![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peristaltorDon Q. here, ready to tilt at a familiar windmill and get my jousting on with its blades. It's always the case, isn't it. Sometimes you fight the imaginary dragons again and again, never quite vanquishing them, until they become familiars and ultimately family.
I last charged at this windmill way back in late '08. I was then shocked at how little folks on LJ profess to know about a concept with which I have been familiar for years: Distributed generation. Back then, I posted this image, a screen shot of my interests search on the topic.
Just for fun, I checked again. One person has joined my lonely club. I friended him years ago, but he never bothered to actually discuss the issue in which he and I professed interest. So, here I go again, revisiting the scene of the obsession with, hopefully, some new insights that will draw further interest.
I decided to revisit after a minor flare-up on an LJ friend's journal, where he proclaimed that those identifying as liberals "fear" nuclear energy. Several in the comments questioned that assertion (myself especially). Let me go on record and say that I do not fear nuclear power plants, despite the recent negative publicity from Fukushima and the largely laughable hype perpetrated by monied interests.
What I object to with nuclear plants was an objection we in Washington State faced with the default of the Washington Public Power Supply System, now renamed Energy Northwest, but forever etched in western minds by its spoken acronym "Whoops." From the Wiki:
These were AAA rated bonds that failed, dragging many investment portfolios down a notch . . . or more. The pertinent question remains: Why did this fail so spectacularly? The reasons the Wiki gives are factors, to be sure; but one is suspiciously left only as a now-emboldened hint from the article, and it's the one I'll be addressing here.
When the nuclear plants were planned originally, forecasters in the state noted that when the population rises, the demand for electricity rises as well. This assumes, though, that no one will appreciably change their consumption with lifestyle or technological changes. Along came the OPEC crisis which simultaneously flattened economic growth and encouraged people to seek ways to reduce their energy consumption through improving efficiencies. The result: Though the population rose according to projections, those people now used less energy (specifically electricity) per capita, meaning the overall demand projections calling for five big nukes no longer proved applicable.
Remember that I think the economy will continue the trend OPEC started, only without end, leading to an economy that contracts along with the available supply of usable energy. Contracting economies cannot repay loans with interest bearing debt, and often not even the principal. Why should we focus on large, investment-intensive projects to "solve" our evolving and changing energy needs?
Why not start small? Distributed generation does exactly that, allowing users to scale up as much as their pocketbooks will allow.
I've decided to revisit this issue a bit differently simply to avoid repeating my 2008 self. Happily, I've given this enough thought to break DG into three basic stages of involvement: Awareness, Simple Coordination, and Dynamic Coordination. On to Part I.
Ask yourself: How much electricity is the house or apartment you're in right now using right now? Do you know? Do you even know how much power the device allowing you to read these words will consume in the time it takes to read these words? All you have to do, after all, is head out to the side or back of the house and read a meter similar, probably, to the one pictured to the right. Ah, but can you? Precious few know how to translate the clock- and counter-clockwise spin of the main dial and little hands. Going further, assuming you can read your household consumption and manage to subtract every other device in running on power at the same time as your computer, can you translate the computer's energy consumption rate into dollars and cents?
For most people, this is the biggest barrier to conservation. Visiting a friend a few years ago, I once heard a housemate complain to another housemate about the electricity wasted on a light left lit in the laundry room . . . when the complainer went to that room specifically not to dry one shirt, but just to "freshen it up" for a night out. Doing the math, I managed to further exasperate housemate tranquility by showing that, in order for the electric consumption to be equal, the light would have to burn for two whole days before it would equal the energy consumed warming an already clean shirt for a date.
There are devices out there to help with basic awareness. One of the most popular and cost-effective (to my knowledge) is the Kill-A-Watt. For about $20, you get a meter that can be left permanently attached to single low-amperage appliance. Program the power rates you enjoy paying and the device will determine pretty much exactly how much that appliance costs to operate. This is especially useful to finding those darned vampire loads, appliances that never really shut off. Still, at $20 a pop, plugging every electrical device into one of these babies isn't that cost effective. It's more designed as a movable meter plugged to each household gadget at a time to produce a tally of estimates gathered from that metering rally.
