• The Himalayan glaciers were supposed to disappear as soon as 2035. The United Nations didn’t base this hysteria on an academic study. Instead, it relied on a news story that interviewed a single Indian glaciologist in 1999. Syed Hasnain, the glaciologist in question, says he was misquoted and provided no date to the reporter. The doomsday account was simply made up, and the United Nations never bothered to confirm the claim.

• Because of purported global warming, the world supposedly “suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s.” The U.N. cited one unpublished study to prove this. When the research eventually was published in 2008 after the IPCC report was released, the authors backpedaled: “We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses.”

• Up to 40 percent of the Amazon rain forest was said to be at risk because of rising global temperatures. Again, the U.N. didn’t cite any academic studies but merely one non-refereed report authored by two non-scientists, one of whom worked for the World Wildlife Fund, an activist organization.

• The U.N. dramatically claimed that 55 percent of the Netherlands is below sea level when the accurate portion is 26 percent.

…..

Man-made global warming theory isn’t backed up by science; it’s a hoax. The fact that the world has been asked to spend tens of trillions of dollars on global warming solutions without being able to evaluate the data upon which the claims were made should have been the first warning that something was seriously wrong. The public and world leaders have been sold expensive snake oil by charlatans like Mr. Pachauri. It’s time to admit it’s all baloney and move on.”

 Extracts from Washington Times Editorial February 11, 2010

Highlighting by TSAugust

TSAugust

February 14, 2010

"Clean Coal” elicits multiple responses.

Extreme environmentalists respond reflexively by saying “clean coal” is an oxymoron.

Some people point to using variations of the Fischer-Tropsch method to make liquid fuels from coal or for using coal in Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle power plants.

Another view is that new super critical and ultra super critical coal fired power plants are a clean use of coal.

These modern coal fired power plants are a vast improvement over those built in the past. The following is a quote from Energy for America.”

“The efficiency of the fleet of existing coal plants is 32%, while the efficiency of super critical and ultra super critical pulverized coal power plants is 38.5% and 43.4% respectively.

These represent a 20% and 35% improvement in efficiency, respectively.

In so far as ultra supercritical pulverized coal plants are concerned, the 35% improvement could mean they would use 35% less coal; and, interestingly, produce 35% less CO2. Emissions of NOx, SO2, particulates (PM) and mercury are also substantially reduced. One analysis shows that NOx is reduced by 86%, SO2 by 98%, particulate matter by 99.8%, and mercury by 90%.”

Using super critical and ultra super critical coal fired power plants can produce electricity inexpensively with a low level of pollutants such as NOx, SO2 PM’s and mercury.

Note: Energy for America will be published in pdf format in March 2010.

TSAugust

February 7, 2010

A proposal is circulating around Washington to ban the use of refrigerators, and to replace refrigerators with ice-boxes.

An insider, speaking off the record, said, “Using ice-boxes is a brilliant idea for creating jobs and cutting CO2 emissions.”

When pressed for details he said, “Ice will be made during off peak hours when wind energy is most plentiful, and then the ice will be delivered to homes twice each week.”

An analyst described the process in greater detail.

He pointed out that Ice boxes were used throughout America before GE introduced the Monitor Top refrigerator in 1927. The iceman delivered ice twice each week, and ice-boxes kept food cold and safe.

Banning the use of refrigerators will create jobs as manufacturers build enough ice-boxes to replace all the refrigerators in America. Before 1927, ice picks were ubiquitous throughout America. A new supply will have to be built, which will also create more new jobs. The steel industry will also benefit from the need for thousands of new ice tongs.

Ice will be delivered to homes in specially designed, environmentally friendly electric trucks, insulated to protect the ice from summer heat. Building these trucks will create clean jobs.

Delivering ice to every home in America, twice each week, will require thousands of deliverymen and women. These will be new, clean jobs for the new economy.

A Senator on the Environment and Public Works Committee noted that refrigerators are the largest user of electricity, after heating, ventilation and cooling. Refrigerators consumed 156 billion kWh of electricity in 2001.

Replacing refrigerators with ice-boxes will create thousands of new, clean jobs for the 21^st century economy, while reducing CO2 emissions by using wind energy to produce the ice and eliminating refrigerators that use “dirty” electricity.

