What if, on the first day of Christmas, your true love gave to you the joy of uninterruptable power service? Wouldn’t that be the greatest gift ever? A Christmas miracle?
Granted, uninterruptable power service isn’t possible. I know that. Although, to be fair, utilities do a darn good job of making an outage a truly rare thing. They can’t really control Mother Nature, but they give it the good ol’ college try. I can say, actually, that I haven’t had any noticeable outages this year---maybe a flicker during a storm. But, everything came right back on quickly, including during the long ice storm in February where I spent a good hour whacking giant icicles off my house with a shovel. (It looked like my front porch had a scary mouth full of pointy monster teeth.)
Sadly, though, uninterruptable power wasn’t always the case at my abode.
As I finished wrapping my piles of Christmas presents this year, I was reminded of a time about three years ago, a day when I was running early on Christmas purchases and had just started wrapping when the lights went out. Darkness. Complete. I tried to remember where I stuck the flashlight. Then, there was a flicker of power hope. The TV recovered, then the lights. Then it was off again. Total. I did remember where the flashlight was, finally.
And the power was off for nine days.
A freak ice storm had taken down half of the city. Limbs were everywhere. I spent that night listening to sirens, to limbs fall and to the crackle of transformer explosions. And that night I hoped for a Christmas miracle. It was down near 20 degrees. I was buried under blankets with my clothes (including shoes) still on clinging to the last bits of battery in both my flashlight and cell phone.
And, all I wanted for Christmas was power. Not those awesome Hello Kitty slippers. Not some delicious summer sausage from Hickory Farms. Just power.
I got that wish, finally. In fact, I got it in a rather Scrooge moment. I’d been without power for nine days. After the flashlight went out and I realized the cell phone was near that point as well, I called my father who came and did what daddies do. He rescued me. (His house had power.) I returned to my place over the following weekend and had just gotten good and thoroughly chilled again when I noticed that my neighbors across the street had power.
In fact, they had so much power that they strung Christmas lights into the front yard to show it off. Or, perhaps, to show off their Christmas spirit. But, I wasn’t feeling the Christmas spirit at that moment. I was feeling irked. Their act of Christmas spirit was irksome.
And, I stood in the doorway, wrapped in blankets, contemplating a loud, primal “bah-humbug” and flinging myself across the street to rip down every last shiny strand like a madwoman.
Then, behind me in the dark, I heard the refrigerator kick on. It took a second for me to figure out the significance. When I did, I ran around the house turning on everything that required power: the lights, the televisions, the heater. I was giddy with the power of power. It was, for me, a Christmas miracle. (I even did a little dance. Don’t tell anyone.) There is no gift like the joys of modern life, the comfort of heat and light and those tiny people inside the TV.
So, as I finish wrapping these gifts three years later, I am still thankful of my greatest gift of all: a (mostly) uninterruptable flow of power.
To AEP-PSO: Thank you for a good year of good service. You’ve given me exactly what I want for Christmas.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Thursday, December 16, 2010
The zombie apocalypse power primer part 2: Would renewables have made for a happier apocalypse?
An office friend---doesn’t seem right to call him a mere coworker---and I are both addicted to the AMC zombie series “The Walking Dead.” The finale of the (sadly very short) season aired a couple of weeks ago. Our hearty band of survivors made a break for the Atlanta Centers for Disease Control and, once there, came upon another annoying apocalypse: The power was going out, even in an important spot like the CDC.
Sure, the CDC had back-up power when the first wave of zombies got tangled in distribution lines or gnawed through rural poles looking for tasty woodpeckers and took out part of the local grid. Like all major infrastructure points, they had generators. Big ones. But, two months into this new world, the generators were running out of fuel. There were no back-up options. All the back-up options (those generators) were too temporary to sustain the place for the apparently long-winded zombie overrun.
Even if there were more fuel for the generators, eventually, since fuel was no longer being made, even the last ones would sputter down and shut off. One of the characters comments that the power grid isn’t meant to run without fossil fuels. In fact, he laments, “Fossil fuels? How stupid were we?”
Actually, not that stupid.
Granted, the designers of the power grid didn’t think ahead to impending zombie horde takeover and how that would impact the system, but, sadly, even if today’s grid were run on wind energy, at some point a character in that story would have to comment, “Wind energy? How stupid were we?”
Because, it’s not about the fuel; it’s about the path.
The fact remains that the problem with our grid (were there to be a disastrous apocalypse of pretty much any type) is the system. It’s interconnected. It’s complicated. It’s tied from big generators (whether they are coal, natural gas, nukes or large wind farms) to end-users in a long stream of transmission lines, substations, ties, distribution lines, step-down transformers and meters---all of which are vulnerable and require oversight. Even if the fuel at the beginning of this chain were of a green variety, the way to plan ahead for power to aide a small band of survivors is not to change the fuel, it’s to also change the system. And that can’t really be done.
If you need to plan for small pockets of power to run individually, you have to island yourself, you have to isolate (either an area or a home) and figure out how to be your own system from fuel to use---the whole power cycle. You’d have to have renewables connected to your house (solar panels, wind turbines) and be able to use the flow directly. (And, of course, you’d have to have those renewables manufactured and installed pre-zombies, I’d imagine.)
In reality (and not on cable tv), it’s not practical to plan for the apocalypse. Instead, we plan for the most efficient system for the time (and for short outages when they happen). And, at the time the power grid was established, it was the most practical, pragmatic system. It got put together in bits and pieces, interconnected where it could be and improved willy-nilly. It grew rather naturally. And it evolved into a behemoth that, yes, would not be manageable after a zombie apocalypse.
But, now we have this system and, fortunately or unfortunately, it will be easier to work with it to accomplish small changes (like a shift from fossils to renewables on the fuel input end of things) rather than scrap it for expensive individual islanding---even if that might help us in a possible REM “end of the world as we know it” scenario.
Even if we did island our house or our neighborhood with renewables, the only one you might be able to reproduce once the original equipment manufacturers (OEMS) are all dead and buried is a rough wind turbine or hydro wheel (if you're an engineer). It won’t be possible to replace that solar panel eventually broken in the zombie outbreak of 2024. And, so, we’d be stuck in the same boat as the characters in “The Walking Dead” finale---only we might be lamenting the lack of OEMS instead of our reliance on fossil fuels.
After all, we can’t put planning for a far-off “maybe” ahead of what works best at the moment. The zombies may come, but we in the power industry won’t be planning ahead for that specifically. Sorry hearty band of future survivors.
Sure, the CDC had back-up power when the first wave of zombies got tangled in distribution lines or gnawed through rural poles looking for tasty woodpeckers and took out part of the local grid. Like all major infrastructure points, they had generators. Big ones. But, two months into this new world, the generators were running out of fuel. There were no back-up options. All the back-up options (those generators) were too temporary to sustain the place for the apparently long-winded zombie overrun.
Even if there were more fuel for the generators, eventually, since fuel was no longer being made, even the last ones would sputter down and shut off. One of the characters comments that the power grid isn’t meant to run without fossil fuels. In fact, he laments, “Fossil fuels? How stupid were we?”
Actually, not that stupid.
Granted, the designers of the power grid didn’t think ahead to impending zombie horde takeover and how that would impact the system, but, sadly, even if today’s grid were run on wind energy, at some point a character in that story would have to comment, “Wind energy? How stupid were we?”
Because, it’s not about the fuel; it’s about the path.
The fact remains that the problem with our grid (were there to be a disastrous apocalypse of pretty much any type) is the system. It’s interconnected. It’s complicated. It’s tied from big generators (whether they are coal, natural gas, nukes or large wind farms) to end-users in a long stream of transmission lines, substations, ties, distribution lines, step-down transformers and meters---all of which are vulnerable and require oversight. Even if the fuel at the beginning of this chain were of a green variety, the way to plan ahead for power to aide a small band of survivors is not to change the fuel, it’s to also change the system. And that can’t really be done.
If you need to plan for small pockets of power to run individually, you have to island yourself, you have to isolate (either an area or a home) and figure out how to be your own system from fuel to use---the whole power cycle. You’d have to have renewables connected to your house (solar panels, wind turbines) and be able to use the flow directly. (And, of course, you’d have to have those renewables manufactured and installed pre-zombies, I’d imagine.)
In reality (and not on cable tv), it’s not practical to plan for the apocalypse. Instead, we plan for the most efficient system for the time (and for short outages when they happen). And, at the time the power grid was established, it was the most practical, pragmatic system. It got put together in bits and pieces, interconnected where it could be and improved willy-nilly. It grew rather naturally. And it evolved into a behemoth that, yes, would not be manageable after a zombie apocalypse.
But, now we have this system and, fortunately or unfortunately, it will be easier to work with it to accomplish small changes (like a shift from fossils to renewables on the fuel input end of things) rather than scrap it for expensive individual islanding---even if that might help us in a possible REM “end of the world as we know it” scenario.
Even if we did island our house or our neighborhood with renewables, the only one you might be able to reproduce once the original equipment manufacturers (OEMS) are all dead and buried is a rough wind turbine or hydro wheel (if you're an engineer). It won’t be possible to replace that solar panel eventually broken in the zombie outbreak of 2024. And, so, we’d be stuck in the same boat as the characters in “The Walking Dead” finale---only we might be lamenting the lack of OEMS instead of our reliance on fossil fuels.
After all, we can’t put planning for a far-off “maybe” ahead of what works best at the moment. The zombies may come, but we in the power industry won’t be planning ahead for that specifically. Sorry hearty band of future survivors.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Secretary Chu, Sputnik moments, growing up a little, and memories of the Fonz
In late November, Secretary Chu addressed the National Press Club and told Americans that we are immersed in a “Sputnik moment.”
What does that mean? Quite simply, Chu’s saying that we are chasing China and other nations in the area of clean technology and that this chase should clue us in that we need to buckle down and regain our technology foothold. It’s a wake up or shut up moment.
But, I don’t agree that we are in a fight-or-flight spot, a do-or-die situation. Instead, it feels more like a “jump the shark” moment to me.
To explain Chu’s scientific Sputnik reference let’s go back a generation to 1957 when Russia sent the sleeping giant of America a big ol’ wake up or shut up moment by launching the first Earth-orbiting, manmade satellite. U.S. citizens who saw America as the tech powerhouse in those post-war glory days were forced to alter those visions when it became obvious to the entire world that the Russians were ahead in this game. It was hard to ignore the shiny metal sphere circling the world. So, Sputnik 1’s launch created the space race and solidified the USSR as our biggest Cold War opponent. We took that as a call to a figurative tech war, and we met that call.
Now, Chu is telling us China’s our newest opponent, that it and other leaps-ahead clean and green industrial countries will be on the opposite side of what might be termed a “green war.”
“When it comes to innovation, Americans don't take a back seat to anyone---and we certainly won't start now," said Secretary Chu to the National Press Club. "From wind power to nuclear reactors to high speed rail, China and other countries are moving aggressively to capture the lead. Given that challenge, and given the enormous economic opportunities in clean energy, it's time for America to do what we do best: innovate. As President Obama has said, we should not, cannot, and will not play for second place."
I think Secretary Chu was being conservative when he told us we’re in a “Sputnik moment.” In the area of energy, Chu specifically pointed out China’s leaps in high voltage transmission, advanced coal tech, nuclear power and renewables. In his Sputnik moment world, we just need to try a little harder, and we’ll be back on top again.
Looking at all those clean tech issues and other countries’ (like numerous EU member states) pilot projects and funding, personally, I think, in the areas of green tech, we’re getting closer to a “jump the shark” moment.
To explain my “jump the shark” reference, think about the Fonz and all those good memories you had watching that classic TV favorite Happy Days. It was great family entertainment and often thoughtful and well written. But, all good things wind down if they don’t innovate and change. And, rather than innovating and changing, the Fonz (and Happy Days) chose a storyline where Henry Winkler’s leather-jacketed character (still in his leather jacket but also sporting board shorts) climbed onto water skis and literally jumped a shark to prove his manliness.
I’m not sure it really proved the Fonz’s manliness, if that was ever in question, but it did prove to many viewers that Happy Days really had nothing left to offer in terms of storylines and was headed downhill. And so “jumping the shark” became a familiar Hollywood idiom for TV shows that have lasted past their prime.
Has the concept of an American tech powerhouse also “jumped the shark”? Have we lasted past our “we’re number 1” prime? For years, countries that we have traditionally seen as “behind” in tech areas have assessed their situation, made changes and suddenly taken leaps ahead of us in niche areas. (Think of India’s large-and-in-charge acceptance of IEC 61850 as one example specific to our industry.)
I understand Chu’s desire to push the American button of competitiveness to re-energize the tech community, but I think it’s misguided and off the mark. There’s a lot of good work being done across the U.S. in clean tech areas. I doubt that what’s lacking here is really the technology itself or the thought leadership. It could, more specifically, be regulatory issues---lack of economic incentives, an inability to get states to work together on larger goals, issues with private and public access, the red tape.
So, standing up and declaring that we’re having a “Sputnik moment” to inspire us to get behind the development of better technology is an odd concept when that technology is already at hand (if not here, than in Germany or even, yes, China). Let’s accept that we’ve “jumped the shark” on being the number one worldwide techhead forever and ever and think more about the best way to move forward. Let’s think about collaboration and cooperation and less about, well, in a nutshell, proving our American “manliness” in the technology arena.
Let’s accept that we've jumped the shark, that we're no long numero uno. Even the Fonz’s Henry Winkler moved on eventually, expanding into production and directing his own shows, growing up a little and worrying less about that leather-jacketed image.
And let’s not start a green war where we work to come out on top again and line up opponents to knock down (or jump over or leap past) in an effort to make us shinier and newer with a $6 million makeover. Instead, can we all say, “You know what, winning isn’t the issue. And, we don’t need to ignite another 50-year international juggernaut.”
Instead, can we be adults about this and give China a quick phone call? Can we sit down for coffee with President Hu Jintao and ask the big questions, “How are those high voltage projects going? What advice would you have for us to implement similar changes?”
In other words, can we move this more global team forward together rather than re-establishing competitive lines set to mimic the problematic arc of the American-Russian space race?
It’s OK to have jumped the shark. It’s OK to be out-Sputniked by China. It’s OK to leave old animosities and fears and ethnocentric bubbles behind in the dust with our Cold War history and, instead, move forward to a clean tech future that’s more inclusive.
And, as every good American parent tells his child, it’s really OK to ask for help and a little advice when you need it.
What does that mean? Quite simply, Chu’s saying that we are chasing China and other nations in the area of clean technology and that this chase should clue us in that we need to buckle down and regain our technology foothold. It’s a wake up or shut up moment.
But, I don’t agree that we are in a fight-or-flight spot, a do-or-die situation. Instead, it feels more like a “jump the shark” moment to me.
To explain Chu’s scientific Sputnik reference let’s go back a generation to 1957 when Russia sent the sleeping giant of America a big ol’ wake up or shut up moment by launching the first Earth-orbiting, manmade satellite. U.S. citizens who saw America as the tech powerhouse in those post-war glory days were forced to alter those visions when it became obvious to the entire world that the Russians were ahead in this game. It was hard to ignore the shiny metal sphere circling the world. So, Sputnik 1’s launch created the space race and solidified the USSR as our biggest Cold War opponent. We took that as a call to a figurative tech war, and we met that call.
Now, Chu is telling us China’s our newest opponent, that it and other leaps-ahead clean and green industrial countries will be on the opposite side of what might be termed a “green war.”
“When it comes to innovation, Americans don't take a back seat to anyone---and we certainly won't start now," said Secretary Chu to the National Press Club. "From wind power to nuclear reactors to high speed rail, China and other countries are moving aggressively to capture the lead. Given that challenge, and given the enormous economic opportunities in clean energy, it's time for America to do what we do best: innovate. As President Obama has said, we should not, cannot, and will not play for second place."
I think Secretary Chu was being conservative when he told us we’re in a “Sputnik moment.” In the area of energy, Chu specifically pointed out China’s leaps in high voltage transmission, advanced coal tech, nuclear power and renewables. In his Sputnik moment world, we just need to try a little harder, and we’ll be back on top again.
Looking at all those clean tech issues and other countries’ (like numerous EU member states) pilot projects and funding, personally, I think, in the areas of green tech, we’re getting closer to a “jump the shark” moment.
To explain my “jump the shark” reference, think about the Fonz and all those good memories you had watching that classic TV favorite Happy Days. It was great family entertainment and often thoughtful and well written. But, all good things wind down if they don’t innovate and change. And, rather than innovating and changing, the Fonz (and Happy Days) chose a storyline where Henry Winkler’s leather-jacketed character (still in his leather jacket but also sporting board shorts) climbed onto water skis and literally jumped a shark to prove his manliness.
