Lorson Energy Blog

Richard Lorson, 1928-2010

2010-10-22T07:01:00.000-07:00

Richard Lorson, the author of this blog, passed away on Monday, October 18, 2010 at the age of 82. I am Richard's son, who pushed him to start writing this blog because I thought his strong support for the use of more hydroelectric power was a message that deserved a forum during this time when all policy makers are looking for ways to protect the environment and reduce the reliance on foreign oil.

Dad enjoyed writing this blog, and although it never really developed much of a readership it was something that brought him a little joy in the twilight of his life.

Anyway, if you have stumbled on this blog for the first time, go back to the beginning and read it through. These are some of the final writings of a brilliant man whose opinions, thoughts and presence will be greatly missed.

Natural vs. Unnatural Gas

2010-03-09T07:22:00.000-08:00

There’s gas and there’s gasoline and then there are gaseous elements such as Oxygen, Helium, Hydrogen, Neon and Nitrogen and there are gaseous compounds such as Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Sulfur Dioxide and Methane. And that brings us to our current interest: Natural Gas.

Methane is the main component of natural gas and in its pure state is said to be nontoxic, abundant with a clean burning process.

So what’s all the current fuss about natural gas not being a truly “green” fuel?

Ok, a short reminder of what “a green fuel” is. The general meaning of Green Energy is energy that is produced in a manner that has less of an undesirable impact on the ecology or environment of the earth than do more harmful energy sources like the fossil fuels, coal oil and gas.

The “greener” energy forms are solar, wind, geothermal and most important and cleanest – hydropower.

So the argument for natural gas being a cleaner or greener form of energy turns out to be one of degree. In other words, as we will see, natural gas (NG) is only somewhat cleaner than the other fossil fuels.

Examples: When burned NG produces 29% less carbon dioxide than oil and 44% less than coal. When it comes to sulfur dioxide NG is 1,122 times cleaner than oil and 2,591 times cleaner than coal. But NG only appears green when compared to the other fossil sources. Actually it burns cleaner than the others BUT IT IS NOT CLEAN!.

And then there are always greenhouse gasses (GHGs) to consider. NG produces less of them than coal or oil but it still emits a large amount of the GHGs also. As one expert in Otego, New York pointed out, “Burning as much as possible of something producing relatively less GHGs is not the best way to reduce GHGs.” True enough

There are lot of concerned voices out there and among them are Stan Cox who in writing for CommonDreams.com has said, among other meaningful things, “Holding out the prospect of vast new domestic resources, the natural gas industry is promising to make the United States an energy-rich nation once again. But we should be careful what we wish for. Spending those riches could endanger water supplies for millions of Americans while still failing to solve the climate crisis.”

In other words natural gas is not the natural candidate to clean up the atmosphere and the planet.

Hydro Today

2010-03-08T16:56:00.001-08:00

Anyone who has followed our writings in the past year or so is aware of our almost fierce dedication to the cause of replacing all the fuels that criminally pollute our air, water and lands with power generated by the flow of clean reusable water.

One might also remember that our reverence for ocean explorer Jacques Cousteau knows no bounds and would remind everyone that the words pollution and saccage had new meanings due in part to his use of them.

We have also bombarded our readers with statistics galore: Water covers 70-75% of the earth; 3% of the earth’s water is fresh but only about half of that is available – the rest tied up in glaciers; 97% of the earth’s water is salt (brackish) the rest usable; only 1% of the earth’s water is drinkable, etc, etc, etc.

As a result of these statistics and a lot more, the question arises as to how can water be the answer to our fossil fuel generation pollution, including clean air, water and land if so little is available?

The answer is – it can with a lot of serious and continuous efforts on the part of humanity all around the world.

An example is in Africa, part of the so-called third world. Africa is a major area in which there is not enough clean water for children to drink resulting in abysmal infant and child death rates. In that same continent there are a number of huge waterfalls that could be “tamed” and made to generate millions of kilowatts of power which in turn could be used in to generate clean water – life saving water so badly needed today.

The desalination of water – also a subject of earlier writings – is another source of clean water – unlike hydropower developed by flowing or falling water. To desalinate (remove the salt from) sea water great amounts of heat are required and that heat is developed by burning of a fuel such as oil or natural gas. Fortunately coal is not used for desalination because sources of coal are not found close to the seacoasts.

We can, and will, go into the details of how unclean water is made safe to drink and use. There are a number of processes used and the history of their development and regularly improved use is one of the 20-21st century’s inspiring stories.

For now, we can all agree that clean water, clean hydropower and resulting clean ecology are certainties when the best efforts of humanity are put to their development and growth.

The Hydro Folks, as we have come to be known, are an expanding group and having more and more to say about relieving the fossil fuels of their burden very soon!

More on the Oxymoron

2010-03-02T11:05:00.000-08:00

The oxymoron, just so we’re clear, is defined as “a figure of speech in which two contradictory terms appear together for emphasis.” An example: “deafening silence.”

Here we have applied the term to Clean Coal and with very good reason.

We say this in spite of (or perhaps because of) the recent rash of “clean coal” commercials being aired on TV and radio – using actors with very calm and reassuring voices. There is an awful lot of coal out there and we are supposed to believe it is the answer to using imported oil!

If it could be burned without polluting the air and ground it would be a serious answer the ecological and political problems connected to Arabian (Mideast) oil.

But it can’t. Why?

Well, look at what coal is made up of. Depending on the type of coal, its carbon content is between 70% and 92%. And it’s that carbon which is released into the atmosphere polluting not just the air but ground and water as well.

Well, there are a lot of people who cares less about coal’s impact on our ecology and our children’s future health than they do about the fact that coal is plentiful and cheap (maybe not so much) and that coal is the major fuel used for the generation of “cheap” electricity.

And the coal industry has been busy selling the “goodness of clean coal.”

So listen to David DiMartino, spokesman for the Clean Energy Works campaign who says, ”The coal industry has spent hundreds of millions of dollars misrepresenting what they do and the health effects on the American People” (Italics ours)

CEW campaign is a coalition of about 60 environmental groups, labor unions, religious organizations and veterans groups that want climate legislation. “It’s hard to believe anything they say when they’ve been caught using phony people and they’ve been caught writing phony letters.”

Josh Dorner with the Sierra Club points out the environmental as well as health costs to using coal: “They pretend to have an easy, no-cost solution to all of our problems,” he said. “If you say that there’s a solution to something and there’s absolutely no cost, that’s not very genuine. There are tons of hidden costs.” ” When you realize the true cost of coal, it’s not the cheapest resource,” he added

And that’s our case for today. And tomorrow

So, What’s Next?

2010-02-14T06:20:00.002-08:00

That’s always an interesting – and necessary – question. Time marches on and progress or lack of it leaves a mark. It’s all up to the human race to provide the answer; well, most of the time.

Of course, nature has its way whether we like it or not, but in many cases we are able to use nature’s functions to our advantage and occasionally for our survival. All of which leads to the questions, “What have we learned?” and “How will we use this knowledge?”

It wouldn’t hurt to start with another question: “What happened?”

In a few words: The Industrial Revolution - generally considered to have happened between 1820 and 1870.

Using a few more words, consider it the conversion of the “western world” from an agrarian world to an economy based on human labor and fueled by energy from the ground and rivers. One source uses the analogy of “a change from hand and home production to machine and factory.”

And what happened was that all the new activity required major uses of energy that in the past had been ignored, unknown or underdeveloped.

And now the world ecology is in shambles. In varying degrees from “fair” to “very bad” everywhere you care to look. And there is only a beginning to the recognition of the problem and the need to make corrections.

Granted, some major corporations in the US are making promises to “contribute to the greening of America.” And some world governments are beginning to enact laws that will limit the use of contaminating fuels. These are good signs but, again, only a beginning.

So what’s to be done? Must humanity revert to an agrarian society? Close the factories and resume the hand-making of needed products? What about heating homes in the winter? And cooling needed areas in the summer?

What about transportation? Can we only travel as far as our horses can carry us? Or bring our meager products to town in horse-drawn carts?

Actually, none of the above.

Our regular readers, and students, have seen our clear vision of a clean and green future based on water power providing clean, efficient electricity to provide all the human needs now provided by the fossil predators and their supporters.

Be of good cheer! The realization of our vision is not impossible and can be achieved within the next thirty to fifty years – BUT we must get started now!

Now We’re 102!!

2010-02-14T06:20:00.001-08:00

Not many business continuums can say that. And being able to say that means that a lot of our contributions have been recognized as meaningful and forward thinking.

Of course we do get a lot of friendly joshing about our age too. “Aren’t you getting tired?

“Do you remember gaslight?” Well, in addition to being the major energy utility at the beginning of the 20th century, it also turned out to be a marvelous motion picture starring Ingrid Bergman and Charles Boyer.

We’ve told our story before but it’s worth retelling – especially at anniversary times.

Our founder, Frank Edward Lorson was a young man in 1908 working for the president of the innovative Edison Company in New York City. A lot was going on in the growing metropolis - most important, to us, was the recognition that electricity was going to be the preferred energy for use in industry and homes. The supply and delivery of natural gas had grown to public utility status and had become the standard for the lighting and heating of homes and businesses.

In 1882, Thomas Edison’s Edison Electric Illuminating Company of New York started service to 59 customers in a square-mile area in lower Manhattan. At that time most buildings, both commercial and residential generated their own power by burning coal or oil. This was the beginning of the end for gas for lighting the city.

Edison found that while most multi-tenanted office and residential buildings in NYC that had electricity made the power in their own with generating plants. He developed a way to induce the owners to buy their power from him – meter each tenant’s usage, master meter the entire building power, provide separate tenant bills for Landlord to collect and bill the Owner for the total building usage at a bulk (reduced) rate. The profit for the buildings was too good to be ignored. And it wasn’t.

All this was well and good and Edison’s load was building steadily. But the newly formed Public Service Commission found that while selling wholesale to Owners for resale was approvable, the Owners, not the utility, should service the tenant meters and so the business that came to be known as Submetering began in NYC.

And in 1908 Frank Lorson was the first to organize a company devoted to providing the meter reading and billing services for Owners. That firm, New York Supply & Inspection Co., Inc is still in business in New York.

There have been a number of “spin-off” companies from the original. Those are in the construction, maintenance and utility management fields. And our endeavor, Lorson Energy LLC continues the traditional pursuit of excellence in the field of energy conservation, controls and ecological care

Thanks for Nothing!

2010-01-19T12:20:00.000-08:00

Where have we heard that before? Usually not in a good way. ” Nothing” can have negative and positive meanings and it’s the positive ones we’re after here today.

But “nothingness” raises a whole host of concepts applying to everything from philosophy to energy and – believe it or not – they’re all related. Really. And what’s more they can be totally confusing.

So it’s best if we stay away from the philosophical argument that “proves” “The existence of any thing cannot have come from nothing or no thing nor could it have ever existed at all.” Had enough?

This field will lead you anywhere from Einstein (E=MC2) to the big bang theory and all we are really reaching for is a lot less usage of those forms of energy that continue to pollute our air, water and ecology.

So in our roundabout way we are saying to you “thanks for not using that energy.”

For not turning it on when not necessary;

For not investing in Coal and Oil corporations;

For not encouraging the promoters of mining more coal and drilling for more oil;

For not raising the thermostat when not really necessary

For not leaving the car idling when parked

For not putting recyclable items in the trash

For not using high wattage lamps

For not leaving the oven or stove on after cooking is done

For not letting water leaks or drips to continue

And in return we thank you for the things you do

Such as helping our children to understand the need for careful use of energy;

And supporting all the organizations and individuals who are dedicated to the careful and considerate use of energy in all areas of life.

Because, you will find that our children and their children will thank us all for our efforts to provide a cleaner and safer world for them in the future.

Who’s Being Windy?

2010-01-19T12:18:00.000-08:00

Ok so we’re called “windy” - we do talk a lot – mostly about green, clean energy. And while we all know that hydropower is the best, cheapest and cleanest energy available – wind power certainly has its place and that’s so in spite of those who say “Not in my backyard.”

Like many of the other energy forms – renewable and not – there are arguments for and against that sometimes get pretty heated (involving, we must add, emotional energy)

And as always, we must deal with cost, reliability, distribution of product (usually electricity) and effects on the ecology. Some also argue about the effects property values and sightlines or unsightliness, believe it or not.

But pretty or not, there is a lot to be said about harnessing the wind especially when it means moving cleaner air by replacing coal and oil burning generators.

Some towns in Massachusetts and Connecticut have taken the step of using wind power to provide electricity to their citizens at low rates while making major profits.

The town of Hull, Massachusetts has had an active interest in wind power since the early 1980’s. At that time the town installed a 40 Kilowatt turbine on an 80 foot tower at a cost of $75,000.; The unit installed adjacent to the Hull High school, produced a respectable amount of power until in March of 1997 a windstorm damaged the unit beyond compare.

However, on review it was seen that the windmill had reduced the high school’s bills by over $21,00o during its term and in 1998 a group of citizens met to plan what they called “repowering” the site.

By 2001 plans had progressed to the point where a bid was accepted from Vestas, a Danish company to install a 660 Kilowatt unit on a 50 meter high tower. This unit was so successful that in 2006 a second much larger unit, called Hull Two, was installed. Between the two, savings in excess of $300,000 were achieved in addition to providing free power to the town’s street lighting.

Recently the town of Scituate in Massachusetts has granted a contract to a private company for the installation and operation of a windmill expected to save the town up to $300,000 per year, reducing, it says, “the town’s carbon footprint by 3 million kilowatt-hours per year.”

In spite of many “nay-sayers” whose arguments we will examine later, the Don Quixote’s of the 21 century have something to say – let’s listen

Who Can Help Get Energy Clean?

2009-12-23T08:20:00.001-08:00

Now there’s a question with anywhere between ten and ten thousand, maybe a million, answers.

The easy answer is, “All of Us.” The complications begin under the category, “Some of us more than others.”

Energy we all understand. Dirty is also pretty clear. But Clean can come in many different packages including, but not limited to, burning things and Waste.

How does waste enter the picture? On thinking about it we can see that waste also comes in many different packages.

Consider leaving your hot water running longer than it’s needed. That is waste of the water itself and waste of the energy needed to heat the water and if that energy happened to be fossil fuel based – additional air, water and ground pollution.

Say that hot water was running 1 gallon per minute and it ran one minute longer than needed. Also say that the same thing happened in every American home once during the month. With over 112 million households that would be 112,000,000 gallons of hot water wasted.

Now what does it take to heat a gallon of water from 45 degrees as it comes in from the street to 120 degrees in a storage tank? OK enough math!

Beginning to see the picture?

It always seems like such a little thing. Turn the light off, it’s only 75 watts. So it’s on for an hour. That’s 75 watt-hours or 0.075 kilowatt-hours. And in those 112 million homes that’s 8,400,000 kilowatt-hours. Nothing small about the little consumer!

So who can help?

We’re back to that “easy answer” – All of Us.

It’s actually a matter of getting rid of some old habits and starting a few new ones. And that’s not easy – it takes a concentrated effort over a period of time until what used to be considered a simple truth – power is cheap and endless –is replaced with a real truth – we cannot afford to spend (use) a single watt that is not absolutely essential.

Turning off that light, not using the air conditioner during peak weekday hours, doing the wash at night can be learned. And lots of chores that must be done, can be done at hours when the utility and grid system is not at peak demand. Again habits that can be learned.

And We can Do It – All of Us.

What Good Are Energy Statistics?

2009-12-23T08:19:00.000-08:00

A would-be humorist once said, “Statistics are a like a bikini bathing suit. What they reveal is interesting, but what they conceal is vital.”

If this is a truth for statistics in general, then it is a lot truer for statistics dealing with all the forms of energy we use on this plant – as well as the energy we use to travel away from it.

Thinking about it – we have crude oil, gasoline, diesel fuel, propane, jet fuel, natural gas, coal, peat and geothermal heat – just to name a few categories.

And promoters of each energy form will present statistics that will attempt to prove that their particular energy form is getting cleaner and cheaper than any other and is the one that should be chosen for universal use.

While of course their opponents will argue, quite forcefully, that the opposite is true.

And thereby lays the problem – those vital facts that are concealed.

However in the case of energy – the vital concealed facts are much more important to human health and even survival than, say, the dominant color of newborn babies eyes in Saskatchewan.

For example, while working one’s way through the “smoke and mirrors” of the current Clean Coal Campaign one should be told how many people died in the past year from breathing or lung diseases caused by polluted air. Or what percentage of the water consumed in the United States for drinking did not conform to the requirements of the clean water act of 1972 that caused what number of deaths or illnesses?

We are not going to get this disturbing information from the fossil energy people on a voluntary basis. So once again it falls to the elected representatives of the people to establish and maintain a constant watch for the concealed facts that we need to have for our health and welfare – the common welfare our founding fathers knew needed protection.

The common welfare and common sense should go hand in hand and our need for the facts is a requirement of both. We must continually remind our Congress, State and Local governments of their responsibility to ensure that we get the facts. And we must be ever on guard to make sure they do so.

Oh, and our founding fathers also provided automatic “term limits”. They’re called elections.

Is There Anything New in Desalination?

2009-11-19T07:10:00.001-08:00

We have seen that the world is at least 70% covered in water. We have also seen that only about 9% of that water is what is called “potable” (that’s drinkable, pure water.)

We have also seen that converting dirty, salty ocean water to potability is expensive and requires great quantities of heat from one energy source or another, usually electricity.

One thing is certain – there is so much raw water available that a great number of researchers and water scientists are concentrating on the possibilities of developing greater quantities of potable water – at greatly reduced cost. And the good news? They are succeeding.

From the United States and Canada to China there are all sorts of experiments being made and developments tested for reliability and feasibility.

In Canada, for instance, two university graduates in Vancouver have developed a solar process for desalination of sea water that they claim can reduce electricity requirements by up to 80%. They further state that the process can cut the high cost of desalination in half.

The two have started a company, Saltworks Technologies Inc., that is building desalination plants using commercially available components, saving time and money,

Across the Pacific, a group of researchers from Tsinghua University in Bejing have announced that water desalination can be achieved without electric energy or high water pressure using a source of biodegradable organic matter or bacteria as the fuel.

Their claim has been published in the Environmental Science Technology journal in August, 2009. According to the paper the researchers modified a microbial fuel cell by placing two membranes between an anode and a cathode, creating a middle desalination chamber between the membranes. When electricity was produced by bacteria on the anode, ionic species in the middle chamber were transferred into the two electrode chambers, thereby desalinating the water in the middle chapmber.

If this sounds confusing, don’t be concerned. It really is. But if the process can be made to handle large quantities of water it will certainly be a major step in the right direction – clean water for more people.

Earlier we looked at the use of geothermal heat sources to desalinate water and that process continues to be tested around the Pacific coasts, particularly in California. At UCLA a mobile desalination test has proved successful and will be reported on here in the near future.

Meanwhile, we must all continue to be careful not to waste water at any time in any way.

Is Water Really the New Oil?

2009-11-19T07:09:00.000-08:00

This is a subject we’ve discussed before but under the current financial conditions around the world the most important things are the most basic – food, clothing and shelter. And as Jacques Cousteau often pointed out, “Air and Water, the two essentials for human life, have been thrown in the garbage.”

Today’s mission is to compare (1) the values, and (2) the costs of using these two naturally found substances.

Water covers at least 70% of the earth. Oil occurs underground in decreasing availability. As a result oil is much more expensive to obtain and use.

But the finding and producing petroleum, oil and gas, involve huge financial processes that, not surprisingly, wield huge political power. And huge profits.

OPEC, the “Big Five” International Oil companies (ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Chevron and ConocoPhillips), and to a lesser degree the second-tier oil companies run pretty much out of control. There are few, if any, significant government controls that limit the actions of these giants. They are entrenched.

On the other hand, water companies are plentiful but most are public utilities rather than private corporations. And their product is carefully controlled, both as to purity and cost. Furthermore it has been shown that privately held water companies charge more for their product and are not in the business of developing water power in any respect.

So what is needed for water to replace oil? What is needed is investment in companies that will find and develop water sources for the generation of electricity. Oil can only be replaced as a burning fuel when hydro generated electricity can replace oil-generated power. And this would ultimately include the use of electric cars replacing gas fired vehicles.

So we must be very clear in separating (1) the water used for human consumption from (2) the water used to generate electricity. Water generated electricity is vastly cheaper than that generated by coal, oil or gas. As such hydropower companies can show very strong financial positions – attractive to investors.

So it follows that if and when water replaces the fossil fuels for power generation – it could be considered “the New Oil.” It would not compete with the water utilities that bring clean water to your home or business but could in fact ensure that power generation would no longer cause the air and water pollution of the Fossil Barons.

Why is Money Called “Green”?

2009-11-16T06:27:00.001-08:00

Well, since 1862, during the Civil War, when the United States Treasury Department developed a special green dye that would make counterfeiting more difficult, the back of US currency has been colored green. (Thus the term “greenbacks”) Another little historical note, the man responsible for the greenback development was US Secretary of the Treasury, Salmon P. Chase.

Chase’s family name has continued in the financial world ever since. And it is in the hands of the financial world that the clean greenness of the country, perhaps the world rests. And how does that work?

As you know, any business, old or new, needs financing. Financing has many component parts but two major ones are Cash and Credit. Most businesses need both in reasonable quantities.

In normal times, investment cash is readily available for projects of reasonable risk. There is also some money available for relatively risky endeavors. Again, in “normal” times.However the financial conditions around the world 2008-09-10 are anything but normal and not yet even near what some would call stable.

As a result, there are literally trillions of dollars of investment capital sitting on the sidelines waiting for some certainty of returning stability (sanity?) following the now famous recession of 2008-09.

That capital could be put to good use in developing green hydropower to replace the coal burners and then the oil burners and finally the gas burners. Truly a green purpose for the green money.

And this is where capitalism must perform at its best. That’s because the cost of construction of hydropower generating plants is considerably higher than that of, say, coal or oil fired plants. Hydropower Capital investment must be on the long term basis.

However the long term benefits of hydropower are huge and far outweigh the start-up costs. Production costs that are minuscule compared to the coal-oil-gas costs and, most important, the impact on the ecology of the plants in operation is ZERO. Accordingly, profits far exceed that of the fossil investments – that’s capitalism at its best.

Finally, the World Health Organization has stated that every $1 spent on water and sanitation can bring economic benefits averaging between $7 and $12. There you are.

And that is why we have been preaching – and will continue to preach – the message that we must replace the homicidal fossil burners with clean water power!

Where Does Natural Gas Fit In?

2009-11-16T06:26:00.000-08:00

As the feller says, “Where would you like it to fit in?”

Well it fits in a number of places. It is being used in many areas to generate electricity in addition to power plants where demand has exceeded maximum plant output. Some of those augmented power plants still burn coal and using natural gas certainly produces less harmful by-products than coal.