Slogans in the next election are bound to include “I Like Ice” and “Make Ice Not CO2”.

Satire By Donn Dears for TSAugust

TSAugust

January 31, 2010

Losses from HVAC transmission lines are from resistance, capacitance and inductance.

Losses from HVDC lines are only from resistance.

In addition, it requires three lines (i.e., cables) for AC transmission and only two for HVDC transmission.

For like voltages, cable sizes and distances, HVDC has fewer transmission line losses than HVAC.

The cost of converting AC to DC and then reconverting it from DC to AC is very high.

Because of the conversion costs there is a crossover point, in terms of the length of the transmission line, before HVDC is less costly than HVAC. A quick number might be 300 miles, but that will vary with a number of factors such as the cost of the right-of-way.

HVDC could be used over environmentally sensitive areas or underwater, such as crossing Long Island Sound. It is also being proposed for tying together the three U.S. grids.

The three grids, one covering the Eastern U.S., one covering the Western U.S. and one for Texas all operate at different frequencies. The DC transmission lines would isolate the three grids from each other, but allow electricity to pass between the grids.

Notes:

AC has three phases and one cable is required for each phase. DC only requires two cables.

Each grid operates at differing frequencies at any moment in time. Trying to connect grids while their frequencies are different will create large forces that will seriously damage the system.

TSAugust

January 24, 2010

Capacity factor is an important measurement for evaluating different power generation methods.

Essentially, capacity factor measures the amount of electricity actually generated over a year compared with the amount of electricity that could theoretically be produced over a year based on the nameplate rating.

Capacity factors for various power generation methods are shown here:

•  Nuclear; over 90%.

• Coal; around 85%

• Natural Gas Combined Cycle; approaching 85%

• Wind; 30%

• Concentrating solar; 22% (possibly increasing to around 30% with heat storage in salt.)

• Photo voltaic solar; 16%

For example: It requires 2,000 wind turbines rated 1.5 MW¹ to generate as much electricity as a single 1,000 MW nuclear power plant.

It’s important to be alert to differing capacity factors when reading newspaper and magazine articles. Most reporters do not understand capacity factor, and as a result make erroneous claims.

For example on January 9^th, 2010 an article in the NY Times said that 2,000 MW of concentrating solar “is equivalent to the output of a couple of nuclear power plants”. Obviously 2,000 MW of concentrating solar will produce only about 25% of the electricity than would a couple of nuclear power plants.

Capacity factor is not the only criteria for evaluating different methods of producing electricity.

Some power generation methods are intermittent and thus unreliable and therefore require costly back-up with gas turbines.

1: Average size of wind turbines installed over the past three years.

TSAugust

January 17, 2010

Demand response is touted as an important feature of the smart grid.

It allows the utility, the consumer or a “third party” to control the use of electricity in people’s homes (See below).

So long as the homeowner has control of his or her thermostat, or of the refrigerator and other important appliances, the idea has some merit.

This requires the utility to contact the homeowner prior to cutting the electricity. Obviously, when there is a brief overload the utility doesn’t have the time to make the contact. 

There are two ways the timing issue can be resolved.

1. The utility could obtain written permission in advance that would allow it to cut the electricity (or reduce the voltage) to the home.

2. The second approach is to allow the utility, without permission from the home owner, to cut the electricity to the home.

It is the second approach that is advocated by certain government officials and those who want to control the use of electricity.

Note the term “third party” in the above definition. This unnamed group would have control over every person’s use of electricity if this aspect of the smart grid is implemented.

They could control how warm or cool people could keep their homes. They could limit the total amount of electricity home owners could use or control the type of appliances approved for use.

California regulators in 2009 attempted to require utilities to have the ability to control people’s thermostats. People opposed this effort, so it has temporarily been set aside.

Note:  The following was taken from a white paper issued by the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. “A key feature of the Smart Grid is Demand Response, where the consumer, utility or designated third party can reduce the consumer’s energy consumption during critical usage periods.”

TSAugust

January 10, 2010

Low Carbon Fuel Standards (LCFS) will harm America.

There has been an effort in Washington to insert LCFS in the Senate’s cap & trade legislation.

LCFS have been established in California as an attempt to lower the amount of carbon contained in any source of oil, which would reduce CO2 emissions from gasoline.