I’m not sure it really proved the Fonz’s manliness, if that was ever in question, but it did prove to many viewers that Happy Days really had nothing left to offer in terms of storylines and was headed downhill. And so “jumping the shark” became a familiar Hollywood idiom for TV shows that have lasted past their prime.
Has the concept of an American tech powerhouse also “jumped the shark”? Have we lasted past our “we’re number 1” prime? For years, countries that we have traditionally seen as “behind” in tech areas have assessed their situation, made changes and suddenly taken leaps ahead of us in niche areas. (Think of India’s large-and-in-charge acceptance of IEC 61850 as one example specific to our industry.)
I understand Chu’s desire to push the American button of competitiveness to re-energize the tech community, but I think it’s misguided and off the mark. There’s a lot of good work being done across the U.S. in clean tech areas. I doubt that what’s lacking here is really the technology itself or the thought leadership. It could, more specifically, be regulatory issues---lack of economic incentives, an inability to get states to work together on larger goals, issues with private and public access, the red tape.
So, standing up and declaring that we’re having a “Sputnik moment” to inspire us to get behind the development of better technology is an odd concept when that technology is already at hand (if not here, than in Germany or even, yes, China). Let’s accept that we’ve “jumped the shark” on being the number one worldwide techhead forever and ever and think more about the best way to move forward. Let’s think about collaboration and cooperation and less about, well, in a nutshell, proving our American “manliness” in the technology arena.
Let’s accept that we've jumped the shark, that we're no long numero uno. Even the Fonz’s Henry Winkler moved on eventually, expanding into production and directing his own shows, growing up a little and worrying less about that leather-jacketed image.
And let’s not start a green war where we work to come out on top again and line up opponents to knock down (or jump over or leap past) in an effort to make us shinier and newer with a $6 million makeover. Instead, can we all say, “You know what, winning isn’t the issue. And, we don’t need to ignite another 50-year international juggernaut.”
Instead, can we be adults about this and give China a quick phone call? Can we sit down for coffee with President Hu Jintao and ask the big questions, “How are those high voltage projects going? What advice would you have for us to implement similar changes?”
In other words, can we move this more global team forward together rather than re-establishing competitive lines set to mimic the problematic arc of the American-Russian space race?
It’s OK to have jumped the shark. It’s OK to be out-Sputniked by China. It’s OK to leave old animosities and fears and ethnocentric bubbles behind in the dust with our Cold War history and, instead, move forward to a clean tech future that’s more inclusive.
And, as every good American parent tells his child, it’s really OK to ask for help and a little advice when you need it.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Will there be an Erin Brockovich 2: Back to Hinkley?
We all saw the original. Julia Roberts even won an Oscar. Now, it seems the story isn’t over.
Original long story short (and basic facts courtesy of the local Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board): California utility Pacific Gas and Electric (PG and E) has a compressor station about two miles outside of the small town of Hinkley, California. It’s out in the Mojave Desert, quite a long way from anything (except Hinkey and Barstow, a couple of the handful of bits of civilization out in the flat California heat).
Between 1952 and 1966, PG and E used hexavalent chromium (hex chrome or chromium 6) to fight corrosion in cooling towers, and the wastewater from those cooling towers was flushed into unlined ponds at the site. Some of the wastewater seeped into the local groundwater, resulting in chromium 6 popping up in local wells. (Hex chrome is a heavy metal and can occur naturally in small amounts, but its major source is industrial waste.)
If you’ve seen the award-winning Steven Soderbergh film, you know there were a lot of illnesses and medical issues in and around Hinkley eventually linked to the chromium 6 pollution through class-action litigation. A $300-million-plus settlement was awarded from PG and E to residents, and the utility promised to contain the “plume” of hexavelent chromium to keep it from spreading.
Unfortunately, earlier this year, the water board found, through testing, that the plume continues to expand despite efforts by the utility to keep it in check, and the board recently asked PG and E to do more to contain the spread and assist the town. In November, PG and E distributed drinking water to residents and, late in the month, proposed buying nearly 100 impacted properties in the area.
PG and E has reiterated that it is committed to cleaning up Hinkley but that such projects take time. It has also noted in articles and releases that some areas recently reported as contaminated are still within the California safe drinking standard.
This Hinkley/PG and E sequel is getting international attention. Yesterday (December 1), London’s Guardian reported that the local water board in the area “ordered” PG and E to reduce the chromium 6 level to 3.1 parts per billion. (The state standard is 50 micrograms per liter maximum contaminant level for drinking water). The newspaper also noted that PG and E’s own study concluded that “natural attenuation”---basically allowing nature to fix it without humans mucking it up too much---could take 1,000 years. (Although, to be fair, that September PG and E feasibility study had a number of different clean-up options; natural attenuation wasn’t the suggested option for clean-up but more of a reference point.) Still, it’s likely that the utility will, indeed, have to roll up their sleeves a bit more and get back their hands back into the Hinkley water supply.
The PR in this situation is tricky. The 2000 flick has “made truth,” to an extent, the dramatized version of this long and complicated (and unfortunate) story. PG and E will always have to contend with being cast as the heavy in this situation, and even proactive action---like the letters to residents offering potential buyouts---will naturally be regarded with suspicion given the cinematic and legal history. But, the alternative---a PR bit of that “natural attenuation” equivalent to, basically, ignoring the stories being created for this new Hinkley sequel---is not possible.
What’s safe and fair in this current chromium 6 situation is best left to the water board, with citizen input, to define. All we, and Pacific Gas and Electric, can do at this point is wait, and listen.
Sometimes really listening---making listening an activity unto itself---is the best place to start.
There was a meeting about this issue last night at the Hinkley elementary school. Everyone from the water board to Brockovich herself was expected to attend. The board and the attendees were set to discuss all the clean-up options PG and E listed in their study.
Cross your fingers that there was active listening on all sides of this issue and that a plan for progress came out of what must have been an emotional, turbulent meeting.
And let’s all hope that a storyline for a dramatic movie sequel isn’t unfolding before us and that, instead, it will be a boring and quiet little tale of a community and a utility actively working together to get a small, proud California town back to normal as quickly as possible.
Original long story short (and basic facts courtesy of the local Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board): California utility Pacific Gas and Electric (PG and E) has a compressor station about two miles outside of the small town of Hinkley, California. It’s out in the Mojave Desert, quite a long way from anything (except Hinkey and Barstow, a couple of the handful of bits of civilization out in the flat California heat).
Between 1952 and 1966, PG and E used hexavalent chromium (hex chrome or chromium 6) to fight corrosion in cooling towers, and the wastewater from those cooling towers was flushed into unlined ponds at the site. Some of the wastewater seeped into the local groundwater, resulting in chromium 6 popping up in local wells. (Hex chrome is a heavy metal and can occur naturally in small amounts, but its major source is industrial waste.)
If you’ve seen the award-winning Steven Soderbergh film, you know there were a lot of illnesses and medical issues in and around Hinkley eventually linked to the chromium 6 pollution through class-action litigation. A $300-million-plus settlement was awarded from PG and E to residents, and the utility promised to contain the “plume” of hexavelent chromium to keep it from spreading.
Unfortunately, earlier this year, the water board found, through testing, that the plume continues to expand despite efforts by the utility to keep it in check, and the board recently asked PG and E to do more to contain the spread and assist the town. In November, PG and E distributed drinking water to residents and, late in the month, proposed buying nearly 100 impacted properties in the area.
PG and E has reiterated that it is committed to cleaning up Hinkley but that such projects take time. It has also noted in articles and releases that some areas recently reported as contaminated are still within the California safe drinking standard.
This Hinkley/PG and E sequel is getting international attention. Yesterday (December 1), London’s Guardian reported that the local water board in the area “ordered” PG and E to reduce the chromium 6 level to 3.1 parts per billion. (The state standard is 50 micrograms per liter maximum contaminant level for drinking water). The newspaper also noted that PG and E’s own study concluded that “natural attenuation”---basically allowing nature to fix it without humans mucking it up too much---could take 1,000 years. (Although, to be fair, that September PG and E feasibility study had a number of different clean-up options; natural attenuation wasn’t the suggested option for clean-up but more of a reference point.) Still, it’s likely that the utility will, indeed, have to roll up their sleeves a bit more and get back their hands back into the Hinkley water supply.
The PR in this situation is tricky. The 2000 flick has “made truth,” to an extent, the dramatized version of this long and complicated (and unfortunate) story. PG and E will always have to contend with being cast as the heavy in this situation, and even proactive action---like the letters to residents offering potential buyouts---will naturally be regarded with suspicion given the cinematic and legal history. But, the alternative---a PR bit of that “natural attenuation” equivalent to, basically, ignoring the stories being created for this new Hinkley sequel---is not possible.
What’s safe and fair in this current chromium 6 situation is best left to the water board, with citizen input, to define. All we, and Pacific Gas and Electric, can do at this point is wait, and listen.
Sometimes really listening---making listening an activity unto itself---is the best place to start.
There was a meeting about this issue last night at the Hinkley elementary school. Everyone from the water board to Brockovich herself was expected to attend. The board and the attendees were set to discuss all the clean-up options PG and E listed in their study.
Cross your fingers that there was active listening on all sides of this issue and that a plan for progress came out of what must have been an emotional, turbulent meeting.
And let’s all hope that a storyline for a dramatic movie sequel isn’t unfolding before us and that, instead, it will be a boring and quiet little tale of a community and a utility actively working together to get a small, proud California town back to normal as quickly as possible.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
An electric second coming: EVs put the pedal to the metal
Electric vehicles (EVs) fascinate me---not really because of the science behind them, but because of the politics. After decades of back-burner living, EVs died the first time in the mid 1990s. Now, they’re back from the grave, and, like the zombie hordes so prevalent in pop culture these days, EVs are poised for a massive takeover just all of a sudden, seemingly out of nowhere and for no single explanation that makes complete sense to me.
Honestly, I’m still not sure how we got here, nor, really, where we’re going.
It wasn’t so long ago that we declared the body---the first body. Director Chris Paine’s documentary “Who Killed the Electric Car?” just came out a scant four years ago. (Now, it appears, he’s working on a sequel tentatively titled “Revenge of the Electric Car.”)
What happened? No, really. What? This can’t have all been a leftwing, eco-conspiracy to change the way Americans (and some of the rest of the gas-guzzling world) think. Leftwing eco-conspiracies, like all conspiracies through history, simply don’t work. Granted, there may be more concern these days about carbon footprints and climate change among some subsets of Americans, but I just finished reading an article about a reversal in climate change beliefs. (The number of average joes who think climate change is hokum has spiked; the number of scientists who think climate change exists remains a steady “almost all.”)
Given the swing back on eco issues, that can’t be the sole force behind the EV explosion. So, where is this constant push for EVs coming from? Let’s try these options.
1.) That pesky foreign oil litany. We want off it. We don’t like it. It makes us economically and politically nervous. So, pulling massive amounts of American transportation from the great and scary foreign oil (FO) contingent is appealing across a wide range of politics. And, that’s been a great boon for EVs. It’s not just the eco warriors who love electric; it’s also the anti-FO crowd.
2.) Our attempt to shore up Detroit. Yep, for all the irony that exists in the dead car documentary, which focuses quite a bit on the director’s view that General Motors was pushing hard to kill it’s own EV1 (though, to be fair, a number of other car manufacturers had electric vehicles that also kicked the metal bucket), this may have a lot to do with reinventing the automotive wheel and how it can help the American job base.
3.) The assumption of cheap. Electric vehicles are advertised as cheaper (and, if you don’t have to use gasoline, you are certainly saving that cost). But, a true comparison of fuel costs per car vs. fuel costs through the power plant remains to be seen. However, cheap sells. Americans love cheap. (I know I do.) And, the idea of saving money will get many people to pay up front.
And the popularity of EVs continues unabated. Today, Southern California Edison (SCE) joined the Electric Drive Transportation Association (EDTA) in launching www.GoElectricDrive.com, a website to inform consumers about all the crazy details of buying and owning an electric car. (I found the video on how to charge your car especially informative, personally.)
At www.GoElectricDrive.com, you can calculate savings (see #3 above), find incentives (also #3 above) and learn about environmental benefits (see previously discussed eco-conspiracy). No real references to my #1 and #2 hypotheses though.
“Southern California’s expected to be one of the first and potentially one of the largest markets for plug-in electric vehicles in the country,” said Pedro Pizarro, executive vice president, power operations for SCE with this website launch. “SCE is committed to assisting customers as they select a plug-in electric vehicle. It’s important to understand the process of getting ready, from selecting a rate and charging options to understanding what individual households need to do to get plug-in ready.”
But, how many customers will be jumping on the EV bandwagon? Is this website prudent planning or just publicity?
In the end, to quote Sebastian Junger for the billionth time, all this EV hulabaloo may have been a simple meeting of the minds, a melding of right times and right beliefs---a perfect storm. But, whatever the political and economic meteorology that began pushing EVs on this massive overthrow path, it’s going to be even more interesting to watch what happens. And, we’ll probably be able to judge it by the title of Paine’s third EV docudrama---be it of a “return of” or a “death of” variety.
Now I’m going to go play a bit more on www.GoElectricDrive.com.
Honestly, I’m still not sure how we got here, nor, really, where we’re going.
It wasn’t so long ago that we declared the body---the first body. Director Chris Paine’s documentary “Who Killed the Electric Car?” just came out a scant four years ago. (Now, it appears, he’s working on a sequel tentatively titled “Revenge of the Electric Car.”)
What happened? No, really. What? This can’t have all been a leftwing, eco-conspiracy to change the way Americans (and some of the rest of the gas-guzzling world) think. Leftwing eco-conspiracies, like all conspiracies through history, simply don’t work. Granted, there may be more concern these days about carbon footprints and climate change among some subsets of Americans, but I just finished reading an article about a reversal in climate change beliefs. (The number of average joes who think climate change is hokum has spiked; the number of scientists who think climate change exists remains a steady “almost all.”)
Given the swing back on eco issues, that can’t be the sole force behind the EV explosion. So, where is this constant push for EVs coming from? Let’s try these options.
1.) That pesky foreign oil litany. We want off it. We don’t like it. It makes us economically and politically nervous. So, pulling massive amounts of American transportation from the great and scary foreign oil (FO) contingent is appealing across a wide range of politics. And, that’s been a great boon for EVs. It’s not just the eco warriors who love electric; it’s also the anti-FO crowd.
2.) Our attempt to shore up Detroit. Yep, for all the irony that exists in the dead car documentary, which focuses quite a bit on the director’s view that General Motors was pushing hard to kill it’s own EV1 (though, to be fair, a number of other car manufacturers had electric vehicles that also kicked the metal bucket), this may have a lot to do with reinventing the automotive wheel and how it can help the American job base.
3.) The assumption of cheap. Electric vehicles are advertised as cheaper (and, if you don’t have to use gasoline, you are certainly saving that cost). But, a true comparison of fuel costs per car vs. fuel costs through the power plant remains to be seen. However, cheap sells. Americans love cheap. (I know I do.) And, the idea of saving money will get many people to pay up front.
And the popularity of EVs continues unabated. Today, Southern California Edison (SCE) joined the Electric Drive Transportation Association (EDTA) in launching www.GoElectricDrive.com, a website to inform consumers about all the crazy details of buying and owning an electric car. (I found the video on how to charge your car especially informative, personally.)
At www.GoElectricDrive.com, you can calculate savings (see #3 above), find incentives (also #3 above) and learn about environmental benefits (see previously discussed eco-conspiracy). No real references to my #1 and #2 hypotheses though.
“Southern California’s expected to be one of the first and potentially one of the largest markets for plug-in electric vehicles in the country,” said Pedro Pizarro, executive vice president, power operations for SCE with this website launch. “SCE is committed to assisting customers as they select a plug-in electric vehicle. It’s important to understand the process of getting ready, from selecting a rate and charging options to understanding what individual households need to do to get plug-in ready.”
But, how many customers will be jumping on the EV bandwagon? Is this website prudent planning or just publicity?
In the end, to quote Sebastian Junger for the billionth time, all this EV hulabaloo may have been a simple meeting of the minds, a melding of right times and right beliefs---a perfect storm. But, whatever the political and economic meteorology that began pushing EVs on this massive overthrow path, it’s going to be even more interesting to watch what happens. And, we’ll probably be able to judge it by the title of Paine’s third EV docudrama---be it of a “return of” or a “death of” variety.
Now I’m going to go play a bit more on www.GoElectricDrive.com.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Prowl power products in San Diego
If you work in this industry, you’ll probably well aware of DistribuTECH, one of the largest annual power grid and automation conferences in America, but did you know that DistribuTECH has a fun and precious littler brother in the Utility Products Conference and Exposition (UPCE)?