Actually converting the coal-fired plant to natural gas would be the best thing – As long as we understand that the use of natural gas should be only a temporary stop on the way to truly clean hydropower.

Contrary to the promotions that call natural gas a renewable energy, it is not renewable and while there is plenty still available – even here in the United States – it does not replace itself in the way that water does (covering 70% of the earth) or even solar whose switch is “on” all the time. More about that shortly.

Much as we dislike boring you with statistics, there are some that should not be ignored when comparing natural gas to oil and coal:

The main products of burning natural gas are carbon dioxide and water vapor – same as humans exhale when breathing. Coal and oil are much more complex with much higher carbon ratio and higher nitrogen and sulfur contents. Thus they release much higher levels of carbon emissions, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide. Coal and oil also release ash particles, substances that don’t burn and are carried into the atmosphere causing more pollution.

With the combustion of natural gas there is very little amounts of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, virtually no ash or particulate matter and lower levels of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and other reactive hydrocarbons.

One might ask, “Why not just replace coal and oil with natural gas, isn’t that enough?” And the answer would be, “That would be an improvement, but natural gas still emits only thirty (30%) percent less carbon dioxide than oil – whereas hydropower emits no carbon dioxide, or any of the other offending products of burning coal, oil OR GAS.

So as a last resort, if there is no way to get to hydropower – natural gas is a distant fourth choice (solar is second, wind is third)

Did I Mention HYDRO?

2009-11-15T13:53:00.000-08:00

If you are a regular reader, you will see the humor in that question. We have taken on the mission of making sure that everyone, sooner or later, preferably sooner, comes to realize that with the sun, hydro power is the one true and clean answer to solving all the problems that continue to accumulate by the burning of fossil fuels – Coal, Oil and Gas.

The message must be constantly repeated because there are some pretty powerful and rich people whose fortunes are tied to the Fossil Fuel Industries – and who would appear to care less about the future of the planet than their own status in the power structure.

This is why regular readers will recall our messages entitled, Hydropower 101, 102, 103, 104 and 105 as well as one entitled “Little Water, Big Energy.” We don’t take this lightly, and believe no one should take lightly, the misleading arguments that fossil fuels can be made clean and that there is no further hydropower developments possible.

Nothing could be farther from the truth and while we have called Hydro Power the Power of the People – it is the people who must insist that the elected powers realize that clean fossil fuel is an oxymoron and only water, and to a lesser degree solar, power is the answer. These elected officials must be constantly reminded of their duty to those who cannot vote for them.

Yes, I said cannot vote for them. Some are still children and in many more cases not yet born.

Even today there are areas on earth where ambient conditions are so bad they cause children to be born with all sorts of horrible defects if, in fact, they actually survive birth at all. These are areas where there is no clean water, no pure anything and, perhaps worse, no medical help available.

Of course, the worst of these areas are in “undeveloped” parts of the world. However that fact should not lull the more fortunate of us into thinking “it can’t happen here.”

Of course it can and while nature responds to the good and bad of human behavior rather slowly – it does react and by these bad examples it attempts to warn us that our future will be limited by our present behavior.

It is our mission to be certain that the deadly results of burning fossil fuels is ended in time to save the planet for its inhabitants and that water – pure for drinking and renewed for electricity generation - becomes the logical successor to the coal and oil energy sources

What is a Smart Grid? Are There Dumb Ones?

2009-11-15T13:52:00.000-08:00

And those are not dumb questions.

The “national grid” which in theory is supposed to connect all parts of the American electric system, from coast to coast, is still a “work in progress.”

Falling under the category of Misleading Titles, it is unfortunate that an English Corporation calling itself National Grid has invaded our shores with unfortunate results. The firm intended to produce a real grid system for the U.S. and instead wound up purchasing a number of U.S. utilities, primarily in the Northeast.

So recognizing that the American Grid is really a few localized grids handling groups of states utilities the old grid (the not-so-smart one) is what has developed almost haphazardly over the years with sections added as needed.

The New, SMART Grid will be one that has the technological ability to sense where power is needed and, on an instant notice, get it there.

So you can see several things are required.

First the wire connections must be installed connecting all the parts, generators, distribution centers, lines to electric companies and lines to the ultimate consumers.

Second, the digital technology that will in turn do several things:

1. Control the delivery system, sensing and satisfying need

2. Allow bidirectional power flow (going in reverse directions when load requirements shift from one area to another)

3. With devices installed in consumer’s homes on their appliances, read times and amounts of use and charge extra for on-peak usage.

There are some still undeveloped (and controversial) programs proposed under which a consumer would let the electric company know what he would have plugged into his system and the electric company would be able to selectively turn off some devices in order to prevent blackouts or brownouts

This latter idea raises some pretty serious privacy issues since the electric company would know how private citizens use each of their appliances.

So, perhaps the earlier grid was not so much dumb as inert and civilly harmless.

What Does “Time-Of-Day” Billing Mean?

2009-11-12T08:34:00.001-08:00

And can it aid in the fight against global warming?

To begin, Time-of-Day (TOD) electric rates, also known as Time-of-Use rates, are designed to induce consumers to use electricity during hours when the utility’s system is not at peak load. These times are called “off-peak” hours.

The inducement is created when the utility charges a premium during periods of high demand on the utility’s system and offers a discounted rate during off-peak hours.

So when are these peaks and off-peaks anyway? Well they occur pretty much as you would expect – the highest during the hottest summer days when air-conditioning demand is at its highest.

And before there was air-conditioning the highest peak was during a dark winter evening.

The off-peak hours would be, again as you would imagine, after working hours on work days and all day and night on weekends. And you might say, “what about air-conditioning on weekends?” And the answer would be that residential cooling loads are not anywhere near the total of commercial, industrial and residential on regular workdays.

You will also see that in addition to weekends, holidays are also given credit as totally off-peak times.

But some of our favorite utilities could not leave well enough alone. They decided that maybe too much off-peak credits were being given and so for some of the hours between peak and off-peak, they invented “Shoulder-Peak Hours.” In effect they said in answer to some of your residential air conditioning, “We gotcha”

These Shoulder Hours would be before and after work hours on weekdays and in some cases even on weekends. The Peak, Off-peak and Shoulder Hours vary from state to state and utility to utility. Your local supplier will be pleased to provide your local information.

Finally, to make life easier, there are computer programs designed to remind you when you should not run your washer, dryer, dishwasher or air conditioning. But being creatures of habit we can pretty much tell when the peak hours are.

And in following the TOD program we are all helping to ease some of the pressure on the grid that delivers electricity around the country. And lowering the peak also helps to “green” the ecology.

So you see – it’s not only the other guys who can help – it’s all of us!

Danger! Coal and Oil Commercials!

2009-11-12T08:33:00.000-08:00

We’ve raised this issue before, as we have many other issues. But this one seems to us to be the most insidious. It is the use of dirty money – a lot of it – to continue the promotion of dirty energy and the end result- if not prevented- has to be the criminal neglect that will leave our world uninhabitable in less than a century.

You think that is paranoid sensationalism? Propaganda? Think again.

There is plenty of unquestionable proof that the burning of coal – regardless of how allegedly “clean” it is - coal will always be a problem in polluting air, water and land. It has been proven that to “clean” coal some pollutants, carbon, etc, can be removed – but that very waste must be disposed of and what do they propose to do with it? – Bury It In the Ground!

Well, the industry has formed an American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) which in turn has sponsored AmericasPower.org. and these organizations have set about the business of convincing the American public, in the words of the King in Rogers and Hammerstein’s “King and I” that “what is not so – is so!”

There is just no miraculous way that coal can be suddenly, or ever, made truly clean.

So what is needed is concerted action by a great number of concern citizens such as those promoting the “Citizens’ Clean Energy Economy Investment Act of 2009.” We need groups of dedicated people – not politicians – to put constant pressure on all the applicable government departments and agencies at all levels.

That goes from the Department of Energy to the local Mayor’s energy advisor. Small local groups can have an immense impact at the Town and Village level and should not be dismissed offhand by the fossil folks.

And while we are working on these projects we had better also look out for subliminal advertising phrases like “clean, plentiful and economic coal” and add the words “deadly.”

And while we’re at it we had best pay attention to the natural gas folks who make sense by saying their fuel is cleaner than coal and should be its’ replacement.

Let’s agree that getting rid of coal using natural gas is a good temporary “stopgap” on the way to converting to totally clean, really plentiful and really inexpensive Hydropower.

Water Power will be proven to be the Power of the People!

Energy Changes We Can All Make

2009-11-10T10:24:00.001-08:00

Energy changes can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. So we’ll start with United States and Canada and go from there…..

Can you name the things that you do each day that use energy? And can you use them in a different and better way to reduce air and water pollution?

Let’s start with your car or cars. Are your filters and emission controls at their peak efficiency? Do you have to drive in rush-hour conditions where your engine runs in idle while you’re standing still? Are your tire pressures set properly for most efficient car operation? There’s more you can probably think of.

Meanwhile back at home – How is your home insulation? Have your windows been checked lately for leakage (summer and winter)? If you burn oil or natural gas to heat your home is your burner set at maximum efficiency? Do you know if your electric company has “time of use” or “time of day (TOD)” rates? If they do, do you know how your timely use of electricity can save you money and help the environment at the same time?

Then, leaving home, do you commute to work? Do you drive there? Do you know what a motor pool is? Are you in one? Can you take mass transit to work (railroad, bus, subway)?

Oh, and do you smoke? Cigarettes, cigars or pipe? Do you know how many tons of tobacco are consumed each year in the United States? … in the world? Do you think that adds to GHG pollution? (Did you know GHG stands for Green House Gas?)

Do you believe that global warming is caused by humans? If so, do you believe that humans can solve the problem?

It is suggested that as we study these questions, and our answers to them, we should also study how our friends and neighbors approach the questions.

Can you, or we, work together to reduce the human impact on the global warming, not only GHG but all other pollution causing activities?

It has been said that government at the local level is basic, most democratic so to say. If you believe that common action can have an impact on the causes of global warming – then, by all means, act with your neighbors and get your representatives to take real action at all levels of government.

Perhaps it is wise to remind the government people that our constitution has built-in term limitations – they are called elections!

Small Town Hydro Tools

2009-11-10T10:23:00.000-08:00

Small towns and small hydro tools are beginning to make big news – slowly but surely. Let’s define a small town – Let’s say 10,000 people. Sound reasonable?

Now, where the town is located will also be important when considering whether hydropower is feasible. In a dessert, or very dry area with little running water (rivers or falls) and little annual rainfall, it’s not likely that hydropower will be an option.

And of course any area with plenty of flowing water and rainfall, hydro will be a natural. This is true whether the ultimate user is near a grid connection or not, Hydro is most certainly user friendly.

We all know what turbines are – or at least think we do. We see them on airplanes and powerful cars. We know they are used in generating electricity at the big dams.

We know they use the flow of air, gas or water, to create motion which in turns can cause a vehicle to move, or fly. We also know they can cause rotation that can be used to generate electricity – in a big or small way.

And it’s in the small way that hydro can generate electricity – even in your backyard if the flowing water is there.

There are three kinds of little turbines that can be used to make power: (1) Impulse or “high head” turbines, (2) Reaction or “low head” turbines, or (3) Submersible propeller turbines. Yes, we know, more definitions needed.

“Head” is the vertical distance between where the water enters above the turbine system (usually a pipe) and where it reaches the runners within the turbine. High head is defined to be a drop of 20 feet or more. Low head, of course, is lower.

Impulse turbines are ideal where a relatively small amount of water runs down a steep hill or a little waterfall.

Reaction type turbines require a much larger water flow than the Impulse types but can operate with as little as two feet of head.

The underwater propeller turbines are the least efficient but of the simplest design. With a propeller mounted on the front of the turbine, the unit looks like an outboard motor attached in reverse.

Care must be taken that the power be actually used when running turbines. If not used, the controlled power can cause damaging heat problems for the turbines.

And the good news is that all these units are now available in a number of sizes and at prices that truly compete with the local utility charges

Global Warming?

2009-11-06T13:01:00.000-08:00

And NIMBY means what?

OK- “Not In My Back Yard”

So you would like to think that global warming doesn’t exist in your backyard – or especially that it doesn’t start in your backyard.

But, we’re sorry to report that you are wrong on both counts.

Well for one thing, you think that burning the fossil fuels that pollute the atmosphere is done only by the big factories and power plants.

Do you have an oil burner? Or a gas fired water heater? Do you drive a gas-powered car? Oh, and have you used manure for your yard or garden?

Perhaps you live in the city. But if you moved to the suburbs and the lot where your new home was built was cleared of trees and plants – your backyard added to the global warming.

How did it do that? When the trees and plants were killed, they stopped storing carbon – which nature has them do – and they released all the carbon that had been accumulated over tens and maybe even hundreds of years.

All that released carbon from driving or heating or fertilizing or cutting down trees adds carbon dioxide (CO2) to the air. CO2 is one of the now famous “Greenhouse Gasses.”

Another major greenhouse gas is methane. While this gas is caused by nature, humanity adds to it to an unfavorable degree.

Methane is caused by nature when it is released from arctic tundra and wetlands. It is also released as the earth goes through a cycle of climate change. Even without human interference this climate change usually lasts about 40,000 years.

But it seems man can’t wait for nature to mess things up.

And finally for today, can you believe that eating supermarket meat adds methane to the atmosphere. You could Google it. Clearing the land to grow animal feed, using fossil fuel power equipment to process the food – and the meat - adds up quickly.

And the big sum is that animal agriculture is responsible for 18% of all global greenhouse gas emission. (Source: US Food and Agriculture Organization).

So we’re all guilty and we need to make some changes - Suggestions will follow.

Where is the Hydro in Your Town?

2009-11-06T13:00:00.000-08:00

In a way, that would seem to be an easy question. Water comes to us in the pipes, is metered and clean. It also rains quite a bit. And then there’s the river and the lakes nearby. And for some there’s the ocean. And for some there are wells.

But that isn’t the real question is it?

And the answer is that we must clearly define HYDRO and logically, Hydropower.

The term ‘hydro” refers to electricity generated by the flow of water. And, no surprise, so does hydropower.

But hydropower includes more than the generation of electricity. It includes motion generated by falling water in a turbine or water wheel. That motion can be put to use in running machinery as well as dynamos. (Oops, what’s a dynamo?) Okay, while we’re defining things, a dynamo is a generator of electricity consisting of a coil that rotates between the poles of an electromagnet causing current to flow.

But the real message is that hydro is everywhere. Hydro power potential is in many back yards. Little flowing streams. Small waterfalls. These are not uncommon and are in many cases able to produce small but usable amounts of electricity.

And the small hydro technology is fast becoming a do-it-yourself project for those willing to learn the new techniques of power generation on the small (less than 500 Kilowatts) scale.

There are on the market even now small generation units that offer stable, inflation-proof sources of electricity. In addition while in the past small hydro installations have been cheap to run but expensive to install, that is changing with smaller, lighter and higher speed turbines and lower cost electronic controls, not to mention much cheaper plastic piping.

While capital required to develop hydro is still higher than, say, diesel equipment of equal capacity, hydro plants enjoy a much longer life and much lower operating costs.

British Columbia, Canada has for years developed and used small hydro in all its forms and today has installed many up-to-date plants in places such as Glacier Park (150Kw), Hoeya Hilton (37 Kw), Nimmo Bay(40 Kw), Klentu (650 Kw) and many others.

Their message is that there are business opportunities in small hydro all over and a number of people are catching on.

Why not learn more – we’ll try to help.

Coal to Gas to Water – Triple Play!

2009-10-31T18:17:00.000-07:00

So who were Tinkers and Evers and Chance anyway? Well, in the world of baseball – particularly professional baseball a triple play – three outs all in one play – is really rare. As a matter of fact even the great New York Yankees have only produced 18 triple plays from 1876 to the present day.

But the triple play we’re talking about today is a different kind. In this one we will put the first out by using the second and put the second out by using the third. And the third is the solution we have been propounding so vociferously for all these years (101 years to be exact).

The first is that highly dangerous COAL which pollutes everything it touches –even after the miserably failed efforts to clean it up – the junk it contains has to go somewhere and outer space is not a feasible solution at the present time.

So when you hear or see the Coal Industry’s commercials telling you how cheap and available their “wonderful” coal is you should ask why the industry is spending more on advertising than on cleaning up or replacing the lethal product.

So we go to the second which is NATURAL GAS. Perhaps it is important to point out that while the gas we are discussing is “natural” there are also a number of unnatural – or manufactured gasses made from among other things – are you ready? – Coal.

Natural gas burns cleaner than coal or oil. (We didn’t forget oil – we just passed it because it’s almost as dirty as coal). Please understand that burning cleaner than coal or oil does mean that there is no problem with gas’s residue. There is, but here again you hear commercials about how clean and cheap and readily available natural gas is. That is true but don’t forget what ends up in the air after burning it:

And so there is a reasonable argument for the use of natural gas instead of coal and oil BUT only as a temporary replacement for those demons until the clean, cheap and totally renewable energy source is fully developed.

And of course that form is Water Power, the third step – but in our program not an out.

So the play goes: replace coal and oil with natural gas for a while and then replace the gas with water power. Of course we would gladly settle for a Double Play whereby we would go from Coal/Oil directly to hydropower.

Hydropower as soon as possible for our grandchildren and their grandchildren. We should do no less and – we can.

What’s New Canada?

2009-10-19T09:48:00.000-07:00

Since our article on Canada’s awakening, a few things have happened. And a few things should have happened – that haven’t.

What has happened in the good sense is a continuation of the agreement with the U.S. that we share the goal of combating climate change. Clearly the Canadian hydropower availability is being explored much more seriously than in the past.

However, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, while emphasizing Canada’s role as an “energy superpower” (which it clearly is) took issue with one provision of the Waxman-Markey climate bill that passed the House of Representatives in June.

The provision that raised his hackles, and those of others around the world, is the one that would impose tariffs on countries that did not get or keep their emissions under control.

With a little Canadian humor Mr. Harper said, “Such a measure would become a front for protectionism quicker than you can say ‘hello.’” This issue was also raised in India during a visit by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton this past summer.

Mr. Harper also said, “A better way would be to make sure all nations did their part to reduce emissions and share the burden from the beginning. I hope we will push toward that kind of solution instead of a solution toward tariffs.”

One part of the Canadian effort to “harmonize efforts” with the United States is, to us, somewhat troublesome and that is participation in the cap-and-trade system which, if you have read our efforts, creates as many problems as it solves and at best delays the real reduction of emissions wherever it is practiced.

As one observer noted, “No country, government or company is ready yet to face the cost of pollution and the cost of cutting pollution.” And may we add – as long as the governments and politicians are on the payrolls of the energy producing companies.

Hydropower can and should be developed at a rapid pace by others than the fossil fuel energy companies. Its cost is better than that of trying to clean up the fossil problems.

In addition, we can look to Canada for advice and leadership in the development of water powered electricity generation and distribution.

And more of us should.

The Articles of Common Sense

2009-10-15T19:52:00.000-07:00

(With Appropriate Apologies)

When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for a people to dissolve the attachments that have connected them with the evil purveyors and burners of fossil fuels and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and immaculate environment to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the dissolution.

And so we shall.

Global warming – melting of the glaciers
Greenhouse Gases
Carbon Dioxide
Air pollution and Water pollution
Caused by burning coal
Caused by burning oil
Caused by burning gas
Caused by autos burning petroleum products
Caused by Man-made forest fires (also natural ones)

All caused by lack of government regulation or control.

We will talk at another time about agriculture and population – two very hot topics – and very controversial.

We will show all sides.

Small Hydro – More Power to the People!

2009-10-15T19:50:00.000-07:00

Well, as promised earlier, we have a compendium of the small and simple equipment and techniques that promise (and deliver) clean and very inexpensive energy, primarily electricity and heat.

As in the case of solar power units, the initial cost of hydropower units is practically the only cost to be incurred. That of course involves purchase and installation of the units. Once in operation maintenance is relatively minor – and by that we mean relative to the cost of the electricity purchased from a utility.

And Hydropower without dams is the main answer. Free-flow turbines have a much smaller, in some cases infinitesimal, impact on fish migration and survival as well as water quality and the visual/aesthetic qualities of the environment.

Tidal hydropower units also use the natural movement of nature on a horizontal basis. These units adjust for the variances in tidal direction and speed. Tides such as those experienced in New York City’s East River are excellent examples of the tremendous forces that exist in what appears to be a plain old water passage.

Falling Water turbines also help fill the bill. These are very small versions of the turbines used by the big dams in their electricity generation. But these little ones can use many of the small dams already installed around the country. Actually of all the existing 80,000 dams of all sizes, only 2,400 are online and used for power generation.

In summary, any small hydro system consists of the following

- Water Conveyance – channel, pipeline, tide or pressurized pipeline (penstock) that delivers the water.
- Turbine or Waterwheel to transform the moving water to rotational power
- Alternator or generator to transform rotational energy to electricity
- Regulator to control the generator, and
- Wiring (or the grid) to deliver the electricity to the consumer.

It is not unreasonable to see a homeowner making his or her own electricity from the water flowing in small stream in the back yard. The only concern in that case would be whether the water flow was all year or seasonal. In either event when the water flows so will the electricity.

So hydropower can undoubtedly be the Power of the People!

What’s New in the Politics of Energy?

2009-09-23T10:46:00.000-07:00

As the man says, “What could be new?” And you could add “What ought to be new?”

Well we have answers, as you probably guessed. But the answers will not match what you’ve been seeing or hearing through the news media. But then why should they?

We must distinguish between the news media and The Media. The news media is enfranchised to present facts. (Careful there!). The Media provides entertainment, editorials, amusement as well as “the news”. And all of these are funded by advertising with its powerful resources.
So one must be very careful when listening to or watching some of the ads put out by our big energy companies – the coal, oil and gas boys.

For example, a recent Center for American Progress report showed that “the coal industry’s infamous front group, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity” (ACCCE) spent $45 million in 2008 in what was called it’s deceptive “America’s Power” campaign shouting about the benefits of “Clean Coal”- the concept we called in an earlier issue – The Great Energy Oxymoron.”

While it is happy with its advertising program, the coal industry has yet to spend any meaningful amounts on such items as Cleaner Technology or Safety in Operations. The ACCCE is made up of 48 coal companies. This group enjoyed a combined profit in 2007 of $57 billion. Yet over a period of several years it has spent only $3 billion for research into carbon capture and storage (CCS) – their supposed answer to Dirty Coal!

In April, 2009 The New York Times published an article by Jad Mouawad headlined “Oil Giants Loath to Follow Obama’s Green Lead.” Here we go again!