What LCFS would really do is prevent the United States from importing oil from Canada where Canadian oil is derived from Tar Sands.

The U.S. imports 2.5 million barrels per day of oil from Canada. If LCFS is established it would require the U.S. to forego this oil and instead require the U.S. to import more oil from Saudi Arabia and other less secure areas of the world.

LCFS would threaten America’s security by denying the U.S. a source of poil from a country that is friendly toward the U.S.

Canada in fear of LCFS is turning to China for the sale of its oil.

The U.S. will, in effect, help China with its sourcing of oil while leaving the U.S. more vulnerable.

TSAugust

January, 3 2010

There is a huge effort underway to promote EV’s. EV’s are all electric vehicles that run on batteries where the vehicle will have a range of 80 to 100 miles before the battery charge is depleted and the vehicle stops.

The push is on to spend billions of dollars on charging stations. These chargers are not ordinary 120 volt charging stations, such as the outlet found in a homeowners garage, but fast chargers that take only minutes to recharge a battery.

These Level III stations are very expensive. There is no known business model that will allow entrepreneurs or governments to charge enough for recharging batteries to recover their investment. The entire effort will have to be paid for by taxpayers.

There is no need for Level III charging.

The Plug-in electric vehicle that retains a gasoline engine on board the vehicle can go 40 miles using the battery and then shift to gasoline mode to continue driving when the battery is depleted.

There is no fear of running out of power, so long as there is a gasoline station nearby.

This effort by environmentalists is terribly misplaced, because people won’t distinguish between EV’s and PHEV’s and the entire concept of electrification of the transportation system will be given a black eye at a moment in time critical to its development.

TSAugust

December 26, 2009

Cap & trade legislation will result in a 24% shortfall in electricity by 2050 which, on a per capita basis is nearly twice as great.

This analysis was sent to every member of Congress as a memorandum. It was printed in letter format, front and back, on poster stock so that it could be displayed on bulletin boards and easily filed for quick reference.

The memorandum was prepared by Donn Dears, an energy expert and retired GE Company executive.

Key factors demonstrated in the memorandum are:

• A 1% growth rate in demand until 2030, as forecast by the EIA

• An increase in the population of the United States of nearly 1 % annually though 2050

• A 30% loss in capacity of existing coal fired power plants due to retrofitting for carbon capture

• The inability of wind and other alternatives to generate enough electricity to meet demand

TSAugust

December 13, 2009

Note:

Single copies of the memorandum are available for individuals.

Send a request for a single copy to ddears@tsaugust.org. Include the return USPS mail address in the request.

Please recognize that there is a limited supply of these memoranda and that the total cost to the author is nearly $2 to mail single copies to individuals.

Tax deductable contributions can be made to TSAugust.

Checks should be made out to TSAugust.

They should be mailed to:

 TSAugust

1856 Old Reston Avenue, Suite 205
Reston, VA 20190

Note: Contributions are not accepted from corporations. TSAugust relies on individual contributions, and contributions of any size are gratefully received.

The UN's IPCC's Chairman Pachauri is now an advisor to the Chinese government.

As head of the IPCC, he has been leading the UN’s effort to get a new treaty, i.e., Kyoto II, established in Copenhagen this December.

Where do his allegiances lie?

Certainly not to the United States if he is working for the Chinese government.

He has said, “China and India should ‘shame’ developed economies into ‘wealth transfer’”.

What he wants is for the United States to transfer U.S. citizens’ tax dollars to India and China.

This is a blatant effort to work against the interests of the United States while also heading the IPCC.

It’s akin to the President of the United States accepting a job offer from China. Might not that be considered a conflict of interest?

Why doesn’t the government of the United States demand Pachauri’s resignation as head of the UN’s IPCC?

Certainly, this demonstrates that the IPCC is a political rather than a scientific body.

TSAugust

November 29, 2009

In 1978, the Wall Street Journal carried this headline: “Solar Power Seen Meeting 20 percent of Needs by 2000; Carter May Seek Outlay Boost.”

In November 2006, the Wall Street Journal said “Renewable fuels may provide 25% of U.S. energy by 2025.”

Billions of dollars have been poured into the solar industry with little effect after 30 years.

Today, solar accounts for less than 1% of America’s electricity.