DistribuTECH may help you with your industry homework, but UPCE is waiting to show you the fun side of power products. It’s more hands on, less official. And, best of all, you probably can touch all the exhibits, even if that voice in the back of your head that sounds just like your mom tells you not to.
UPCE will be conveniently located in the same spot as DistribuTECH in February 2011---beautiful, sunny and warm San Diego. In fact, UPCE will be in the same building, the San Diego Convention Center, located waterside and adjacent to the fun and funky Gaslamp Quarter.
And, UPCE expands outside the typical power products area to include exhibits on: safety products, tools, repair, testing, fiber optics and cable, vehicles, monitoring, installation, cabinets, computers and other toys and spoils any lineman or utility worker would crave. Additionally, I hear we’re giving away an Artic Cat Prowler on the exhibit floor.
Off the floor, there is, like DistribuTECH, a conference side of things, though UPCE is more hands-on and less engineering “big picture”-oriented. You can hear about utility pole solutions, grounding practices and workforce automation, as well as getting that pesky transformer certification you always wanted.
So, come see UPCE in San Diego this February 1-3. We’ll take you on a personalized, hands-on tour of all the work tools that will make you drool. And, you can check us out online at www.utilityproductsexpo.com.
DistribuTECH may help you with your industry homework, but UPCE is waiting to show you the fun side of power products. It’s more hands on, less official. And, best of all, you probably can touch all the exhibits, even if that voice in the back of your head that sounds just like your mom tells you not to.
UPCE will be conveniently located in the same spot as DistribuTECH in February 2011---beautiful, sunny and warm San Diego. In fact, UPCE will be in the same building, the San Diego Convention Center, located waterside and adjacent to the fun and funky Gaslamp Quarter.
And, UPCE expands outside the typical power products area to include exhibits on: safety products, tools, repair, testing, fiber optics and cable, vehicles, monitoring, installation, cabinets, computers and other toys and spoils any lineman or utility worker would crave. Additionally, I hear we’re giving away an Artic Cat Prowler on the exhibit floor.
Off the floor, there is, like DistribuTECH, a conference side of things, though UPCE is more hands-on and less engineering “big picture”-oriented. You can hear about utility pole solutions, grounding practices and workforce automation, as well as getting that pesky transformer certification you always wanted.
So, come see UPCE in San Diego this February 1-3. We’ll take you on a personalized, hands-on tour of all the work tools that will make you drool. And, you can check us out online at www.utilityproductsexpo.com.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Update on the power race: Europe leaves us in the dust
A little less than 400 years ago, the pilgrims hopped on the Mayflower and left England in the nautical rearview mirror for a number of reasons, not the least of which was a lack of progressive thought (especially in the areas of religious freedom). Now, it seems that England, and Europe as a whole, have lapped us in some areas of progressive thought, including energy.
Yesterday, European Union Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger stunned a lot of the EU community by not getting more conservative or free-market in his planning (as the U.S. did in last week’s elections). Instead, despite media speculation that he would follow the flow of fellow German and home country Chancellor Angela Merkel, he set out a huge five-point, trillion-euro agenda to make energy in Europe (gas and power included) one big happy family by the much-chatted-about 2020 deadline.
So, while the U.S. will be gridlocked on energy policy with a Democratic Senate and a Republican House and little-to-no elbow room in sight, the EU plans to sweeten the financial incentives for energy efficiency; create an EU-wide market with upgraded, interconnected infrastructures; direct energy policy from the top down (rather than by country); expand technology in multiple areas (including the “smart city” concepts) and push for consumer options on price comparisons, supplier changes and billing.
Along with those smaller goals are the overarching plans of the 2020 strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent, increase the share of renewable energy to 20 percent and make a 20 percent improvement in energy efficiency all by the year 2020.
By the year 2020 here in the U.S. we might have come to some final “yea” or “nay” decision on cap and trade. Maybe. But, I’m not going to hold my breath.
A lot of this indecision in the U.S., I realize, is due to a strong states-rights mentality that makes it hard to get all 50 states on board for anything, really. But, there are 27 member states of the European Union. And, while called “member states,” those are separate countries, with separate cultures, governments and, heck, even languages. Yet, they seem to work better for a common energy cause than we do under the umbrella of a single federal government.
Granted, the European goals may not be reached by 2020. That’s only a decade off. But, it’s vexing that they can get their people to at least agree on the concepts, the need and the planning---to at least “think” the energy forward. Getting even a pow-wow to plan for energy here in the U.S. seems improbable; getting a plan together for sold changes in the next decade appears nearly impossible at this point.
I hope that the U.S. can catch up to Europe in terms of power policy. It’s 1620 no more, and, at the official 400-year Mayflower landing mark (2020), Europe may have made advances we can’t possibly touch with energy efficiency, infrastructure, investment and, yes, the smart grid.
Yesterday, European Union Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger stunned a lot of the EU community by not getting more conservative or free-market in his planning (as the U.S. did in last week’s elections). Instead, despite media speculation that he would follow the flow of fellow German and home country Chancellor Angela Merkel, he set out a huge five-point, trillion-euro agenda to make energy in Europe (gas and power included) one big happy family by the much-chatted-about 2020 deadline.
So, while the U.S. will be gridlocked on energy policy with a Democratic Senate and a Republican House and little-to-no elbow room in sight, the EU plans to sweeten the financial incentives for energy efficiency; create an EU-wide market with upgraded, interconnected infrastructures; direct energy policy from the top down (rather than by country); expand technology in multiple areas (including the “smart city” concepts) and push for consumer options on price comparisons, supplier changes and billing.
Along with those smaller goals are the overarching plans of the 2020 strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent, increase the share of renewable energy to 20 percent and make a 20 percent improvement in energy efficiency all by the year 2020.
By the year 2020 here in the U.S. we might have come to some final “yea” or “nay” decision on cap and trade. Maybe. But, I’m not going to hold my breath.
A lot of this indecision in the U.S., I realize, is due to a strong states-rights mentality that makes it hard to get all 50 states on board for anything, really. But, there are 27 member states of the European Union. And, while called “member states,” those are separate countries, with separate cultures, governments and, heck, even languages. Yet, they seem to work better for a common energy cause than we do under the umbrella of a single federal government.
Granted, the European goals may not be reached by 2020. That’s only a decade off. But, it’s vexing that they can get their people to at least agree on the concepts, the need and the planning---to at least “think” the energy forward. Getting even a pow-wow to plan for energy here in the U.S. seems improbable; getting a plan together for sold changes in the next decade appears nearly impossible at this point.
I hope that the U.S. can catch up to Europe in terms of power policy. It’s 1620 no more, and, at the official 400-year Mayflower landing mark (2020), Europe may have made advances we can’t possibly touch with energy efficiency, infrastructure, investment and, yes, the smart grid.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Midterm elections, treehuggers and regression-to-mean changes in energy policy
The word around industrial and political blog-land is that it was not a happy election week for energy treehuggers. There’s a great regression-to-mean at work, a return to the traditional senses of energy and policy. With a large change from a global warming-sure blue sea to a global warming-unsure red current, the tide in the political world has shifted away from carbon-lessening, renewable-positive energy to a more traditional fossil fuel approach, with a few exceptions here and there.
Not an exception: cap and trade. It’s dead, for awhile at least. Perhaps we should say it’s comatose instead. We can’t completely call it. But, it’s not bound to awaken like an electric sleeping beauty in the next two years. Just recently, Congress was having one heck of a time attempting to pass a climate change bill in an overwhelming Democratic government. Now that Congress is split between a Democratic Senate and a Republican House, it’s certainly not getting any easier. As the Washington Independent was reporting on Nov. 3, “at least 12 freshman Democrats who voted for the cap-and-trade bill lost their re-election bids.” And, according to Politico, the total number of Dems who voted for the Waxman-Markey House climate bill who lost seats in this election cycle tops 30---“swept away on Tuesday’s anti-incumbent wave” was their exact wording. So, pretty much that’s a mean, green snoozer who will be snoring for awhile, much to the dismay of environmentalists (and to the relief of many climate skeptics, though I admit to you that I am not one of those; I may be from Oklahoma, but I am no Tom Coburn).
Overall, except for the bright spot of a “no” to Prop. 23 in Cali (a ballot measure to suspend AB 32, the state's climate change law) there wasn’t a lot for motivated treehuggers with a fear of global warming to cling to after Tuesday in the area of energy policy. However, nearly 30 states already have renewable energy portfolio standards. So, there’s that for those treehuggers, I guess. Unless there’s a lot of work to reverse RFPs, those will remain. Still, don’t expect that number to grow until election year 2012, and perhaps not even then if our return-to-mean is entrenched.
If environmental issues do remain on the political plate, look for less of a push with wind and solar power and more “middle ground” environmental energies like nuclear power or even carbon capture to resurge. (The one power plus both sides seem to agree on, sometimes, is hydro. So, that may be neutral territory to start from.)
Incentives for renewable projects and green buildings are expected to dwindle, though programs that push both a healthy environment and a healthy consumer wallet (like winterizing and efficiency) may survive.
Electric vehicles, which also bring in that wallet factor in terms of jobs and potential return for still-hurting car companies are thought to be the real bright spot with this election. It is believed that EVs will remain a positive power push, even for a Republican House.
In the end, though, the burning question may be: What happens to the smart grid? Obama has made it his big player energy push with attention, action, and, most importantly, cash. A number of SGIG projects are in production, so to speak. And, it’s quite likely that, at least for a few months to a year or so, the smart grid momentum will keep rolling; with the funding in hand, some of those projects just have to rely on the gravity of completion. But, with no more stimulus cash floating in on that red tide, can the smart grid still come together?
It waits to be seen if our disappointed treehuggers will also be shedding a few tears for the smart grid in the future.
Not an exception: cap and trade. It’s dead, for awhile at least. Perhaps we should say it’s comatose instead. We can’t completely call it. But, it’s not bound to awaken like an electric sleeping beauty in the next two years. Just recently, Congress was having one heck of a time attempting to pass a climate change bill in an overwhelming Democratic government. Now that Congress is split between a Democratic Senate and a Republican House, it’s certainly not getting any easier. As the Washington Independent was reporting on Nov. 3, “at least 12 freshman Democrats who voted for the cap-and-trade bill lost their re-election bids.” And, according to Politico, the total number of Dems who voted for the Waxman-Markey House climate bill who lost seats in this election cycle tops 30---“swept away on Tuesday’s anti-incumbent wave” was their exact wording. So, pretty much that’s a mean, green snoozer who will be snoring for awhile, much to the dismay of environmentalists (and to the relief of many climate skeptics, though I admit to you that I am not one of those; I may be from Oklahoma, but I am no Tom Coburn).
Overall, except for the bright spot of a “no” to Prop. 23 in Cali (a ballot measure to suspend AB 32, the state's climate change law) there wasn’t a lot for motivated treehuggers with a fear of global warming to cling to after Tuesday in the area of energy policy. However, nearly 30 states already have renewable energy portfolio standards. So, there’s that for those treehuggers, I guess. Unless there’s a lot of work to reverse RFPs, those will remain. Still, don’t expect that number to grow until election year 2012, and perhaps not even then if our return-to-mean is entrenched.
If environmental issues do remain on the political plate, look for less of a push with wind and solar power and more “middle ground” environmental energies like nuclear power or even carbon capture to resurge. (The one power plus both sides seem to agree on, sometimes, is hydro. So, that may be neutral territory to start from.)
Incentives for renewable projects and green buildings are expected to dwindle, though programs that push both a healthy environment and a healthy consumer wallet (like winterizing and efficiency) may survive.
Electric vehicles, which also bring in that wallet factor in terms of jobs and potential return for still-hurting car companies are thought to be the real bright spot with this election. It is believed that EVs will remain a positive power push, even for a Republican House.
In the end, though, the burning question may be: What happens to the smart grid? Obama has made it his big player energy push with attention, action, and, most importantly, cash. A number of SGIG projects are in production, so to speak. And, it’s quite likely that, at least for a few months to a year or so, the smart grid momentum will keep rolling; with the funding in hand, some of those projects just have to rely on the gravity of completion. But, with no more stimulus cash floating in on that red tide, can the smart grid still come together?
It waits to be seen if our disappointed treehuggers will also be shedding a few tears for the smart grid in the future.
Monday, November 1, 2010
A zombie apocalypse power primer
Last night was Halloween, one of my favorite holidays of the year. So, I did one of my favorite things: I watched classic moaning, groaning undead flicks, including the new “zombie western” on AMC. Zombies are my favorite of all horror creatures: They are frightening monsters but with a visual reminder of the humanity that once existed. I love the groupthink hunger horde that zombies represent---zombies are, essentially, the primal id selves we all fear we might become some day in the absence of our dull civilizing network of bank ATMs, cable TV and On the Border restaurants.
But, as someone in the power business, I’m often fascinated at what the remaining non-zombie survivors have to work with once the power grid goes out. Sometimes it’s accurate (the AMC show worked hard for that, even adding odd exposition to explain why the water was hot and ran here at the police station but not there at the house), but a lot of times there are major gaps in the power reality of a zombie movie, leading me to believe that most Americans don’t understand just how pervasive power is in their lives.
Personally, in case of a zombie apocalypse, I’d be more worried about lack of power than the power of a deadly undead bite.
Power isn’t just the reason your TV flickers and the lights go on. Power pushes through things you’ve never thought of, really----like pumps that allow you to have running water and gas to flow from a station’s underground reservoir.
One of my favorite newer zombie flicks is “Zombieland,” but, I admit that I was a bit of a heckler on my first viewing in the theater when our hero fills up at a gas station 3 weeks after the great epidemic. Without power, there’s no pumping of gas. Period. If we all lived in 1920 when the pumps still relied on customer (or, more likely, attendant) manpower, our hero might have had a shot, but manual gas pumps are a relic of the past. We’ve made them electronic, like the rest of the world.
So, when the zombies attack, remember: Fill up first. Because, when they get enough people to join the scary zombie cult and no one is left to man power stations, you’ve only got the gas in your car to work with. (But, take heart, the survivors in EV cars will be dead before you are.)
Now, let’s talk water. Many water utility lift stations (or pump stations) will have back-up generators, and your hot water heater will have 40-50 gallons, sometimes, of water still in the system. This will give you some time to hunker down if the zombie hordes are roaming the streets. But, alas, those stations aren’t meant to operate long-term without power. So, eventually, when the generators run out of fuel, your sewer system stops working. And, when the clean reservoirs at your local water treatment plant go dry and no more can be lifted into the system, your water stops running (even gravity systems don’t work if there’s no water to pull from).
But, it’s true, you’ll have water longest. Remember that. Long after lights, TV, cable, Internet, your cell phone (once it runs out of power, you’re out of talk time permanently), you will have water. Just don’t forget to boil it first before drinking. (Here’s hoping you remember how to build a fire from your Girl Scout/Boy Scout days.)
Finally, yes, generators will be a godsend in the zombie apocalypse. But, remember, they are only temporary. You run out of fuel, and you run out of power. Without the massive oil industry to produce more (and without electronic pumps to lift it from the station’s underground holding tank, as mentioned earlier with “Zombieland”), there are only so many abandoned cars, tractors and motor homes you can scavenge for leftovers. Eventually, without fuel production, there will be no power.
In the end, watching a small band of survivors take on the zombie hordes and deal with the newfound inconveniences of a powerless world, I have to admit that my great affection for power grows two sizes with each viewing. Power is a marvelous thing, and I hope we can avoid the zombie apocalypse that would put a significant dent into my delightfully pampered lifestyle.
But, it might not hurt to buy a generator and stock up on fuel just in case. I want that pampered power lifestyle for as long as humanly possible.
But, as someone in the power business, I’m often fascinated at what the remaining non-zombie survivors have to work with once the power grid goes out. Sometimes it’s accurate (the AMC show worked hard for that, even adding odd exposition to explain why the water was hot and ran here at the police station but not there at the house), but a lot of times there are major gaps in the power reality of a zombie movie, leading me to believe that most Americans don’t understand just how pervasive power is in their lives.
Personally, in case of a zombie apocalypse, I’d be more worried about lack of power than the power of a deadly undead bite.
Power isn’t just the reason your TV flickers and the lights go on. Power pushes through things you’ve never thought of, really----like pumps that allow you to have running water and gas to flow from a station’s underground reservoir.
One of my favorite newer zombie flicks is “Zombieland,” but, I admit that I was a bit of a heckler on my first viewing in the theater when our hero fills up at a gas station 3 weeks after the great epidemic. Without power, there’s no pumping of gas. Period. If we all lived in 1920 when the pumps still relied on customer (or, more likely, attendant) manpower, our hero might have had a shot, but manual gas pumps are a relic of the past. We’ve made them electronic, like the rest of the world.
So, when the zombies attack, remember: Fill up first. Because, when they get enough people to join the scary zombie cult and no one is left to man power stations, you’ve only got the gas in your car to work with. (But, take heart, the survivors in EV cars will be dead before you are.)