It seems that Royal Dutch Shell, BP and Exxon Mobil have cut back on their original intentions to assist in the development of renewable energy forms. According to the Times article, “The oil companies have frequently run advertisements expressing their interest in new forms of energy, but their actual investments have belied the marketing claims.”

According to Nathanael Greene of the Natural Resources Defense Council, “The scale of their alternative investments is so mind-numbingly small that it’s hard to find them.”

That really says it all. They practically laugh at President Obama’s plan to spend over $150 billion in the next decade to create what he calls “A clean energy future.”

That money could bring the additional hydropower we need to put the fossil fuel giants to pasture.

A dream worth pursuing.

Upstate, Downstate, all around the Towns

2009-09-22T09:38:00.000-07:00

Upstate in Illinois is where the major electric demand exists. Downstate is where the fuel that was used to make the power is located. More on this later.

Downstate New York is where that state’s major demand is located. Upstate is where Niagara Falls power plants are located; as well as Canadian Sources and Indian Point Nuclear Power plants.

And so it is around the country. Very often the source of power (mainly electricity) is not in the middle of the highly populated areas. This is especially true of nuclear plants but also generally true of fossil burning plants – and our good friends the major water power dams.

How it gets from here to there and from there to elsewhere is the story of the grid, the grid that almost exists. But we’ve been through that before (see earlier blogs).

Today’s sermon has to do with the way We the People get in the way of progress and by progress I mean letting the grid grow and prosper where possible.

Have you ever heard of NIMBY? Over the years the electric transmission companies have had the devil’s own time obtaining easements to install those infamous overhead lines that bring power from there to here.

“NIMBY,” a lot of us said. “Not In My Back Yard.” And so it took acts of Congress or local governments to clear the way for some sections of the growing grid. And in some small towns (famously in New York and California) local boards yielded to their constituents and refused to approve the needed installation.

When that happened, and happens, rerouting of the proposed sections of the new grid must be made. And as if cost of the grid was not already of concern, such rerouting only adds additional cost way out of proportion to the grid value first estimated.

And so, good fellow citizens, while we loudly proclaim that our government had better wake up to the need for clean renewable power we must also realize that teamwork is required and that We The People must be just as proactive as we ask our elected officials to be.

Fair is Fair

And demanding clean, renewable, non-polluting energy must be enabled as one of the rights guaranteed in our constitutions and in the soon to become famous “Articles of Common
Sense.”

Please stay tuned.

Hydropower 106 – Where It’s At

2009-09-21T13:13:00.000-07:00

Yes, we’re fixated on hydropower – the use of water to satisfy the requirements of all forms of energy: Heat, light, mechanical and electrical power- Cheap, clean and naturally replaced.

And hydro potential is everywhere, not just where you see those big dams – although they do a great job. The true and great hope for the future is the fact that small hydro equipment is now available that can be used anywhere – and everywhere – without any harm to the ecology or air or water.

The magic lies in the development of Small Hydro. Small Hydro is defined as “the development of power on a scale serving a small community or an industrial plant.” This definition is not fixed but a generating capacity of up to 10 megawatts (MW) or 10,000 kilowatts is the generally accepted size of a SH plant. In some areas in the United State and Canada the upper limited is raised to between 25 and 30 MW.

In contrast the big dams, such as Hoover Dam generate 2,074 MW of electricity.

Small Hydro is further subdivided into Mini Hydro which is defined as less than 1,000 KW and Micro Hydro which is less than 100KW. One can easily see that Small Hydro or its offspring could be used almost anywhere – and it is and will be more and more in the future.

The beauty of small hydro is that plants may be connected to conventional electrical systems as a source of low-cost renewable energy OR they can be built in isolated areas where it would not be economical to connect to the grid or even where there is no grid.

While we will give examples of the small hydro equipment available to all in a future message, suffice it to say that small hydro equipment together with currently available solar equipment can most certainly replace coal, oil and natural gas as our “prime movers” whenever people decide to make the change AND the governments involved decide to let them.

A neighbor of ours has a small stream running across his back yard. There is running water in the stream for at least 6 months out of the year. And those six months can be broken up into separate weeks or groups of days depending entirely on the current rainfall or snowmelt.

In any event he can reduce his electric and heating costs by half by installing a small turbine and a solar panel. Happy event – solar panel works best when the sun is out – no rain!

With Hydro there’s nothing but good news!

Cap and Trade – Again?

2009-09-21T13:12:00.000-07:00

Unfortunately this subject is topical again because what appears to be a fraud to be committed against the American people may have turned out to be exactly that! And let’s get to the truth without attracting any libel or slander lawsuits!

Can that be done?

Not only can it be done – it is being done – and we will quote only a few of the many voices – some quite sane and some very much otherwise – being raised on this issue.

Well for the sane, how do Wall Street Journal, U S News & World Report, the George C. Marshall Institute and The National Center for Public Policy Research sound to you?

And for the “happy” group you might include Neal Boortz, Carolyn Tacket’s Closet and a few others who don’t need mentioning.

All of these however agree that Cap and Trade is another government movement going in the wrong direction. Its cost will be staggering and the result will be to delay the eventual reduction in the burning of fossil fuels to the detriment of not only the ecology but – more important – our children’s lungs!

If you’re not familiar with “Cap and Trade” – shame on you – our edition entitled “Cap and Trade – Duck and Cover!” was issued in April (this year) and tells the story pretty completely.
The point of all the objections is twofold; (1) The delay in reducing the airborne pollution and (2) the high cost of this permitting of what we call “indulgences” for the benefit of large polluting corporations.

We must remember that we are talking about atmospheric pollution measured in Billions of Tons of Carbon Dioxide or equivalent heat-trapping gasses!

In our opinion and that of many others. Including, but not limited to, those listed above, is that the program is flawed, perhaps fatally, and should not be enacted.

Once again we refer to our April report when we quote an attorney who said,”Companies should have to abide by laws which limit the pollution or shut down! Any company which is producing enough products to cause that pollution is financially able to upgrade their equipment to control what they spill out into the air.”

Amen.

Hydropower is the answer and always will be.

Tell your congressman to get to work.

Where Are All Those Energy Jobs?

2009-09-17T12:40:00.000-07:00

Actually, the number of workers in the field, so to speak - mining coal, drilling for oil and natural gas - are relatively few, as we will see. But the peripheral businesses, such as gas stations and oil delivery companies, involve hundreds of thousands of employees throughout the nation. Some examples:

Coal

There are approximately 175,000 “blue collar”, full time, permanent jobs related to coal in the United States. (84,000 mining, 31,000 transportation and 60,000 power plant employees) This amounts to 0.12% of the U.S. workforce. One can see the decline of coal when comparing this data to the fact that in 1920, coal mining alone amounted to 1.89% of the total U.S. Workers.

Oil and Natural Gas

The data for these two categories tends to get “lumped” together, since a number of firms deal in the producing and distributing of both energy forms. According to R. Skip Horvath, CEO of the Natural Gas Supply Association: “Roughly 5.8 million Americans are employed in and supported by the natural gas and oil industries.” The so-called “blue jobs” are those taking the image of the blue flame of natural gas burning.

Renewable Energy

A recent ASES (American Solar Energy Society) report stated that “..in the U.S. 8 million people were employed in renewable energy and energy efficiency industries in 2006. Three years later, that number has increased by at least 10%. Renewable energy includes wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, biofuels and hydropower generation.

Hydropower

Once again we return to the cleanest, least expensive and most accessible source of clean power on earth. It is available from falling water, flowing water and tidal movements in the seas. It is replenished by rainfall, snowfall and occasionally sleet.

As hydropower replaces fossil fuels, the number of employees needed to provide additional services will equal, if not exceed, the number of employees no longer needed by the oil and gas companies.

The vast number of hydropower sources that will not require connection to any grid is the subject of Hydropower 106, to be published in the near future.

Meanwhile, we are pleased to pass on a headline that appeared in a recent Renewable Energy World publication which stated: “New Developments in Hydropower Can Supercharge Obama’s Green Jobs.” Let’s hope Obama drops the coal in favor of water!

The BOTTOM LINE IS HYDRO JOBS CAN REPLACE FOSSIL JOBS

Hydropower 105

2009-09-03T11:24:00.000-07:00

We have visited this subject many times. The subject needs viewing from a number of different angles in order to understand its importance to humanity and all forms of life on earth.
In Hydro 101 we looked at the dramatic results of water falling hundreds of feet to create millions of kilowatts of electricity.

In Hydro 102 we were introduced to the very real concept of water flowing horizontally to create electricity.

In Hydro 103 we found that there are great areas of potential water power in Canada and the United States – enough in fact to replace all that terrible burning coal with its deadly by-products.

In Hydro 104 we were presented with the arguments that continue between those whose concern is the “ecology” of the earth and those who know that there are many forms of hydropower that will not harm the ecology in any way.

Throughout our discussions we have seen how the various levels of government do not seriously help those concerned with clean energy – but actually get in the way. In one of our earlier articles entitled “Little Water, Big Energy – Big Government in the Way” we showed a few examples of the frustrating interference in energy control matters at every level of the government.

And so we come to the real power that will enable clean water and clean air for our children and their children – People Power: You and me and our families and friends and neighbors and coworkers - everyone in fact that enjoys being a citizen of this great country and who have always in the past answered the call to duty in times of peril.

This is not a call to war – but it is a call to service every bit as serious and threatening as a nuclear conflict.

The service required will be the active – really active – participation of everyone in the process of getting the powers that be to (1) recognize the problem of air and water pollution and its causes, (2) enact legislation to make mandatory the elimination of these sources of pollution, (3) specifically, replacement of burning fossil fuels with hydropower, (4) establishment of timelines within which pollution must be eliminated, (5) strict enforcement of the new energy laws and regulations.

This now becomes a movement greater than any political party’s lines. It requires that all people of all ages become involved and make certain they are heard. This means you!

After Nuclear, Where’s the Waste?

2009-09-03T11:23:00.000-07:00

Now there’s a loaded question if there ever was one!

Nuclear waste. All by itself the concept is frightening. Ever since the dropping of the nuclear bombs on Japan in August 1945, the fear of radiation and associated diseases has been universal and endless.

The inventors and developers of the atomic bombs pleaded that governments condemn their use and make atomic war impossible. Thus the “Cold War” where east and west stared each other down for more than 40 years until Premier Gorbachev listened to President Reagan and “tore down that wall.”

Contrary to the best wishes of the people of the earth, a number of nations now have atomic weapons, the worst use of our nuclear knowledge. Fortunately, so far none have gone so far as to use those weapons at war.

But the peaceful use of our atomic knowledge, nuclear generation of electricity, has also grown and is use in most developed nations around the globe.

And here comes the loaded question yet again: What are you doing with the waste?
And the answer – or answers – is the subject of some pretty hot arguments between energy proponents of all persuasions.

In America, it starts in 1982 when Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
The story of the now-infamous Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository is yet another example of federal confusion, intrusion and even illusion. Back in 1987 the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proposed Yucca as the deep geological storage facility for spent nuclear reactor fuel and other radioactive waste.

Haggling and delay between DOE, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM), National Academy of Sciences (NAS) as well as representatives of Nevada and Arizona caused the possible final activation of a waste site off until as late as 2020!

Meanwhile there are121 locations around the continental states where nuclear waste is being accumulated. And while a lot more is known about safe treatment of such waste than was known 27 years ago – agreement and real action are still way off!

Here again is a strong argument in favor of shutting down nuclear facilities and replacing them with – wait for it – HYDROPOWER ! Hydro Generation is available - and by the “magic date” of 2020 – the nuclear problem could be solved also!

Hydropower 104

2009-08-29T09:46:00.000-07:00

Hydropower “courses” 101 through 103 were offered in February and March of this year with little fanfare and even less response. Understandable.

People in this country, at this time, are more concerned with such time-sensitive arguments as The Economy or The Condition of Healthcare in America, than the condition of our air and water supplies in the year 2020 or even 2040.

BUT our little organization, age 101, has been around the track several times; we’ve seen it, live (before television). Wars, Depression (real one), Recessions, Presidential Assassinations; Critical and Deadly Droughts.

We’ve also seen some good things: Cures of Polio, Smallpox, Yellow Fever, Pneumonia, diphtheria; discovery of Penicillin; decrease in death rate from pneumonia and influenza, to mention a few.

We also saw the reawakening of the importance of the power of water to produce energy – primarily electricity. Huge dams were built, Coulee and Hoover, series of dams in cooperatives such as the Tennessee Valley Authority, all using replaceable energy sources when the phase “renewable” wasn’t even considered.

We have also seen a great increase in public concern over the condition of what has become known as the Ecology.

And this is where we can find two diametrically opposed groups with the best of intentions – providing a serious impediment to the future of clean air and water.
There is no question that clean earth needs natural resource management as provided by the ecological sciences. There also is no question that the burning of fossil fuels damages the ecology as we know it today.

What needs to be explained to both parties is that the development of more hydropower does not have to impinge on and certainly not threaten the ecology. The development of the tidal, flow and small vertical water power generation is designed to avoid any harmful impact on the good balance of nature and its plants and animals.

Again, the Fossil Agents use the fear of the need to build huge dams that would indeed disturb the ecology, to keep the good guys on both sides from working together- as they most certainly must.

In Hydropower 105 you will find an explanation of all the small hydro projects that will do the job while keeping the peace.
Please stay tuned

Is There Any Clean Power in Mexico?

2009-08-29T09:44:00.000-07:00

And we’re not talking just energy. Mexico is a very clear example of one of our favorite subjects: The politics of energy and the energy of politics (see earlier editions).

In the United States and Canada the battles are between oil/coal/fossil and the clean air and water group hydro/solar/wind. Mexico’s problems are compounded by the internecine drug war wherein it is truly difficult to tell who the good guys and bad guys are.

As if this isn’t bad enough, it becomes worse when you consider that Mexico is the third largest supplier of petroleum to the United States, second only to Canada and Venezuela. It currently supplies us with more than Saudi Arabia.

Last year, Rogelio Neri, former head of Mexico’s federal electricity commission blamed the inability of the nation’s oil industry to produce enough oil to meet rising demand that could cause Mexico to halt all oil exports – including the 11% of the United States total imports.

At the same time Janet Napolitano, Homeland Security Secretary and a former border state governor stated that the United States and Mexico are “winning the often brutal war” against the drug cartels that operate across the US/Mexico border.

“We are not only fighting this fight, we are winning it,” she told the Southwest Border Task Force gathered in El Paso, TX in early August 2009. She highlighted a string of drug and weapons seizures as proof that the $billion plus war is succeeding in spite of a violet “push-back” from gangs who have often appeared able to outgun and outspend the Mexican “federales.”

Thus the question of Mexico’s viability as a key supplier of oil to the U.S. is of great interest in terms of (1) the price of oil (2) the security of U.S. oil supplies and (3) the viability of Mexico as a self-governing state.

Respected Mexico observer George Baker is confident that Mexico will continue to be an exporter because Mexico’s viability and thus its “domestic tranquility – to the extent that it has much left given that it is fighting both drug-related and political violence – depends on it.”
Regardless – if Mexico stops exporting oil in four to six years, that is not a lot of time to find replacement for the 1,088 thousand barrels per day now being delivered.

It is clear that the OPEC group still has a threatening choke-hold on oil supplies that we still need. Recall that Venezuela is a member of OPEC – yes, a founding member.

If anything this situation calls for a real “all-court press” to develop the renewable power sources in North America – primarily HYDROPOWER! We can’t say it enough!

Canada Awakes – In Time?

2009-08-23T12:08:00.000-07:00

Any good Canadian will tell you that it hasn’t been Canada that’s been asleep. “The bloody Yanks south of the border are the sleepwalkers!”

And of course some of the “bloody yanks” will tell you that the “Canooks” have been promoting their dirty oil instead of that huge potential of hydropower sitting there- waiting for development – i.e., Investment, Money, capital, Dollar$.

Nowhere on Earth are there two neighbor nations on friendlier terms than the U.S. and Canada. Until 9/11 crossing the border between the two didn’t require passports or anything more than personal I.D. and a general statement of one’s reasons for the visit, personal or business.

So it is no surprise that cross-the-border business, in both directions, flourishes within the limits set by various regulations, states, provinces and federal governments.

So putting aside the friendly joshing about sleep – both countries have shown signs of finally recognizing the need to stop burning fossil fuels for energy and promote their plentiful hydropower potentials.

A perfect example of this cooperation is shown in a report published on August 3, 2009 in Chateaugay, New York by the New York Power Authority (NYPA). In it the NYPA announced that New York and Canadian authorities are planning a new huge international hydropower project.

Under the proposed program NY would import up to 2,000 megawatts (2 million kilowatts) of power from “multiple sources, including hydropower from Canada.”

Among the sources will also be power produced from Canadian Wind Farms that have been seeking a market outlet.

The project will cost between $4 and $6 billion phased over an eight year period. The NYPA says that the project will be the largest conducted in the State of New York in more than a half-century.

Further evidence of the growing US/Canadian energy alliance is seen in similar projects being proposed along the border of Canada and Minnesota, Montana and New England.

We can only hope – and trust – that the message of clean air and water resulting from the use of hydropower over fossil fuels is gaining credence and understanding by more and more responsible Americans.

What Are They Doing Everywhere Else?

2009-08-18T12:11:00.000-07:00

That is everywhere other that North America. Some samples:

Norway – 99% of all power produced in Norway is through hydropower. Studies are also being made for feasibility of other renewable power sources

Sweden – Has some of the world’s largest sources of uranium- but they are not being further developed. 54% power is hydro and 37% nuclear. By 2010 nuclear should be fully replaced by Renewables – mostly hydro

Denmark-20% of nation’s power is generated by Wind Turbines. Once heavy in oil and gas use, Demark has been energy self-sufficient since 1998 – using biofuels, wave energy and hydrogen. Demark provides 65% of the world wind turbine market.

Russia-Always a major user of oil and natural gas – with Mideast sources right on its borders, hydropower is becoming a major replacement. There are 50 larger hydropower plants in operation – some needing repair – and many more major units planned that were held up at the breakup of USSR.

Japan- called the “Land of Rising Conservation” conversions from oil to fuel cells, solar energy and strong efforts in conservation stemming from Japan’s acute sense of insecurity as a resource-poor nation that imports most of its energy from the troubled Mideast reserves. Renewable energy sources development is top priority.

Australia- like Japan, there is a lack of potential hydropower sites impeding the growth of that portion of the renewable energy source market. However there is a strong movement to develop ocean, tidal and wave energy ultimately “contributing significantly to the global hydropower sector.”

China- Wind power sector to grow 64% this year to20 million kilowatts (20 GW) and hydropower is to increase to 300 GW nearly three times the 2007 level. However there are plans to increase the Chinese nuclear capacity to 75 GW up from 40 GW. China plans to be the world leader in hydropower generation in 10 years.

India- Hydropower is beginning to have significant impact on Indian electricity generation after years of slow development of renewable energy sources. Emphasis has been on solar development the growth of understanding about the need and benefits of hydropower have begun to emerge.

Brazil / Peru- The two countries are in talks leading to the construction of up to 15 hydropower plants in the Andean region. The first 5 will have generating capacity of 6 Gigawatts (6,000 MW). This will “replace a considerable amount of fossil fuel harm.”

Looks like we are not alone in the world after all.

“And If Elected, I Promise…..”

2009-08-17T07:21:00.001-07:00

How many times have we heard campaign rhetoric start with that phrase? As former New York Governor Mario Cuomo once said, “We campaign in poetry and govern in prose.”

How true, and in the case of energy, how sad: perhaps eventually tragic. And this is the reason that we have taken on the mission of insisting that our children understand the urgency of cleaning up our air and water not twenty years from now – but NOW!

But what are our elected officials actually doing?

The operative word is “politician” which is, after all what our elected officials are. And it seems that what politicians do best – and what gets them elected from time to time – is talk.

And talks seems to be all we can expect for the near future – say a year or two? That is because the talkers are busy working their way out of a financial crisis brought on mainly by – are you ready? – politicians not minding the economic and banking stores for the past ten years!

So when a newly elected president announces that his answer to air and water pollution is develop “clean coal” over the next twenty years, we cringe. For one thing he cannot still be president 20 years from now, or even 9 years. And so he will not have to answer the questions our children will raise about the junk that had to be buried from the coal after it was “cleaned.”

A number of US senate and congress candidates have made some very well-intentioned statements promising the elimination of importing fuel from the Mid-east. Of course they don’t complete the thought by telling what fuel will replace the Arab gold – but we know don’t we? – COAL! That great American product!

And on questioning some of them we are told that our Hydropower ideas are fine but there is no room for big dams anywhere in the country. Wonder where they got that idea? I’ll Tell You. The fossil fuel boys have staged a full scale program of misleading the people about hydropower and its “harmful” impact on the ecology. Can you think of any worse impact on the ecology than unbreathable air and undrinkable water?

Well, if the fossil fiasco is not cured in those famous “twenty years to Clean Obama Coal” there may just be nothing for our grandchildren’s grandchildren to look forward to- or more specifically – to survive in.

Get on your representatives!

The American Electric Grid – from Virtual to Real

2009-08-10T07:48:00.000-07:00

Here we go again! There are times when explaining the status of the American energy systems seems like fiction touched with a little wizardry. Small wonder because even some experts are convinced that some things are true when they really aren’t.

I guess we better explain that! Perhaps a National Public Radio (NPR) report said it best: “The U.S electric grid is a complex network of independently owned and operated power plants and transmission lines.” The operative word is “independently.”

And the bottom line is there is no single US electric grid.

What is additionally bothersome is that some transmission lines, whose function is to connect the power supplies to the consumers, are, in NPRs words “Aging.”

In fact the entire infrastructure is in such a state of poor health that the increase in demand and rise in domestic electricity consumption has forced utility and government experts to proceed with the deepest critical examination to determine current status of the entire spectrum of the American electrical systems.

So the “American grid” is actually a collection of smaller grids comprised of thirteen groups of states each with its own set of interconnections. Canada has a similar collection of five groups of provinces with grids established within each.

The small state grids, called “Coordination Councils” (CCs) are connected to neighboring CCs and thus an accepted theory is that through these connections power could be sent from Maine to California.

The fact is that any power generated in Maine and sent toward California would be gobbled up by any one of the hungry CCs between “here and there.”

We have seen a number of blackouts through the years. Some of them have been very serious: 1965, 1977 and 2003 just to mention a few. The terrible news was that after each of these “grid failures” we, the American People, have been told that nothing has been done to prevent further failures! - And so they continue.

Our representatives need to study and cure (1) the existing electrical system defects and shortages, (2) the persons and organizations responsible for use, maintenance and growth of the systems, (3) Areas of conflict of interest involving public utility ownership of parts of the “grids” and (4) conflict between local, state and federal laws (supposedly) controlling the power supply and transmission systems so essential to human health and safety.

Next – let’s look at what the Pols have done so far!