Solar was invented in 1839 by French physicist Alexandre Edmond Becquerel. After 170 years of scientific exploration and development, solar remains the most costly source of electricity. In Germany the cost of PV solar is estimated at 59 cents per kWh while some in the U.S. estimate it at between 14 to 28 cents per kWh.

PV solar is the most expensive form of solar generated electricity, but concentrating solar is also far more expensive than electricity generated from coal, nuclear, wind, hydro, or geothermal.

This is not surprising because PV solar has a capacity factor of only 16%. This compares with 22% for concentrating solar, 30% for wind and 92% for nuclear.

Germany’s experience with solar has been very negative while the U.S. experience has been mediocre, at best.

Sources: Speech by Congressman Tom McClitock October 22, 2009

Book, The Solar Fraud, by Hayden.

TSAugust

November 22, 2009

The real cost and the absolute failure of Germany’s renewable energy policy has been demonstrated in a report by the Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (RWI), an independent German economic policy think tank founded in 1926.

The German law passed in 2000 requires utilities to accept delivery of power from independent producers until 2020 at costs that far exceed the utilities’ cost of generating electricity.

Utilities must pay 59 cents per kWh for solar generated electricity and up to three times the cost of conventionally generated electricity for electricity from wind power.

With these high feed in tariffs solar only produced 0.6% of Germany’s electricity in 2008 and wind only produced 6.3%.

The combined cost of these subsidies between 2000 and 2010 is estimated to be $101.3 billion.

Subsidization costs for PV solar are equivalent to $240,000 per employee for estimated solar jobs. The report states that “whatever jobs are created from these subsidies would vanish as soon as the subsidies are discontinued.”

The report concludes, “government policy has failed to harness the market incentives needed to ensure a viable and cost-effective introduction of renewable energies into Germany’s energy portfolio. To the contrary, Germany’s principal mechanism of supporting renewable technologies through feed-in tariffs imposes high costs without any of the alleged positive impacts on emissions reductions, employment, energy security, or technological innovation.”

The full report is available in English from the RWI web site.

TSAugust

November 8, and 15, 2009

Coal fired electricity produces 50% of America’s electricity and 82% of the CO2 emissions that come from generating electricity.

Eliminating the use of coal without a viable substitute for coal or a means for capturing and sequestering CO2, will deprive America of the electricity it needs to run its factories and light its homes.

Successfully capturing CO2 from coal fired power plants has yet to be proven on a large scale. If it ever works on a large scale it will require building one new power plant for every three that are retrofitted with carbon capture equipment.

The reason it will be necessary to build a new power plant for every three plants retrofitted with carbon capture equipment is that the carbon capture equipment consumes electricity and energy produced by the power plant. This parasitic load reduces by 30 to 40% the amount of electricity the plant can send to the grid.

Since coal provides 50% of America’s electricity it will be necessary to build enough new generating capacity to equal17% of our current production of electricity. This would equate to around 88 additional new nuclear power plants or another 175,000 wind turbines rated 1.5 MW.

The United States is in the process of obtaining licenses for around 20 new nuclear plants, which is far short of the 88 needed for the sole purpose of supplying the electricity lost from carbon capture. The United States, on average between 2007 through 2009, built around 3,900 new wind turbines each year, far short of the 175,000 needed to replace the electricity lost from carbon capture.

Clearly, carbon capture is not a viable alternative for eliminating CO2 from coal fired power plants.

TSAugust

November 1, 2009

Litigation of CO2 could seriously damage the United States as well as the world economy.

This became apparent at the UN Bangkok meeting this month.

Litigation could follow three tracks.

• The first will be litigation in the United States against corporations and institutions that emit CO2.

• The second will also be in the United States, but it will be against government regulations, either those imposed by the EPA or those enacted by Congress.

• The third will be foreign organizations, and possibly countries, suing the United States (and other developed countries) for damages they have supposedly caused by emitting CO2 into the atmosphere. The U.S. will be sued to pay reparations to developing countries in Asia, Africa and Central and South America.

Litigation against corporations is already proceeding in The United States. The suit by Connecticut v. American Electric Power has received the most media attention.

The insurance company Swiss Re has compared climate change litigation to asbestos claim suits that were initially dismissed but eventually won huge financial settlements in court.

The EPA has issued an endangerment finding and has said it will impose mandates on emitters of CO2 in 2010. Organizations have already indicated they will sue to strike down the endangerment finding and the proposed mandates.