Now, let’s talk water. Many water utility lift stations (or pump stations) will have back-up generators, and your hot water heater will have 40-50 gallons, sometimes, of water still in the system. This will give you some time to hunker down if the zombie hordes are roaming the streets. But, alas, those stations aren’t meant to operate long-term without power. So, eventually, when the generators run out of fuel, your sewer system stops working. And, when the clean reservoirs at your local water treatment plant go dry and no more can be lifted into the system, your water stops running (even gravity systems don’t work if there’s no water to pull from).
But, it’s true, you’ll have water longest. Remember that. Long after lights, TV, cable, Internet, your cell phone (once it runs out of power, you’re out of talk time permanently), you will have water. Just don’t forget to boil it first before drinking. (Here’s hoping you remember how to build a fire from your Girl Scout/Boy Scout days.)
Finally, yes, generators will be a godsend in the zombie apocalypse. But, remember, they are only temporary. You run out of fuel, and you run out of power. Without the massive oil industry to produce more (and without electronic pumps to lift it from the station’s underground holding tank, as mentioned earlier with “Zombieland”), there are only so many abandoned cars, tractors and motor homes you can scavenge for leftovers. Eventually, without fuel production, there will be no power.
In the end, watching a small band of survivors take on the zombie hordes and deal with the newfound inconveniences of a powerless world, I have to admit that my great affection for power grows two sizes with each viewing. Power is a marvelous thing, and I hope we can avoid the zombie apocalypse that would put a significant dent into my delightfully pampered lifestyle.
But, it might not hurt to buy a generator and stock up on fuel just in case. I want that pampered power lifestyle for as long as humanly possible.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Will consumers ever want to hug the stuffing out of the smart grid?
Like most people around the world, I find myself still thinking about those Chilean miners, more than a week after the rescue seen around the world.
I was at home in bed watching a live video feed as the capsule carrying the first rescue worker reached the bottom of the mine. The miners couldn’t wait to touch him, to hug him, to reach out to him, and the worker was visibly emotionally touched by their physical reactions to him.
It was an almost child-like reaction those miners had, wanting to make sure the rescue worker was real. It’s the same reaction we have when we’re confronted with something or someone that seems mythical. We want to touch it, to touch her. We want to see if it’s imaginary, and, when it is proven real, we want to embrace it and, as my mother would say, “just hug the stuffing out of it” because we’re so happy it exists.
I thought the miners were going to hug the stuffing out of that poor rescue worker, but, I honestly don’t think he would have minded. That moment where myth became flesh was too amazing to worry about one’s stuffing, really.
In the end, mythology was trumped by reality---after two months of those miners thinking the outside world atop their heads was unreachable, unthinkable, mythological, it became real again.
Mythology is a part of all human culture. We tell stories of great feats, and, if we can’t explain them scientifically, or if we have a large emotional reaction that such things can’t be reality, we tend to bloom them into myths.
The smart grid is no exception. It has its own mythology, especially to the average electric consumer hearing all sorts of horror stories about higher bills and problematic smart meters. The real issue with mythology is that it does not always feed on fact. It can feed equally on emotions, whether positive ones like the hope those miners had of returning to the surface, or negative ones like turmoil, chaos and fear.
With customers today, the smart grid mythology is a negative one and is, unfortunately, based on fear---fear of the unknown. While, as an industry, we seem collectively flabbergasted at the large number of negative stories on the smart grid that have been published in recent months, we have to realize the emotional distance between those of us “in the know” with smart grid technology and all those customers still in the dark.
We are on the surface, and, figuratively, those customers are in a mine, and what exists between the two camps are layers and layers of sedimentary mythology that we must, as an industry, find a way to drill through if we’re going to get those customers to see the smart grid in a positive light.
They need to see it, touch it, find out that it’s real and positive, but we can’t accomplish that by simply telling them it’s positive. You can’t pop a solid myth with pretty words. Unfortunately, mythology is a bit harder to fight and, once established, is much tougher to disperse. We have to accept that negative mythology, whether or not it is based on fact, has been established with customers and the smart grid. And, we have to stop griping about how the average customer just doesn’t understand. You’re right. They don’t.
But, if we don’t find a way to break through that rock-hard mythology, we may find that even the smart grid itself, every digital bit and byte and every physical meter, may fade from fact into mythology, as well. The question is: How do we show the positive truth of the smart grid to the average customer so that they want to just hug the stuffing out of it?
I was at home in bed watching a live video feed as the capsule carrying the first rescue worker reached the bottom of the mine. The miners couldn’t wait to touch him, to hug him, to reach out to him, and the worker was visibly emotionally touched by their physical reactions to him.
It was an almost child-like reaction those miners had, wanting to make sure the rescue worker was real. It’s the same reaction we have when we’re confronted with something or someone that seems mythical. We want to touch it, to touch her. We want to see if it’s imaginary, and, when it is proven real, we want to embrace it and, as my mother would say, “just hug the stuffing out of it” because we’re so happy it exists.
I thought the miners were going to hug the stuffing out of that poor rescue worker, but, I honestly don’t think he would have minded. That moment where myth became flesh was too amazing to worry about one’s stuffing, really.
In the end, mythology was trumped by reality---after two months of those miners thinking the outside world atop their heads was unreachable, unthinkable, mythological, it became real again.
Mythology is a part of all human culture. We tell stories of great feats, and, if we can’t explain them scientifically, or if we have a large emotional reaction that such things can’t be reality, we tend to bloom them into myths.
The smart grid is no exception. It has its own mythology, especially to the average electric consumer hearing all sorts of horror stories about higher bills and problematic smart meters. The real issue with mythology is that it does not always feed on fact. It can feed equally on emotions, whether positive ones like the hope those miners had of returning to the surface, or negative ones like turmoil, chaos and fear.
With customers today, the smart grid mythology is a negative one and is, unfortunately, based on fear---fear of the unknown. While, as an industry, we seem collectively flabbergasted at the large number of negative stories on the smart grid that have been published in recent months, we have to realize the emotional distance between those of us “in the know” with smart grid technology and all those customers still in the dark.
We are on the surface, and, figuratively, those customers are in a mine, and what exists between the two camps are layers and layers of sedimentary mythology that we must, as an industry, find a way to drill through if we’re going to get those customers to see the smart grid in a positive light.
They need to see it, touch it, find out that it’s real and positive, but we can’t accomplish that by simply telling them it’s positive. You can’t pop a solid myth with pretty words. Unfortunately, mythology is a bit harder to fight and, once established, is much tougher to disperse. We have to accept that negative mythology, whether or not it is based on fact, has been established with customers and the smart grid. And, we have to stop griping about how the average customer just doesn’t understand. You’re right. They don’t.
But, if we don’t find a way to break through that rock-hard mythology, we may find that even the smart grid itself, every digital bit and byte and every physical meter, may fade from fact into mythology, as well. The question is: How do we show the positive truth of the smart grid to the average customer so that they want to just hug the stuffing out of it?
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Lineman's Rodeo hits KC
I made a joke to my coworkers that, this weekend, I'm traveling in the beaten track of Wilbert Harrison---going to Kansas City, here I come. Sadly, even with my slightly off-key singing, few people get that joke anymore.
This weekend, Kansas City is host to the International Lineman's Rodeo. Well, more specifically, the rodeo plops down in Overland Park, a suburb of KC.
This is the 27th annual lineman's rodeo, and the 2010 version is packed with an exhibit floor and the rodeo events themselves, which happen on Saturday in Bonner Springs, Kansas, another suburb of KC. Everything's in the 'burbs these days.
Kansas City Power and Light along with Westar Energy are the host utilities for this well-attended event attracting the best of the best in lineman from across the country and around the world. The rodeo on Saturday pits utility teams against one another in a number of traditional lineman tasks from pole climbing to hurt man rescue. There are also a number of surprise "mystery events," where the teams don't know what they will be tested on until they get on site. (Last year, one of the mystery events was replacing a lightening arrestor. Southern California Edison won that event.)
The first Lineman's Rodeo was held in September 1984 with twelve participating teams from Kansas and Missouri. This year, there are teams from Canada, Hawaii and even Brazil, according to the show's registration people (whom I chatted with a bit earlier today). While the exposition that comes into play today and tomorrow before the rodeo is quite a draw (especially for free t-shirts), it's clear that the real excitement is yet to come---at the Saturday rodeo. When even your registration staff is excited, you know you have something special in hand.
The expo at the Overland Park Convention Center over the next two days features a number of exhibitors from Aircraft Dynamics to Buckingham Manufacturing Co., from Duratel to our own sister publication Utility Products. (Utility Products is currently neck-and-neck in the running for the best giveaway t-shirt, right up there with Bulwark, which has a line that extends out from its booth and down the aisle. T-shirts really are the thing here at the Lineman's Rodeo.)
Those handy folks at registration told me that, on average, the exhibit floor will take in around 2500 people today and tomorrow before the Saturday rodeo. Additionally, for this year, there are over 150 teams registered for the rodeo itself and around 200 apprentices. (It's a bit down from years past due to the economy, but the Lineman's Rodeo is still a very strong event indeed. That expo floor was packed when I left a few minutes ago, and Utility Products was darn close to running out of t-shirts, as were most exhibitors.)
Are you here at the Lineman's Rodeo? If so, leave me a comment or two about what you're seeing and hearing at the event. Reading this after the event? Tell me your favorite winners and moments at the rodeo.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Fess up, utilities: Smart grid stuffs may not save customer cash
Let me preface this entry by saying that I believe in the smart grid. I’m a fan. I think we need a smarter, more self-healing, more active, more adaptable energy system. It is, indeed, the wave of the future, the golden child, the technological messiah.
But, nope, it ain’t gonna be cheap.
Last week, I wrote a blog about the California governor signing into law a bill that (sorta) mandates utility targets for energy storage in the state. You can read it here, if you’re interested.
One of the comments I received was from a reader named Jim. He wrote:
Will investment in energy storage lower my energy bill? Of course not. Is this the most effective way to reduce green house gases? Not by a long shot. The virtue of this plan is that everyone gets to subsidize those who will make a lot money from it.
To be completely honest here, Jim is absolutely right. Is energy storage specifically (and smart grid or renewables generally) going to automatically start Jim’s electric bill on the path to negative numbers? Is the power company going to, eventually, have to pay him? Probably not unless he has own wind turbine or solar panels, and, even then, such technologies would cost him a lot up front for purchase and installation.
And, sure, energy storage is not the most direct way to reduce greenhouse gases produced by the power industry. The most direct way would be to just shut down fossil fuel plants---at least the most direct within our industry. But, we can’t do that. So, we have to look for some outside options that may be more than the mathematically logical straight line between two points. Sometimes, it takes a cloud of dots to clear the air.
And, in the end, will people make money off this stuff? Yes, they will. For AB2514 (that energy storage bill), the companies that make the equipment will make money. For the smart grid, yes, the companies that have those smarter technologies and can sell them will make money. That’s the way capitalism---fortunately or unfortunately---works. Those companies wouldn’t be in business if they didn’t have a profit margin.
And, in the end, the same has to be said for your utility. While they are highly regulated and while they don’t really get the free reign of capitalism that, say, Wal-Mart does, they are still a company and still trying to make a bit of money---while providing a valuable, important service. Whether or not such a service should be socialized, privatized, deregulated or regulated is another argument really. Here, we’re talking about what is.
And, in the land of “what is,” here are the facts:
(1) Smart grid technology costs money.
(2) Utilities can only take on so much of the up-front costs of smart grid before passing it on to consumers.
(3) We also need to seriously upgrade infrastructure for those smart grid technologies, and that, too, costs money.
So, yes, Jim is totally right. Why can’t we, as an industry, admit that? We often market the smart grid as a way to save the consumer cash, but, let’s be honest, that’s not always true. And, to so do, the consumer would have to be willingly involved---checking energy consumption, adjusting their use, understanding rate changes.
In the end, can we set aside the idea of selling the smart grid, renewable adoption and upgraded power technology as a saver of nickels and dimes and dollars? Instead, can we be more direct and say, “The smart grid is good for the individual, good for the marketplace and good for the country.”
As Martha Stewart coined, the smart grid is a “good thing.” It will allow for more renewables. It will give better information on power use, outages and issues. It will add technological options to the grid. And, sure, if you’re super dedicated to your in-home energy management unit and are willing to invest time (and perhaps cash if you had to buy and install that unit), the smart grid could save you money.
It could, but we’ll still need to pay for upgrades, research, investment and pilot programs before that happens. And, while a lot of that cost is being shouldered by utility companies, it is more than true that the average consumer is not going to see a financial benefit to the smart grid in the near future. They may get smarter, more reliable, higher quality energy. And, they may, in a few years, get to help with that greenhouse gas reduction, but it’s time to market the smart grid with it’s definite positives and let go of the idea that the average consumer can only be swayed to join the smart grid fan base if we talk about cash.
Let’s talk about change, about a smarter future. Let’s talk about cleaner energy and fewer outages. Let’s talk about more understanding with energy use and energy production. But, let’s stop talking about the almighty dollar. It’s just clouding an issue that should be about positive and necessary change and not about cost savings.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Governator to utilities: Invest in energy storage … maybe
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed AB2514 into official law this week, and it may change the face of the entire power industry if the details of that law spread to other regions in the U.S.
What makes this law so unique? It gets very close to mandating that utilities invest in energy storage systems to make connecting renewable power easier.
AB2514 requires that the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) “open a proceeding” by March 1, 2012 to discuss potential investor-owned utility (IOU) energy storage targets with a two-fold deadline---one set of targets achieved by December 31, 2015, and the second set by December 31, 2020.
There would be a similar set of requirements for public utilities, along with a plan for significant demand response activity.
"Energy storage improves the overall efficiency of our electric power system which will lower costs for consumers," said Assembly Member Nancy Skinner when the bill passed in June. "The Assembly's passage of AB 2514 is another step that advances California's clean energy economy and represents a great economic opportunity for the State."
"We applaud the Assembly's passage of this essential legislation, as well as Chairman Skinner and Attorney General Brown's leadership and commitment to moving it forward," said Janice Lin, Director of the California Energy Storage Alliance at the time of the bill’s passing. "This landmark bill puts California at the forefront of a growing global market that will spur economic development. Given major advances in energy storage, the industry is now ready to provide affordable, reliable products for California's utilities and consumers."
“California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger just signed AB2514, an energy storage bill, into law this evening,” wrote Silent Power CEO Todd Headlee on the company’s blog. “The passage of this bill is a major step forward for reliable, clean and lower cost electric power for all Californians. Electricity storage will enable more clean, local renewable wind and solar power supported by clean storage. With storage, Californians will have clean power when and where they need it and with less need for new transmission lines.” (Silent Power, Inc. manufactures and markets distributed energy storage systems.)
CALMAC Corp., a company that manufactures energy storage equipment, released a statement after the signing by CEO Mark MacCracken.
“Energy storage is an excellent solution for making renewable energy sources more economically viable,” said MacCracken. “Energy storage is critical as we move toward the use of renewable resources and Energy Storage Bill AB 2514 is a step in the right direction for the future of our country’s energy needs. I commend the leaders in California that realized that solving our energy problems is not as simple as just putting solar on roofs and wind turbines on mountains, since solar and wind cannot be counted on to be there when you need them. I hope other states follow California’s lead.”
If the CPUC decides to create extensive energy storage targets, this bill could be a sign of things to come with other states in the area of renewable interconnections, but, of course, there is always the loophole: AB2514 only requires that the CPUC discuss the matter and set targets. There is no guarantee what those targets might be. And, in fact, they may decide that no targets are needed at all, to stick with the status quo.
But, AB2514 is certainly a promising start for the renewables camp to get a stronger foothold in the door of traditional energy. And, they are using the biggest stick they can find: the government.
What makes this law so unique? It gets very close to mandating that utilities invest in energy storage systems to make connecting renewable power easier.
AB2514 requires that the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) “open a proceeding” by March 1, 2012 to discuss potential investor-owned utility (IOU) energy storage targets with a two-fold deadline---one set of targets achieved by December 31, 2015, and the second set by December 31, 2020.
There would be a similar set of requirements for public utilities, along with a plan for significant demand response activity.
"Energy storage improves the overall efficiency of our electric power system which will lower costs for consumers," said Assembly Member Nancy Skinner when the bill passed in June. "The Assembly's passage of AB 2514 is another step that advances California's clean energy economy and represents a great economic opportunity for the State."
"We applaud the Assembly's passage of this essential legislation, as well as Chairman Skinner and Attorney General Brown's leadership and commitment to moving it forward," said Janice Lin, Director of the California Energy Storage Alliance at the time of the bill’s passing. "This landmark bill puts California at the forefront of a growing global market that will spur economic development. Given major advances in energy storage, the industry is now ready to provide affordable, reliable products for California's utilities and consumers."
