 |
Published on ShanghaiDaily.com (http://www.shanghaidaily.com/) http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article/?id=449256&type=Feature  Although the solar energy industry has developed rapidly and China is one of the main producers of the world's solar panels, the use of solar energy in Shanghai is still exceedingly low. Stellar solar exports but little home use Created: 2010-9-15 Author:Zhang Qian SOLAR panels are everywhere in the World Expo Shanghai, which promotes alternative energies as part of a better life, but use of solar energy in Shanghai and China itself is still exceedingly low. Although the solar energy industry has developed rapidly and China is one of the main producers of the world's solar panels, the vast majority is exported. "It is quite ironic to see such a small amount of solar energy-generating systems installed in a country with an annual solar cell industrial output amounting for 40 percent of the world's output," says Cui Rongqiang, chairman of Shanghai Solar Energy Association. "More than 98 percent of the output is exported, while no more than 2 percent is used domestically." While there's been a big push for solar at the Expo, in the rest of Shanghai, the installation is low. The major reasons are lack of public education and misconceptions about solar power, according to Cui. Many people believe Shanghai doesn't get enough sunshine year round to make solar energy practical, but Germany gets less solar radio and uses far more solar energy, Cui says. And many people are still put off by what they consider high installation costs, though these are recouped over time and in the longer term solar power is very cheap and practical. Solar energy is not that new to Shanghai. Back in the 1970s, Wusong Port used a lighthouse powered by solar energy, according to Cui. But not much happened until 1999, when the industry started taking off nationwide. "The solar energy industry has developed rapidly in China in the past 10 years," says Cui. "We have been working on almost every kind of solar water heaters and power generators popular in the world. Our products perfectly meet international quality standards for solar products." China's annual output of solar water heaters reached 4.2 million square meters in 2009, growing annually at 35.4 percent; the annual output of solar cells reached 4,000 megawatts in 2009, which is more than 40 percent of the world's total output of solar cells, according to "Analysis and Investment Consulting Report on China Solar Energy Photovoltaic Generation Industry, 2010-2015," released by www.ocn.com.cn, a research center focusing on industrial development and investment. However, the great production of solar cells and water heaters hasn't led to large-scale use of solar energy in China as most is exported, according to Jiang Qian, the company's energy sector investment adviser. Only 40mw of solar energy power-generating systems were installed in China in 2008, amounting to just 0.73 percent of the world's total; and only 150mw were installed in 2009, which only amounted to 2.5 percent of the global total - despite the fact that China's production was 40 percent of global production. The same is true with the solar industry in Shanghai, though preparations for the Expo have promoted use of solar energy. About 4.7mw of solar power generation were installed in Expo construction, including the China Pavilion and Theme Pavilion. But few solar power systems or solar water-heating systems are used in residential housing. Solar power is more popular in nearby Jiangsu and Zhejiang provinces. "We have advanced techniques and quality products, but many people hesitate to make full use of them," says Cui, addressing his concerns. "Shanghai definitely doesn't get as much sunshine as California, but it gets much more heat from solar radiation than Germany and Japan, which both have high solar coverage rates," he says. Shanghai gets a yearly average of 4,600-4,700 megajoule of heat from solar radiation, about 20 percent higher than most German cities, he says. But Germany is expanding use of solar energy; about 3.8 gigawatts were installed in 2009 alone, and 9.8gw had been installed nationwide by the end of 2009. Though solar energy can be inconsistent, causing problems when directly connected to a state grid, a smart grid can solve the problem using multiple traditional and alternative energies. Some people object to what relatively high installation costs. "The solar cell was once extremely expensive when it was first invented for satellites," says Cui. "But the cost has been dropping continuously throughout the years along with development." Today it only costs 20-25 yuan to install 1 watt of a solar power generating system in Shanghai, according to Cui. Little maintenance is required in the first 25 years, but efficiency declines gradually over the next 25 years. It costs less than 1 yuan to generate each kwh, and Cui says the costs will drop further as technology improves and the installation increases. "Besides, solar energy is a clean and renewable power source that brings immeasurable environmental benefits and helps ensure sustainable development," says Cui. "Most people can do the calculation themselves." Local government support is necessary to educate the public about the benefits of solar power; financial incentives have been demonstrated elsewhere to encourage ordinary people to use clean energy. Financial support for solar-related enterprises is also important. The National Development and Reform Committee set prices for wind power electricity in early 2009. Every kwh of electricity produced by wind power generators can mean a rebate of from 0.51-0.61 yuan in different regions. Cui says he hopes the local government will quickly set prices and rebates for solar power. "It is not that difficult to set a price for solar power as it is easier to measure regional solar resources than wind resources rand there is little difference among different districts in