At the UNFCCC October meeting in Bangkok, representatives from developing countries were pointing the finger at the United States and other developed countries.

Antonio Oposa, a Philippine lawyer, said “it was ‘only a matter of time’ until properly constituted international tribunals began hearing class actions seeking reparation from ‘over-consuming countries’ for damage caused by climate change in developing nations.

Recent history has shown that organizations pursue legal remedies when they don’t get what they want.

The threat of legal action is already causing corporations to think twice about making sound economic investments. The situation could become far worse over the next decade. It could affect job growth and America’s standard of living.

Source of quotation: CCNET, The Irish Times October 8, 2009

TSAugust

October 25, 2009

There are several good reasons to say that CO2 emissions are not the cause of global warming.

An excellent video by a respected weatherman is well worth watching. (There is an advertisement preceding the video that we could not bypass.)

Click on this link for the video by Weatherman Joe Bastardi.

http://www.accuweather.com/video-on-demand.asp?video=37129475001

In addition to the facts presented by Bastardi, here are some additional facts.

Empirical Evidence Suggests Cyclical Climate History, not Induced by CO2.

1. Temperatures in 1100 AD higher than today

• Grapes grew in Scotland

• Greenland Settled

2. Little Ice Age 1500 – 1800

• Ice skating on canals in Holland

• Christmas fairs held on frozen Thames in London

• George Washington crossing ice clogged Delaware River

3. World’s Temperatures Have been falling since 1999

• While atmospheric CO2 continues to rise

As Bastardi said, the global warming finger print over the equator is missing. Satellite temperature readings show no increase in temperature where there should be according to the IPCC computer models.

TSAugust

October 18, 2009

Will the United States be the leading world economy in 2050? Or will the U.S. sink into the second tier behind China, India, Brazil and possibly Russia?

America’s future will depend on its energy policy.

If the U.S. continues to base its energy policy on the threat of CO2 induced Global Warming, it will almost assuredly become a second rate economic power.

The Waxman – Markey cap & trade bill and the more recent Senate version will result in less energy, fewer jobs and hardships for Americans.

Cap & trade achieves one thing, it cuts the use of energy.

Worse it cuts the use of viable energy sources when there are no proven substitutes.

Extreme environmentalists tout wind, solar, cellulosic ethanol, algae, carbon capture and sequestration, etc. while members of Congress, who have little scientific or engineering training, slavishly follow their lead.

The brutal fact is that these so called alternatives cannot replace coal, natural gas or the use of gasoline.

• The United States consumes about 8 million barrels of oil daily for gasoline. Biofuels, including cellulosic ethanol (that hasn’t yet been proven to work) plus algae (that is still experimental) can at the most replace about one third of the 8 million barrels of oil used daily.

• Electric vehicles or PHEV’s can cut CO2 emissions by only 18%, rather than the 83% required by the various cap & trade bills. Cutting CO2 emissions from electric vehicles would require building enough nuclear power plants to replace coal. Without nuclear power, electric vehicle merely shift CO2 emissions from the vehicle to the power plants generating electricity.

• Carbon capture is still very experimental and will unlikely ever be able to capture all the CO2 from all the coal fired power plants. If carbon capture ever becomes workable, it will require building one new power plant for every three plants that are retrofitted with carbon capture.

• Sequestration has worked on a small scale at a few locations, but there is no proof it will work on the massive scale that is required. Europe is finding that people oppose sequestration out of fear that it could leak out of the ground and threaten their communities.

• Nuclear, that can replace coal, is opposed by powerful environmental organizations such as the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Rocky Mountain Institute with Amory Lovins, the Natural Resource Defense Council and Greenpeace. The U. S will be lucky if 20 new nuclear plants are built before 2050.

• Wind is unreliable and cannot replace coal. The same is true for solar except in the southwest, where it might be useful.

Many environmental organizations say the U.S. must use less energy, not more. Conservation cannot cut emissions by the 83% required by cap & trade legislation.

Improving efficiency and productivity is good for America, but with cap & trade the goal is to cut the use of energy.

TSAugust

October 10, 2009

Waxman-Markey HR 2454 was written in such haste by inexperienced staff members that many sections are incomprehensible. As written, HR 2454 will result in litigation for years to come. The threat of litigation will retard economic development.