“California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger just signed AB2514, an energy storage bill, into law this evening,” wrote Silent Power CEO Todd Headlee on the company’s blog. “The passage of this bill is a major step forward for reliable, clean and lower cost electric power for all Californians. Electricity storage will enable more clean, local renewable wind and solar power supported by clean storage. With storage, Californians will have clean power when and where they need it and with less need for new transmission lines.” (Silent Power, Inc. manufactures and markets distributed energy storage systems.)
CALMAC Corp., a company that manufactures energy storage equipment, released a statement after the signing by CEO Mark MacCracken.
“Energy storage is an excellent solution for making renewable energy sources more economically viable,” said MacCracken. “Energy storage is critical as we move toward the use of renewable resources and Energy Storage Bill AB 2514 is a step in the right direction for the future of our country’s energy needs. I commend the leaders in California that realized that solving our energy problems is not as simple as just putting solar on roofs and wind turbines on mountains, since solar and wind cannot be counted on to be there when you need them. I hope other states follow California’s lead.”
If the CPUC decides to create extensive energy storage targets, this bill could be a sign of things to come with other states in the area of renewable interconnections, but, of course, there is always the loophole: AB2514 only requires that the CPUC discuss the matter and set targets. There is no guarantee what those targets might be. And, in fact, they may decide that no targets are needed at all, to stick with the status quo.
But, AB2514 is certainly a promising start for the renewables camp to get a stronger foothold in the door of traditional energy. And, they are using the biggest stick they can find: the government.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Meditations on solar max, Max Headroom and naughty little business case genies
Ralph Abbott is a hoot to talk to. I don’t know if you’ve ever encountered him at an industry conference. (He’ll be hanging out in the RW Beck booth chatting up passersby and handing out his business cards which proudly declare him the founder of Plexus Research.) If you do run into him, though, ask him about the three risks.
It’s like three wishes, only negative---from a potentially quite naughty little genie.
Not that Ralph is a negative guy. He’s certainly not. As noted, he’s a hoot. But, he does have three specific concerns about smart grid and communications. And they are quite valid.
His first concern: What about the sun, man?
I know. Seems like a hippie liberal issue, but it’s not, my friend. The sun impacts all. What he’s getting at is solar max. Solar max isn’t an ‘80s icon you don’t remember well because you’re still fondly recalling Max Headroom. No, in fact, solar max is short for solar maximum. It’s a measurement of solar variation. It’s about sun spots and, while it still sounds odd, that does impact things here on Earth like weather, surface magnetism and radiation.
What’s the bottomline here with solar max? Well, it impacts something much more directly than weather here: It can create odd havoc with communications. The scientific explanation involves refraction and ionized solar photons. But, the basics are: It gets all wiggy with radio frequency (RF).
Ralph noted that solar max is on a 17-year cycle with experts expecting it to peak between 2012 and 2014, which could cause issues with utilities’ RF use. Ralph’s question to the industry echoes more Dirty Harry than Max Headroom though: Are we feeling lucky?
In other words, are we just going to ignore solar max and hope it doesn’t cause massive issues, or does someone, somewhere have a plan?
I know. That’s only one risk and already you’re a bit concerned. Try to maintain your calmness.
His second concern: GPS.
Okay, not all of GPS. Not your Mr. T-speaking TomTom alight on your car dashboard that gets you to the Kenny Rogers concert without getting lost on Oklahoma’s unlit, unmanned and unsigned back highways. That’s not the GPS Ralph is concerned with. He’s more concerned with GPS satellite timing signals, which would keep all your smart grid equipment on the same reliable beat, you might say.
But, as Ralph pointed out, GPS can be easily jammed with about $200 worth of over-the-counter parts and an ability to get within 150 feet of the equipment. So, like his concerns over solar max, he has some questions, like: What’s the risk of GPS jamming to utility operations? What’s the threat level, really, and what counter measures are we taking?
Hopefully, you’re not panicked yet. We’re on to risk number three, and, luckily, this risk doesn’t really make us fear the minor jammer or the almighty sun. Instead, this final risk revolves entirely around the almighty dollar.
His third concern: The business case for AMI.
How many articles have we all read---and, also, have I written---on proving a business case for AMI? I’ll estimate it topping Super Bowl ticket receipts from last year. Seems like millions, doesn’t it? But, Ralph wants to know if they are really getting to the heart of one specific area: using demand response as the ‘sweet spot” to get to goal on operational savings.
See, demand response is rather an amorphous term. It’s here. It’s there. It can mean different things to different folks (rather like the term “smart grid,” really).
Let’s say you need to prove your AMI business case and you know a few savvy facts. You know that five percent of your consumers will change their power use according to demand response ideals if you just tell them all about it, if you just give them good info. They are really that darn motivated.
But, you also know that if those consumers had in-home gadgets that let them visually see the information in real-time, that number would jump to 15 percent. So, you pencil in that number in your AMI business case, cuz that’s a delightful number, really. Helps all those other numbers look better. But, are you figuring in costs of those in-home devices, or are you saying to yourself, “Self, those consumers are gonna be just fine going to Radio Shack or some other fine establishment and buying their own devices and installing those devices themselves.”
This leaves the pay out for that in-home device in the pocket of the consumer, which is lovely for that AMI business case but perhaps not so practical in the real world. Because will that person really be excited about taking time out of their day and going down to the Shack and picking up that purchase and then going home and installing that thingamajig? And who do they call if the thingamajig doesn’t light up with all the bells and whistles the consumer expects?
One response Ralph got when he asked around about that question to a few utilities, “I don’t know who they call, but it ain’t us.”
So, if it ain’t us, who is it? And is this a magical view of consumers where they are all tech savvy, gung-ho and willing to pay for demand response benefits up front? What if that magical view is woefully inaccurate? How will taking on consumer-side technology, questions, installations, problems and follow-ups impact the business case for AMI?
Those are Ralph’s meditations these days. You’ll be able to read more about them in an upcoming issue of POWERGRID International magazine. If you can’t wait until then, track him down at the nearest conference and ask him to expand on these risks. It may be the most interesting meeting you have at that conference.
It’s like three wishes, only negative---from a potentially quite naughty little genie.
Not that Ralph is a negative guy. He’s certainly not. As noted, he’s a hoot. But, he does have three specific concerns about smart grid and communications. And they are quite valid.
His first concern: What about the sun, man?
I know. Seems like a hippie liberal issue, but it’s not, my friend. The sun impacts all. What he’s getting at is solar max. Solar max isn’t an ‘80s icon you don’t remember well because you’re still fondly recalling Max Headroom. No, in fact, solar max is short for solar maximum. It’s a measurement of solar variation. It’s about sun spots and, while it still sounds odd, that does impact things here on Earth like weather, surface magnetism and radiation.
What’s the bottomline here with solar max? Well, it impacts something much more directly than weather here: It can create odd havoc with communications. The scientific explanation involves refraction and ionized solar photons. But, the basics are: It gets all wiggy with radio frequency (RF).
Ralph noted that solar max is on a 17-year cycle with experts expecting it to peak between 2012 and 2014, which could cause issues with utilities’ RF use. Ralph’s question to the industry echoes more Dirty Harry than Max Headroom though: Are we feeling lucky?
In other words, are we just going to ignore solar max and hope it doesn’t cause massive issues, or does someone, somewhere have a plan?
I know. That’s only one risk and already you’re a bit concerned. Try to maintain your calmness.
His second concern: GPS.
Okay, not all of GPS. Not your Mr. T-speaking TomTom alight on your car dashboard that gets you to the Kenny Rogers concert without getting lost on Oklahoma’s unlit, unmanned and unsigned back highways. That’s not the GPS Ralph is concerned with. He’s more concerned with GPS satellite timing signals, which would keep all your smart grid equipment on the same reliable beat, you might say.
But, as Ralph pointed out, GPS can be easily jammed with about $200 worth of over-the-counter parts and an ability to get within 150 feet of the equipment. So, like his concerns over solar max, he has some questions, like: What’s the risk of GPS jamming to utility operations? What’s the threat level, really, and what counter measures are we taking?
Hopefully, you’re not panicked yet. We’re on to risk number three, and, luckily, this risk doesn’t really make us fear the minor jammer or the almighty sun. Instead, this final risk revolves entirely around the almighty dollar.
His third concern: The business case for AMI.
How many articles have we all read---and, also, have I written---on proving a business case for AMI? I’ll estimate it topping Super Bowl ticket receipts from last year. Seems like millions, doesn’t it? But, Ralph wants to know if they are really getting to the heart of one specific area: using demand response as the ‘sweet spot” to get to goal on operational savings.
See, demand response is rather an amorphous term. It’s here. It’s there. It can mean different things to different folks (rather like the term “smart grid,” really).
Let’s say you need to prove your AMI business case and you know a few savvy facts. You know that five percent of your consumers will change their power use according to demand response ideals if you just tell them all about it, if you just give them good info. They are really that darn motivated.
But, you also know that if those consumers had in-home gadgets that let them visually see the information in real-time, that number would jump to 15 percent. So, you pencil in that number in your AMI business case, cuz that’s a delightful number, really. Helps all those other numbers look better. But, are you figuring in costs of those in-home devices, or are you saying to yourself, “Self, those consumers are gonna be just fine going to Radio Shack or some other fine establishment and buying their own devices and installing those devices themselves.”
This leaves the pay out for that in-home device in the pocket of the consumer, which is lovely for that AMI business case but perhaps not so practical in the real world. Because will that person really be excited about taking time out of their day and going down to the Shack and picking up that purchase and then going home and installing that thingamajig? And who do they call if the thingamajig doesn’t light up with all the bells and whistles the consumer expects?
One response Ralph got when he asked around about that question to a few utilities, “I don’t know who they call, but it ain’t us.”
So, if it ain’t us, who is it? And is this a magical view of consumers where they are all tech savvy, gung-ho and willing to pay for demand response benefits up front? What if that magical view is woefully inaccurate? How will taking on consumer-side technology, questions, installations, problems and follow-ups impact the business case for AMI?
Those are Ralph’s meditations these days. You’ll be able to read more about them in an upcoming issue of POWERGRID International magazine. If you can’t wait until then, track him down at the nearest conference and ask him to expand on these risks. It may be the most interesting meeting you have at that conference.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
More from my Autovation notes: Ben Koch
Ben Koch, managing director in the corporate finance division of SWS Group, joined Austin Energy’s Mele at Autovation’s opening keynote session at the Austin Convention Center on September13. While he didn’t talk as much about communication as she did (see previous blog on Autovation by clicking here), Koch did mirror the executives at Itron and Cisco and discuss collaboration.
“We’re all on this road to a true end-to-end smart grid together,” he told the audience.
While Koch noted that there have been—and still are—obstacles on the road, the path is getting smoother and the industry is making progress.
“The smart grid has persevered,” Koch said, despite challenging economic conditions, complex integration issues, consumer skepticism, regulatory pressures and evolving standards.
While Koch admitted that financing is still an issue, he pointed to the Obama stimulus money for smart grid as being “on the right path” and noted that third party private investors are stepping up, offering nearly $500 million for smart grid products this year alone.
“On the private side, [companies] believe in smart grid opportunities,” he stated.
In the end, that investor faith in the smart grid was the one idea Koch really hoped every audience member would take away from his speech at Autovation.
“Investors are following [the smart grid] closely. They are willing to put capital to work,” he added.
Koch added that the smart grid market has a number of positives that investors look for, including growing market opportunities (1.3 billion electric meters around the world, for example), unique technology solutions and scalable business models.
While the gray area of emerging-but-not-definitive standards and significant consumer issues still remain, Koch doesn’t see those as impossible mountains to climb.
He said, “There will always be challenges in a market this size, but they will be overcome. It’s a great time to be in the [smart grid] market.”
“We’re all on this road to a true end-to-end smart grid together,” he told the audience.
While Koch noted that there have been—and still are—obstacles on the road, the path is getting smoother and the industry is making progress.
“The smart grid has persevered,” Koch said, despite challenging economic conditions, complex integration issues, consumer skepticism, regulatory pressures and evolving standards.
While Koch admitted that financing is still an issue, he pointed to the Obama stimulus money for smart grid as being “on the right path” and noted that third party private investors are stepping up, offering nearly $500 million for smart grid products this year alone.
“On the private side, [companies] believe in smart grid opportunities,” he stated.
In the end, that investor faith in the smart grid was the one idea Koch really hoped every audience member would take away from his speech at Autovation.
“Investors are following [the smart grid] closely. They are willing to put capital to work,” he added.
Koch added that the smart grid market has a number of positives that investors look for, including growing market opportunities (1.3 billion electric meters around the world, for example), unique technology solutions and scalable business models.
While the gray area of emerging-but-not-definitive standards and significant consumer issues still remain, Koch doesn’t see those as impossible mountains to climb.
He said, “There will always be challenges in a market this size, but they will be overcome. It’s a great time to be in the [smart grid] market.”
Monday, September 13, 2010
Live from Autovation: It's all about communication
It seems the buzz words at Utilimetrics' Autovation conference in Austin this week center around communication: communication in its techy automation form, communication with customers, and communication between vendors.
The communication fest began during the opening keynote this morning. Austin Energy's Cheryl Mele, the COO, talked about the utility's extensive program to exchange those regular old, outdated meters for smarter, sharper ones. And, even with that program, it was all about information distribution.
"One of the most important things we did during this exchange process was communicate."
And communicate they certainly did: flyers, press releases, post cards, door hangers, even a dedicated customer call center to answer all the questions about the meter exchange process.
Communication with customers was also on the minds of David Elve and Matt Zafuto with Sensus when I stopped by their booth on the Autovation exhibit floor today. Elve was discussing the importance of managing customer expectations and Zafuto agreed that being in the customer business is part of being in the automation business these days.
"Utilities don't react with customers very well, and traditionally they haven't had to," Zafuto pointed out. Comparing the current state of smart grid development as the "awkward toddler phase," Elve and Zafuto noted that utilities have the tech available to them, but now they need the technique, the flexibility to change plans as feedback from customers and other partners changes the needs of the smart grid---two-way communication both technologically and socially.
Itron and Cisco discussed the need for partnership communication as they expanded on their original announcement on the partnership subject during a press conference at Autovation.
Philip Mezey, senior vice president and chief operating officer for Itron North America, noted that a lack of trust and problematic scalability has created a push back against current smart grid advances but that he hopes this collaboration between his company and Cisco will announce a new state of affairs in the industry, one of communication and collaboration between vendors.
Paul De Martini, chief technology officer and vice president of strategy for the smart grid business unit at Cisco, added that it is "time for the industry to move out of the embryonic stage and start real deployment," which would include a standards-based approach with better communication and more vendor partnerships. This would allow for "creativity and innovation" in the smart grid marketplace, according to De Martini.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Love's labour's found
Shakespeare's Love's Labour's Lost is a comedy about the details of courtly love; it's both a commentary on how much work that love can be and, ironically, how little work that love can be. That's where all that "labour" comes in. Here in America, we drop that extra u and talk about "labor" when it comes to work and the workforce---and one area of the American workforce where labor hasn't been too significantly lost is power.
The production and distribution of power is still a labor-intensive effort from the mining of fuels like coal to the maintenance of equipment like pole-top transformers. Men and women are still steadily and directly in the mix of electricity.
In many vital American industries---logging is a good example---technology has overtaken the labor force. These days, with the right equipment, a single "driver" of a good logging machine can do what used to take a force of strong men weeks to complete.
In power, however, the growth of technology has often meant a growth in workers, rather than a serious cut in workforce. When meters helped separate costs and flow of residences, someone had to be on hand to read those meters. When lines began to be hooked together into grids, someone had to be around to do the connections---and to watch the traffic on those connections.
While it is true that smart meters and smart grid technology may translate into less of a need for meter readers, it remains true that skilled labor will always be an important and vital part of the power equation. Electricity doesn't flow without the right people making it happen. As we all return from a long weekend to celebrate labor in America, that's definitely a positively charged thought to keep in mind: That powerful labor of love is important to America, and the importance of the labor required in that effort should never be forgotten.
The production and distribution of power is still a labor-intensive effort from the mining of fuels like coal to the maintenance of equipment like pole-top transformers. Men and women are still steadily and directly in the mix of electricity.
In many vital American industries---logging is a good example---technology has overtaken the labor force. These days, with the right equipment, a single "driver" of a good logging machine can do what used to take a force of strong men weeks to complete.
In power, however, the growth of technology has often meant a growth in workers, rather than a serious cut in workforce. When meters helped separate costs and flow of residences, someone had to be on hand to read those meters. When lines began to be hooked together into grids, someone had to be around to do the connections---and to watch the traffic on those connections.