North America – Wet or Dry?

2009-08-10T07:45:00.000-07:00

No, we’re not talking prohibition or state laws involving the sale of liquors.

But there are serious problems in parts of the country that involve serious dry spells resulting in drought conditions that impact on everything in the area – including energy supply.

We have reported earlier that the most serious areas of drought are along the Pacific and Gulf coasts – which are, surprisingly areas where the desalination of sea water could be most feasible. (See our blog entitled “Desalination and Geothermal – Ideal Marriage?”)

The continental US has areas of great water supply and others that have become – or are becoming - centers of serious and likely permanent drought.

The Pacific Northwest, mainly the states of Oregon and Washington, are famous for the prodigious amount of hydropower generated there. About 51 percent of all the hydroelectricity generated in the country is made in the Pacific states. (Not including Alaska or Hawaii).

The main dry areas that have developed in recent decades have been found in California and Texas. The electrical requirements of these two states are significant – with continuing “grid” impact.

There is one major area in which conditions are considered “drought” but continue to improve with hope for reclassification to only “dry.” That covers the northern part of Michigan and parts of mid-Minnesota. Weather “eyes” are keeping close watch on this area.

Many of our recent issues have dealt with hydropower which we see as the one major and true “green” source of energy for the future.

A number of our reports have also dealt with the real and the virtual “national” grid systems in place and where seriously needed.

A third component that requires study and application is the population centers located throughout the nation and the electricity requirements in and near them.

All of these factors will come together in our next report that we hope will bring all the components up to date and enable a serious approach for our representatives to study, learn and use in the appropriate legislation and controls required to finally harness the fossil insults to our environment.

And yes, North America is both – wet and dry and the two can be made compatible.

Does Water Make the Grid Rusty?

2009-08-05T06:33:00.000-07:00

You mean there’s a “grid” for water supply?

Well, not in the way that electricity is delivered throughout the nation.

So if the question is whether there is something like a grid for water the answer is “sort of” and that’s because clean water very often has to get from its source to its ultimate consumer and that requires major plumbing, sometimes pipes big enough to drive a truck through.

Electricity generated by hydropower involves similar logistics. One has to get the power generated at the hydro source to the ultimate consumer and that does indeed involve a grid. And in a national, coordinated sense the grid required to deliver hydropower generated electricity is indeed – Rusty!

The same grid that carries power generated by burning coal, oil or gas must be used to deliver water power. The problem is that while many fossil fueled plants are within cities or close to them, the hydropower is often in far away and remote locations. That doesn’t make the delivery system rusty, but the system in a national sense is inadequate and in some areas in poor shape and that condition if not rust, is certainly not acceptable.

We have reported before that due to the recent financial crisis there are literally trillions of dollars of investment money ready to upgrade the “national” grid – when the economy “settles down.” That can build a grid system capable of delivering power anywhere it is needed.

We have also reported on the development small local hydropower plants being developed that don’t require big dams or, in fact, any dams at all , but generate power from water that flows: yes, horizontally. And the flow plants have absolutely no impact on the ecology – another great blessing of hydropower generation.

As for the location of power plants, those burning fossil fuels can be located almost anywhere but the fuel or fuels have to be delivered to them. With hydropower just the opposite is the case
Hydropower must be created at the sources of flowing, tidal or falling water. That means that the Electric Grid has to be there for its product to be delivered.

This last point raises an additional question – the subject of one of our next issues:
Does grid wiring pose different problems, such as unsightly power lines, high tension power concerns? We continue to believe that all problems have solutions – and we pursue them eagerly.

Waterpower is the Maine Thing

2009-08-04T04:23:00.001-07:00

To begin, of all the hydropower generated in New England, 52.6% is in Maine. And there is more on the way! But what would seem like a perfect connection to all the hydropower needed to eliminate the use of fossil fuels in New England –isn’t yet open.

One problem, indigenous to New England is that petroleum use had grown over the years to the point where at least 60% of the energy use in New England was oil and another 13% or so was based on natural gas.

With reliance on the delivery of Mid-East oil to the area and a small amount of natural gas from Canada, it finally occurred to some independent “down-easterners” to get back to basics – Water power- the very energy form that got the area moving a few hundred years earlier.

The people who believed that while coal and oil can harm the ecology, felt it might be a good idea to bring in more natural gas to replace some of that energy. Never mind, said the independents, that close at hand was enough water power to solve all the local energy problems.
Well, let someone prove it, was the answer – and so they did.

A study made by several authorities indicated that there are thousands of Megawatts of potentially undeveloped hydropower projects in the state. Many of these are not suitable for electricity generation but hundreds of MW are.

Accordingly, there now exist 119 DEP hydropower projects in Maine as of January 1, 2009.These when completed will increase the Maine electricity production capacity by 201.6 MW to a total of 767.5 MW of electricity.

“All well and good,” said the naysayers, “but we are already getting oil and gas delivered to us. How do you get the hydropower here?”

And that’s a very good question, which raises another good question; “What about all that Canadian hydropower sitting just over the border?”

The answer, or course, is NOT blowing in the wind, but part of the Eastern North American Interconnect wherein a number of grid connections exist between Maine and (a) Quebec hydropower and (b) the Canadian Maritimes area hydropower.

For more details see Northeast Power Coordinating Council, Inc. reports (on the Internet as NPCC). While numbers and details will be included in a future update, suffice it to say for now that between the Maine and Canadian potentials, oil, gas and the small amount of coal consumed in Maine could be eliminated.

Some Other New England Energetics

2009-07-27T17:14:00.000-07:00

Connecticut
Congressman Christopher Murphy announced legislation to allow the Town of Canton to refurbish and operate the idle dams located in the Collinsville section of town. It is reported that the refurbished dams could power 2,000 homes. Well done.

Meanwhile Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is pressing forward on several issues involving alleged excess electricity charges from within and outside the state.

The Northeast Utilities Service Company which included the Connecticut Light & Power Corp is seeking to obtain Canadian hydropower by constructing a transmission tile line connecting to Hydro Quebec.

Rhode Island
The R.I. office of Recovery and Reinvestment is participating with the D.O.E. to obtain industry-led investments to develop, deploy and test modernized processes to improve the hydropower infrastructure and “increase both the quality and value of the hydropower generation.”
The Pawtucket Blackstone River Project is the first hydro project in Rhode Island to earn certification as a “Low Impact Plant”

Massachusetts
There are already numerous hydropower installations supplying power to Massachusetts. In 2009 these will provide 366,000 Megawatthours of electricity and considerably more large and small scale projects are in the planning stage.

New Hampshire
The “Granite State” hydropower system produces electricity at the annual rate of 513,000 Megawatthours. Plans are to greatly increase this capacity. The Granite State Hydropower Association sees present needs to improve the efficiency and size of existing installations while waiting for the economy to stabilize to the point where investment funds will once more be available for the development of the smaller horizontal flow plants and newer technologies.
It too sees considerable interest in obtaining power from Quebec and Ontario.

And then there’s Maine --- see next issue.

And Still Canada Waits

2009-07-20T04:20:00.000-07:00

Numerous times we have said that within the United States and Canada there exists enough potential hydropower to completely eliminate the need for either country to burn coal – for any purpose!

How long, one wonders, can the major coal, oil and gas powers manage to conceal the truths of their missogeny that so severely threatens the future health of all the people of the earth? You may have read our articles entitled “The Politics of Energy and the Energy of Politics” The two are inseparably entwined, a marriage of convenience whose offspring have been illness and death.

A little dramatic? In answer to that we recommend readers refer to a paper by the Union of Concerned Scientists entitled “Clean Energy – The Hidden Cost of Fossil Fuels.”

We will dwell more on that document later. Suffice it to say that hydropower contains no hidden dangers, no surprises, no harmful wastes, no environmental impact other than the guarantee of clean air and water – and perhaps survival of all the species.

Canada waits, as does the United States, for the full development of its hydro potential. The facts are that in Canada there awaits a total technical potential of 200,000 Megawatts (MW) of power while in the United States there awaits the sum of 150,000 MW.

These amounts are in addition to the existing hydropower capacity of 150,000 MW.

The total of all these categories represents the closing of all the coal mines in both countries and thereby the elimination of what has been proven to be the “filthiest fossil fuel, mostly carbon that when burned releases smoke pollution and more than its own weight of CO2 into the air.”
If the funds required to “clean up coal” (see our article “Clean Coal-Oxymoron”) were used instead to develop the available hydropower the result would be cleaner air and earth in half the time the coal “proponents” say it would take to bury their carcinogens.

So what Canada – and the United States – still awaits is the determination of the “powers that be” to do the right thing – and the investment in time and capital to get the job done.

Economists report that due to the present financial insecurities there are literally trillions of dollars (and other world currencies) being held back waiting for use when “things settle down.”
In our opinion, things will “settle down” when dedicated people make those powers that be respond to the serious worldwide demand for what we must call Energy Sanity.

Some Vermont Ideas at Work

2009-07-20T04:14:00.000-07:00

As we have said, for a small state Vermont has come up with some pretty impressive ideas – and better yet, put them to work. It is the leader in New England in many ways and an example that could be well followed around the nation.

Among other things, Vermont is the only state in New England that conducts “prefeasibility assessments.” These are conducted to help “streamline the permitting process” for developers to enable their projects.

The state has been active in determining the areas where new hydropower can be developed
For example, it has been discovered that Vermont has at least 174 Megawatts of undeveloped hydropower potential. That’s about 22 percent of what the state presently uses on a regular basis. (And, by the way, it would offset the burning of more than one million barrels of oil.)
And most of the sites that make up this additional power are classified as “mini-hydro.” That is, they are smaller than 1,000 kilowatts. These can be developed at existing dam sites with no additional environmental impact to rivers or wet areas.

The “prefeasibility assessment” comes in when a developer wants to proceed with a hydropower plant. The amount of agencies that have approval authority can be staggering. The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources has licensing explanation and assistance program that provides considerable help in satisfying FERC, Vermont Public Service Board, Agency of Natural Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Vermont Division of Historic Preservation. And in some cases the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers gets into the act.

With all these processes to go through, a developer will find it takes about three years to receive all the required approvals.

And the bad news is that in states that haven’t even considered providing these preparatory services it will be longer before clean additional hydropower will be available to replace the fossil fuel energy sources.

As we have said many times in the past and will continue to exclaim- your elected representatives must be pressed into action in what will most certainly be the fight for the survival of human life not just in North America but on earth itself. And all agree that hydropower is the one complete solution to the energy pollution problem.

Vermont, Small State With Some Pretty Good Big Ideas

2009-07-14T11:50:00.000-07:00

The state of Vermont was the 14th state to join the union. Its citizens have always exhibited that firm independence that has made America the tower of freedom it has become.

It all started back when explorer Jacques Cartier claimed the St Lawrence River Valley for France. It was later claimed by the colonies of New York and New Hampshire. But as the area called Vermont was developed, the people of Vermont decided not to be controlled by either New York or New Hampshire and Vermont was declared an independent republic in 1777. As time passed, the United States was formed and Vermont asked to join the union. In 1791 Vermont was approved as the 14th state.

The development of New England as the manufacturing center of the U.S. in the 1700’s and 1800’s was based on the water resources available and the beginning of the use of “hydropower” as a major source of energy.

Ultimately, the discovery and use of oil and natural gas replaced much of the famous water wheels and dams that became landmarks and in some cases, curiosities.

But somewhere in the state consciousness remained that natural feeling for water as the great power not only of the past but of the future. And that feeling began to influence some very important planning – that provides an example all states should be following.

In 2008 the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources sought to increase the development of renewable energy in the form of small hydro power projects. It is now working closely with developers so that they understand the feasibility of their potential sites and the permits that will be required to enable their developments.

Vermont also has a Water Supply Division which is charged with the protection of the public health by assuring safe drinking water and managing the sources of water. In addition, the Division contains a Support and Planning Section that is responsible for managing both the short-term and long-term planning, strategic and financial, of the continuing development of the supply of water for the state.

In our next edition we’ll show some of the ideas Vermont has put into action and how those processes will have great impact on a national basis if followed by the other states, in, we hope, rapid recognition of the need for and the feasibility of hydropower vs. the fossil fuel giants.

Where is the Government in all This?

2009-07-08T17:57:00.000-07:00

And which government you might ask. For today’s purposes we’ll stay mostly within the U.S. and Canada. That’s plenty of territory to start with.

In the U.S. there are three basic levels of government control (or interference) involved in obtaining and providing energy services. This includes in some cases regulation of the rules and rates and who can be a customer and under what conditions.

And they are:

Federal:
The Department of Energy and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

Congress:
House committee on Energy and Commerce (5 subcommittees)
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources (4 subcommittees)

States:
Each state has a utility commission controlling electricity, gas, and communications

Counties and Municipalities:
Many have energy control related services

Then there is the international flavor:
Between the Federal and some States and Canada there are Independent System Operators (ISO). These are organizations formed at the direction or recommendation of the FERC to coordinate, control and monitor operations of the electrical power systems within a state, a group of states or states and Canadian provinces.

In addition there are Regional Transmission Operators (RTO) that coordinates, controls and monitors the operation of the electric power transmission system (grid) over a wider area crossing state borders.

Finally, while FERC only has authority over electric utilities within the United States, a larger authority known as the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), according to Wikipedia “…overlays the entire FERC footprint and also includes a Mexican utility and several Canadian utilities. As such, international reciprocity is commonplace and rules or recommendations introduced by FERC often are voluntarily accepted by NERC members outside the US.”

So it is clear that there are many hands in the pie, all subject to government policies and the impact that powerful energy interests have on such policies.

In our next offering we will display and discuss some of the specifics of government induced problems while giving credit, where appropriate, to the laudable efforts being made by some in the right direction.

Why All This Water Talk?

2009-07-07T08:50:00.000-07:00

Why indeed. We here are, after all, an energy organization that goes back to 1908. And from that time to this energy has mostly meant electricity, gasoline, home heating oil and all the products connected with those forms of energy.

When asking a consumer today what services to his home are the most essential he would probably say heat, water and light. And like so many, he would expect the switch on the wall to turn on the lights at any time without thinking about it. And the water to flow when turning on the tap.

So the prospect of any of those services not being available is unthinkable. One may expect occasional “blackouts” or slow delivery of oil. And of more concern on a daily basis is the cost of those services and the impact on the family budget.

However the real fact is the growth of availability of fresh clean water is not matching the growth of the earth’s population. It is also true that there are parts of the world where the clean water supply is not adequate today and the resulting loss of life in some areas is terrible.

What is the answer? We have been offering solutions in many of our reports and they all boil down to the need for a total worldwide commitment, including financial, to the development of hydropower, water treatment (desalination, purification) and removal of all systems which add to the pollution of water – and air.

We have discussed the fact that while electricity provides the most efficient use of energy, it is the most expensive because it is generated by burning fossil fuels - that pollute both air and water. The full development of hydropower from both falling and flowing water would provide electricity costs mere fractions of cost of the fossil generators.

But cost is not the major consideration – reduced as it may be. The concern was so well put by Jacques Cousteau - air and water are the two essential needs for the survival of humanity. They must be protected at all costs.

And once again it falls to the governments of the world to rise to the needs of the people. It probably will not be easy to get all world organizations to cooperate or in some cases to even talk – the effort must be made.

And the American people have the voice. Let us hope and pray it is used.

Desalination and Geothermal – the ideal marriage?

2009-06-26T11:27:00.000-07:00

The first thing we must do is define “ideal marriage.” This would normally require the review of a number of opinions. So we’ll make it easy:

IN ENERGY an ideal marriage would be defined as the union of two individual energy forms found in nature whose combination will result in the production of a highly desired offspring – clean energy product in a clean environment. Meant for each other.

In our present case the product is to be clean, drinkable water produced without harm to any part of the environment, earth, water or atmosphere. And the marriage that is proposed to take place must consider the arguments of the anti-desalinators we reported in our last report. So let’s see what is fact and what is fiction.

It all looks so reasonable. There is the ocean water – loaded with good and bad elements – and the one we’re interested in - the basic, clean water. And right there, by the ocean in many areas, is natural heat from the earth sufficient to fuel the desalination process so seriously needed.
So what’s the problem?

Like so many energy-related functions there are good and bad aspects – no one’s perfect. Some sources of geothermal energy release carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfate and even though these are in quantities significantly smaller than the harmful results of coal and oil burning, they need to be eliminated if possible.

One way appears to offer even greater cleanliness. All along the rim of the entire Pacific Ocean, east and west, are locations where the geothermal heat below earth’s surface raises the temperature of the ocean water to temperatures from 180 to 320 degrees F. These are found from depths of 3 feet to 50 feet when drilling small wells into the ocean floor, and are called geothermal aquifers (in this case “Warm Geothermal Aquifers”)

Hot sea water can then be used through heat exchangers to provide desalination and steam for the generation of electricity.

These processes have been used in Mexico, USA, and Greece and in growing numbers around the Mediterranean Sea and the Pacific Rim.

The marriage may be ideal and we look forward to seeing more successful unions of this type around the world.

Water, Desalinated

2009-06-26T11:26:00.000-07:00

So the world is covered in water – at least 75% of it is. And of all that water, 97% is in the oceans – saline – undrinkable and hardly usable except for growing fish, clams, oysters, mussels, mollusks, octopi and all the other things we are used to seeing grow in water.

The balance of 3% is considered “fresh water,” and this category is broken into subgroups such as Ground Water, Icecaps, Glaciers, Lakes, Swamp Water, Rivers and Atmosphere.
What all this boils down to is the hard fact that of all the water on earth only 1% is actually usable by humans.

Now it would seem that one of the major, if not the one essential effort being made to obtain clean water would be to work on extracting the priceless product from all that seawater surrounding us.

Unfortunately there are several conflicting arguments regarding the safety and feasibility of cleaning up ocean water. We will study the “anti” positions today and in our next issue we will set forth a program that might be the desired answer.

Some argue that since “enormous amounts of energy” are needed to force ocean water through the membrane filters at high pressure, there could be an increase in emissions adding to the global warming problem. They further argue that the facilities required would have the potential to induce “urban sprawl which could mean increased air pollution from car commuters.”

They further argue that along the coasts fisheries and marine environments “will be threatened.” They compare the desalination plants to the “once-through intake structures” that use ocean water to cool conventional power plants.

The other point they stress is that desalination is much more expensive than the cost to produce water from traditional supplies. Some say three or more times more expensive.

All of these statements are presented today in the spirit of offering a fair viewing of opposing positions on a vital subject affecting the entire world.

While regular readers will understand that our purpose, even mission, is to promote the development of hydropower, we will next show that there are some realistic and fascinating answers to the worries about desalination that can contribute safe clean water in some very needy locations.

Hydropower – On the Level

2009-06-16T09:52:00.000-07:00

Level means many things to many people. In the case of energy generation the moving water used to make electricity through hydropower units can literally be on the level. And now that everyone knows what hydropower is (electricity made by water power, for latecomers) we need to define a new term: Hydrokinetic Generation.

Not all moving water flows as waterfalls, from on high, so to speak. Rivers, streams and tidal waters all flow – horizontally and can, believe it or not, also generate electricity.

So along come the “Free-Flow Hydrokinetic Turbines.” These are turbines shaped like rockets, or bombs, with propellers. Actually they use reverse propellers that rotate or spin using the energy of the water flow passing around it. The rotation then runs the electricity generator –making cheap and clean power.

These units are small and have minimal or no impact “.. on survival and migrations of fish, aquatic and terrestrial habitats, water quality , sediment transport and visual/aesthetic qualities,” according to the DOE.

Also, while not literally on the level, the development of Wave Energy Technologies is also promising power from the movement of water horizontally. This Wave format is still under study and not as likely to be helpful as the Hydrokinetic Turbines.

And all of this renewable energy technology has not been concerned with one major technology- using dams to develop hydropower electricity.

And here is one of the Great Myths presented by those who are Not On The Level:
Myth: “Using hydropower means building new dams.”

Reality: There are 80,000 dams in the United States. Only 2,400 of them are used to generate electricity.

Let’s get going with the 77,600 dams that are already built and either being used for something like running lumber mills or fabric manufacturing or are just sitting there like many that can be found in New England.

Once again, it falls to the government agencies that license the use of dams, existing or new, to generate electricity. And once again it falls to the people to force the separation of the interests of their representative from the financial and political power of the Fossil Fuel Barons and their incredibly widespread operations.

Voting – will count – to make the government proceed on the level - to finally provide clean water and clean air for our grandchildren’s grandchildren

Hydropower Clarified

2009-06-12T18:32:00.000-07:00

Clear water – doesn’t that sound wonderful? It’s also a nice name for a town.

But mostly it is a phrase with a great deal of promise. And so far on this planet it is a promise unfulfilled. The good news is that there is what appears to be the beginning of some understanding of the huge benefits of hydropower and it is our main mission to see those efforts multiplied in a major manner.

Once again, there are a number of misconceptions about hydropower, fostered mainly by the fossil fuel mega-corporations using fear tactics we have discussed earlier.

For example, many people only see hydropower as huge towering dams, flooding great areas of land, displacing communities and killing aquatic wildlife. Some see the use of water to make electricity resulting in water that cannot be used for drinking or other healthy purposes. Some also have been led to understand that all the possible hydropower sources have been used up.

So many things that people “know” are very far from the truth and we have explained some of the truths in earlier issues (“More of the Clean Water Story” and “Little Water, Big Energy”) and will continue to the best of our hundred-year-old experience to underline the message that our planet has a limited tolerance for pollution and that limit is rapidly being approached.

Small hydropower – particularly horizontally flowing generation – uses little space, requires no one to move and, if anything, creates a healthier environment for aquatic and other wildlife.(Look for our future issue “Hydropower on the Level.”)

Big hydropower – those large dams that so impress us with their hugeness – constitutes only 8% of the total hydropower population in the U.S. today. There are a myriad of locations where small waterfalls are potential hydropower producers, again without harm to the planet.

We have shown in earlier issues that between the United States and Canada the total of existing hydropower production plus the use of the known potential sources in both countries, hydropower could replace all of the coal burning capacities of both countries and have enough left over to substantially reduce all systems that require the burning of petroleum.

We understand that everyone will need to see a lot of proof of these arguments before the major changes are made to happen. We intend to provide just that– from some very impressive sources. Please stay tuned.

Let’s Get Serious with Hydropower

2009-06-09T06:54:00.000-07:00

Actually we need to get serious with Hydropower and serious about Hydropower. And we say that because Hydropower is the answer to the ultimate correction of global warming, carbon gases and water and air pollution.

We have been repeatedly told that coal, oil and natural gas provide millions of jobs.

We have repeatedly said that full use of the hydropower sources would employ millions.

We have repeatedly said that coal, oil and natural gas are pollutants.

We have been repeatedly told that coal, oil and natural gas are getting cleaner.