Shanghai," says Cui. He suggests first setting a price and rebate to encourage more users and then adjusting it based on feedback. Solar energy in Expo Germany Pavilion The 6,000-square-meter pavilion is covered by 12,000 square meters of ASI glass modules that generate solar electricity. Unlike ordinary thick and heavy solar panels, the ASI glass is semi-transparent, allowing light in. Apart from generating power, it provides thermal insulation and shade. The modules are ideal for glazing, facade and shading applications. The system is about 10-15 percent more efficient in power generation, according to SCHOTT Solar, the producer. About 5 percent of the energy consumption in the Germany Pavilion is produced by the ASI glass. Theme Pavilion The Theme Pavilion has the world's largest solar panel roof. It contains 31,105 square meters of panels, with an installed capacity of 2.8mw. The solar roof is comprised of 96 triangular solar panels, which can both help generate power and decorate the roofs as the "laohu chuang" (tiger window), a cultural element of Shanghai architecture. The solar power generating system can produce about 2.84 million kwh annually, which can save about 1,000 tons of coal, and reduce about 2,500 tons of carbon dioxide emission. EU-Belgium Pavilion Four hundred paper flowers swinging in a glass frame in the EU-Belgium Pavilion attract many visitors' attention, especially kids. All of the flowers move with light energy generated from the solar little generator attached to each. It is a work of Alexandre Dang, a Belgian artist who founded Solar Solidarity International, a non-profit international association that tries to raise awareness of the potential of sustainable energy. "I hope that visitors will think about the benefits of sustainable energy when they are attracted by the lovely flowers," says Dang. http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article/?id=449256&type=Feature |
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
San Bruno to get up to $100 million from PG&ETuesday, September 14, 2010 IMAGES   California Highway Patrol inspector Mark Andrews does an inventory of cars that were destroyed in the explosion and fire. (09-13) 19:50 PDT SAN BRUNO -- Pacific Gas and Electric Co. said Monday that it will spend as much as $100 million to help rebuild the San Bruno neighborhood that was devastated when one of the utility's natural gas transmission lines ruptured and spewed a deadly fireball. PG&E President Chris Johns said the firm's board of directors approved the relief fund Sunday night, freeing up "no strings attached" money that is independent of the cost of replacing homes that were ravaged by fire. The money also is separate from legal claims many residents of the Crestmoor neighborhood are expected to file. Johns said the spending is not an admission that the company is at fault for the blast Thursday evening that killed at least four people, destroyed 37 homes and badly damaged eight others. Four people remain unaccounted for. Spending plansJohns said the utility had already cut the city a check for $3 million for costs associated with responding to the disaster. PG&E will give as much as $50,000 apiece for day-to-day needs to people whose homes were damaged or destroyed.In addition, Johns said, PG&E will "make whole" those who lack comprehensive insurance coverage for items they lost, and the company will help rebuild streets, sidewalks and parks. The utility maintains liability insurance of $992 million for damage caused by fire, with a $10 million deductible. "I realize money can't return lives. It can't heal scars, it can't replace memories," Johns said at a news conference. "But there does come a time for healing and for rebuilding, and we are committed to helping that happen." Johns and other PG&E officials also defended the maintenance and inspection of the high-pressure, 30-inch-diameter transmission pipeline that ruptured at Earl Avenue and Glenview Drive. Johns said he could not speculate on the possible causes of the explosion, which is under investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board. "We did not anticipate any issues with (the pipeline) at that point," Johns said of the blast site. Investigators with the safety board are leading the main probe into what caused the blast. Although they said they are far from reaching conclusions, some intriguing discoveries emerged Monday. How pipe tore looseChristopher Hart, the agency's vice chairman, said the 28-foot section of pipe that shot out of the ground in the explosion had a "clean break" at or near a weld joint at one end, and a "jagged" tear at the other end that was not near a weld. Federal investigators said earlier that they were trying to determine why the section appeared to have been cut at some earlier point and rewelded in segments.The 28-foot piece, and two additional 10-foot-chunks chopped from both ends of the explosion site by investigators, were loaded onto trucks Monday evening to begin their journey to testing laboratories in Washington, D.C. Gary Beltz, a retired, longtime corrosion technician who worked on natural gas pipelines, said that at the time the San Bruno line was made, inspections of weld joints were not as efficient as they are now, leaving open the possibility of weakness at construction. The San Bruno pipeline was installed in 1956, according to the federal safety board. "Back then the welds weren't required to be X-rayed as they are now," said Beltz, who worked for Texas Eastern Gas Transmission. He said such transmission lines can function perfectly for many decades if properly maintained. The key to the maintenance is preserving a coating on the outside of the steel pipe to protect it from corrosion, Beltz said. Many anglesTheories about troubles with the coating - and of other potential causes - abounded Monday. But as a growing number of state, local and federal officials bore down on their probes, nobody was committing to one vein of inquiry.Water and sewer