I had a thought about getting real-time data; what if someone built a simpler Killa-A-Watt that only read the power consumption and broadcast that to a central station wirelessly? While still a cool thought, I stumbled on something almost as cool: Whole house monitors that show in real time exactly what the house-mounted utility meter shows . . . but in a readable form. My favorite was TED, The Energy Detective. This device also deals with the high-amp loads in the home like the electric range, water heater and clothes dryer, which are all way beyond the abilities of the Kill-A-Watt.
When last I visited their site, they didn't yet have the iPhone enabled interface. That is exactly what I thought was needed. Now I'm really tempted to take the plunge myself. After evaluating competing products and researching consumer satisfaction sites, The Wifely persuasion will soon begin in earnest.
Here's the issue: It turns out that people who can see in real time how much power they're using in the house start to do things that reduce consumption. On average, a meter will reduce a house's sipping of power by about 5-15% (according to my recollection of Danish research on meters installed and confirmed by an Oxford study {links to a PDF}), leading to further changes in behavior and appliance choice that reduce consumption to 20% from the start. From the linked paper:
Remember, this is with only one fairly inexpensive piece of new equipment installed, one that interacts only with the humans in the home.
The bottom line: DG depends first and foremost upon good monitors that lead to consumption awareness. From that simple start, one can gear up to greater and greater involvement and participation with the electricity we all use, which will be the topic of the next two parts.
I last charged at this windmill way back in late '08. I was then shocked at how little folks on LJ profess to know about a concept with which I have been familiar for years: Distributed generation. Back then, I posted this image, a screen shot of my interests search on the topic.
Just for fun, I checked again. One person has joined my lonely club. I friended him years ago, but he never bothered to actually discuss the issue in which he and I professed interest. So, here I go again, revisiting the scene of the obsession with, hopefully, some new insights that will draw further interest.
I decided to revisit after a minor flare-up on an LJ friend's journal, where he proclaimed that those identifying as liberals "fear" nuclear energy. Several in the comments questioned that assertion (myself especially). Let me go on record and say that I do not fear nuclear power plants, despite the recent negative publicity from Fukushima and the largely laughable hype perpetrated by monied interests.
What I object to with nuclear plants was an objection we in Washington State faced with the default of the Washington Public Power Supply System, now renamed Energy Northwest, but forever etched in western minds by its spoken acronym "Whoops." From the Wiki:
Of the five nuclear power projects started, only one – WNP-2, now known as Columbia Generating Station, was completed. A combination of management failures, a depressed economy, soaring interest rates and material costs, labor unrest, ratepayer activism and over estimation of electricity demand by forecasters was more than the effort could withstand. The other plants were eventually terminated.
In 1983, it became infamous for defaulting on $2.25 billion USD worth of bonds after construction on two of its nuclear power plants, WNP-4 and 5, was halted. The default remains the largest municipal bond default in the history of the United States.
(Emphasis mine.)
These were AAA rated bonds that failed, dragging many investment portfolios down a notch . . . or more. The pertinent question remains: Why did this fail so spectacularly? The reasons the Wiki gives are factors, to be sure; but one is suspiciously left only as a now-emboldened hint from the article, and it's the one I'll be addressing here.
When the nuclear plants were planned originally, forecasters in the state noted that when the population rises, the demand for electricity rises as well. This assumes, though, that no one will appreciably change their consumption with lifestyle or technological changes. Along came the OPEC crisis which simultaneously flattened economic growth and encouraged people to seek ways to reduce their energy consumption through improving efficiencies. The result: Though the population rose according to projections, those people now used less energy (specifically electricity) per capita, meaning the overall demand projections calling for five big nukes no longer proved applicable.