To this we have repeatedly and correctly said – Are You Kidding???

It has been proven that “Money talks, everything else walks.”

The facts remain that the coal and oil industries have tremendous power.

Power that reaches into the financial industry, troubled as it is; the banking industry, troubled as it is; the political activities field, conscienceless as it is.

Ok enough...

We have repeatedly said that hydropower with geothermal power (where it exists) can totally eliminate the need for coal, oil and natural gas.

No one can deny this.

Sadly it seems we must remind everyone that electricity is the most efficient form of energy use for all processes: heating , lighting, air conditioning, running automotive units, running trains, desalinating sea water, in fact for all things that require energy.

The only reason electricity is not used for everything everywhere is IT’S COST!
The only reason its cost is so high is that the coal, oil and natural gas industries have forbidden the development of Much Cheaper Hydropower –

Once again political power and financial power can be shown to be incestuous siblings. And Financial is the Big Brother.

Is there a parallel to the tobacco industry when we see how tobacco products have been proven to cause disease and death and provide no benefit to humanity? Thanks to that industry’s financial power –it too still exists.

We’re not finished repeating the facts – as you will see if you stay tuned.

What If You Buy Power From a Stranger?

2009-06-05T11:21:00.000-07:00

We’re not talking about a stranger trying to sell you something from the back of his truck…….. “Hey Buddy, want ta buy some cheap power?”

Yet buying your electricity from a “third party” – not your regular electric company – might seem a little strange, if not dangerous. After all electricity itself is dangerous if not handled properly. And quite frankly, so is signing an agreement to buy power from a “stranger.”

So let’s look at the safeguards in place to protect you, and me, from the possible pitfalls that could make the purchase uncomfortable:

All third party electricity providers must be approved by the state utility commission and/or FERC to furnish power to your area. Be certain the stranger has that approval.

The rates charged and to be charged by the supplier must be filed with the local authorities; utility commission, Independent System Operator (ISO) or FERC, etc and made available to the public. Examine them carefully to see if any savings are possible compared to your local rates.
Reliable service is a consumers right. The local public utility – your original electric company - remains as the distributor of the power you use regardless of where it comes from. Any failure in delivery is the responsibility of the local utility.

If the supplier should go bankrupt or fail to provide service for any reason the law requires that your original utility act as “the supplier of last resort.”

Terms of agreement. Some suppliers require you to sign up for a given period, like one year or two, and if the customer cancels the service there can be a termination fee or penalty charge.
This should be clearly understood before entering into any third party purchase agreement.

If there is a question about any aspect of the third party energy purchase, the prospective customer may always confer with the local utility representative or an agent of the utility commission.

Finally, there are some private utilities offering electricity that has been generated using green – or replaceable – electricity. In some cases these suppliers charge rates slightly higher than the local or competitive charges. The consumer must decide if converting to the “green” power is worth a small increase in cost.

We have always felt that the increase now will result in cleaner air later. But what is more important is that each consumer taking that step is making a statement that clean energy for the future is more important than a slight cost increase at this time.

The Politics of Energy and the Energy of Politics-III

2009-06-01T05:51:00.000-07:00

(Now affectionately called “PEEP” by a few of our readers)

As you may know, this is the third offering under the “political” category and it is stressed because, frankly, the energy field is stressed. It is stressed in a way that is serious and, even worse, in a way that is mostly being kept out of the public’s eyes and ears.

There has been a lot of press about President Obama’s program to develop “Green Energy.” Most of it has been complimentary and encouraging. And, we are sorry to report, useless. You may see our arguments in “PEEP-II” (Feb 25)

Then an article appeared in the New York Times that announced that the American “Oil Giants” are “Loathe to Follow Obama’s Green Lead.” Actually, Mr. Times, that may be fit to print, but it ain’t news!

Neither is the half-hearted “Carbon Principles” announced by Citi Corp, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley in February. While the public relations experts of these major financial institutions probably felt that it would be “politically correct” to present these green energy principles at the time, it is more likely that management was much more concerned with the financial crisis which had also demanded more of the president’s attention and the people’s money.

There is an activist group called Rainforest Action Network (“RAN”). The director of RAN’s global finance campaign stated, “If this policy prevents the financing of new coal, it will be productive.” RAN says that it has “successfully challenged several of the world’s largest banks, including the 3 above, to adopt project lending policies that would … help safeguard the environment and human rights.”

However the same RAN group concedes that “Calling them the ‘Carbon Principles’ is an overstatement.”

We submit that while protest is one of the guaranteed rights under our constitution, it is a far cry from obtaining legislation that would actually enforce restrictions on the financing of the construction or continuation of processes which continue to foul the environment.

To do that one must get these financial institutions “where they live.” As they continue to need, require and in some cases actually demand, financial assistance from the government – of the people, by the people and for the people – such assistance should be made to include restrictions on the use of that money for any but the “greenest” energy processes.

We can only hope.

Where Does Geothermal Fit In?

2009-05-27T12:05:00.000-07:00

We have mentioned the geothermal source of energy briefly in earlier editions but we’ve been asked does it really qualify as a renewable source of energy? The answers are interesting and manifold.

To begin with the first answer is “Yes Virginia Geothermal energy is renewable.” And that’s so because its heat is coming from the Earth itself and until the Earth cools it will be a source. That’s a long time off. Not to worry.

But how is the heat generated and how does it get to the surface? There are a number of theories offered by a number of respected scientists ranging from a continuing process of nuclear decay to friction between the layers of the earth’s outer core.

Regardless of the cause, it is clear that the magma down there is plenty hot: between 1,292 and 2,372 degrees Fahrenheit (700-1300C).

And where it comes closest to the surface it is second only to hydropower as the cleanest natural source of energy for generation of electricity and other processes that require heat.

We have said earlier that if all the potential sources of hydropower were developed, there would be no longer a need to burn coal in the United States. According to the Earth Policy Institute, “Originating from the earth’s core and from the decay of naturally occurring isotopes such as those of uranium, thorium and potassium, the heat energy in the uppermost six miles of the earth’s crust is vast – 50,000 times greater than the energy content of all oil and natural gas resources.” (Italics ours)

A number of countries located on what is called the “Ring of Fire” (the name for an area of high volcanic activity around the basin of the Pacific Ocean) are rich in geothermal energy – including the United States. There is another “hot spot” in the Great Rift Valley in Africa.

The answer then to our original question is that worldwide, 39 countries with a total population of over 750,000,000 people have geothermal resources capable of meeting all their electricity needs.

Here again, it will take the maximum efforts of an enlightened population, through their elected or appointed representatives, to insist on the replacement of the politically entrenched Oil, Coal and Natural Gas Industries with the natural, clean and endless supply of power provided by earth since its creation.

Smyth vs. Ames, US Supreme Court 1898

2009-05-26T09:41:00.000-07:00

Does It Still Apply?

It was certainly a long time ago. And it’s a bit of a story about how a Supreme Court decision having to do with railroads wound up having a lot to do with the proper operation of public utilities, particularly electric companies.

The fact is that the decision in this case led to the basic organization format for all American public utilities. The case itself was concerned with Supreme Court voiding a Nebraska railroad law, finding that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in that it takes property without due process of law.

Nebraska tried to control the rates of the railroads without regard to the fact that such control could make it impossible for railroad to be able to afford to stay in business.

The portion of the Court’s decision that impacted on the public utility electric service companies was that the utilities were guaranteed a rate of return based on the company’s “Rate Base.” That term is defined as “all things used and usable necessary to provide the service to the public.”

The rate of return in each industry was left to the public utility commissions in the various states which held public hearings prior to the establishment or change in the utility’s rate base from time to time. Consumers, through various associations, often had much to say at the hearings and had considerable impact on their commission’s findings. (See Owner’s Committee on Electric Rates in New York)

All of this worked well in the public interest until the late 1990s when the practice that came to be known as deregulation came into being. It was felt that competition in the supply of electricity would benefit consumers and so suppliers from outside the various franchised areas were allowed to bring in power at “lower” rates.

Trouble was, and is, these rates are not as clearly subject to regulation because they were – Deregulated. And naturally a large number of potential suppliers entered the marketplace.
The upshot is that it appears that Smyth vs. Ames hasn’t carried over to the deregulated marketplace. On the other hand, it seems the market has been controlling itself – as capital markets are supposed to do. Deregulated rates, where no cap exists, has seen costs rise anywhere from 13% to 55% - and yes, the customer can go back to the original regulated supplier. However, sometimes there’s a charge for “going home.”

There will certainly be more on this subject as time goes by and once again, it will require an organization of ratepayers to go to work

More Government Dams

2009-05-20T05:03:00.000-07:00

(Or more dam government?)

Following the case of Vermont’s Community Hydro and all the problems of getting permits to do the right thing- that is to develop enough hydropower to replace the pollution generated by the oil and coal industries- we started looking around.

And we found that there are locations throughout the nation where small hydroplants can be created and we didn’t have to look far for a perfect example of a lost – or at least delayed - opportunity to activate such a plant.

This one is in Connecticut, a few hours away from Vermont’s abundant hydro potentials.
The Collinsville section of Canton, CT is a typical New England factory town most of which was built to house the Collins Company which operated from 1826 to 1966. Like so many other factories in the northeast, water power was the main driving power.

Two dams were built in Collinsville in the 18th and 19th centuries to provide that power.
While the dams are now owned by the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) FERC issued licenses to a private company, Summitt Hydropower, to update the dams to generate electricity. So far so good.

However Summitt’s license stipulated that construction begin by 2005 and when Summitt failed to proceed with the construction the license was rendered “moot.” Now in order to extend the license to the town, federal legislation is required.

Congressman Christopher Murphy has taken on the challenge to obtain the appropriate legislation so that the dams, when properly retrofit would produce enough electricity to power about 2,000 homes.

The congressman’s effort began in January of this year and so far no results. And it should be no surprise that general opinion is that getting the government to act is only a sure thing if a war is concerned.

The fact is that there are hundreds of thousands of small potential hydropower locations to be found all across the nation. And perhaps we can find more legislators, federal and state who will get involved in the way that Congressman Murphy and CEO Barg or Vermont have and that they work to get the government “red tape” and unnecessary controls over the development of clean energy removed. We can only hope.

All That Water – Behind a Government Dam

2009-05-16T05:58:00.000-07:00

We have looked for the water needed to make enough power to replace all that burning coal that pollutes the atmosphere as well as the ground. We have found enough to do just that and more – such as provide clean drinking water at the same time.

But what about the statement that the government is getting in the way of using the hundreds of thousands of water sources that could be used to generate power? Let’s take a look at a few examples.

Lori Barg, Chief Executive of Community Hydro in Plainfield, Vermont, has been encouraging developers to use the small hydropower techniques for harvesting energy from moving bodies of water – especially horizontal movement. She states that these methods should be a priority for every state.

She reports that her state hasn’t had a new grid-connected hydroelectric facility built in 20 years because of the “….slow, expensive permitting process that makes projects economically unfeasible.” She calls this problem “a project killer.”

And we submit that the combination of the oil/coal self-interests and the ignorance of the subject displayed by those portions of the government, federal and local, that should be on top of the problem are committing a serious, if not criminal, action against the health and safety interests of all the people.

Further, according to Barg, “Obtaining federal and state permits can add $2,000 per installed KILOWATT for a small hydro system.” She further states, “Obtaining the necessary permits is such a deterrent. It’s important to have regulations, but I find myself having to go through 12 different agencies just to get a project off the ground. It doesn’t make sense and it’s not allowing Vermont to develop its abundant hydro resources.”

And this is true all over the country.

As we have pointed out before, there is at least a 100 Gigawatt source of power out there, undeveloped and whose development would threaten no one.

All this reminds us of the argument that the government should create a program to cure cancer. To that came the answer that “if the federal government had been made to be responsible to develop a cure for polio, you would have a 21st century first class iron lung but not a vaccine.” Who said that? The president of the American Cancer Society.

There are some things the government should have no business meddling in
The replacement of dirty energy with clean energy is one of them.

Where is all that Good Water?

2009-05-13T16:55:00.000-07:00

…And some to be made good

If there ever was a vital subject that developed more conflicting opinions it is the subject of the supply of clean water in the United States. Some say it is nearing it s limits. Some say there are untold and unlimited sources. Some say the ocean is the answer.

To one extent or another – they are all right. It depends on where you are standing when you make your appraisal. And it also depends on what you need that water for; drinking, making electricity, running a factory?

To make matters worse – as if they could be – the TV and radio waves are inundated by commercials from the coal and oil industries telling the worlds how their huge investments in developing clean energy from their fossil findings will save the earth.

We, the government and the people, are in denial.

Seventy Five percent of the earth is covered in water. Together with clean air, clean water is essential for human life. And contrary to the fossil industry proponents, there is enough water to produce all the electricity needed in the US and in many other parts of the earth.

It appears that some very misleading statements about the past, present and future of hydropower have been deliberate. The purpose has been to paint the hydro industry as “fully mature” and not able to add a significant amount of additional capacity rapidly.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

As we have pointed out before between the total of current hydropower in operation in the US and Canada plus the additional hydropower that can be developed in both countries -right now - there would be enough electricity produced to replace all the processes that require the burning of coal; not only power plants but all other coal-based processes.

So where is it? It is everywhere. In every state. A report from INL* in 2006 identified 130,000 stream reaches suitable for “… projects between 10 Kw and 30 Mw and estimated to hold 100,000 Megawatts of annual capacity.” That’s 100 Gigawatts and the total coal capacity of the US is only 313 Gigawatts. These numbers are interesting but what is more vital is the manner in which government interference is keeping the small hydropower developments in a freezer. We’ll examine this problem next.

*(INL is the Idaho National Laboratory whose Water Energy Program is impressive)

Salt in the Water? What about Gold?

2009-05-12T18:12:00.000-07:00

Setting aside the recent humor that said “Water is gold” and that “Water is the new Oil” there is much to learn - and use -from what is commonly called Sea Water. Sea Water, or ocean water, contains a myriad of elements in varying amounts. Some of it is recoverable and can be obtained from the effort of desalination while providing clean drinking water.

But gold? Well, it is surely there together with practically every other element we know about. (When the Lorson companies were at their early days the table of known elements was 90 or so. It is now at least 118 and growing.)

Of course the main elements found in the ocean are Oxygen, Hydrogen, Chlorine and Sodium with minor amounts of Magnesium, Sulfur, Calcium, Potassium, Bromine and Carbon. These are followed by a skillion tiny amounts of the rest of the elements – including gold!

Just to put things in perspective, one would have to process 1,000 tons of sea water to obtain 1 gram of gold. Not a very likely cause for a gold rush. Not for gold itself, but wait – sea water itself might be considered a form of gold by being the source of a number of elements vital to human life.

As Darwin pointed out, evolution is no accident. This becomes clearer when looking at the Major elements contained in the human body: Magnesium, Sulfur, Calcium, Phosphorous, Sodium, and Chlorine. Sound familiar? These are followed by micro amounts of Iron, Copper, Manganese, Iodine and many others.

So we come to the gold value of sea water. That would, of course, be the use of Sea Salt as a commercial product. And we also come to an argument with the AMA in its total condemnation of the excessive (!) use of salt.

So it becomes necessary to distinguish between “table salt” which is “highly refined, chemically cleansed and unfriendly to the human body” and “unrefined sea salt, a naturally occurring complex of sodium chloride, which includes major minerals such as calcium and magnesium and a complete complement of essential trace minerals, This is the form of salt the body is designed to utilize – having been the salt choice since humans first walked the earth. On the other hand refined table salt is a modern invention….the human body doesn’t like it.” All this according to Saltistry of Los Angeles CA., peppered with a little common sense.

Who Are the American Energy Enemies?

2009-05-06T08:20:00.000-07:00

For our purposes, the “enemy” is anyone or anything that delays the conversion of the World’s energy usage from dirty and polluting to clean and life-supporting. That, of course includes a lot of American commercial entities that hire a great number of people. But it also includes a lot of honest but uninformed citizens.

The Oil & Gas Industry employs 1,838,000 people. It also claims that there are 4,066,000 indirect jobs created by the oil and natural gas industry. This latter amount could be transferred to other energy sources.

Coal employs maybe 40,000 miners and a large number of indirect jobs; rail and other forms of delivery; not to mention attempts to “clean” the product.

But, according to a recent New York Times article, “Oil Giants Loath to follow Obama’s Green Lead.” Both Royal Dutch Shell and BP have been giving up their efforts to develop clean renewable energy and refocus on the cleaner, if possible, petroleum products such as ‘biofuels.’

Their main and brutally strong argument is that if the oil and coal industries are “shut down” literally millions of Americans will be put out of work.

The deliberate effort to use fear, even terror, especially in the current financial situation, includes a major effort to denigrate the huge possibilities for clean and inexpensive energy through hydropower.

Solar, Wind and Geothermal are all good sources of clean energy, although in some forms quite expensive.

But Hydropower is clean, cheap and has a lot greater, even huge, unused potential than people have been allowed to believe. That includes jobs for those who would be let go by the oil and coal companies. And it includes many small unintrusive local hydroplant locations close to home for many.

In Civics, our students are taught that the United States is not a democracy, it is a republic. The people don’t make laws and decide policy. They elect representatives, electors, to do that work for them.

And it is the representatives, senators and elected administrators who have failed to recognize the depth of the current energy crisis and failed to summon up the courage to defy the lure of the big money campaign contributors and act in the public’s vital interest.

In the words of cartoon character Pogo: “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

The Second Hundred Lorson Energy Years

2009-04-30T07:22:00.000-07:00

We said at the very first of these energetic blogs that the Lorson entry into the energy field as a business started in October of 1908. The original company (parent to a number of offspring) is still in business – Submetering electricity in New York City.

In the second month of our second century we thought it might be interesting – and illuminating – (no pun)- to hear again the speech given by Thomas Edison on October 3, 1908 at the opening of the New York Electrical Show. Perhaps it is no accident that the start of the Lorson Energy Enterprises started in that same month and same year.

Edison’s words:

“Ladies and Gentlemen:
“Those of us who began our life labors at the operative speed fifty years ago have been permitted to see and assist in the whole modern industrial development of electricity. Since the remarkable experiments of Morse in 1844 and the unsuccessful efforts of Fields in 1858, there have come with incredible rapidity one electrical art after another so that in practically every respect civilization has been revolutionized.

“It is still too early to stand outside these events and pronounce final judgment on their lasting value. But, we may surely entertain the belief that the last half of the nineteenth century was as distinct in its electrical inventions and the results as the first half was in relation to speed.

“When I look around at the resources of the electrical field today, I feel that I would be glad to begin again my work as an electrician and inventor. And we bumpkins can only urge upon successors, the younger followers of Franklin and Calvin, to realize the measure of their opportunities and to rise to the height of their responsibilities in this day of electricity.”
As with so many of this inventions and discoveries, these words are as applicable today as they were when our corporate founder first heard them.

Oh, we said “hear again.” Well, as further testament to the genius of Edison, we can still hear him deliver this speech because he recorded it on an Edison Gold Moulded cylinder for use at the time and for posterity.

And so we go forward with the lessons of the past burned clearly in our collective memory and see with the help of Edison’s visions the essential truths that must be explained and delivered to a people only partly informed about the need for truly clean energy and its careful use for the protection of humanity.

The Supreme Court Helps EPA Join the Movement

2009-04-27T19:30:00.000-07:00

Permit us to reverse the order of an old quotation thus:

“The wheels of justice grind exceeding fine, but they grind slow.”

Sometimes exceeding slow, as in the decision of the United States Supreme Court in a decision that took 10 years to reach puberty.

The story starts in 1999 when a group of environmental and clean-energy organizations filed a rulemaking petition asking the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases, primarily CO2, from new motor vehicles, citing the Clean Air Act.

The EPA after public discussion got around to denying the petition in 2003. They took four years to decide to do nothing!

The petitioner organizations plus a few states and local governments took the EPA’s ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C. which, in a 2-1 decision, denied the petition for review.
Fortunately the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the importance of the case and granted a petition for certiorari thereby, according to the New York Law Journal, “setting the stage for the nation’s first authoritative ruling on global warming under the Clean Air Act.”

To the satisfaction of environmentalists world over the Court found in favor of the petitioners and that EPA has authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles and further that EPA’s “denial of the petition to do so was arbitrary and capricious and not in accordance with the law.”

This decision was rendered in April 2007. The date of this writing is April. 2009. Experts said at the time of the decision that EPA had plenty of remaining “wiggle room” and that strict enforcement of motor vehicle clean emissions was clearly going to be “downstream.”

Doesn’t it make one wonder back to the time when Big Autos – GM-Ford-Chrysler all decided not to compete with the Japanese small cars because the cost to retool would have created lasting damage to the industry?

Well, big auto makers – how are Toshiba and Yamaha and Nissan and Mitsubishi doing? Have they needed big money bailouts from their government?

One must conclude, to be honest, that EPA is in no hurry to force Big American Autos to clean up their act – So it’s up to the president to push FERC to push EPA-

Once Again – Let’s Go Mr. President

Little Water, Big Energy

2009-04-23T08:14:00.000-07:00

Big Government in the Way

When one hears the word Hydropower it’s natural to visualize a huge structure like the Hoover Dam or waterfalls like ones at Niagara, New York and Canada. No question these are impressive and provide literally tons of power.

But let’s take a look at some items that are a lot smaller but with the potential of providing literally More Tons of Power. They’re also hydropower. And they’re right in your back yard.
Actually the major hydroelectric dams, larger than 30 MW (that’s 30,000 kilowatts) make up only about eight (8%) percent of the total hydro power plants in the U.S. That’s according to the Hydroelectric Power Resources Database.

So where are the other 83%? They are low or small hydro power, from under 1 MW to 30 MW. And it’s in the small unit area that progress is stymied due to (1) a general public misunderstanding of the dynamics of hydropower and (2) government over-handling of the process by which permission to build and operate plants is given.

INL (Idaho Lab’s Water Energy Program) released a study in 2006 that showed 130,000 stream reaches around the continent suitable for projects between 10 kilowatts (KW) and 30 MW. INL estimated that even considering technological and environmental limitations, these projects could increase U.S. hydropower generation by more than 50% - How much coal and oil would that replace? Perhaps 15-20%.

Community Hydro of Plainfield, VT is encouraging developers to use the techniques of submerging weirs (small dams) to raise river water levels to create energy or to excavate power channels that divert water through a power house and back into the moving body of water.
Lori Barg, CEO of Community Hydro says that “obtaining federal and state permits for these projects can add $2,000 PER KILOWATT for a small hydro system, a figure that she calls ‘a project killer.’”

In Connecticut, Congressman Christopher Murphy has found it necessary to introduce legislation to congress to allow a Connecticut town to operate several dams that would provide power to approximately 2,000 homes – because a company that had the original license did not proceed with the project in the time required.