lines run directly below, and perpendicular to, the pipeline. A potentially ground-eroding creek runs nearby, and the line lies on top of the San Andreas Fault. All those are factors that will be looked at, investigators said. D'Arcy and Harty Construction of San Francisco did sewer replacement work in 2008 on a 1,600-foot stretch along Earl Avenue near the site of the explosion. A company spokesman said Monday that the job passed inspection by PG&E at the time, and San Bruno's mayor has said he doesn't believe the work contributed to the blast. But the history of that project is being examined. Officials also are trying to determine how vigorously the line was inspected over the years. Such transmission lines must be inspected annually, said Julie Halligan, deputy director of the California Public Utilities Commission's consumer protection and safety division. Passed inspectionGeisha Williams, PG&E's senior vice president of energy delivery, said the pipeline was buried 4 to 5 feet underground. It was inspected and deemed free of leaks in March, she said, after workers walked along the line with a handheld device that can detect the presence of gas. In inaccessible locations, she said, the survey was done from a helicopter.Some residents have said they smelled gas in days leading up to the explosion. But Johns said the utility has looked through 95 percent of its call records dating to July 1 and had found no indication of calls regarding odor at the blast location. He said there were two calls in mid-July from people two to three blocks away - one for a smell and another for a leak at a meter. No leak was found regarding the smell, and the meter leak was fixed, he said. In November, PG&E officials said, the pipeline passed an external inspection designed to look for corrosion. Ed Salas, senior vice president of engineering and operations, said the company had run an electrical current through the line. A worker with probes that look like ski poles walked along the line, placing the probes in the ground to detect leakage of the current. Manual shutoffThe utility officials said the pipeline did not have valves that could be shut remotely, cutting off the flow of gas to a particular area, even though some other PG&E lines feature such automatic valves.After Thursday's explosion, workers had to close the valves on either side of the rupture manually. PG&E officials said they did not know how long that process had taken or whether workers had done it properly. The valves were within a "couple of miles" of the blast site, said Hart of the federal safety board. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/09/13/MNMK1FD8A7.DTL |
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Smart Meters Alone May Not Save Much Energy
By NINA CHESTNEY
September 12, 2010, 10:38am
LONDON, Sept. 11 (Reuters Life!) – Smart meters to boost energy efficiency in homes do not automatically achieve a significant reduction in energy demand, research showed.
Smart meters record energy or water consumption and send the readings back to the utility for monitoring and billing.
It is hoped that consumers will save energy through increased awareness of how much they use and that estimated bills will be eliminated.
Previous studies have shown that smart meters encourage homeowners to cut their energy use by 3 to 15 percent, but researchers said consumers also need educating about energy use.
Two scientific papers published in the September issue of the publication Building Research and Information showed the technology alone is not enough to deliver significant domestic energy savings.
In her paper, Sarah Darby at the Environmental Change Institute at the University of Oxford examined how householders used feedback on their energy consumption with and without smart meters. She found that a reduction in energy demand ''did not flow naturally from improved billing information.''
''There is the potential to use (advanced metering infrastructure) for demand reduction if there is a strong strategic intention to do so, and if the social support is there,'' she said in the paper. In a separate study, academics at the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands trialled domestic energy meters with 304 participants over four months.
Friday, September 03, 2010
San Francisco Chronicle
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/09/02/EDEG1F70QV.DTL#ixzz0yTtsb7EL
Repowered wind farm could save Altamont birds
Friday, September 3, 2010
Wind turbines like these near Altamont Pass have been blamed for the deaths of thousands of birds.
If we told you that a poorly regulated energy facility killed thousands of birds this year, you could assume we were talking about BP's Deepwater Horizon platform in the Gulf of Mexico. But we also could be talking about the Altamont Pass wind farm east of San Francisco, which has been killing thousands of migratory birds and protected raptors since the 1980s.
Despite being one of the nation's earliest renewable-energy facilities and being built with good intentions, the thousands of wind turbines have long ceased being a source of pride for environmentalists and are an embarrassment to the wind energy industry.
Not only have the bird kills at Altamont split environmentalists, but they've also made it more difficult to get much-needed alternative energy projects approved. Every impact study now includes a cautionary tale about avian mortality at Altamont. Moreover, supporters of the oil and gas industries enjoy shedding crocodile tears about the dangers to birds that wind energy present.
But in the coming weeks, Alameda County officials will have the opportunity to finally address the problems at Altamont by approving a new plan to reduce bird deaths.
The same things that make the Altamont Pass good for wind turbines also make it good for birds. The breezes blowing over these 50,000 acres make it a perfect migratory pathway, and grasslands under the turbines are full of small mammals that attract birds of prey.