Remember that I think the economy will continue the trend OPEC started, only without end, leading to an economy that contracts along with the available supply of usable energy. Contracting economies cannot repay loans with interest bearing debt, and often not even the principal. Why should we focus on large, investment-intensive projects to "solve" our evolving and changing energy needs?
Why not start small? Distributed generation does exactly that, allowing users to scale up as much as their pocketbooks will allow.
I've decided to revisit this issue a bit differently simply to avoid repeating my 2008 self. Happily, I've given this enough thought to break DG into three basic stages of involvement: Awareness, Simple Coordination, and Dynamic Coordination. On to Part I.
Awareness
Ask yourself: How much electricity is the house or apartment you're in right now using right now? Do you know? Do you even know how much power the device allowing you to read these words will consume in the time it takes to read these words? All you have to do, after all, is head out to the side or back of the house and read a meter similar, probably, to the one pictured to the right. Ah, but can you? Precious few know how to translate the clock- and counter-clockwise spin of the main dial and little hands. Going further, assuming you can read your household consumption and manage to subtract every other device in running on power at the same time as your computer, can you translate the computer's energy consumption rate into dollars and cents?For most people, this is the biggest barrier to conservation. Visiting a friend a few years ago, I once heard a housemate complain to another housemate about the electricity wasted on a light left lit in the laundry room . . . when the complainer went to that room specifically not to dry one shirt, but just to "freshen it up" for a night out. Doing the math, I managed to further exasperate housemate tranquility by showing that, in order for the electric consumption to be equal, the light would have to burn for two whole days before it would equal the energy consumed warming an already clean shirt for a date.
There are devices out there to help with basic awareness. One of the most popular and cost-effective (to my knowledge) is the Kill-A-Watt. For about $20, you get a meter that can be left permanently attached to single low-amperage appliance. Program the power rates you enjoy paying and the device will determine pretty much exactly how much that appliance costs to operate. This is especially useful to finding those darned vampire loads, appliances that never really shut off. Still, at $20 a pop, plugging every electrical device into one of these babies isn't that cost effective. It's more designed as a movable meter plugged to each household gadget at a time to produce a tally of estimates gathered from that metering rally.I had a thought about getting real-time data; what if someone built a simpler Killa-A-Watt that only read the power consumption and broadcast that to a central station wirelessly? While still a cool thought, I stumbled on something almost as cool: Whole house monitors that show in real time exactly what the house-mounted utility meter shows . . . but in a readable form. My favorite was TED, The Energy Detective. This device also deals with the high-amp loads in the home like the electric range, water heater and clothes dryer, which are all way beyond the abilities of the Kill-A-Watt.
When last I visited their site, they didn't yet have the iPhone enabled interface. That is exactly what I thought was needed. Now I'm really tempted to take the plunge myself. After evaluating competing products and researching consumer satisfaction sites, The Wifely persuasion will soon begin in earnest.
Here's the issue: It turns out that people who can see in real time how much power they're using in the house start to do things that reduce consumption. On average, a meter will reduce a house's sipping of power by about 5-15% (according to my recollection of Danish research on meters installed and confirmed by an Oxford study {links to a PDF}), leading to further changes in behavior and appliance choice that reduce consumption to 20% from the start. From the linked paper:
There is considerable variety in the feedback literature, but common themes emerge. The first studies, in the 1970s, established that feedback (mostly via display monitors) has measurable effects and was worth pursuing, on its own or in combination with other processes. . . . Overall, the literature demonstrates that clear feedback is a necessary element in learning how to control fuel use more effectively over a long period of time and that instantaneous direct feedback in combination with frequent, accurate billing (a form of indirect feedback) is needed as a basis for sustained demand reduction.
Remember, this is with only one fairly inexpensive piece of new equipment installed, one that interacts only with the humans in the home.
The bottom line: DG depends first and foremost upon good monitors that lead to consumption awareness. From that simple start, one can gear up to greater and greater involvement and participation with the electricity we all use, which will be the topic of the next two parts.