Further, according to Barg “Obtaining the necessary permits is such a deterrent. It’s important to have regulations, but I find myself going through 12 different agencies just to get a project off the ground. It doesn’t make sense and it’s not allowing Vermont (and all other states) to develop it’s abundant hydro resources.

ARE YOU LISTENING, MR PRESIDENT!

Protecting the Real Grid

2009-04-20T08:03:00.000-07:00

The real “grid” in the United States – the interconnection of the various sources of electricity with the ultimate consumer – is in reality a number of grids connecting thirteen groups of utilities in the United States with five area groups in Canada.

All of these energy sources are divided into three major groups: The Eastern Interconnect (EI), the Western Interconnect (WI) and the Energy Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT).
The WI is comprised of the eleven western states as a single group plus 2 western Canadian Provinces.

The EI is made up of the 37 “eastern” states divided into eleven individual groups of three or four states each and 5 Canadian “eastern” Provinces.

ERCOT covers approximately 70% of the state of Texas.

All of these energy production operations are connected to transmission systems (and ISOs) that deliver power from points of generation to end user. Contrary to popular belief however, there is no direct line from, say New York to California: a kilowatt-hour sent on that path would have to pass through at least five American groups or three Canadian groups to get to the WI where California is located.

There are a number of transmission companies that provide the pathways for power delivery. According to industry experts, each transmission company manages its own systems, and has its own tools for management. Individually they are vulnerable and each one could potentially impact its upstream or downstream neighbors (see 1965 and 2003 “Blackouts”) but there is no single system that could be hacked in order to shut down all the grids at once. To do that, hackers would have to hit a number of systems at the same time.

As we pointed out in our previous blog, “The Nitty Gritty of the Grid” the many North American blackouts of the past 20 years have needed no help from hackers. But we do know that the government, and the Supreme Court, are taking strong action to better control and cleanse the entire use of energy in the United States.

Oh, and let’s not forget where hacking was invented. We have highly detailed charts of the Chinese, Russian, Korea – and the rest of the worlds – grid systems with their interconnections and distributions.

The Nitty-Gritty of the Grid

2009-04-13T07:24:00.000-07:00

There are times when news reports can scare the living daylights out of you. Like the recent one that says that Chinese and Russian hackers have invaded the US electricity grid and are ready to shut it down in the event of a war.

Well, first of all, there is no single American grid worthy of the name! It has been the continuing concern of energy experts that rules put into effect with the start of deregulation have ignored the physics of the grid.

Former utility executive, John A. Casazza and many other experts have stated that the key error in the new rules was to view electricity as a commodity rather than as an essential service.

Commodities can be shipped from point A through point B to point C, but power shifts affect the entire single machine system (the “national grid”). As a result, increased long-distance trading of electric power would create dangerous levels of congestion on transmission lines where controllers did not expect them and could not deal with them.”

This gets worse when independent producers go on line from random locations determined by economics rather than physics.

CHEER UP: guess what we have? The grid connections in CHINA: the interconnections both AC and DC between the Northeast, North China, East China, Central China, South China and Tibet. We know the sizes, voltages, frequency and interconnections. Hello!

And furthermore, we have analyzed the impact of the electricity grid connection between, - are you ready?- JAPAN and KOREA – on the potential energy network in Northeast Asia (where China is already active).

Returning to our own backyard, it would not be incorrect to say that we haven’t needed hackers to shut down major portions of our “grid.”

In addition to the “big blackouts” of 2003 and 1965, in 1974 a million Canadians lost power; 1977 the famous NYC blackout; 1989 a geomagnetic storm caused Hydro-Quebec to leave 6 million people in the dark for 9 hours; 1991, a powerful windstorm caused power failure affecting 1 million customers from Iowa to Ontario; 1995 A hurricane called Opal killed 59 people and shut down power to 2 million customers across eastern and southern North America; 1996, the Western Intertie (grid) buckled under high summer heat and the resulting cascading power failure hit nine western states and parts of Mexico – 4 million customers without power.

There were many more:
1996 -2 more: Washington, Idaho power out up to 2 weeks
1998-3: California, Central US 4 Million
2000-1; 12 months of regular failures California
2003-3: including the Big One-50 Million
2004: 5 Million, Florida
2005-6; 1.3 Million FL, ½ Million St Louis, Long Island NY
2006-6; Ontario, Delaware, Quebec, Buffalo, Southern Louisiana
2007-5: Missouri, Texas to Atlantic Canada, NYC, ½ Long Island NY Oklahoma to Nebraska over 1 Million
2008-8: California, Quebec, Calgary, Miami, Hurricane Ike 7.5 Million TX to NY
2009-2 : so far – Kentucky, Toronto Hydro

MR PRESIDENT – THIS NEEDS IMMEDIATE ATTENTION –
NOT BECAUSE OF SPIES
BUT BECAUSE OF OUR OWN BUILT-IN WEAKNESSES.

More of the Clean Water Story

2009-04-08T19:56:00.000-07:00

Dam, Dam, Dam...

We have been saying that hydropower can replace much if not all of the fossil fuel consumption in the United States. That’s a pretty tall order and we better have some hard facts to back up that statement.

First of all we must concede that we’re going to need help –from Canada. And that’s going to involve some real diplomacy and statesmanship on both sides of the border. Accordingly our plans must include at least some success in negotiations with the Canadians.

Second, the fossil fuels: these range from the low carbon:hydrogen materials like methane, to natural gas, to heating oil, and liquid petroleum up to materials that are almost pure carbon such as anthracite coal and its brethren. It’s the coal we are after and the removal of its carbon footprint. We can go after the others later.

Now, the revised statistics (in Gigawatts) that apply are as follows:

USA Canada
Total Energy Capacity 982.8 123.8
Total Hydro Capacity 120.0 75.4
Potential Additional Hydro 150.0 234.0

Total Possible Hydro US/Can. 270.0/309.4
Total Coal Capacity 313.2/16.2

While these statistics change from time to time the fact is that between existing and development of the potential hydropower production there would be enough hydro-generated electricity to replace the use of coal in both countries.

At what cost? As we have said, hydropower results from falling water or flowing water (rivers, tidal). Where falling water already exists, as in waterfalls, harnessing the power is much less expensive than building dams.

The Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant cost to build today is $9.9 Billion

The cost to build a coal-fired plant today (not yet clean) is $2 Billion

The cost to build a natural gas-fired plant is slightly less than coal

In 1931 it cost $50 million to build the Hoover Dam – Today’s cost: $690 million!

And no carbon waste to bury, no dust, no nuclear waste to bury – and the cost of fuel is $ZERO!

And they all have to travel through the grid – next stop!

Cap and Trade?……Duck and Cover!

2009-04-06T08:11:00.000-07:00

They’ve done it again! The fossil boys have once again secured the wool firmly over the eyes of America – Democrat, Republican, Independent and NoParty.

Can’t you just see it? Mr. Oil saying to Mr. Coal, “We got’ em again!” And Mr. Natural Gas saying to Mr. Coal, “We even got Obama and McCain, can you believe it?”

Of course they’re happy. They were given a lease on life by being allowed to buy (as in purchase) the right to continue to pollute and the money they contribute is supposed to go to providing cleaner energy. And there are some reasons why playing a game that won’t show results until 2015 is playing right into their hands. Whose hands? Come on!

Well, what exactly is this Cap and Trade?

It is a process in which the government (EPA) sets certain standards that must be met by certain deadlines. In the case of Greenhouse Gasses (GHG) there are limits that must be met this year, in 2012 and progressive reductions over the years.

The amount of pollution that is released into the atmosphere is measured in billions of tons of carbon dioxide (or equivalent heat-trapping gasses). The cap is a limit on the amount of such release nationally.

As the limits decrease the theory is that pollution will decrease also – dramatically.
Only there is an escape clause that slows down the process – it’s called Trading.

Permits or “allowances” (we call them indulgences) are distributed or auctioned to the polluting offenders in quantities of one allowance per ton of carbon dioxide (or equivalent). The total of allowances, or permits, must be equal to the cap and a polluter can only emit as much carbon as it has allowances for.

The trading comes when a polluter can reduce its carbon output below the then current cap. It may sell (auction) the permits it doesn’t need to other polluters who can’t make the cap. Most recently allowances went at the price of $3.51 per ton in 2009 and a price of $3.05 a ton for a 2012 allowance. The funds produce in this way are supposed to be used for energy efficiency and clean air projects.

Rocket science is not required to see that this is getting to clean air the hard way. And never to 100%.

As one attorney put it, “Companies should have to abide by laws which limit the pollution or shut down. Any company which is producing enough products to cause that pollution is financially able to upgrade their equipment to control what they spill out into the air.”

We say, WHY NOT JUST CLEAN IT UP!

We have been pleading, begging, shouting even hawking the fact that hydropower is the one true answer to clean energy. With HYDRO there is NO POLLUTION. Even the water used to make electricity can be used again.

The Technology is there. The water is there – and is self-replenishing. The feasibility is there. All that is needed is the will!

Energy Provider of Last Resort

2009-04-04T19:10:00.000-07:00

There’s an ominous sounding phrase. Actually it is a guarantee that no matter where or from whom you are purchasing energy you will be assured of delivery – as long as you pay your bill.
The deregulation of electricity followed that of the airlines (1978), telecommunications (1996) and natural gas (1992) as actions that were purported to be ways to reduce the costs of travel, telephone and energy.

As in all new industries, new electric marketing firms sprang up all around the country. Some were subsidiaries of electric utilities. Others were created by individuals or companies with little or no experience in the business of buying and selling of electricity.

The new laws and regulations made it possible for consumers at the retail level to buy their electricity from marketers offering lower rates than those available from the local regulated public utility.

The result was a considerable amount of confusion, especially in areas where the rates from the new marketers tended to increase to levels above those of the local utility and the consumer found that there were penalties for switching back to the utility. This was not universal but occurred often enough to become a matter to be considered by the various regulatory agencies involved.

However, the worst case scenario was when the new marketer (“supplier”) became insolvent or for any other reason could not continue to supply electricity to its customers. What protection was there for the homeowner and businessman whose need for electricity was almost as essential as that for air and water?

Lawmen to the rescue: In all the states, laws or regulations were enacted to protect the consumer against just such situations. The category of Provider Of Last Resort was established and mandated to assume the continued and uninterrupted supply of electricity to any consumer whose supplier failed for any reason to deliver power.

In some states, such as New York, the POLR is the local public utility in each area. In others, specific firms were identified and authorized by the state public utility commission to be available on instant notice as local POLRs. But in all cases the consumer is protected by federal and local laws against loss of electric service due to the failure of a supplier.

While the number of failing suppliers has decreased the POLR has rescued many consumers in the years of deregulation. And the protection remains and will continue.

From Shining Sea to Land

2009-04-02T07:17:00.000-07:00

Facing a global threat of a shortage of clean - drinkable - water, we are looking at where we are in the United States, and where the best ways to go might be.

We reported last time that the United States consumes, on average, some 345 billion gallons of fresh water every day. At the same time the US average daily precipitation is 4.2 trillion gallons. So what’s the problem?

Well, to begin with, water supply and sanitation in the United States face water scarcity (locally), pollution, investment problems, concerns about the cost of water for the poorest and changes in climate.

Rainfall in both variability and intensity is expected, as a result of climate change, to produce more severe droughts and, ironically, more flooding which in turn could cause serious problems for the water supply and most serious consequences for pollution from combined sewer overflowing.

Actually, the US receives enough annual rain/snowfall to cover the entire continental US to a depth of 30 inches of water. This amount is called the United States Water Budget. Of the 30 inches, 21 inches return to the atmosphere by evaporation or by a process called transpiration whereby water passes through trees and grass from roots through to the air. (Example: one tree transpires 50 gallons of water per day).

The eastern half of the country receives quite a bit more rain/snow than the west. This is due in part to the annual rainfall differences between the various states. And this process presents some interesting situations:

The most severe droughts occur in parts of Texas, California, Florida and, to a lesser degree, Georgia. So can it be a coincidence or a happy gift of nature that these drought tendency areas are also on the shores of oceans? Those same oceans that cover 70% of the earth?

In any event, it is no accident that within the next 10 years many coastal areas in the three states mentioned above will be making desalination of seawater a serious portion of their water supply. And further, the technique of membrane technology will be used in steadily increasing measure for groundwater and recycled water treatment as well as use by industries to remove impurities and potentially toxic contaminants in their effluent and for the production of ultra pure water.

And the story of using inactive warships as desalination plants here and anywhere else in the world will be the subject of another blog. Also conservation – more power to the people.

From Sea To Shining Sea

2009-03-27T17:49:00.000-07:00

…And all the rivers and lakes in between

Pure water - Drinking water - With air, as Jacques Cousteau has been often quoted, “the two essential fluids, on which all life depends, have become global garbage cans.”
We have seen the “Hubbard Peak” for oil described as the point in time at which the supply of oil begins to decline until, at the end, the supply is gone. (See our blog #3 “The Learning Curve and the Hubbert Peak” Jan 24, 2009)

We cannot imagine that the supply of water would ever be “used up.” After all, water covers 71 percent of the earth. The question is whether the supply of clean, drinkable, water would decrease while a world population continues to increase.

We will talk about the world-wide water situation later. Now we are looking at conditions in the United States and along the border with Canada.

Every day the US consumes, on average, some 345 Billion gallons of fresh water. That amount of water would cover the entire state of Rhode Island to a depth of one foot! And the breakdown of that figure is interesting – and important

136 Billion gallons go to irrigation
136 Billion go to electric power plants
47 Billion go to public and domestic supply
26 Billion for industrial use.

Of the public and domestic category about half goes to the domestic or home use. That works out to be about 75 gallons a day per person at home.

All this is based on a current US population of 303,824,640 in mid 2008. The population figure is expected to increase at the rate of 0.88% per year (accounting for births and deaths).

Using this data, by the year 2020 the US will need an additional 2,535,375,234 gallons of good water per day. And this does not account for any increase in agriculture needed to support the increased number of people.

Clearly the world faces a possible shortage of water due to increased population, uneven supplies of clean water and other factors. In our next report we will discuss some of the solutions as they apply in the US, Canada and around the world.

Here again, there is hope if proper action is taken.

The Good Earth and Its Roadways

2009-03-23T23:01:00.000-07:00

The only planet we know to be inhabited, Earth, with its Sun and atmosphere provide perfect conditions for the development of life for its beings, human and otherwise.

It is only when humanity tinkers with the balance provided by nature that bad things start to happen.

We have seen what happens to the air when we burn fossil fuels to make electricity or to travel in vehicles of all sorts – on land, sea and air. The intelligence that has brought all the “good things of life” at horrible ecological costs is now beginning to consider serious alternatives to the pollution causing, and life threatening, energy generation processes. The world runs on electricity, at least the developed part of it. And a major part of the electricity generated in the United States is made by burning fossil fuels, coal, oil and natural gas.

And in addition, petroleum consumption by cars and trucks accounts for another major portion of the fossil fuel consumption – and in that sector some rather brilliant thinking has been inspired.

Researchers at Worcester Polytechnic have studied the use of the highway system itself as a source of energy. 4 million miles of roads and streets that constantly soak up the sun’s heat and that dissipates unused at night.

The researchers have found a way to use the heat absorbing properties of asphalt by installing heat exchangers a few inches below the roadway’s surface.

According to Rajib Mallick of the Worcester group, “blacktop stays hot and could continue to generate energy after the sun goes down, unlike traditional solar-electric cells. In addition there is already a massive acreage of installed roads and parking lots that could be retrofitted for energy generation, so there is no need to find additional land for solar farms. Roads and lots are typically resurfaced every 10 to 12 years and the retrofit could be built into that cycle.

Extracting heat from asphalt could cool it, reducing the urban “heat island” effect. Finally, unlike roof-top solar arrays, which some find unattractive, the solar collectors in roads and parking lots would be invisible.”

And so an Idaho-based company called Solar Roadway has gone into the business of constructing “solar roadways.” We wish them luck. And look for growing interest around the country.

American Energy – Nationalized? Not So Fast!

2009-03-20T07:52:00.000-07:00

We’re still talking about National Grid USA and today we are starting to list all their operations in the USA – that we are aware of; and reviewing a few steps taken by NG that required them to step back.

Electric Utilities Owned
Massachusetts Electric Company (MA)
Niagara Mohawk Power (NY)
Nantucket Electric Company (MA)
Granite State Electric Company (NH)
New England Power Company (VT)
Narragansett Electric Company (RI)
Gas Utilities Owned
Colonial Gas Company (Massachusetts)
Boston Gas Company (MA)
Energy North Natural Gas, Inc (NH)
Brooklyn Union Gas Company (NY)
Niagara Mohawk Power Corp (NY)
KeySpan Gas East Corp (Long Island NY)
Rhode Island-Gas (RI)

Power Plants Owned
LIPA – 11 plants previously owned by KeySpan
New York City – former Con Ed plants provide 25% of NYC load
Glenwood Plant – Yonkers (NY)

It seems that back in 2003 the first US for-profit Independent Transmission Company, GridAmerica (Managed by National Grid, USA) went into operations in the Midwest. It was a subsidiary of National Grid Transco and began managing the transmission assets serving consumers through utilities in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Missouri.

Suddenly, in November, 2005 Grid America ceased operations and its services were taken over by the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator (Midwest ISO). What appeared to be a giant step for National Grid has, thankfully, been turned into a corrective back-step. One either owns utilities or transmission lines. Apparently not both!

Monopolies are ok in Britain, but not here, thank you FERC.

American Electric System – Are We Nationalized?

2009-03-16T14:55:00.000-07:00

Serendipity – is when you find something of value when you were looking for something else. What we found this time could be a Lulu!!

We were looking for an existing path, if any, that might lead from Canada to New York City to deliver lowest-cost hydropower to the “Big Apple.” The first thing to find would be the parts of the famous “grid” connecting the various utilities around the nation – particularly in the northeast.

A lesson learned from the “blackouts” of 1965, 1977 and 2003 is that an adequate and reliable grid does not exist. Not yet - although one is promised (for some future date).

What we did learn at first gave us hope but on further investigation brought us up sharply:
In 2000 a British firm, National Grid plc (NG) came across the pond to enter the U.S. market. NG is an international network utility with principle activities in the regulated electricity and natural gas industries, according to its advertising.

We thought that since they operated the entire grid in Britain, they might be able to get our gird operating on a truly “national” basis. So we welcomed National Grid USA.

Now, however, it has become clear that much bigger goals are in the NG eyes and the fact that deregulation has taken place in the US has made it possible for expansion into almost (if not real) monopolistic efforts.

We have found the NG now owns Electric utilities in 5 states, Gas utilities in 4 states and transmission systems serving 13 states, all, so far, east of the Mississippi.

NG operates Britain’s entire grid as well as that of Scotland. It is reported also to have interests in Germany and Australia.

National Grid USA became the 3rd largest energy supplier in the U.S. in 2006 when it acquired KeySpan, its fifth U.S. takeover since emigrating in 2000.

When authorizing the KeySpan purchase, the NY State Public Service Commission ruled that NG could not retain the large generating plant at Ravenswood, Queens, NY. So NG sold it to TransCanada’s US subsidiary.

There is more at issue here than just the “national grid.” The name itself is greatly misleading and everyone should learn that NG is not our national grid.

National or International, who’s in charge? Stay tuned for details

The “Carbon Principles” (Another Bank Failure?)

2009-03-13T11:23:00.000-07:00

In February 2008 three major US banks, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley, (who, as with all American banks, have come upon troubled times) set out a list of principles intended to affect financing of coal-fired electric generating plants.

“The Carbon Principles,” in an eight-page document, reflect the intense concern felt by the entire financial industry for their investments in coal and, in fact, all greenhouse-gas intensive industries.

In April, Bank of American joined the group, followed by Credit Suisse in June and Wells Fargo in July

A press release in San Francisco called “Carbon Principles another Nail in Coal’s Coffin.”
That might have been true if the principles outlined were seriously followed. It would mean careful scrutiny of the environmental impact of all planned, public or private, power plants of over 200MW for new coal-fired capacity or for expansion of existing coal-fired capacity.

In fact, what the “principles” set out to do was to protect the banks, not the public. They would attempt to make sure that investments in power plants utilizing or to utilize fossil or other carbon-based fuels would not run afoul of new or anticipated laws promoting clean energy.
In the words of RAN (Rainforest Action Network),”The proof is in the pollution. If this policy prevents the financing of new coal, it will be productive.”

Unfortunately that was not its function. More unfortunate is that there was no provision for any enforcement, penalty or even sanctions for failure to protect the public interest.

“Calling them ‘Carbon Principles’ is an overstatement,” according to RAN. “A serious climate change policy would commit banks to emissions reductions in their financing and extend beyond coal into other carbon intensive sectors such as coal mining and the oil and transportation industries.”

We don’t usually need to quote other sources, as we are starting out on our own second 100 years, but in this case we felt that the argument could not have been stated better and more to the point. Which is = we’ve got a long road to travel to energy sanity.

“Clean Coal” (Oxymoron)

2009-03-12T09:05:00.000-07:00

With all due respect to President Obama and his Energy Program, we have to most strongly object to the attention given to a ten year program to “clean coal” when our reliance on that fuel could be cut in half by hydropower and other renewable sources and the other half eliminated by natural gas – which everyone will admit burns much, much more cleanly than even “clean” coal!

One of the main reasons that so much emphasis is put on the use of coal is that there is so much of it. And in this country it’s owned, for the most part by our favorite oil interests. We’re back to the Politics of Energy and the Energy of Politics (see blog Jan 27)

Add to the ownership of those producing dirty coal, with its requisite mining and processing, their financiers: Bank of America, Citi and Royal Bank of Canada that provide billions of dollars each year for the “DEP” (Dirty Energy Projects)

So what are the facts and how do we get Washington to listen (D.C. not George-he would have listened)
Of all coal consumed to generate electricity only one third actually results in power under current operations. The rest is released carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides as well as dangerous levels of arsenic, cadmium, strontium and mercury as detected in bullfrog tadpoles in the Savannah River. Another product, not as well known, is naturally occurring radioactive materials, mostly uranium and thorium.

And even before burning the mined coal the act of extracting it from the ground is immensely destructive to the environment and particularly dangerous to those mining it.

So how clean can coal be made? The best minds put the final product as questionably “clean” at costs that could run into trillions to prove it. And all the various methods proposed to “store” or “bury” the wicked by-products are only new causes of concern for the environment.

For example, sending carbon dioxide down to aquifers only threatens to pollute that portion of the underground water supply that may well be needed for more important human requirements.

And the cost of cleaning coal? Prohibitive – unless you are one of the oil/coal barons and look forward to the government subsidizing what we must call “this oxymoronic dream.” $200 billion would provide and deliver a lot of clean renewable hydropower.