While it is true that smart meters and smart grid technology may translate into less of a need for meter readers, it remains true that skilled labor will always be an important and vital part of the power equation. Electricity doesn't flow without the right people making it happen. As we all return from a long weekend to celebrate labor in America, that's definitely a positively charged thought to keep in mind: That powerful labor of love is important to America, and the importance of the labor required in that effort should never be forgotten.
Monday, August 30, 2010
CIGRE and the smart grid
I spent last week in Paris for the CIGRE exposition at a conference center just down the street from the famously triumphant Arc de Triomphe. But, while Napoleon’s victories may still be celebrated in the stone arch of the Arc, I was surprised that CIGRE’s exposition showed few victories for the area of transmission and distribution we all hear so much about---the smart grid.
CIGRE stands for Conseil International des Grands Reseaux Electriques---or, in the not-so-queen’s-English: International Council on Large Electric Systems. Established in 1921, the group is one of the leading organizations on electric power systems, covering their technical, economic, environmental, organizational and regulatory aspects. A non-profit association based in France, CIGRE leans heavily toward transmission and pops up in Paris in exhibition form every two years for a week of complicated sessions.
When I first went to CIGRE two years ago in 2008, they were breaking record attendance numbers at 4400. While my contact hasn’t told me what the numbers were yet for this year, I guarantee you they were large, as always. That’s not surprising. They’re always large. What was surprising was the lack of smart grid focus. (There was more on it two years ago, actually.) No long sessions on the subject, few exhibitors touting it. The show was heavy on hardware and light on the PR of the smart grid. Since smart grid is pretty much all anyone talks about with transmission and distribution these days here in the U.S., color me surprised to show up at a large international conference that chats most about overhead lines, audible noise and transformers---that really is all about the basics of the electric grid.
And, yet, it was not a ghost town. The floor was packed. The sessions were full. And, it got me thinking about rabbits.
Yes, rabbits. Well, one rabbit in particular.
After a long day of sessions at CIGRE, I wandered up to the art district by the Sacre Coeur church. I have a soft spot for that area, a place of poets and artists from the turn of the last century. Down a side street is a cabaret called Au Lapin Agile which has been around, in one form or another, since the time of green fairies and Toulouse-Lautrec. (Latrec used to use the owner as a model for some of his posters). There’s a famous story about this spot, translated into The Nimble Rabbit in English. An early 20th century French novelist so hated modern artists like Picasso, so thought them fluff and garbage and a bunch of hooey, that he tied a paintbrush to the tail of a donkey and showed the finished product as art at a salon, naming it “Sunset over the Adriatic.”
France has always been a place of rather pointed commentary, and, while I actually like Picasso and other cubists that the novelist was attempting to skewer with his donkey canvas, I have to admit that the French ability to preach a novel without saying a single actual word seemed poignant given what I’d encountered that day at the conference center. It crossed over to the CIGRE floor and sessions in my overactive imagination. Was the decided lack of smart grid information, smart grid details and smart grid exhibits at CIGRE a commentary on what the smart grid actually is---or, more pointedly, what it actually is not?
Granted, some of this is because the smart grid, as we know it, has focused almost entirely on the distribution end of the game, but, the fact is, that we need to make this grid intelligent from the meter all the way back to the power plant, and, if transmission isn’t in the equation yet (as CIGRE might show us), we have millions of miles to go before we sleep, to steal a bit from Frost’s little poem, which isn't about rabbits at all.
CIGRE stands for Conseil International des Grands Reseaux Electriques---or, in the not-so-queen’s-English: International Council on Large Electric Systems. Established in 1921, the group is one of the leading organizations on electric power systems, covering their technical, economic, environmental, organizational and regulatory aspects. A non-profit association based in France, CIGRE leans heavily toward transmission and pops up in Paris in exhibition form every two years for a week of complicated sessions.
When I first went to CIGRE two years ago in 2008, they were breaking record attendance numbers at 4400. While my contact hasn’t told me what the numbers were yet for this year, I guarantee you they were large, as always. That’s not surprising. They’re always large. What was surprising was the lack of smart grid focus. (There was more on it two years ago, actually.) No long sessions on the subject, few exhibitors touting it. The show was heavy on hardware and light on the PR of the smart grid. Since smart grid is pretty much all anyone talks about with transmission and distribution these days here in the U.S., color me surprised to show up at a large international conference that chats most about overhead lines, audible noise and transformers---that really is all about the basics of the electric grid.
And, yet, it was not a ghost town. The floor was packed. The sessions were full. And, it got me thinking about rabbits.
Yes, rabbits. Well, one rabbit in particular.
After a long day of sessions at CIGRE, I wandered up to the art district by the Sacre Coeur church. I have a soft spot for that area, a place of poets and artists from the turn of the last century. Down a side street is a cabaret called Au Lapin Agile which has been around, in one form or another, since the time of green fairies and Toulouse-Lautrec. (Latrec used to use the owner as a model for some of his posters). There’s a famous story about this spot, translated into The Nimble Rabbit in English. An early 20th century French novelist so hated modern artists like Picasso, so thought them fluff and garbage and a bunch of hooey, that he tied a paintbrush to the tail of a donkey and showed the finished product as art at a salon, naming it “Sunset over the Adriatic.”
France has always been a place of rather pointed commentary, and, while I actually like Picasso and other cubists that the novelist was attempting to skewer with his donkey canvas, I have to admit that the French ability to preach a novel without saying a single actual word seemed poignant given what I’d encountered that day at the conference center. It crossed over to the CIGRE floor and sessions in my overactive imagination. Was the decided lack of smart grid information, smart grid details and smart grid exhibits at CIGRE a commentary on what the smart grid actually is---or, more pointedly, what it actually is not?
Granted, some of this is because the smart grid, as we know it, has focused almost entirely on the distribution end of the game, but, the fact is, that we need to make this grid intelligent from the meter all the way back to the power plant, and, if transmission isn’t in the equation yet (as CIGRE might show us), we have millions of miles to go before we sleep, to steal a bit from Frost’s little poem, which isn't about rabbits at all.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Vegetation management as vegetation melancholy
Yesterday, I wept over my Japanese maple---ok, not literally. But, it’s a nice opening image, isn’t it? A girl in all black crying over a sweeping, pale tree. Very gothic.
Anyway, here’s the true story: I was outside in the heat doing some yard work and noticed that the 100+ heat wave had scorched part of the left side of my favorite, delicate front yard centerpiece. So, I cursed a bit. Then, I climbed a stepladder and tried to trim off the burnt bits.
Before owning a home, I never understood how attached people can get to plants. Vegetarians don’t eat meat because of a variety of reasons, one of which is a sentimental attachment to animals. There is no word for people who don’t eat plants because of a sentimental attachment to them, but I could, yesterday, fully understand where they might be coming from, if we had a word for that.
I’m reminded of my own recent veggie sentimentality because of PPL. Today, they reached a court-approved agreement with the National Park Service that will allow the utility to trim vegetation around a key power line in the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area near Bushkill, Pa. Apparently, there was a dispute about whether the right-of-way had been regularly maintained by PPL and whether or not PPL would need a special permit to go ahead with the VM work. And that dispute got so out-of-hand that there were legalities involved.
All I could think was, “It’s all important, I know---every tree, every shrub, every non-aesthetic trim on an aesthetic view---it’s all vitally important … until the power goes out.”
Sentimental and aesthetic attachments to greenery can actually pose a big, big problem for utilities. A fear that the utility company will “whack” at trees and trample flower beds brings a lot of uncertainty to vegetation management (VM) programs.
And, if the 2003 Northeast blackout taught us anything, it’s that vegetation management is of fundamental importance in the care and feeding of a power grid. Remember that blackout? Terrorist fears and knee-jerk reactions finally aside, it came down to vegetation in a David-and-Goliath tech battle. And, just like in the Good Book, David won. Unfortunately, in that circumstance, the low-tech, tiny adversary isn’t the one we were all rooting for. We were on the Goliath side of the equation---that long, complicated, high-tech grid system.
But Goliath went out like a light, for a day and half. People were stranded. Businesses were closed. It cost the area billions.
Now, the PPL situation in Pennsylvania is not quite so drastic---and actually fairly uncommon. Usually, if there is VM issue, it’s on a private, individual level rather than a public, widespread one. When doing articles on vegetation management and tree programs, utilities always have a gaggle of stories about homeowners unhappy about or afraid of the utility clearing out and cleaning up around power lines and poles. Some of those individuals are doing things they shouldn’t be (like backyard drug labs, rights-of-way cockfighting farms or illegal shooting ranges) and don’t wish to get caught, but most, like me, are just sentimental and attached to how they’ve grown, sculpted and nurtured their vegetation. Sure, that vegetation might be directly underneath a power line---as my fabulous backyard outdoor room is which I love for its palm tree and adorable seating area perfect for a summer afternoon lemonade---but that doesn’t mean I want that power line to take top priority.
Well, I don’t want it to take top priority until my palm, stretching toward the hot summer sun, tangles itself in the power line and causes an outage. Then, I wouldn’t care if they had to burn that palm, along with the seating area, as a sacrifice to the power gods in order to get that precious electricity back on.
So, when faced with vegetation melancholy and sentimentality about VM, I’m going to take the same position I do on vegetarianism in general: I understand the point-of-view. I even have some empathy for the emotional reaction, but, alas, I just can’t subscribe to the philosophy.
In the end, I love my Japanese maple and my backyard baby palm tree, but, in 106-degree Oklahoma Augusts, I love my air conditioner even more. The utility can come trim in my backyard anytime; I’ll even loan them some clippers, if they need some.
Anyway, here’s the true story: I was outside in the heat doing some yard work and noticed that the 100+ heat wave had scorched part of the left side of my favorite, delicate front yard centerpiece. So, I cursed a bit. Then, I climbed a stepladder and tried to trim off the burnt bits.
Before owning a home, I never understood how attached people can get to plants. Vegetarians don’t eat meat because of a variety of reasons, one of which is a sentimental attachment to animals. There is no word for people who don’t eat plants because of a sentimental attachment to them, but I could, yesterday, fully understand where they might be coming from, if we had a word for that.
I’m reminded of my own recent veggie sentimentality because of PPL. Today, they reached a court-approved agreement with the National Park Service that will allow the utility to trim vegetation around a key power line in the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area near Bushkill, Pa. Apparently, there was a dispute about whether the right-of-way had been regularly maintained by PPL and whether or not PPL would need a special permit to go ahead with the VM work. And that dispute got so out-of-hand that there were legalities involved.
All I could think was, “It’s all important, I know---every tree, every shrub, every non-aesthetic trim on an aesthetic view---it’s all vitally important … until the power goes out.”
Sentimental and aesthetic attachments to greenery can actually pose a big, big problem for utilities. A fear that the utility company will “whack” at trees and trample flower beds brings a lot of uncertainty to vegetation management (VM) programs.
And, if the 2003 Northeast blackout taught us anything, it’s that vegetation management is of fundamental importance in the care and feeding of a power grid. Remember that blackout? Terrorist fears and knee-jerk reactions finally aside, it came down to vegetation in a David-and-Goliath tech battle. And, just like in the Good Book, David won. Unfortunately, in that circumstance, the low-tech, tiny adversary isn’t the one we were all rooting for. We were on the Goliath side of the equation---that long, complicated, high-tech grid system.
But Goliath went out like a light, for a day and half. People were stranded. Businesses were closed. It cost the area billions.
Now, the PPL situation in Pennsylvania is not quite so drastic---and actually fairly uncommon. Usually, if there is VM issue, it’s on a private, individual level rather than a public, widespread one. When doing articles on vegetation management and tree programs, utilities always have a gaggle of stories about homeowners unhappy about or afraid of the utility clearing out and cleaning up around power lines and poles. Some of those individuals are doing things they shouldn’t be (like backyard drug labs, rights-of-way cockfighting farms or illegal shooting ranges) and don’t wish to get caught, but most, like me, are just sentimental and attached to how they’ve grown, sculpted and nurtured their vegetation. Sure, that vegetation might be directly underneath a power line---as my fabulous backyard outdoor room is which I love for its palm tree and adorable seating area perfect for a summer afternoon lemonade---but that doesn’t mean I want that power line to take top priority.
Well, I don’t want it to take top priority until my palm, stretching toward the hot summer sun, tangles itself in the power line and causes an outage. Then, I wouldn’t care if they had to burn that palm, along with the seating area, as a sacrifice to the power gods in order to get that precious electricity back on.
So, when faced with vegetation melancholy and sentimentality about VM, I’m going to take the same position I do on vegetarianism in general: I understand the point-of-view. I even have some empathy for the emotional reaction, but, alas, I just can’t subscribe to the philosophy.
In the end, I love my Japanese maple and my backyard baby palm tree, but, in 106-degree Oklahoma Augusts, I love my air conditioner even more. The utility can come trim in my backyard anytime; I’ll even loan them some clippers, if they need some.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Do mere meters define the smart grid future?
This week, research company Berg Insight predicted that installed smart meters will shoot past the 300-million mark worldwide by 2015. That’s a lot of meters. A whole lot. But, are we circling, here? Smart meters may be the heart of the smart grid, but where is the rest of the infrastructure we were promised? How is it developing? Are we going to get that intelligent overlay all the way up the path to the power plant, or is the concept of smart meters the only bit of fruition in our smart grid dreams?
The smart grid, overall, has had a lot of setbacks here in the U.S. recently: Boulder’s SmartGridCity project is facing serious doubts and extreme cost overruns (not to mention regulatory issues), utilities like Baltimore Gas & Electric have had their smart grid dreams shattered by public utility commissions that don’t share the vision, and many other utilities have significantly scaled back their smart grid plans to reflect growing consumer fears and economic issues.
But, apparently, the meter is just gonna keep on keeping on, keep on beating. It’s going to shed its problematic smart grid outer shell and emerge new and fresh and victorious.
According to Berg, during the next five years, penetration rates for smart metering technology are projected to increase from around 15–20 percent today to nearly 50 percent in Europe and North America, while Asia-Pacific is projected to soar from less than 1 percent to 25 percent by 2015.
Granted, a lot of this is helped by two things (at least in Europe and Asia): state-run utilities (especially in China and Korea) and regulation. While the regulatory bodies here in the U.S. balk, the regulatory bodies in Europe push. As even Berg admits, the key role in this meter overload is government. Even here in the U.S., while we don’t have the EU legislation demanding change, we do have an administration investing in grid technology as part of the stimulus, a suggested path, if not a push. And, the single most proven part of smart grid technology is, indeed, the smart meter.
“Smart metering is now a globally accepted mature mainstream technology,” said Tobias Ryberg, senior analyst with Berg Insight and author of the report on this meter influx. “All over the world we can see how IT and telecommunication has transformed the metering industry from a business of mechanical devices and manual labor to an arena for state-of-the-art technology in everything from wireless networking to data warehousing and complex system integration.”
Additionally, Berg Insight believes that a number of places around the world may near the 100% smart meter mark by 2020. While that’s all fine and dandy, it still leaves us to wonder where the rest of the smart grid tin man resides. Smart metering may be the heart he’s seeking, but it seems like the bulk of him is still significantly lost, running behind, forgotten along this yellow brick road to meter penetration.
The smart grid, overall, has had a lot of setbacks here in the U.S. recently: Boulder’s SmartGridCity project is facing serious doubts and extreme cost overruns (not to mention regulatory issues), utilities like Baltimore Gas & Electric have had their smart grid dreams shattered by public utility commissions that don’t share the vision, and many other utilities have significantly scaled back their smart grid plans to reflect growing consumer fears and economic issues.
But, apparently, the meter is just gonna keep on keeping on, keep on beating. It’s going to shed its problematic smart grid outer shell and emerge new and fresh and victorious.
According to Berg, during the next five years, penetration rates for smart metering technology are projected to increase from around 15–20 percent today to nearly 50 percent in Europe and North America, while Asia-Pacific is projected to soar from less than 1 percent to 25 percent by 2015.
Granted, a lot of this is helped by two things (at least in Europe and Asia): state-run utilities (especially in China and Korea) and regulation. While the regulatory bodies here in the U.S. balk, the regulatory bodies in Europe push. As even Berg admits, the key role in this meter overload is government. Even here in the U.S., while we don’t have the EU legislation demanding change, we do have an administration investing in grid technology as part of the stimulus, a suggested path, if not a push. And, the single most proven part of smart grid technology is, indeed, the smart meter.
“Smart metering is now a globally accepted mature mainstream technology,” said Tobias Ryberg, senior analyst with Berg Insight and author of the report on this meter influx. “All over the world we can see how IT and telecommunication has transformed the metering industry from a business of mechanical devices and manual labor to an arena for state-of-the-art technology in everything from wireless networking to data warehousing and complex system integration.”