An example is Section 610 (a) (13) (B) iii concerning whether electric generation equipment can be installed on an existing dam.

The relevant text reads:

“the hydroelectric project installed on the dam is operated so that the water surface elevation at any given location and time that would have occurred in the absence of the hydroelectric project is maintained, …”

A strict reading of this sentence would say that electricity could never be produced at such an installation. When water flow increases, such as when it rains, water levels will rise – but if the hydro generators are operated the water levels can’t rise as much as they otherwise would. Even if the difference can’t be measured, which is possible on a large river, the theoretical result is obvious … water levels would have risen by some additional fraction of an inch if the generators hadn’t been run.

This is the type of situation that keeps lawyers employed.

It would be clearer to say that water levels would never go below a minimum level, measured from a fixed reference point; perhaps from the top of the dam.

In the same section there is language concerning fuel cells. The text reads:

“greater efficiency with which the fuel cell transforms fuel into electricity as compared with sources of electricity delivered through the grid, …”

The sources of electricity delivered through the grid could be hydro, nuclear, coal, wind or a combination of multiple sources. How will it be possible to establish whether the fuel cell is more efficient than electricity available from the grid?

Will the assumption be that electricity from the grid is from a mix of sources even though the mix varies between regions and over time?

Or if the intent is to compare how efficiently fuel cells transform fuels compared with a single source such as wind or hydro, fuel cells might never be approved.

Who knows?

Here are two badly drafted sentences from a single section of HR 2454. How many more are there in a bill that is 1428 pages long, drafted in haste by staff members who do not have the necessary background to know what they are doing?

TSAugust

October 4, 2009

It has long been the practice in the United States to allow local and state governments to establish building codes that best suit the needs of their local communities.

Waxman-Markey will take this prerogative away from local and state governments and place control in the hands of the federal bureaucracy.

This is another example of how Waxman-Markey is grabbing control from local and state governments.

The Waxman-Markey bill, HR 2454, requires that new and substantially renovated commercial and residential buildings achieve a total reduction in energy use of 70% by 2030. (Substantially renovated can mean anything the federal government dictates.)

• It accomplishes this by requiring states to adopt a national standard building code.

• It requires that the federal government establish ways in which to measure whether the required reductions are achieved.

• It establishes that inspectors will tell local building contractors and architects how they should change their designs so as to meet the national energy use reduction target.

State governments must certify to the federal government that at least 80% of its urban population is covered by the national code. If states do not so certify, Waxman-Markey gives the federal government the right to impose the national standards without local agreement.

• State compliance plans must include the hiring of “enforcement staff.”

The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) has already developed a methodology for measuring energy use reductions, incorporating regional climate and other factors. PNNL has developed separate computer models for commercial buildings, schools, hospitals and residential buildings so that the Department of Energy can determine whether the nation is meeting the reductions mandated by Waxman-Markey.

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory has developed a building energy optimization tool called BEopt. This tool is designed to focus on “zero net energy” use. Zero net energy use is another major target of the Waxman-Markey bill.

Zero net energy use envisions that local buildings will generate their own power etc. using net metering and conservation to achieve zero net energy use.

This will strong arm building owners and developers to add such items as renewable energy (i.e., primarily PV Solar) and combined heat and power. This imposes high cost inefficiencies on building owners and users, costs that will have to be borne by the public in the form of higher prices.

One example of the BEopt model shows a $65 thousand investment in PV solar out of $76 thousand spent to achieve zero net energy use. PV solar is two to three times as expensive as electricity bought from the grid.

High cost inefficient energy systems may save energy used by a centralized power plant, but increases costs for the overall economy. For example doctors who lease space using high cost energy systems will have to charge more for their services or further reduce their ability to provide services to everyone. Retail stores that have to use inefficient systems will have to charge higher prices. Everyone is affected negatively by the national code being imposed by Waxman-Markey.

TSAugust

September 13, 2009

Net metering requires an electric utility to pay twice as much, or more, for electricity than if it generated the electricity at its power plant.

When only a very small number of customers take advantage of net metering the extra cost to the utility is extremely small and the effect on other customers is negligible.

If a large number of customers used net metering, the extra cost to the utility would have to be covered by other customers. In other words, people are subsidizing their neighbors cost of electricity when the neighbor uses net metering.