Next, let’s look at the ‘Carbon Principles” developed by the financial community and perhaps we can get to the backers of the coal industry and get them to think clearly (cleanly).

And then question if nuclear is really any cleaner.

To Peak or Off-Peak, That is the Question!

2009-03-10T18:05:00.000-07:00

We have spoken of the time-of-day electric rates recently offered to residential electric consumers by a number of public utilities. This same rate structure has been available to large commercial/industrial users for a number of years with questionable results.

The concept was to try to induce consumers to move their electric use from normally heavy use hours to other times in an attempt to shave the utilities’ peak loads. In the business sector this has been difficult. Loads were reduced – which helped, but commercial hours of operation were not as flexible as desired.

However – at home it is a different story. While we can’t turn off the heat on winter days, we can certainly hold off air-conditioning when that’s in season, especially when everyone’s at work or school. Moreover, clothes and dish washing and clothes drying can be done at night. Most major usage can be timed away from the utility’s peak.

So what are considered “peak” hours? Unfortunately there is great disparity around the nation.
Some examples and perhaps a reason for FERC or DOE to become involved to mandate some uniformity.

Duke, N Carolina 1pm to 9pm M-F Summer 6am to 1pm M-F Winter

Con Ed NYC 10am to 10pm M-F all year

UI and CL&P/ CT 12 noon to 8pm M-F all year

SO Cal Edison 10am to 6pm M-F all year

Detroit Edison 11am to 7pm M-F all year

Baltimore 10am-8pm M-F summer 7am-11am/5pm-9pm winter

There are others and some employ a medium rate for what are called “partial peaks” which occur on weekends or other moderate use times.

The real impact is that the energy rate ($/kwhr) is lower during the off-peak hours than during peak hours. In Connecticut the cost drops from 14.3 cents/kwhr to 10.7 cents.

In Detroit it goes from 7 cents to 2 cents: NYC in Summer from 10.54 cents to 0.70 cents- but remember that in NYC the peak runs 12 hours until 10pm.

The result is that in many areas today considerable savings are possible using the time-of-day rates. Once again – contact your public utility or private energy provider.

Daylight and Better Savings

2009-03-07T13:06:00.000-08:00

The idea of “Daylight Saving Time” (DST) which has been fun for kids – in the summer – and grownups who like it to be light later, has been around for hundreds of years.

But I’ll bet you didn’t know that in 1784 Benjamin Franklin came up with this one too. Is there anything that man didn’t think up? He was the DaVinci of his age. And the Edison. And while his “discovery” of early morning light was part of a most amusing letter, the concept of a time change to take advantage of the different seasons of daylight was real.

But first Time itself had to be organized. Standard time and time zones weren’t established in the U.S. until 1883. This to make scheduling simpler for American and Canadian railroads, a practice already in place in Britain since 1840.

Ben Franklin’s idea of the saving of daylight came into actual use during World War I when Germany and Austria began the practice in April, 1916. The U.S. adopted the plan by ‘An Act to Preserve Daylight and Provide Standard Time for the United States” was passed in March, 1918.

Daylight Saving was used during the full years of World War II where it was called “wartime” instead of DST. But the inconsistent use of DST was corrected finally by The Uniform Time Act of 1966 (15 U.S. Code Section 260a) and since then has been consistently used throughout the country.

A recent minor adjustment of moving DST up by three weeks in the spring and one in the fall was meant to provide energy savings. This has raised a number of questions and serious doubts as to whether DST has any impact on energy use at all.

There are many arguments, pro and con, regarding the energy savings ascribed to DST. We will present these in a rather extended blog soon. Suffice it to say that there is a much more positive way to use the hours of the day to one’s energy cost advantage while helping the utilities maintain lower average consumption.

That little trick is called Time-of-Day or Time-of-Use rates now offered by most electric utilities. These provide lower rates for “off-peak” usage than for “on-peak.”

The definition of On- and Off- peaks vary by utility but in all cases leave night times and all Saturdays, Sundays and holidays as off-peak times. Call your utility for details. Or stay tuned.

Hydropower 103

2009-03-05T12:21:00.001-08:00

Waterfalls, flowing rivers, great dams, pipelines – where is all of America’s hydropower, operating right now and potential for the future?

And while we’re looking, we must include the same data for Canada because their potential could be a major factor in removing the world political power of oil.

I’m afraid we have to deal with some statistics to make a point, but we’ll keep it simple:

Current data United States Canada
Total Energy Capacity (GW) * 1,087.2 411.7
Total Hydro Capacity 77.6 70.8
Total Coal Capacity (for comparison) 333.1 n.a.
Potential Hydro Capacity 150.0 233.8

Thus hydro – together with the availability of vast amounts of Canadian natural gas-could substantially reduce, if not eliminate, our dependency on coal – or reduce or eliminate our need for Mideast Oil.

The additional U.S. hydro potentials are all over the country and of all sizes. In Canada the majority of the available hydro sites are in the west and Quebec in the east.

The successful development of this clean and low-cost energy will depend greatly on

(1) the relationship between the U.S. and Canada; and

(2) the continuing development of a true and adequate transmission system to deliver the hydro-developed power to the ultimate consumer.

Much was learned from the infamous “black-outs” of 1965 and 1977. The disturbing statement from the commission studying the two massive power failures was basically that “it could very well happen again.” The grid was inadequate.

Finally, while the product of hydropower plants is the lowest cost, the cost of building the plants and upgrading the transmission system (also called “the grid”) must be considered. It is good to note that part of the new administration’s energy plan is to expand and improve the national grid.

Again we adopt the American tradition of optimism

*(GW) = 1 billion watts

Hydropower 102

2009-03-03T13:39:00.000-08:00

We have seen that falling water occurs in nature everywhere in the world. Some of these waterfalls can have their momentum harnessed to generate electricity at costs considerably less than conventional fuel based generation.

And there is another source of hydro power – flowing water.

Flowing as in rivers and tidal waters – any place where water moves naturally.

Of course waterfalls are meant to be harnessed by civilized man wherever possible. But where there is flowing water and that flow happens to pass a constricted area, as in a canyon, man builds a dam to create a lake from which he can develop – falling water.

In a recent survey of hydro projects in the United States, we found 159 hydro plants. Of these 124, or78%, involved dams or other man-made applications. The remaining 35, or 22%, utilized natural water use, falls or flow.

Actually whatever the source of the “hydro” the end result is the cheap and clean generation of electricity. Cheap is important in order to press the use of the power to replace the more expensive products (oil, gas, wind, bio, etc.) and Clean since it results in exactly 0% of GHG or any carbon-pollution.

So how do we get from all this moving water to the electricity we need to light our homes or desalinate seawater?

We all know what a turbine is. Anyway, what a turbine looks like on an airplane. The airplane turbine creates a force which moves the aircraft forward.

The hydropower turbine causes the rotation needed to operate an electric generator with the excellent side effect that it never “runs out of gas.”

At a waterfall the turbine stands vertically and the falling water turns the blades which then turn the generator rotors. In the flowing water generator, such as those planned for the East River in New York City, the turbines lie horizontally and the tides pass through, again causing the needed rotation.

In the winter, don’t waterfalls freeze? As the Niagara people point out, “Yes and No.”
In the case of Niagara Falls, a tremendous amount of water flows and it never stops. However during the winter the falling water and its mists can form ice along the banks of the falls and the river. The resulting ice can be very thick but the power of the water is unstoppable. As is the continuing story of the need for hydropower in this century.

So where is all this hydropower? Stay tuned....

Hydropower 101

2009-03-02T12:55:00.000-08:00

You are at the top of the Empire State Building in New York City. You are at the very top where no one is allowed to go (except maybe King Kong) - 1,250 feet above the street!

And you drop a bucket of water and let it fall to the street. Say the bucket is enclosed so none of the water spills out. And say that fortunately there are no people on the street.

It hits the street level– with a crash you could hear blocks away! Might even go through the sidewalk, from 1,250 feet!

Now picture Niagara Falls – it’s only 176 feet tall.

But instead of a bucket of water, 150,000 gallons of water flow over the falls every second! It’s clear that it’s not so much the height of the falls that counts as how wide they are to permit the largest volume of flow.

There are a number of waterfalls in the continental U.S. that are a great deal taller than Niagara. And in Hawaii there are a number of falls taller than 2,000 feet. Too bad Hawaii is 1,625 miles from the mainland.

As we might expect most tall waterfalls in the U.S. can be found in the west. Washington has 28 falls from 600 to 2,500 feet tall. California has 22 and Montana has 17. How many of these can claim major electricity production – hydropower?

Not many and we can see why by looking at a few of the tallest:

- Colonial Creek Falls in Washington is 2,584 feet tall with average width of 50 feet!

- Avalanche Basic Falls in Montana is 2,320 feet tall with tallest single drop of 1,000 feet and here again, only 50 feet wide.

- Sulphide Creek Falls in Washington is 2,182 feet tall in an incredibly beautiful and inaccessible area with yet another 50 or so foot width.

These are just a few of many such powerful and beautiful water panoramas that are wonderful to see but impractical or impossible to harness for hydropower production.

All the same, there are hydropower plants all around the country. There is at least one in every state including Alaska:

Washington has 34; Tennessee 19; Oregon has 18; Idaho – 16 and California 12.
However, most of these use man-made dams and we will discuss the various components of water based electricity production in Hydropower 102 to follow.

Politics of Energy and the Energy of Politics - II

2009-02-26T07:59:00.000-08:00

On the night of Tuesday, February 24, 2009, President Obama addressed a joint session of congress. Traditionally such a session is attended by both houses of congress as well as the Supreme Court, Joint Chiefs of Staff and the members of the president’s cabinet, as was this one.

The speech was not an official “State of the Union” address, per se, which is given in mid-January each year. But it had dual intentions: (1) Present his full program to the congress and the people and (2) to attempt to restore confidence in the American financial system.

The speech represented careful concern and strong statements covering healthcare, education, the financial crisis – Wall Street responsibilities and energy.

The energy proposals were expected since there has been much talk recently about “renewable energy,” – wind power, solar power, advanced biofuels and more fuel-efficient cars and trucks and, most important in our opinion, laying down “thousands of miles of power lines that can carry new energy….”

There was one major thing missing.

And one major mistake.

The mistake was to continue to pander to the oil/coal interests by offering “clean coal” and oxymoron if there ever was one. To be continued.

The major missing part could replace the coal, oil, burning biofuels and any other cause of the “carbon pollution” forever:

HYDROPOWER

We have discussed this solution a number of times recently and will be offering many more details in coming weeks.

Details such as...

- Pricing (not uniform by any current means)
- Controls (that do not exist for the oil people)
- The “grid system” (the part that really exists)

We hope the President’s program succeeds.

Oil and Water – Don’t Mix, And Canada Has Some Questions and Answers

2009-02-22T15:42:00.000-08:00

There aren’t many waterfalls of significance in Texas. There are plenty of Oil wells.

And a continuing era of extreme drought.

And in northern California there are those major geothermal fields.

And a continuing era of drought.

In Canada there are many waterfalls of significance.

And 15 times as many oil reserves as U.S.

“Can water, oil’s arch enemy, replace it?

Or can one help the other?

We’ve already discussed the fact that our largest supplier of foreign oil is Canada.

We can also import water from north of the border and they’re getting a little nervous about how much we’re going to need in the next 5 years. This is due to what one Canadian “think tank” stated that “24% of America’s medium sized cities and 17.3% of the larger cities are expected to face serious shortages by 2015.”

What we have here is a redefinition of the word anachronism.

President Obama’s visit to Canada as his first foreign trip was no surprise. His expressed concern over U.S. import of Canadian “dirty oil” has Ottawa on the defensive. Obtaining oil from Alberta’s tar sands generates what has been called “Huge amounts of greenhouse gases.”
Canada wants to conclude a treaty with the U.S. agreeing to tougher emissions standards while recognizing the importance of those tar sands that produce so much oil.

How about replacing more of our petroleum processes with hydropower from Canada. Tell Canada to keep its water – and its oil – as long as we can receive enough hydropower to reduce our use of oil and coal.

Given enough hydropower we can reduce oil usage and desalinate sea water reducing the need to import potable water from Canada – which they can continue to pour into their hydro power plants on the way to their faucets!

And let’s talk about all the water in the Great Lakes – reusable?
Stay tuned

Supply & Demand, Kilowatts and Hours

2009-02-22T05:31:00.000-08:00

The growth of electric utilities and their distribution systems from the 1880’s through the 20th century – was astounding. Both the Edison DC service and Westinghouse (Tesla) AC service distribution systems were being installed all over America.

Supply was measured in kilowatt-hours (kwhrs) which repaid the utility for its various costs of service such as labor, materials, fuel, taxes and transportation of product to consumer.
In a famous U.S. Supreme court case, Smyth V. Ames, U.S. 361 (1898) public utilities were found to be entitled to a fair rate of return based upon its rate base which included all things used and usable to provide service to the public.

The kwhr electric revenue was considered adequate until studies related to electric rates in the 1930’s showed consumers used most power only during certain times of the day and a peak load had to be provided even if that load only occurred for a few hours a day. The utility’s wires had to be there to meet the peak. - That left a lot of time when the wires were relatively idle – not producing revenue.

Then the idea developed that consumers should be induced to use power during other – or “off peak” - hours to spread out the use – reducing the peak demand. Not surprisingly, most consumers couldn’t change their patterns which were based on fixed hours of work or operations.

So – how about a charge based on the peak use of each customer as well as the kwhrs?
Excellent idea, said the utilities, and a few inventors devised a special meter to measure a consumer’s peak load while measuring its kwhrs. (Called “demand meter”)

A peak demand could happen for as little as a few seconds, as in turning on a furnace or air conditioner. So in fairness (thanks also to Smyth V Ames) it was decided that a consumer’s demand should cover a 15 or 30 minute interval. In some states the 15 minute interval is used and in other, such as NY, a 30 minute interval determined by taking the highest two consecutive 15 minute demands for the billing period.

The relationship between the energy (kwhr) use and the demand in kilowatts (Kw) is called a “load factor.” That is, how many hours use of the measured demand would it take to arrive at the actual kwhrs measured for the month?

A usage of, say 3,000 kwhrs with a demand of 10.0 Kw would indicate a load factor of 300 hours (kwhrs per kw) or 41.6% of a 720 hour month (30 days @ 24hrs/day)

Further if the consumer used 3,000 kwhrs with a demand of 7.5 Kw the load factor would be 400 hours or 55.5% and the utility wires would be less burdened by 2.5 Kw

As a result rates were developed based on rewarding good load factors and “punishing” ” poor” ones. Demand charges in some cases became almost half of a commercial electric bill.

Over the years the ever increasing costs of fuel and taxes had impact on the energy charge portion of electric bills but demand charges remain an item that continues to ‘demand’ attention.
More on rate design and its impacts on energy efficiency and the economy in later discussions

Air & Water - Continued

2009-02-18T08:05:00.000-08:00

When we last left our itinerant energists we and they were concerned about ensuring clean air and water for succeeding generations. We had reviewed some scenarios through which we might generate electricity and desalinate water at the same time or clean up some dirty water as another by-product of power generation.

Let’s look a little closer.

Scene 1 was the ideal where you had a usable waterfall near ocean or salt (brackish) water. A mile or so is not far away but there are not very many good sized waterfalls that close.

Scene 2 was where a supply of natural gas was fairly close to the shore. This is more likely than Scene 1 but the message for both of these scenes – is desalinization of the ocean and sea water.
Ocean water contains more than just salt and the chemistry of the category known as “seawater” will be examined later. Our purpose today is to determine the feasibility of providing generation of electricity coincident with the removal of salts and other matter from seawater or polluted land water to provide that most critical and desirable commodity – clean drinking water.

There are three basic methods for desalination; Vaporization (or distilling), Electrolytic Processing and Reverse Osmosis. We will look briefly at these and come to a surprising and pleasing recommendation.

There are several time honored means of distilling water to its purest state; boiling and flashing in order to create water vapor which is then condensed to usable liquid.

In electrodialysis, water is placed in a container with negative and positive electrodes to which the salt and other unwanted ions are attracted and collected for removal. This method was tried on a large scale in Saudi Arabia in 1958 but the extreme electrical demands made it impractical except where abundant energy was available.

The third and most promising system is the Reverse Osmosis Process (ROP). In this procedure water is subjected to great pressure which forces it through a special membrane which passes only pure water leaving behind more concentrated salt water.

The proven economics of ROP are what put the “icing on the cake.” While the flash distillation system costs about $4.00 per 1,000 gallons of product, ROP costs about $2.00 per 1,000. ($0.002).

An ROP motor 10 HP at 30 GPM costs $0.16 per hour to run.

30 GPM = 1800 Gallons per hour Power cost = $0.0000888 / gallon – not bad.

(For Comparison, tap water in NY and CT runs under $0.0007 per gallon – but that’s from reservoirs (rainwater). Super market bottled water runs $1.20 per gallon (90% for bottle, label & cap) = $0.12/gal water).

So, we can see that when taken together with energy from the cheap hydro power – or waste heat from gas fired generator – the generation/desalination process makes a lot of sense- especially in areas where fresh potable water is not available.

The major problem is – how do we get the processes to where they are most desperately needed? Please stay tuned.

Who did Edison Con?

2009-02-16T12:51:00.000-08:00

You might think nobody. But that would depend a lot on who you talked with. Thomas Alva Edison as everyone knows was one of the few truly great geniuses of our times – or anyone’s time for that matter.

One immediately thinks of the light bulb as Edison’s invention. Actually it wasn’t. In England a gentleman named Joseph Swan had invented a light bulb that was in use in homes and public areas years before Edison developed his. As a matter of fact when it came to patents, Swan sued Edison and in order to avoid a prolonged legal battle Edison had to take him in as a partner in Ediswan the English version of General Electric. (Edison’s ultimate American enterprise)

During the two decades beginning in 1880 a number of lawsuits were brought against the various “inventors” of the electric light. These were called “the Edison Trials” because all involved Edison either as complainant or defendant. Settlements in the form of compromise-corporations were the rule.

At all events, when Edison was starting his electric distribution business his generators produced direct current. Edison felt that this was the best and safest form of electricity. Accordingly, all of the new Edison Company’s systems in New York City and elsewhere provided only direct current service.

The DC vs. AC Wars

At about the same time a Serbian immigrant, Nikola Tesla, another genius, was experimenting with generating electricity that alternated at a set number of cycles per second – called, logically, alternating current. His work formed the basis of today’s alternating current (AC) including the polyphase power distribution systems and electric metering.

Tesla had worked for Edison for a short time and was unjustly accused by Edison of stealing proprietary information. This was proven false. However, Edison became as famous for his lawsuits as he did for his inventions. Many lawsuits were based on the fact that some of Edison’s patents covered work done by others. He made a practice of buying the rights of others thereby making them his own.

AC Wins
As it turned out DC can only be economically delivered to consumers a few miles from the power plant. AC, on the other hand, can be delivered for hundreds of miles with little power loss (called “line losses”)

The Lorson Electric Company specialized in the conversion of major office buildings in New York City from DC to AC in the decade following World War II. The advent and major growth of air-conditioning occurred at this time as well and added to the major load growth not only in New York but nation-wide.

The Edison Company had become Consolidated Edison Company of New York (“Con Ed”) through the merger of New York Edison, Brooklyn Edison, Staten Island Edison, Queens Power and Light and Westchester Lighting Company. Con Ed continued to provide DC on an ever decreasing scale until ending the service in 2007.

It has been said that like his friend Henry Ford, Edison was able to maximize his profits by use of mass-production techniques and purchasing of varied property rights. Edison died rich and famous.

Tesla died broke and lonely. His genius did not include financial perspicacity and despite his arrangements with George Westinghouse and J. P. Morgan his super-eccentric personality caused his eventual ostracization by the public as a mad scientist.

AC/DC

As we now know, both Edison and Tesla were right in their own fields. Clearly AC is the energy for the delivery of power at considerable distances. However, Edison might enjoy the irony that the world of Electronics is powered by DC: Computers, telecommunications as well as automobiles and office building loads for elevators, fans and pumps. Oh, and subway systems continue to operate on DC.

Air and Water – The Essential Survival Solutions

2009-02-13T08:30:00.000-08:00

Some things bear repeating – more than once – and one of those is the statement of the honored Jacques Yves-Cousteau who warned, “Water and air, the two essential fluids on which all life depends, have become global garbage cans.”

There are many, in all locations, in all walks of life and with the best of intentions who are attempting to “clean up the mess.” A major problem is the lack of coordination of these efforts with the result that cross-purposes often wind up making matters worse instead of better.

So we have to “unpollute” both the air and our water supply while still providing those services to humanity that requires the consumption of energy. Not so easy – but not impossible.

Here are some scenarios that promise clean energy and air at greatly reduced cost:

Where falling water exists near salt water (oceans/seas) hydropower can be generated and used for desalination processes as well a normal export of electricity

Where a supply of natural gas is within reasonable distance of the salt water electricity can be generated with the gas and the waste heat recovered to run a desalination process.

Where falling water exists inland, away from salt water, hydropower can be used to provide cleaning services for contaminated “fresh” water that is not usable for drinking, washing or normal human functions.

Where geothermal energy is available and falling water is not, “geo” can be used for generation, desalination and decontamination: - wherever a heat source is needed.

And where are all these Hydro- and Geo- sources and are they available to be used?

Well, for starts there are 159 hydroelectric power plants in 34 states. 78% are using man-made dams to develop falling water, and not nature’s waterfalls.

In 16 continental states there are 85 waterfalls from 3 to 10 times higher than Niagara. (Hawaii has 41 more – big ones). Of course the volume of water passed for power generation is directly related to the width of the waterfall. We are studying this.

In Canada the roles are reversed. In 7 provinces there are 42 major waterfalls many times larger than Niagara. And while there are 55 hydroelectric power plants only 34% of them use man-made dams for falling water.

Message: there is potential on both sides of the border.

As to geothermal potentials, the search for geothermal fields is on – and proceeding with great success. California’s success is famous; it currently has over 2,500 Megawatts of installed capacity.

Idaho has installed its first plant, as has New Mexico. Nevada has 17 power plants with a total output of 318 MW. And in late 2008 Associated Press reported the discovery of a “massive geothermal field” in Utah which is being developed as we speak.

You must have noted by now that all of the geothermal activity is in the West. In areas that mostly don’t have falling water.

Soon we will go into much greater detail regarding the life-saving processes enabled by nature’s replaceable water and earth’s rather large supply of heat.

After all, America is a work in progress

Water, Water Everywhere

2009-02-11T11:07:00.000-08:00

…and the boards did shrink. Water, water everywhere, nor any drop to drink,” (Samuel Coleridge)

Water covers 71-percent of the entire earth. But of all that water only about 3 percent is fresh and drinkable (also called “potable’).