Additionally, Berg Insight believes that a number of places around the world may near the 100% smart meter mark by 2020. While that’s all fine and dandy, it still leaves us to wonder where the rest of the smart grid tin man resides. Smart metering may be the heart he’s seeking, but it seems like the bulk of him is still significantly lost, running behind, forgotten along this yellow brick road to meter penetration.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
To worry or not to worry about icky worms
Viruses, worms and Trojans are an unfortunate part of the computerized present—albeit not a pleasant part, which Siemens has been finding out all too personally this summer. But, should we really be all that worried about our smart grid’s cyber security, or are we panicking ourselves unnecessarily?
The Siemens thing: In June, the company discovered it was the specific and directed target of some nasty malware which uses a Microsoft Windows loophole dealing with shortcut files to latch on and download secure information from supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems using a leaked Siemens password. The sticking point, though, is that the worm is rather low-tech (relatively) in its delivery: The computer has to be physically connected to an infected USB stick (although there is also a possibility of it spreading via CDs and file-sharing). If someone views an item from that infected stick, the worm sneaks on out into the system, searching out information to copy.
Named the Stuxnet worm, it seems to be hitting Middle Eastern and Asian countries the most. (Symantec Corp. revealed that over half of the systems impacted were specifically in Iran, but Indonesia and India have also seen a large set of Stuxnet issues, according to one IDG News Service report.)
The worm itself was discovered by an antivirus company in Belarus named VirusBlokAda, which has labeled the worm “very dangerous” and noted that it could lead to a “virus epidemic” on the company website. But, how dangerous is it if I need to connect an infected part and then open something up by hand to create this issue? That doesn’t really sound like a system issue as much as a personnel issue, really.
Right now, according to Siemens spokespersons, the Stuxnet worm has not yet impacted any power generation SCADA system nor any T&D SCADA system.
“To our knowledge, only two industrial systems were affected by this [malware],” a Siemens spokesperson told me, and the fact that power-system SCADA networks weren’t impacted reveals the hearty backbone of those systems, according to Scott Gosnell, CMO with Tatsoft, a developer of software tools, products and services.
“This particular attack shows the strengths of current security technologies and protocols—the worm didn’t come in through a network vulnerability,” he noted.
Industry insiders warn, however, that utilities should not assume they are out of the woods just yet, even if the Stuxnet worm has avoided corrupting power systems this round. It is still spreading, and it won’t be the last threat by far. And, of course, there are other issues recently brought up around smart grid security, including a recent Pike Research report that points to smart meters as “the weakest link in the smart grid security chain” filled to the brim with juicy data that “could be successfully eavesdropped.” (Pike report: Smart Meter Security. Easy to find on their website pikeresearch.com.)
So, what’s a smart grid planner to do? Can he think ahead to the next malware? Can he plug all the security holes? Well, maybe he can’t do it all, but it seems that it is expected that he give it the ol’ college try, really.
“This is not the time to stick your head in the sand and say ‘it can’t happen here,’” said GarrettCom President Frank Madren. “Cyber attacks on industrial control system are happening now and will probably increase.” Madren suggested best practices to prevent damange include a multi-pronged approach of good industry standards, technology and personal, targeted recommendations to fill in holes in a utility’s security program. It’s all about repetition. Never assume that all the holes have been covered. Always go back and check again and again. (In this way, malware is a lot like a zombie horde---always trying to get in a forgotten opening, an unchecked back door, an open window.)
Tatsoft’s Gosnell would add man to Madren’s best practices equation---keep him tech savvy and on top of things, ready for the onslaught.
“This [attack] also demonstrates that operational risks are an inherent part of running these systems,” Gosnell added. “One of your biggest potential problems comes from poor processes and policies at the human level. Maintaining good security hygiene at the human and social level complements good technical hygiene.”
Madren noted that North American Electric Reliability Corporation’s Critical Infrastructure Protection (NERC CIP) regulations help protect power utility substations from a variety of security issues, including worms like this one. They are incredibly comprehensive and offer a great amount of defense.
“However, no system is completely immune from creative new incursions. Constant vigilance is required,” Madren said.
So, worry? Yes. Panic? Not helpful. Just keep one eye open … and try not to fall asleep and unconsciously let in those zombie malware hordes.
The Siemens thing: In June, the company discovered it was the specific and directed target of some nasty malware which uses a Microsoft Windows loophole dealing with shortcut files to latch on and download secure information from supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems using a leaked Siemens password. The sticking point, though, is that the worm is rather low-tech (relatively) in its delivery: The computer has to be physically connected to an infected USB stick (although there is also a possibility of it spreading via CDs and file-sharing). If someone views an item from that infected stick, the worm sneaks on out into the system, searching out information to copy.
Named the Stuxnet worm, it seems to be hitting Middle Eastern and Asian countries the most. (Symantec Corp. revealed that over half of the systems impacted were specifically in Iran, but Indonesia and India have also seen a large set of Stuxnet issues, according to one IDG News Service report.)
The worm itself was discovered by an antivirus company in Belarus named VirusBlokAda, which has labeled the worm “very dangerous” and noted that it could lead to a “virus epidemic” on the company website. But, how dangerous is it if I need to connect an infected part and then open something up by hand to create this issue? That doesn’t really sound like a system issue as much as a personnel issue, really.
Right now, according to Siemens spokespersons, the Stuxnet worm has not yet impacted any power generation SCADA system nor any T&D SCADA system.
“To our knowledge, only two industrial systems were affected by this [malware],” a Siemens spokesperson told me, and the fact that power-system SCADA networks weren’t impacted reveals the hearty backbone of those systems, according to Scott Gosnell, CMO with Tatsoft, a developer of software tools, products and services.
“This particular attack shows the strengths of current security technologies and protocols—the worm didn’t come in through a network vulnerability,” he noted.
Industry insiders warn, however, that utilities should not assume they are out of the woods just yet, even if the Stuxnet worm has avoided corrupting power systems this round. It is still spreading, and it won’t be the last threat by far. And, of course, there are other issues recently brought up around smart grid security, including a recent Pike Research report that points to smart meters as “the weakest link in the smart grid security chain” filled to the brim with juicy data that “could be successfully eavesdropped.” (Pike report: Smart Meter Security. Easy to find on their website pikeresearch.com.)
So, what’s a smart grid planner to do? Can he think ahead to the next malware? Can he plug all the security holes? Well, maybe he can’t do it all, but it seems that it is expected that he give it the ol’ college try, really.
“This is not the time to stick your head in the sand and say ‘it can’t happen here,’” said GarrettCom President Frank Madren. “Cyber attacks on industrial control system are happening now and will probably increase.” Madren suggested best practices to prevent damange include a multi-pronged approach of good industry standards, technology and personal, targeted recommendations to fill in holes in a utility’s security program. It’s all about repetition. Never assume that all the holes have been covered. Always go back and check again and again. (In this way, malware is a lot like a zombie horde---always trying to get in a forgotten opening, an unchecked back door, an open window.)
Tatsoft’s Gosnell would add man to Madren’s best practices equation---keep him tech savvy and on top of things, ready for the onslaught.
“This [attack] also demonstrates that operational risks are an inherent part of running these systems,” Gosnell added. “One of your biggest potential problems comes from poor processes and policies at the human level. Maintaining good security hygiene at the human and social level complements good technical hygiene.”
Madren noted that North American Electric Reliability Corporation’s Critical Infrastructure Protection (NERC CIP) regulations help protect power utility substations from a variety of security issues, including worms like this one. They are incredibly comprehensive and offer a great amount of defense.
“However, no system is completely immune from creative new incursions. Constant vigilance is required,” Madren said.
So, worry? Yes. Panic? Not helpful. Just keep one eye open … and try not to fall asleep and unconsciously let in those zombie malware hordes.
Friday, July 30, 2010
How practical are electric cars? The sequel.
A few days after I wrote part one of these blogs, Chevy came out with an estimated cost of the Volt, and my frugal Midwestern farm girl inner voice cried “Holy capped carburetors! Seriously?”
The Volt will come in at around $40,000, making it about $33,000 after the government credit. (The Nissan Leaf starts at $33,000 before the tax credit.)
A lot of people I talked to about this---for I was a bit surprised that a car the size of my right tennis shoe would cost $40,000---made valid points about it being expensive to research and develop and such. And, again, I realize that my growing-up-Heidi upbringing might have me leaning a bit cheap on most purchases. (I recently refused to buy a belt because I thought a utilitarian strap to hold up my low-riders should not be more expensive than $30 unless it is inlaid in some sort of semi-precious stone.) But, still, who’s going to buy an electric car that costs like a sports car without the sex factor?
And, really, $40,000 is the base model, before bells and whistles, and it’s the MSRP. When’s the last time you bought a car at the MSRP?
I’ve got to say, I’m still on the fence about this electric car thing, overall. I want to be persuaded. I know I can be persuaded. Heck, General Mills cereal persuades me constantly with its shiny cereal advertising, but I’m still a bit stuck on this whole cost/benefit analysis thing. The cereal has it easy: it’s cheap and tasty and convenient. Triple bonus. The Volt has it hard. I admit that. I’m a tough sell.
It reminds me of the time I looked into solar panels for my house. $20,000 for something that would need about ten years to recoup the costs but would probably have to be replaced in five---and that was if it survived a good Oklahoma hail storm.
Man, it is expensive to save the world. Unlike Al Gore---whom I like, by the way---I just cannot afford it.
But, back to the Volt. I currently drive a Kia. It cost $20,000. That’s half the price of the Volt and about the same price I could have paid for those solar panels, although the panels couldn’t drive my bad self to work. The Kia gets pretty decent gas mileage, doesn’t cost a lot in repairs and is reliable. Plus, no limit on those miles beforehand.
So, would I pay twice the cost of my current vehicle to save the world? Not right now. In the future? Maybe---really---but there’s a catch: You have to prove to me it’s going to make a difference, this large and expensive Earth purchase.
I always have the same thought with electric cars, and it centers around hype. I can get used to the inconveniences (remembering to schedule charging on down time, looking for a charging station if out and about, thinking more about a car than I’m used to), and I can even get used to the price. I had similar sticker shock when CDs began to rule over cassettes when I was a music fiend in high school.
But, I’m having trouble with the logic, with the end result.
See, I live in the Midwest where use of fossil fuels is pretty prevalent in electricity production. So, while I’d be personally polluting less with an electric car, have I not simply shifted that pollution footprint to a power company? Am I making a real dramatic difference, or is it just a slight of hand? And, is it possible that shifting the pollution footprint to a power company could make that footprint an even larger one, in the long run?
Renewables are a growing force in the power arena, but they are still hovering at 3-4% of overall power production. That means 96-97% is non-renewable. OK, so 20% is nuclear. It doesn’t pollute---at least, not in a “puffy clouds in the sky” way. So, that kicks it down to 76-77%. We’ll be generous and say 75%.
So, if 75% of power production is still the carbon-emitting kind, am I making a difference buying an electric car? And, will I feel like a schmuck for spending twice as much to get no real results on the global warming front?
It’s something to ponder. What are your thoughts?
The Volt will come in at around $40,000, making it about $33,000 after the government credit. (The Nissan Leaf starts at $33,000 before the tax credit.)
A lot of people I talked to about this---for I was a bit surprised that a car the size of my right tennis shoe would cost $40,000---made valid points about it being expensive to research and develop and such. And, again, I realize that my growing-up-Heidi upbringing might have me leaning a bit cheap on most purchases. (I recently refused to buy a belt because I thought a utilitarian strap to hold up my low-riders should not be more expensive than $30 unless it is inlaid in some sort of semi-precious stone.) But, still, who’s going to buy an electric car that costs like a sports car without the sex factor?
And, really, $40,000 is the base model, before bells and whistles, and it’s the MSRP. When’s the last time you bought a car at the MSRP?
I’ve got to say, I’m still on the fence about this electric car thing, overall. I want to be persuaded. I know I can be persuaded. Heck, General Mills cereal persuades me constantly with its shiny cereal advertising, but I’m still a bit stuck on this whole cost/benefit analysis thing. The cereal has it easy: it’s cheap and tasty and convenient. Triple bonus. The Volt has it hard. I admit that. I’m a tough sell.
It reminds me of the time I looked into solar panels for my house. $20,000 for something that would need about ten years to recoup the costs but would probably have to be replaced in five---and that was if it survived a good Oklahoma hail storm.
Man, it is expensive to save the world. Unlike Al Gore---whom I like, by the way---I just cannot afford it.
But, back to the Volt. I currently drive a Kia. It cost $20,000. That’s half the price of the Volt and about the same price I could have paid for those solar panels, although the panels couldn’t drive my bad self to work. The Kia gets pretty decent gas mileage, doesn’t cost a lot in repairs and is reliable. Plus, no limit on those miles beforehand.
So, would I pay twice the cost of my current vehicle to save the world? Not right now. In the future? Maybe---really---but there’s a catch: You have to prove to me it’s going to make a difference, this large and expensive Earth purchase.
I always have the same thought with electric cars, and it centers around hype. I can get used to the inconveniences (remembering to schedule charging on down time, looking for a charging station if out and about, thinking more about a car than I’m used to), and I can even get used to the price. I had similar sticker shock when CDs began to rule over cassettes when I was a music fiend in high school.
But, I’m having trouble with the logic, with the end result.
See, I live in the Midwest where use of fossil fuels is pretty prevalent in electricity production. So, while I’d be personally polluting less with an electric car, have I not simply shifted that pollution footprint to a power company? Am I making a real dramatic difference, or is it just a slight of hand? And, is it possible that shifting the pollution footprint to a power company could make that footprint an even larger one, in the long run?
Renewables are a growing force in the power arena, but they are still hovering at 3-4% of overall power production. That means 96-97% is non-renewable. OK, so 20% is nuclear. It doesn’t pollute---at least, not in a “puffy clouds in the sky” way. So, that kicks it down to 76-77%. We’ll be generous and say 75%.
So, if 75% of power production is still the carbon-emitting kind, am I making a difference buying an electric car? And, will I feel like a schmuck for spending twice as much to get no real results on the global warming front?
It’s something to ponder. What are your thoughts?
Monday, July 26, 2010
Sharing the Smart Grid in Bits and Bytes
I don’t care what your momma told you, sharing sucks. I share a driveway. (My house was built in the 1920s before the great auto explosion in American culture.) I’m always courteous---painfully aware of keeping the driveway access open for the consideration of those people right next door. My neighbors, however, are not courteous. They take over. They hog. They plant their little rubber car feet in the driveway in multiples I cannot begin to describe---nor can I begin to describe how it irks me.
For two years, I’ve been overly nice and they’ve been overly nasty. After a particularly bad incident a couple of weeks ago involving a tan Malibu that blocked me in the drive for nearly two days, I stopped being so nice. Now, I wasn’t overly nasty, either. I didn’t block them in. I wasn’t quite that childish. Childish wasn’t going to help, even if I really, really, really wanted to be childish at the time. But, I did park in an area of the drive that was a bit “in the way” for them---just to give them a taste of what I’ve been dealing with daily for two years.
In less than 10 days, they were at my door to ‘talk’ about the drive and access---because it finally became a personal problem, an issue for them. They didn’t suddenly get the hint that they were being jerks. Nah. They never will. I had simply figured out that, to get even close to a compromise, I had to make it about them, specifically. I had to get them emotionally involved, make it impact their own daily lives.
I think Duke Energy learned a similar lesson about their smart grid Indiana plan: make it personal, make it impact the individual, and show them how it can benefit all to talk more about it. Forget greater good, energy efficiency and development for renewables. Target individual desires.
Duke’s Indiana plan for the smart grid was breathtaking---an over-arcing, 800,000-meter proposal that was a real beauty in its coverage, a showstopper. There would be a meter in just about every house and every business in all of the 69 counties Duke served in Indiana. A multi-pronged, five-year blueprint worthy of the Chrysler Building, really, Duke’s Indiana plan had all the bells and whistles a smart grid could ask for.
Duke packaged it up nicely, neatly and went along to the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission with the $450 million proposal. The Commission stopped the show literally. They denied the proposal. They weren’t impressed by the scope and breadth. They weren’t impressed by the technology. As a group in place to buffer costs and watch out for the consumer, they didn’t look at the beauty of the plan; they wanted to know, specifically, how that plan was going to impact them and their neighbors and the people they represent.
When they didn’t find the information they wanted, they said, “No way. Try again.”
That was last November. And it appears that Duke has learned my driveway lesson. (I always assumed the neighbors would want to be courteous to me the way I was courteous to them. Duke assumed that the regulatory commission would, to an extent, take their word about benefits with the plan. We both learned a painful lesson on trust and concessions. In the end, benefits to the individual must be laid out, spelled out, colored in and made directly, perfectly, crystal clear.)