The purported purpose of net metering is to encourage people to install distributed generation capabilities, primarily PV solar. The cost of a PV solar rooftop installation is extremely high, especially when measured by cost per kWh. The cost per kWh of electricity from a central natural gas, coal or nuclear power station is much lower.

Net metering works by allowing the electric meter installed on a home to run backwards. When the home owner uses electricity from the grid, the meter advances and registers a sale for the utility.

When the home owner generates more electricity than he can use, the meter runs backwards as the electricity flows to the grid. The meter deducts the amount of electricity flowing to the grid thereby reducing the home owner’s bill. The homeowner is, in effect, selling electricity to the utility at the same price he would pay the utility when buying electricity from the utility.

Advocates of net metering claim that net metering encourages the use of renewables and reduces capital expenditures by the utility.

Net metering, however, is different from conservation because it requires a large capital investment by the home owner. The homeowner’s investment is less efficient, as shown above, than an investment made by the utility.

In effect, inefficient use of capital is being encouraged by net metering.

Section 152 of the Waxman-Markey bill specifically requires federal buildings to use net metering.

This will reduce the cost of electricity to the government, but will increase the utility’s costs that will eventually have to be borne by the ordinary rate payer. Net metering by the federal government becomes a hidden tax on consumers.

TSAugust

September 6, 2009

The link between climate change and toilets can be found in the Waxman-Markey cap & trade bill, HR 2454.

This bill establishes rules for a plethora of products including light bulbs, search lights, light fixtures, water dispensers, portable electric spas, warm air furnaces, faucets, toilets, clothes washers, shower heads and urinals, among others.

It also goes into great detail as to how these items are to be tested.

It then establishes how the government is to pay dealers and manufacturers for selling best-in-class products and for retiring old products.

Not satisfied with establishing Best-in-Class products, the bill establishes Superefficient-Best-in-Class products.

Perhaps the next step will be to establish SuperDuper-Superefficient-Best in Class products.

Here is the language for payments to manufacturers for the years indicated.

“For years 2011 through 2013, the Secretary shall make bonus payments to manufacturers of the products designated in paragraph (4)(A) for each product produced in the following amounts:

(i) $75 for each dishwasher.

(ii) $250 for each clothes washer.

(iii) $200 for each refrigerator or refrigerator-freezer

(vi) $300 for each water heater”

This will result in huge payments to manufacturers, in the order of billions of dollars, when the government is already broke.

(This is in addition to the $300 million stimulus rebate program.)

The bill States:

“There are authorized to be appropriated $600,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2011 through 2013 to the Secretary of Energy for purposes of this section, and such sums as may be necessary for subsequent fiscal years.”

It goes on to provide for payment of bounties:

“(2) BOUNTIES.—Bounties shall be payable—

(A) to a retailer upon documentation that the sale of a Best-in-Class Product was accompanied by the replacement, retirement, and recycling of—“

HR 2454 is over 1500 pages long, so the subject addressed here is only a small snippet of what is contained in the bill.

TSAugust

August 30, 2009

Here is a tiny snippet from the 1428 page HR2454.

‘‘(4) CUSTOMER FACILITY SAVINGS.—

The term ‘customer facility savings’ means a reduction in end use electricity consumption (including recycled energy savings) at a facility of an end-use consumer of electricity served by a retail electric supplier, as compared to—

‘‘(A) in the case of a new facility, consumption at a reference facility of average efficiency;

‘‘(B) in the case of an existing facility, consumption at such facility during a base period, except as provided in subparagraphs (C) and (D);

‘‘(C) in the case of new equipment that replaces existing equipment with remaining useful life, the projected consumption of the existing equipment for the remaining useful life of such equipment, and thereafter, consumption of new equipment of average efficiency of the same equipment type; and

‘‘(D) in the case of new equipment that replaces existing equipment at the end of the useful life of the existing equipment, consumption by new equipment of average efficiency of the same equipment type.”

Few staffers and even fewer Congressmen or women could possibly know what this means.

Imagine how many bureaucrats and customer reports will be required to interpret and administer this lonely paragraph.

Then think about how many bureaucrats it will take to administer and interpret the remaining 1428 pages of HR2454

TSAugust

August 23, 2009