framatome) has to be a company to invest in.

Graham

They give good commercials:
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
 
R

Rich Grise

Jan 1, 1970
0
What is it about this group that instead of some sort of intelligent
conversation, any discussion of interesting topics always turns into a
s**t tossing contest?

Political zealots.

Cheers!
Rich
 
R

Richard The Dreaded Libertarian

Jan 1, 1970
0
What is it about this group that instead of some sort of intelligent
conversation, any discussion of interesting topics always turns into a
s**t tossing contest?

Political zealots.
Does anyone here have anything constructive to say instead of just
bashing others and spewing a bunch of dogma?

Yeah, but nobody listens. ;-)
If you like Nuclear, how about telling us *why* it is good.

1. Zero emissions, except for waste heat.
2. 20 years between refuelings.
3. They can be designed to actually produce new fuel, making it
essentially free.
4. Japan and France, and probably some other countries, get a
very large proportion of their power by nuclear plants - obviously,
somebody's figured out a way to do it safely, and profitably.
5. Reactor waste, you say? Just find out where the gov't is putting
theirs, and put the civilian waste in the same place.
If you
don't like Nuclear, how about telling *why* it is not such a good
thing.
Paranoia.

Do you guy always have to argue like a bunch of school
children?

Pretty much, yeah. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich
 
R

Richard The Dreaded Libertarian

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jim Thompson didn't have anything to do with it by any chance did he ?

Well, he's not a warmingist that I know of, but he is fairly insufferable
when he spouts his statist neocon bushist crap.

Actually, when you take brain-lock into account, he's almost
indistinguishable from Bill Sloman. >:->

Cheers!
Rich
 
R

Richard Henry

Jan 1, 1970
0
Please step one state to the right and on the other side of the
Appalachians, That way the fallout wipes out the beltway and not me.
I agree that nuclear is the way to go in the long term.  The concept
of anyone government or utility other then a well disciplined military
having quanities of reactors scares the heck out of me. You need
something like the NAVY to do it, Rickover had the personnel model and
the safety inspection system right.  I know a few ex navy ROs, and
they know how to do it right. Also copy the French system and use one
standardized reactor.

 If you want to see why I state this

  A. I like Akron the way it is, not glowing,
  B. Do a google on "Davis-Besse Reactor Lid."

Short answer, nobody noticed that the reactor cooling chemistry etched
a 6" deep hole almost through the top plate on the reactor over a
period of years.

The Navy plan includes the requirement that the operators slept next
in the same building as the reactor.
 
The Navy plan includes the requirement that the operators slept next
in the same building as the reactor.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This certainly does wonders for quality control!

Steve
 
K

krw

Jan 1, 1970
0
Didn't I mention that? This guy would require the power company to
both sell and buy at prices dependent on the gross usage compared to
peak.
Turns out the power company here charges based on your peak usage. A
friend works at a dairy which has many electric motors, some of them
quite large. They paid thousands of dollars for control panels that
will bring the motors online sequentially to prevent a huge spike in
the power consumed. This saves them money because their rate is set
by the peak usage at any time during the day.

That is another way to save money, if the power companies start
charging residential the same way they charge commercial, the hybrid
can kick in to supply current during the peak in your residence. But
then most people are away during the day anyway. I guess the AC still
runs.

You still want to keep the house dehumidified during the day.

I recently interviewed with a company that makes smart power meters.
They can control loads, so the power company can level loads without
blacking out everything. For instance, I doesn't matter much if a
water heater is turned off for a few hours, or the water heaters
across town are cycled. Much better to turn them off for some hours
during the day than have large peaks. The meters network with their
neighbors so metering and control can be done across wide areas.
Slick stuff.
 
B

Bob Eld

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jim Thompson said:
[snip]
The governor of Wyoming wants to make synthetic gasoline out of Wyoming
coal. That actually makes more sense because it powers existing vehicles.
With the Hybrids the total fleet would have to change.

But, coal in NOT the answer. The better answer is biofuels. They must be
fully developed an implemented.

Biofuels? Is that what you get when you convert leftist weenie bull
shit into methane ?:)

...Jim Thompson

No, actually it's collecting and utilizing the hot air, smoke and intestinal
gas from CONservative politicians and blow hard talk show host and other
repug nitwits out there. This smoke and gas is used to raise steam in giant
boilers to operate a closed rankine cycle power plant. There is enough blow
off from these jackasses to generate about 8 GWatts of power.

As with most thermodynamic cycles, republicans and CONservatives, about 60%
goes right up the chimney doing NO USEFUL work. Carnot didn't realize he had
to deal with republicans!
 
Top