This week, Duke returns to the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission with a new proposal---one that’s significantly smaller and involves a bit of lag time. Duke wants to put in about 40,000 meters and then read the data for a year, hoping to put together a good, solid argument at the end of that year for those regulators---hoping to show, in real numbers, those benefits to the individual.
We often assume---as individuals and as corporations---that a situation will be seen from our own point of view. Alas, in many cases, personal and corporate “blinkers” and “blinders” keep us from seeing anything but what falls directly into our own paths.
This psychology may need to be applied to the smart grid more often. Rather than the big picture approach, we may have to drive the path to a fully-realized smart grid in easier-to-digest, individual portions. To teach society to share, we might need to appeal to the self-centered individual preferences in all of us.
For two years, I’ve been overly nice and they’ve been overly nasty. After a particularly bad incident a couple of weeks ago involving a tan Malibu that blocked me in the drive for nearly two days, I stopped being so nice. Now, I wasn’t overly nasty, either. I didn’t block them in. I wasn’t quite that childish. Childish wasn’t going to help, even if I really, really, really wanted to be childish at the time. But, I did park in an area of the drive that was a bit “in the way” for them---just to give them a taste of what I’ve been dealing with daily for two years.
In less than 10 days, they were at my door to ‘talk’ about the drive and access---because it finally became a personal problem, an issue for them. They didn’t suddenly get the hint that they were being jerks. Nah. They never will. I had simply figured out that, to get even close to a compromise, I had to make it about them, specifically. I had to get them emotionally involved, make it impact their own daily lives.
I think Duke Energy learned a similar lesson about their smart grid Indiana plan: make it personal, make it impact the individual, and show them how it can benefit all to talk more about it. Forget greater good, energy efficiency and development for renewables. Target individual desires.
Duke’s Indiana plan for the smart grid was breathtaking---an over-arcing, 800,000-meter proposal that was a real beauty in its coverage, a showstopper. There would be a meter in just about every house and every business in all of the 69 counties Duke served in Indiana. A multi-pronged, five-year blueprint worthy of the Chrysler Building, really, Duke’s Indiana plan had all the bells and whistles a smart grid could ask for.
Duke packaged it up nicely, neatly and went along to the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission with the $450 million proposal. The Commission stopped the show literally. They denied the proposal. They weren’t impressed by the scope and breadth. They weren’t impressed by the technology. As a group in place to buffer costs and watch out for the consumer, they didn’t look at the beauty of the plan; they wanted to know, specifically, how that plan was going to impact them and their neighbors and the people they represent.
When they didn’t find the information they wanted, they said, “No way. Try again.”
That was last November. And it appears that Duke has learned my driveway lesson. (I always assumed the neighbors would want to be courteous to me the way I was courteous to them. Duke assumed that the regulatory commission would, to an extent, take their word about benefits with the plan. We both learned a painful lesson on trust and concessions. In the end, benefits to the individual must be laid out, spelled out, colored in and made directly, perfectly, crystal clear.)
This week, Duke returns to the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission with a new proposal---one that’s significantly smaller and involves a bit of lag time. Duke wants to put in about 40,000 meters and then read the data for a year, hoping to put together a good, solid argument at the end of that year for those regulators---hoping to show, in real numbers, those benefits to the individual.
We often assume---as individuals and as corporations---that a situation will be seen from our own point of view. Alas, in many cases, personal and corporate “blinkers” and “blinders” keep us from seeing anything but what falls directly into our own paths.
This psychology may need to be applied to the smart grid more often. Rather than the big picture approach, we may have to drive the path to a fully-realized smart grid in easier-to-digest, individual portions. To teach society to share, we might need to appeal to the self-centered individual preferences in all of us.
Monday, July 19, 2010
How Practical Are Electric Cars?
Last week, the Department of Energy released a new report on electric cars, sort of. It wasn’t so much about the cars, really, as it was about how the money the Recovery Act poured into electric car technology has done.
According to the report, that money has been spent wisely. In part, the report reads:
Investments in batteries alone, for example, should help lower the cost of some electric car batteries by nearly 70 percent before the end of 2015. What’s more, thanks in part to these investments, U.S. factories will be able to produce batteries and components to support up to 500,000 electric-drive vehicles annually by 2015. Overall, these investments will create tens of thousands of American jobs.
Batteries, chargers, components, tax credits, and even loans to car companies are among the vast array of investments under the Obama plan to kick start the electric vehicle boom. But, will this electric vehicle future actually arrive? Is this a fruition-filled, overarching plan of infrastructure brilliance like Eisenhower’s interstate highways, or an oddity that will plainly fizzle out like Bush’s hydrogen economy?
There’s little doubt of the facts: The money invested has created some movement, as any money invested would. If you give a man money and tell him he has to build X or he doesn’t get it, he’ll get up off his keister and build X faster than anything. So, 26 of 30 manufacturing plants have broken ground and started construction on new facilities or began updating old ones. Eight demo projects are up---if not actually running---with a projected outcome of 13,000 more electric vehicles plugged in and 20,000 more charging stations available, both public and private.
The most interesting bit of investment might be the green being funneled into research projects on batteries. Today’s lithium-ion EV batteries are restrictive and problematic. If that storage technology can be updated, leading to cheaper batteries and longer driving range, then, absolutely, electric vehicles are on their way to integration---potentially as fast as they can slap together charging stations atop or aside gas stations. (The same can be said for renewables getting a larger chunk of generation if they can clean up storage issues.)
But, if that tech doesn’t come to a fabulous breakthrough soon, electric vehicles’ lack of practicality may relegate it to that discard pile teetering atop the junked hydrogen economy.
Want to read the report? Click here.
According to the report, that money has been spent wisely. In part, the report reads:
Investments in batteries alone, for example, should help lower the cost of some electric car batteries by nearly 70 percent before the end of 2015. What’s more, thanks in part to these investments, U.S. factories will be able to produce batteries and components to support up to 500,000 electric-drive vehicles annually by 2015. Overall, these investments will create tens of thousands of American jobs.
Batteries, chargers, components, tax credits, and even loans to car companies are among the vast array of investments under the Obama plan to kick start the electric vehicle boom. But, will this electric vehicle future actually arrive? Is this a fruition-filled, overarching plan of infrastructure brilliance like Eisenhower’s interstate highways, or an oddity that will plainly fizzle out like Bush’s hydrogen economy?
There’s little doubt of the facts: The money invested has created some movement, as any money invested would. If you give a man money and tell him he has to build X or he doesn’t get it, he’ll get up off his keister and build X faster than anything. So, 26 of 30 manufacturing plants have broken ground and started construction on new facilities or began updating old ones. Eight demo projects are up---if not actually running---with a projected outcome of 13,000 more electric vehicles plugged in and 20,000 more charging stations available, both public and private.
The most interesting bit of investment might be the green being funneled into research projects on batteries. Today’s lithium-ion EV batteries are restrictive and problematic. If that storage technology can be updated, leading to cheaper batteries and longer driving range, then, absolutely, electric vehicles are on their way to integration---potentially as fast as they can slap together charging stations atop or aside gas stations. (The same can be said for renewables getting a larger chunk of generation if they can clean up storage issues.)
But, if that tech doesn’t come to a fabulous breakthrough soon, electric vehicles’ lack of practicality may relegate it to that discard pile teetering atop the junked hydrogen economy.
Want to read the report? Click here.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Obama, the Smart Grid and Idealist Ideology
Obama and I have a couple of things in common.
One: We were both born during a Chinese cycle of the ox---although he was born the cycle before I was. So, we have that going for us if we need to make small talk at some imaginary state dinner that I can script in my head. But, secondly, we both seem to be a tad too pragmatic in a time of idealists. And idealists, whether red, white or blue, seem to truly abhor pragmatists---abhor to the point of verbal stone-throwing, really, although Obama gets it way worse than I ever will.
The idealist far left is angry at Obama that he hasn’t made gay marriage legal, stopped the wars, freed all the Gitmo detainees and tapped out the BP oil leak with his burning laser-eyed superpowers. The idealist far right is angry that he tried to stimulate the economy more because economists think that’s a darn tootin’ good idea, wants to continue to help the poor and unemployed, and hasn’t freed corporations from the regulation slavery that’s bringing down the true American spirit of Capitalism.
Instead, Obama seems genuinely focused on trying to make progress on laws, bills, war fronts and economic changes---on political details, if you will. Whether or not you see those details as fitting into your particular ideal for this country, it’s obvious the man is more about connections and thinking than he is about emotions and praying, despite that campaign based on hope. That’s pragmatism.
But, unfortunately for Obama, pragmatism isn’t really an American ideal these days, if the comments section on CNN’s Belief Blog or the responses to the BBC’s Mark Mardell (a British reporter discussing life in America, as he once discussed life in Europe) are any indication. We are an angry bunch of idealists, as a national whole. We are fighting amongst ourselves, loudly. We call the other side “stupid” and “evil.” We have left “live and let live” and “let’s talk about this calmly” behind and have, instead, picked up “if I yell at you long enough, you will see all how wrong you’ve been your whole darn life.” We’ve adopting rather polarizing mantras.
Reports on the smart grid have often followed this same blind idealist climb to the summit over the last few years since the term has become household-known. You either believe the smart grid will save the industry, or you think it’s a bunch of hooey. You either love it, or you hate it. And, there’s not a gray area. And, if you’re in the wrong room, you may be cornered by a mob trying to change those beliefs. (Last year, I wrote two articles for POWERGRID International titled “Will Smart Grid Take Over the World?” That title was a play on this concept of growing smart grid idealism.)
But, back in reality, there is a gray area in the smart grid---and a lot of it, for us pragmatists in that mobbed-up room. The smart grid (more than Obama, CNN or the BBC’s Mardell) lends itself to a lot of gray areas, a lot of pragmatism, a lot of maybes. The technology involved in the smart grid may not be the “end all, be all” of a technological savior, but it is an improvement for a system that, in many cases, hasn’t seen much improvement in half a century.
And, on the other end, there is a lot of hype, a lot of expectations that may not come to fruition. Should we really be looking at solar installations and wind installations and sinking money hand over fist down the renewables road when the smart grid, alone, cannot possibly overcome the limitations of intermittency? Personally, as a pragmatist, I’d look first toward solving energy storage before I’d be sketching out plans for a multi-country, offshore grid infrastructure, as Friends of the Supergrid are working on. However, that spending isn’t money wasted if it brings us to a better system and a better end---albeit, perhaps a roundabout one. And, yay for them for finding a positive “button” to stimulate some funding.
Americans tend to feel strongly about everything from presidents to Pepsi, from couches to Congress. In many cases, that makes us fascinating. However, in entrenching ourselves in personal ideals without a willingness to find that gray area, meet there and see if we like it, we often prevent real technological progress and any actual development, instead miring ourselves down, holding ourselves back.
The smart grid needs fewer zealots and more pragmatists---according to this particular pragmatist, at least. No, the smart grid is not the electric messiah, but it’s also not the devil himself. It’s not everything we need for the next generation; it’s not a ridiculous waste of funding. Now that all those waving flags are out of the way, let’s meet and think---as Pooh said, “Think, think, think, think.”---about what the smart grid really is, can really bring to the table and what its limitations are. And, let’s do so honestly. It’s time to step out from behind ideals and spiels and truly come to terms with what can be accomplished with smart grid technology and, realistically, what cannot.
To the idealist industry left, I wish I could tell you that the smart grid is going to allow you to plug in various solar panels, a personal wind turbine and your PHEV with the ease of plugging in your hair dryer. But, it’s not. On the plus side, it will help you manage appliances and energy. To the idealist industry right, I wish I could tell you that the smart grid is going to infuse mountains of capital into the industry to the point that you could swim in it and then use the leftover cash for a towel. But, it’s not. After initial stimulus funding, you will still have to convince the fearful to overcome the hump of investing in the relative unknown of the future---oh, that pesky unknown future. On the plus side, that pragmatist Obama has opened that investment door a crack and helped you get your foot into it. Now, wiggle. Wiggle what your momma gave you and work that gray area.
Cuz, that gray area is all you’re gonna get.
One: We were both born during a Chinese cycle of the ox---although he was born the cycle before I was. So, we have that going for us if we need to make small talk at some imaginary state dinner that I can script in my head. But, secondly, we both seem to be a tad too pragmatic in a time of idealists. And idealists, whether red, white or blue, seem to truly abhor pragmatists---abhor to the point of verbal stone-throwing, really, although Obama gets it way worse than I ever will.
The idealist far left is angry at Obama that he hasn’t made gay marriage legal, stopped the wars, freed all the Gitmo detainees and tapped out the BP oil leak with his burning laser-eyed superpowers. The idealist far right is angry that he tried to stimulate the economy more because economists think that’s a darn tootin’ good idea, wants to continue to help the poor and unemployed, and hasn’t freed corporations from the regulation slavery that’s bringing down the true American spirit of Capitalism.
Instead, Obama seems genuinely focused on trying to make progress on laws, bills, war fronts and economic changes---on political details, if you will. Whether or not you see those details as fitting into your particular ideal for this country, it’s obvious the man is more about connections and thinking than he is about emotions and praying, despite that campaign based on hope. That’s pragmatism.
But, unfortunately for Obama, pragmatism isn’t really an American ideal these days, if the comments section on CNN’s Belief Blog or the responses to the BBC’s Mark Mardell (a British reporter discussing life in America, as he once discussed life in Europe) are any indication. We are an angry bunch of idealists, as a national whole. We are fighting amongst ourselves, loudly. We call the other side “stupid” and “evil.” We have left “live and let live” and “let’s talk about this calmly” behind and have, instead, picked up “if I yell at you long enough, you will see all how wrong you’ve been your whole darn life.” We’ve adopting rather polarizing mantras.
Reports on the smart grid have often followed this same blind idealist climb to the summit over the last few years since the term has become household-known. You either believe the smart grid will save the industry, or you think it’s a bunch of hooey. You either love it, or you hate it. And, there’s not a gray area. And, if you’re in the wrong room, you may be cornered by a mob trying to change those beliefs. (Last year, I wrote two articles for POWERGRID International titled “Will Smart Grid Take Over the World?” That title was a play on this concept of growing smart grid idealism.)
But, back in reality, there is a gray area in the smart grid---and a lot of it, for us pragmatists in that mobbed-up room. The smart grid (more than Obama, CNN or the BBC’s Mardell) lends itself to a lot of gray areas, a lot of pragmatism, a lot of maybes. The technology involved in the smart grid may not be the “end all, be all” of a technological savior, but it is an improvement for a system that, in many cases, hasn’t seen much improvement in half a century.
And, on the other end, there is a lot of hype, a lot of expectations that may not come to fruition. Should we really be looking at solar installations and wind installations and sinking money hand over fist down the renewables road when the smart grid, alone, cannot possibly overcome the limitations of intermittency? Personally, as a pragmatist, I’d look first toward solving energy storage before I’d be sketching out plans for a multi-country, offshore grid infrastructure, as Friends of the Supergrid are working on. However, that spending isn’t money wasted if it brings us to a better system and a better end---albeit, perhaps a roundabout one. And, yay for them for finding a positive “button” to stimulate some funding.
Americans tend to feel strongly about everything from presidents to Pepsi, from couches to Congress. In many cases, that makes us fascinating. However, in entrenching ourselves in personal ideals without a willingness to find that gray area, meet there and see if we like it, we often prevent real technological progress and any actual development, instead miring ourselves down, holding ourselves back.
The smart grid needs fewer zealots and more pragmatists---according to this particular pragmatist, at least. No, the smart grid is not the electric messiah, but it’s also not the devil himself. It’s not everything we need for the next generation; it’s not a ridiculous waste of funding. Now that all those waving flags are out of the way, let’s meet and think---as Pooh said, “Think, think, think, think.”---about what the smart grid really is, can really bring to the table and what its limitations are. And, let’s do so honestly. It’s time to step out from behind ideals and spiels and truly come to terms with what can be accomplished with smart grid technology and, realistically, what cannot.
To the idealist industry left, I wish I could tell you that the smart grid is going to allow you to plug in various solar panels, a personal wind turbine and your PHEV with the ease of plugging in your hair dryer. But, it’s not. On the plus side, it will help you manage appliances and energy. To the idealist industry right, I wish I could tell you that the smart grid is going to infuse mountains of capital into the industry to the point that you could swim in it and then use the leftover cash for a towel. But, it’s not. After initial stimulus funding, you will still have to convince the fearful to overcome the hump of investing in the relative unknown of the future---oh, that pesky unknown future. On the plus side, that pragmatist Obama has opened that investment door a crack and helped you get your foot into it. Now, wiggle. Wiggle what your momma gave you and work that gray area.
Cuz, that gray area is all you’re gonna get.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