Water is available almost everywhere. The main question is the methods used to obtain it. Sources like ground water, aquifers, rain collection, surface water such as rivers, streams, even glaciers – all have to be tested to be certain of its safety for drinking, washing and hygienic uses.
The most common contamination of water sources from the ground and surface flow is human sewage and especially human fecal and parasitic waste.

The availability of clean, “potable” water is found in direct proportion to the wealth, or economy, of the country or area studied. In the poorer countries lack of clean water has reached endemic proportions; 2 million deaths a year of which 90 percent are children under the age of five.

There are processes at work and others being studied to “desalinate” sea water for human consumption and there are some experts that say we should be working more seriously on this problem than we have to date. One of the problems involved in obtaining consumable water from the ocean is that the process is very expensive, space and time consuming.

The Lorson Group has for years expounded the theory that water power generated electricity is one of the ultimate answers to the cleaning the environment. We suggest now that the process of generation can be coupled with that of desalinization of brackish water to the even greater benefit to humanity at costs considerably lower than those encountered in the past.

We have found the economics of hydropower and its clean and very cheap product. We have also found the means of increasing the efficiency of fossil fuel generation of electricity from 35% to 75-80% through waste heat recovery.

In our succeeding issues we will present the combined advantages of hydropower and the total energy generation concept to work on cleaning up both air and water.

We close this one by quoting Jacques Cousteau, that eminent explorer, ecologist, filmmaker, humanitarian, photographer, author and sea study researcher who said “Water and air, the two essential fluids on which all life depends, have become global garbage cans.”

How Green Is Our Valley?

2009-02-10T07:07:00.000-08:00

Green is many things to many people. - In fashion it may be the colour d’jour. - In energy it will be the color of the century.- In “Sesame Street” green is Kermit’s favorite color, or not, as he has said in the song, “It’s not easy being green.”

And it won’t be easy to convert all our energy use to green power to stop polluting the air – and primarily to cease creating those additions to the “Greenhouse Gases” that have been unduly increasing the temperature of our planet.

We’ve all seen the picture of the earth as a huge greenhouse. The atmosphere that surrounds it is the “glass” that keeps some heat from escaping. Green House Gases (GHG) are essential in determining the temperature of the Earth. Without them the world to be too cold for human habitation.

The most abundant greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere? In order,

Water vapor 36-70% (include cloud contributions)
Carbon dioxide 9-26%
Methane 4-9%
Ozone 3-7%

And there are many other contributors that provide smaller amounts.

So the current problem is not with basic greenhouse gases but with the impact that human activity has had in the last 200 years that is leading to what is called anthropogenic warming. It is this human contribution that has had a measureable effect on several climate factors including excess carbon dioxide and freshwater industries and food supply and health conditions.

The impact of human behavior comes from burning fossil fuels, deforestation, both leading to higher carbon dioxide; livestock and manure management; paddy rice farming, land use and wetland changes; use of chlorofluorocarbons in refrigeration systems and manufacturing; agricultural activities that lead to higher concentration of nitrous oxide.

There are seven sources of C02 from fossil fuel usage by humans:
Coal and other solid fuels 35%
Gasoline, oil and other liquid fuels 36%
Natural gas and similar fuels 20%
Cement production 3%
International “bunkers” of shipping and air transport 4%
Others with minor impact 2%

In coming days we will discuss the 91% of human fossil fuel damage and how much of that ecological peril is American-born. And how water can clean up the mess.

What is Really Green?

2009-02-07T15:41:00.000-08:00

GREEN ENERGY is the byword in the energy field today and we all know that it refers to sources of energy that are “environmentally friendly” and “renewable” and “non-hazardous” and the like. Basically we’re speaking of energy forms that do not pollute the air or earth and do not contribute to “Global Warming.”

But there is another side to this fascinating coin: GREEN COLOR OF MONEY
Economics has played and will continue to play a large part in the eventual development of what we hope will be energy sanity. So let’s take a look.

Solar All the fossil fuels used in the entire country could be replaced by solar cells contained in an area 300 miles square (90,000). That would be little larger than the state of Minnesota; and a little impossible. But solar panels are useful for homes and one- or two-story shopping centers and marts.

Prices range from $4 to $6 per watt and panel wattages range anywhere from 40w to over 200w. Prices do not include delivery or installation Comparative savings depend on local electric rates.

Ethanol Derived from corn its development is highly subsidized- more than $4 billion in 2006; plus another $3 billion at the pump which resulted in many billions in windfall profits. No wonder the politicians are for it. But if you don’t like global warming you certainly won’t like ethanol. As one critic put it, “It ain’t green – only the cash is.” And it takes more fossil fuels to make than it replaces.

Wind – It would take wind farm size of Colorado to serve northern California – Certainly it is an inexhaustible source of clean energy and one would think free of cost. But each wind generator has low energy production therefore many units are needed to provide meaningful output of electricity, heat or water movement and maintenance cost is quite high.

Hydrogen – must be liquefied – expensive – more explosive (See” Hindenberg”) than gasoline. Not readily available and the $1.2 billion the Fed has spent since Pres. Bush’s initiative to develop hydrogen infrastructure is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount necessary to meet the Bush goal of fossil replacement by 2040. More on this fuel later.

Geothermal – excellent where found –good for major loads, not homes – As Earth Policy Institute puts it, “World Geothermal Power Generation Nearing Eruption.” The fact is that the heat energy hidden in the top six miles of the earth’s crust is thousands of times greater than the energy contained in all the oil and gas reserves on earth. Moreover A number of countries with a total population of over 750 million people have enough geothermal energy sitting under them to replace all their electric generation from fossil or any other fuels.

There will be considerably more on this subject soon. Suffice it to say that while there appears to be a lot of geothermal energy available it is not known at this time whether it is self-replacing or finite in the long run. (A run which could be a thousand years)

WATER – HYDRO – cheap and very available where permitted by government regulations. We have already discussed the advantages of hydro power as it exists in the U.S. and Canada. Here again look for more in-depth coverage in the near future.

A View from the North

2009-02-05T13:30:00.000-08:00

The Canadian Electricity Association, in its own words, is “the national forum and voice of the evolving electricity business in Canada.” It has been for 118 years, so like us, they have been there from the beginning.

CEA conducts an annual review of the electricity industry of the entire North American Continent. Technically of course North America includes Greenland (no joke) and the Central American countries, along with dozens of small islands and territories that are mainly located in the Caribbean.

The Association’s 2009 tract, however, mainly concerns itself with the conduct of energy business between Canada, and the U.S. Being concerned with what it calls “a state of uncertainty unlike anything it has experienced in its over 100 years of existence.”

The review resulted in a list of steps to be taken, in its words “Prescriptions,” which was included in an article entitled “North American Electricity – Enhancing Opportunities” that was presented on the Internet By Electric Energy Online.com, as follows:

Prescriptions

“CEA offers recommendations for measure to help solidify market integration.
In particular, CEA calls for the following:

(1) Increased participation in Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs), and
increased focus on harmonizing market rules;

(2) Development of a North American strategy to manage greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation

(3) Identification of opportunities to further harmonize management of air emissions

(4) Creation of a consistent methodology for measuring environmental performance

(5) Enhancement of cross-border transmission transfer capability

(6) Coordination of critical infrastructure protection

(7) Support for a self-governing international organization for developing and enforcing mandatory reliability standards for the evolving electricity industry.”

All of these, in our humble opinion – being in business only 100 years and thus junior to the CEA by some 18 years- are matters to be examined in greater detail – which you can be certain – we will. Particularly that point about cross-border capability.

President Obama, Tear Down This Wall

2009-02-04T10:43:00.000-08:00

Is it possible that it’s only a few years since we learned that Kerr McGee oil interests in Oklahoma were sitting on the world’s largest coal reserves? And haven’t we been told that the cost of “cleaning up” coal is staggering?

Perhaps change under the new 2009 administration is not possible as promised. A ten year program to provide coal that will not pollute the air when burned laughs in the face of a two year period to begin a program that would guarantee North American Energy Independence for the rest of the century! Is this a Bush legacy?

FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has the power to fully open up the gates to Canada and allow hydro power to replace the coal that makes the United States the largest polluter of air on Earth.

Commonwealth Edison of Chicago burns coal at the mine and sends the power made there to Chicago.

FDR’s great hydro-power project in Tennessee, the TVA, now produces 75% of its power output by BURNING COAL! And ask TVA customers what happened to their electricity costs. And coal ash sludge that ruined homes, lakes and rivers leaving carcinogens in the ground and wildlife in danger. And Tennessee is not the only place.

We will discuss what is really green in a later edition. But for now let’s ask some serious questions.

The President says that our economic situation requires prompt and huge action. Well, so does our energy supply from the points of view of both economics and international politics.

Earlier we have had a look at the various forms of energy that make civilized life a lot more comfortable than the aboriginal. We’ve also had a chance to look at the good and bad results of the use of the various energy forms available today.

Our Canadian neighbors – and partners – have made a serious study of energy conditions as they exist today throughout the entire Northern Hemisphere and their thoughts are provocative and worthy of our attention and at least some action.

The Canadian Electricity Association finds the problems in three categories:
1. Serious lack of clarity around market rules (US and Canada)
2. Pressure of environmental changes particularly re: GHG (greenhouse gases)
3. Lack of clarity of both 1 & 2 causes a very poor investment environment.

According to a major banking firm, there are literally trillions of US Dollars sitting out there waiting for an improved investment climate. In our next blog we will discuss the CEA “Prescriptions” to help solidify market integration and therefore clean energy.

Please Mr. President, Open the Gates, Tear down the wall.

Watt’s Up?

2009-02-03T14:07:00.000-08:00

Good question – pun or not. There are a lot of terms floating around that can confuse and/or mislead. Energy terms in particular - so we thought this would be a good time to conduct a little lexicography.

Everyone who gets an electric bill (yes, there are some who don’t) knows the term Kilowatt-hours. Those are the units measured on the electric meter at the point of service – home or apartment.

OK, now a kilowatt-hour is a kilowatt of power used for one hour.

And a kilowatt is one thousand watts.

A watt is work done when one ampere of electricity flows through a circuit with a potential difference of one volt. One amp times one volt equals one watt!

If you take 100 watt bulb and leave it on for an hour you have used 100 watt-hours. And since a kilowatt is a thousand watts 100 watts is 0.1 kilowatts.

And so your bulb has used 0.1 kilowatt-hours.

Now when we’re talking about BIG blocks of power, like not thousands but millions of watts we have larger units:

Megawatt (MW) is one million watts. Or a thousand kilowatts
Gigawatt (GW) is one billion watts
Terawatt (TW) is one trillion watts
Petawatt (PW) is one quadrillion watts

These can be pretty big numbers and for a little perspective the average power used by humans in a lifetime is 15 TW. (15,000,000,000,000). Imagine the usage of an entire country for a year. Thank goodness for the shortcut-acronyms.

And there are units for fractions of watts such as Nanowatt, Microwatt and Milliwatt.
If you’re interested in these ”you could look ‘em up.”

So as we proceed in our process of finding out where we are and the truth about where we can and ought to be going we have at least a handle on some of the units of energy measurement that will have more and more meaning as we go along.

Oh, Canada!

2009-02-02T08:39:00.000-08:00

Good Borders Make Good Neighbors

That isn’t what he meant and you know it. Robert Frost I mean. But in the case of our good neighbors to the north there is some diminished irony in the phrase.

No two other neighboring countries in the world have a better friendship and working relationship than the U.S. and Canada. As Yoda would say, “Far from perfect it is.”
But in general it does work.

From the energy viewpoint Canada is our best international supplier of many things:
22% of our oil imports come from Canada.

Canada supplies 82% of all US gas imports (16% of total US consumption)
One-third of all the uranium used in US nuclear plants comes from Canada.

For over a hundred years Canada and the US have conducted across-the-border trade of electricity – in both directions. Over time, and particularly recently, Canadian exports grew to 50 billion kilowatt-hours while American exports to Canada fell to under 20 billion.

Clearly the lower cost of Canadian Hydropower should be of serious appeal to US suppliers. One would think that the flow would be much greater than it is. But the powerful interests in Texas and Oklahoma for years downplayed the hydro power concept for obvious reasons.

The good news is that more gates now are opening and hydro power is coming from Alberta to Montana; New Brunswick to Maine; and Northeast Utilities and NStar Electric have applied to Hydro-Quebec for 1,200 Megawatts of power to New England.

Further, a study recently completed by EEM, Inc., a Canadian Consulting firm showed that the current Canadian Hydropower Potential is as large as 163,100 MW.

So it seems that Energy Independence can mean a lot as long as we are not independent of our neighbor Canada.

If we can purchase a considerable amount of that developing hydro, we should be able to:
Reduce coal as fuel for power generation – certainly a “green” step.

Replace a portion of oil used for electric generation with hydro and natural gas.
There are many other uses that will be discussed as we go along.

And one additional thought – Our neighbors to the South provide 12% of our imported oil.
The Mexican contribution is about the same as Saudi Arabia. We don’t want to hurt the Mexican economy and we won’t have to if we can replace the OPEC supply.

The program to achieve all this is partly in place and we will discuss both what is and what has to be.

Hydro Power vs. The Earth

2009-02-01T07:48:00.000-08:00

Hydro is the power obtained from falling or flowing water.

The Earth contains materials that must be extracted from it to be useful as fuels.
Perhaps this is a good time to get some terms straight, like Petroleum, Renewable, etc
Renewable energy is that which is renewed by nature or agriculture.

Rain water fills the lakes behind dams through which electricity is generated.

We all know the wind blows and goes away and blows again.

Ethanol comes from corn -by the way- a politically hot project costing taxpayers too much.
Geothermal energy is a relatively new field with marvelous results where possible
Biodiesel and biomass are also renewable and new.

Some consider Solar Energy Renewable –

Actually it isn’t …….It’s there all the time!

If it wasn’t there at any time that would be it – game over

Petroleum energy is found in the ground as crude oil and natural gas. Crude oil is refined into motor gasoline, diesel oil, heating oil and products such as plastics. Natural gas comes out of the ground colorless and odorless and so utilities add an onion-like odor to it so as to detect leaks.

As we discussed earlier Hubbert’s peak shows that petroleum and its products are not renewable, and as a product gets scarcer its cost goes higher as it will until end of Hubbert’s curve is reached.

The One Source of Energy – Renewable and Cheap – is Hydro Power

The power generated by falling water (see Niagara Falls and others) is the cheapest and most reliable product in the energy marketplace. Once the generation facility is constructed the only input required is running water. Plant maintenance is considerably easier than that of petroleum plants where the prime mover is burning fuel – with waste heat and air-pollution concerns.

Which brings us to the subject of our next message – the place that is our largest oil importer and could provide an incredible amount of water power……….

“Oh, Canada - -----------”

To be continued

People Power - It Really Exists

2009-01-30T07:27:00.000-08:00

In an episode of “The West Wing” TV series, Aaron Sorkin has the President (played by Martin Sheen) saying to a newly appointed aide:

“There’s a promise I ask everyone who works here to make:

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful and committed citizens can change the world . Do you know why?”

He answered, “It’s the only thing that ever has.”

It’s true. And it’s nice to remember the small group of early Americans who met in Philadelphia to amend the Articles of Confederation and wound up writing a new constitution of the United States of America.

In a nation of over 300 million people one might consider a congress of 535 people a small group. They are undoubtedly thoughtful but we can’t be sure what they are all committed to; certainly not all the same things.

More specific subjects need to be focused on by those with direct interests in the subject. For example, look at the small group that created the New York World’s Fair in 1964-65.
Robert Kopple, Attorney and Entrepreneur, conferred with then-Mayor Robert Wagner of New York City to designate a date in 1964 to celebrate the tercentennial (1664) of the City. Kopple, a resident of Roslyn, Long Island, rode the railroad to the City every day and often noticed the train went through the grounds of the former New York World’s Fair of 1939-40. Why not another World’s fair at the time of the tercentennial?

Short story – He organized the new fair and the Lorson companies assisted in the development and management of the Fair.

Along energy lines, Kopple noted in the 1950’s that New York commercial realtors were having trouble with constantly increasing electric rates of Con Edison. The Real Estate Board at the time had a utility committee whose efforts in behalf of the industry were meager at best.

Kopple organized the Owner’s Committee on Electric Rates, Inc. which took on the business of representing the industry in the public hearings before the Public Service Commission dealing with Con Edison electric rate increase requests. He obtained the legal services of former-NY Governor Charles Polletti and with David Kosh of Washington DC won a considerable number of victories over the utility saving the consumers many, many millions of dollars during its time. Several members of the Lorson group were among the directors of the Committee.

At the start of each of these efforts a small group of dedicated and thoughtful people determined the need for action and put themselves and their reputations to work to effect change where change was clearly needed.

What are needed now are more groups of thoughtful and committed people to become involved in the energy processes as they exist and as they need to be changed.

Do you know anyone?

Energy Independence

2009-01-29T12:07:00.000-08:00

There have been an awful lot of statistics thrown around about where our energy comes from and where it goes. Where it goes is pretty much in our hands as a nation.

Where it comes from has become a problem because through it our national independence has become somewhat compromised.

So let’s look at where we’re at today:

Of all the energy we consume:
39.8 % is petroleum
23.6 % is natural gas
22.8% is coal
6.8% is renewable (including hydro power)
8.4% is nuclear

Now all these figures some from your government’s Energy Information Administration so it’s no surprise that the numbers add up to 101.4% !!!!!!

Anyway accepting the probability that the civil service is ALMOST competent, let’s continue:

Of all the petroleum we consume: 58% is imported
Of all petroleum we import: 37.9% is from OPEC!

Now the same EIA tells us that our consumption of energy is;
29.0% for transportation
21.4% for industrial use
10.6% for residential/commercial use
40.6% for electric power
Oh-oh, here’s that magic 101.4% again.

Oh well, we know the numbers are close to accurate and we continue….

And we are getting to a point – with apologies, because the numbers are very important!
So we arrive at the energy we use to make electricity.

Generation of electricity in the US:

48.6% burning coal (question of how clean) 21.5% burning natural gas (cleaner than oil or coal) 1.6% burning oil (mostly in the Northeast! 19.4% using nuclear fission
5.8% hydro generation
3.2% Renewables and other sources. What do you know – 100.0%

And hidden within all these numbers are the most logical solutions to enacting our:

Declaration of Energy Independence

So what do we do with all this technical information?

I think it was Kermit the frog who sang on “Sesame Street” a song entitled

“IT’S NOT EASY BEING GREEN……”

And that’s what we have to do – we have to examine the alternatives and make some serious changes.

Major increase in hydro-generation of electricity
Major decrease in use of coal to generate electricity
Major increase in use of liquified natural gas (LGN) for transportation
Major decrease in the use of petroleum for transportation
Major increase in the development of renewable resources

And how green is nuclear generation of electricity?

The “pros and cons”

For one thing there are no toxins expelled into the atmosphere – unless there is an explosion.
Once the uranium (U-235) is decayed beyond use for generation, the waste must be removed and stored-somewhere. Where is a question – in a mountain, outer space?

And it is reported that U-235 has a half-life of 703,800,000 years (thank you Wikipedia)
Thus Uranium is not renewable and not a candidate for Green.

So one more change required:

Major decrease in use of nuclear energy for power generation – or anything else
How much increase or decrease of all these items will be required to achieve our energy independence will be discussed in future blogs and we look forward to any suggestions you might wish to offer.

The Politics of Energy and the Energy of Politics

2009-01-27T13:22:00.000-08:00

It has been said, quite accurately, that whoever controls the energy of a country controls that country.

Everything in a modern society depends on an adequate and reliable energy supply. From electricity to electronics; from petroleum to transportation; from heating to cooling; from smog control to water purification; every facet of everyday life as it is known in western civilization is reliant on the supply of energy in its many forms.

It isn’t difficult to see then what might happen if that energy supply was curtailed or worse – cut off.

In 1973 some of the OPEC oil people actually used an oil embargo to cause inflated prices around the world. One the results of that move was to accelerate the search for oil in other locations – finding some in the North Sea and Gulf of Mexico helped. Since then OPEC has lost some of its power but certainly not all.

It’s interesting to note that with the exception of Venezuela, the country that started OPEC, and Ecuador, all the other members of OPEC are in the Middle East and Africa, a majority of the production located in what is now commonly known as a “War Zone.”

There are many reasons for the United States to become less dependent on foreign oil. Economics is certainly one. And the complicated Mid East presents the most troublesome scenarios. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the race in the region to obtain nuclear weapons and the terrorism aimed against the US all add to the terrible mix.

There is probably more truth than humor in the statement a comedian made recently that “We don’t need any more presidents from Texas.” And perhaps it is more than a coincidence that the Bush families (former presidents) are such close friends with the royal family of Saudi Arabia. And who else from Texas lived in the White House?

Oh yes, Lyndon Baines Johnson. Warriors all.

Next to Canada, Saudi Arabia is the largest importer of oil to the United States.

What can be done? What should we do? Who can do it? Let’s see…….…

Energy Efficiency – Conservation & Metering

2009-01-25T19:48:00.000-08:00

Energy waste has always been a problem. And no matter what energy form is used or where it comes from – waste will always be a problem – unless it is curtailed.

We have seen how recovered waste heat from electricity generation can be used to improve the overall efficiency of the plants. But that only points out how easy it is to involve waste in the use of energy.

Every day on television one can see advertising for home insulation, “Energy Star” rated heating and boiler equipment and most recently, automobiles with greatly increased miles per gallon ratings. All of this to reduce waste.

Landlords, both commercial and residential found out long ago that including electricity as a service included in the rental for the tenant’s space fostered waste. As soon as meters were installed and charges rendered for the electricity consumption decreased by 35% and more. The price signal was necessary to prevent waste.

During the 1960’s Lorson Consulting was used in developing the New York World’s Fair of 1964-65. Because Con Edison, New York’s electric utility, had lost so much money at the earlier fair of 1939-40, it announced that exhibitors would have to run lines to the Astoria Plant to obtain power for the Fair. (Miles away from the fairgrounds)

As a result 90% of the air conditioning at the Fair was powered by natural gas. In fact the American Gas Association exhibit building was powered, lit and air conditioned using natural gas. Here again the waste heat from generating electricity was used to create steam which in turn made hot water for cooking and heating and chilled water for air cooling. The power plant was nicknamed the “Total Energy Plant.”

But even using the waste heat, or most of it, 15-20% still went out the chimney.
At the advance tour of the AGA Exhibit building we were pleased to meet Walt Disney who was fascinated with the building design and all its features. Even he, however, raised the issue of waste and our discussions ultimately turned to the alternative of water power as a wasteless source of electricity.

And water power in more current language is the one truly green energy source.

To be continued....