Energy & Power Generation

Protesting Solar – UPDATED

by

…also wind and geothermal energy.

Well, to be precise, it’s not so much the generation of these energy types that is being protested…just the construction of the transmission lines required to get the electricity to the point where it is needed.

Southwestern desert areas are a logical place to put solar power plants, and large-scale solar developments–as well as wind and geothermal–are planned for an area about 150 miles from San Diego. The local utility, San Diego Gas & Electric, wants to build a transmission line (the “Sunrise Powerlink”) to connect these power sources with the city. The project is encountering fierce opposition, because the lines would go through the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, known for wildflowers, cacti, and spectacular mountain views.

I haven’t been to this state park, and it may well be an area of unique and surpassing beauty. Maybe there is a better approach to satisfying San Diego’s energy needs.

Read more

Water Today, Electricity Tomorrow

by

WATER DISTRIBUTION COMPANIES

A recent Wall Street Journal article was titled “Calls Rise for Public Control of Water Supply”. This article described how the small town of Felton, CA cheered as their local water district (a municipal utility)

“Officially wrested control of the town’s water from a unit of American Water Works Co. Residents of Felton… had been unhappy ever since the company bought their water system from another corporation in 2002 and proposed a 74% rate increase.

The city threatened and cajoled American Water Works to sell them the local water utility, as described below:

“One common tactic that communities are using in this water fight is eminent domain, the power that cities and other local agencies have to seize a corporate water system in the public’s interest. Earlier this year, the cities of Fort Wayne, IN and Cave Creek, AZ condemned all or parts of water systems owned by private companies.”

WHY WATER COMPANIES ARE VULNERABLE

Water companies are vulnerable for a number of reasons. First of all, their assets are “in the ground” and plainly available for takeover. Water systems are also relatively simple to run, and the existing work force can just become city or local employees.

Water systems also require money for expansion and maintenance. The only way in which this money can be raised is through the local community’s water bills, so these costs are passed along right away to the community, and can result in a rapid rise for local citizens.

Water also appears to be a necessity. Some utilities are viewed as luxury items (i.e. cellular phones, internet service) but everyone “needs” water. This is a simplistic view, of course, because very little water is used for drinking when compared to the water used for washing, flushing toilets, and irrigation. However, there is generally a strong bias against the privatization of water utilities, whether rational or not, and this is supported by the fact that the vast majority of US citizens get their water from a locally owned utility and not a private company.

Read more

Getting Warm

by

…a good time to spare an appreciative thought for Willis Carrier.

Enjoy it while you can.

The Democratic Party, egged on by the mainstream media and by its own “progressive” wing, has demonstrated considerable hostility toward energy production in any practical form. And activists of many types have shown great skill in using the legal and regulatory systems to delay energy-related projects…for years, and sometimes for decades.

If we have an Obama presidency and a Democratic sweep of the House and Senate, I think it is likely that in 10 years, the number of people who can afford air conditioning will be much smaller than it is at present.

Nuclear Power Cost Over-runs

by

The United States (and many other countries, such as Britain) faces an energy crisis of its own making. Due to a variety of bone-headed “deregulation” schemes, there is now no financial incentive for companies to build new large, baseload generating plants (nuclear, coal, hydro) and there are massive dis-incentives in the form of zealous greens and myopic regulators that will fight them every step of the way should they attempt to solve this problem.

While these facts are on the ground and manifestly self-evident (no new nuclear plants have been built in decades, not counting the TVA re-powering one site) and new baseload coal plants are extremely few and far between, journalists have been touting the “re-emergence” of nuclear power based on almost no hard evidence. As soon as these articles came out, I immediately pointed out the immense difficulties in building one of these plants, which range from the fact that there are 1) no financial incentives large enough to offset the massive risks 2) these estimates are “pie in the sky” and not backed up by cases of building in the USA 3) the history of these sorts of projects, on the other hand, is well documented and grim. This type of “reporting” is typical when reporters have only the barest knowledge of the facts at hand; as such they “humanize” the story and take uninformed or biased opinions verbatim without challenging the facts.

The Wall Street Journal had an article in their May 12, 2008 issue titled “New Wave of Nuclear Power Plants Faces High Costs”. Per the article:

“A new generation of nuclear power plants is on the drawing boards in the U.S., but the projected cost is causing some sticker shock: $5 billion to $12 billion a plant, double to quadruple earlier estimates.”

Read more

Number Gut Part II

by

Way back in 2004 I wrote about how the lack of an intuitive sense of scale prevented many people from viewing the Lancet Iraqi Mortality survey with skepticism. The same lack of sense of scale shows up in other areas such as in this article (via Megan McArdle) about ending subsidies to the oil industry instead of levying a windfall-profits tax.

Read more