A recent study estimates that the Altamont Pass turbines kill between 7,500 and 9,300 birds each year. Many of the affected species are protected under state and federal laws, including the golden eagle, red-tailed hawk, American kestrel and burrowing owl. These birds are spectacular examples of a wild California - part of our identity as a state - that we must protect.
The killing of these birds should have triggered action long ago by the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - as well as local regulatory bodies. But after years of inaction by these agencies, four Bay Area Audubon chapters - Golden Gate, Santa Clara Valley, Ohlone and Marin - and Californians for Renewable Energy sued Alameda County and the wind companies in 2006 demanding that an environmental impact report be completed before operations at Altamont continued.
The suit was difficult for the plaintiffs because they understood that renewable energy is necessary to minimize the impacts of climate change, which will have dire consequences for birds. Wanting to encourage efforts to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, the plaintiffs arrived at a settlement that gave the wind companies three years to reduce bird deaths by at least 50 percent. If that goal was not reached by November 2009, then the county would implement an adaptive management plan for the entire Altamont Pass to minimize bird deaths, which would require the wind farms to shut down their turbines for 3 1/2 months during the winter.
Unfortunately, the wind companies - NextEra Energy Resources, enXco and AES Wind Generation - have dragged their feet at every turn, and the regulatory agencies haven't compelled them to do otherwise. A draft study of bird deaths at Altamont shows little, if any, progress toward the 50 percent reduction.
This is the county's moment to do the right thing.
If the county is strong, it can address the problem of bird deaths at Altamont without sacrificing any renewable energy. Most of the 4,500 wind turbines there are old, inefficient models that because of their height and poor location are particularly dangerous for birds. Newer wind turbines are taller and the blades turn more slowly, presenting less danger. Even better, they produce much more power than the older models, so a "repowered" Altamont will have fewer turbines placed in lower-risk spots and still generate the same amount of electricity.
But this won't happen unless Alameda County officials take a hard stance right now and reverse their tacit trading of birds for "green power."
Despite being one of the nation's earliest renewable-energy facilities and being built with good intentions, the thousands of wind turbines have long ceased being a source of pride for environmentalists and are an embarrassment to the wind energy industry.
Not only have the bird kills at Altamont split environmentalists, but they've also made it more difficult to get much-needed alternative energy projects approved. Every impact study now includes a cautionary tale about avian mortality at Altamont. Moreover, supporters of the oil and gas industries enjoy shedding crocodile tears about the dangers to birds that wind energy present.
But in the coming weeks, Alameda County officials will have the opportunity to finally address the problems at Altamont by approving a new plan to reduce bird deaths.
The same things that make the Altamont Pass good for wind turbines also make it good for birds. The breezes blowing over these 50,000 acres make it a perfect migratory pathway, and grasslands under the turbines are full of small mammals that attract birds of prey.
A recent study estimates that the Altamont Pass turbines kill between 7,500 and 9,300 birds each year. Many of the affected species are protected under state and federal laws, including the golden eagle, red-tailed hawk, American kestrel and burrowing owl. These birds are spectacular examples of a wild California - part of our identity as a state - that we must protect.
The killing of these birds should have triggered action long ago by the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - as well as local regulatory bodies. But after years of inaction by these agencies, four Bay Area Audubon chapters - Golden Gate, Santa Clara Valley, Ohlone and Marin - and Californians for Renewable Energy sued Alameda County and the wind companies in 2006 demanding that an environmental impact report be completed before operations at Altamont continued.
The suit was difficult for the plaintiffs because they understood that renewable energy is necessary to minimize the impacts of climate change, which will have dire consequences for birds. Wanting to encourage efforts to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, the plaintiffs arrived at a settlement that gave the wind companies three years to reduce bird deaths by at least 50 percent. If that goal was not reached by November 2009, then the county would implement an adaptive management plan for the entire Altamont Pass to minimize bird deaths, which would require the wind farms to shut down their turbines for 3 1/2 months during the winter.
Unfortunately, the wind companies - NextEra Energy Resources, enXco and AES Wind Generation - have dragged their feet at every turn, and the regulatory agencies haven't compelled them to do otherwise. A draft study of bird deaths at Altamont shows little, if any, progress toward the 50 percent reduction.
This is the county's moment to do the right thing.
If the county is strong, it can address the problem of bird deaths at Altamont without sacrificing any renewable energy. Most of the 4,500 wind turbines there are old, inefficient models that because of their height and poor location are particularly dangerous for birds. Newer wind turbines are taller and the blades turn more slowly, presenting less danger. Even better, they produce much more power than the older models, so a "repowered" Altamont will have fewer turbines placed in lower-risk spots and still generate the same amount of electricity.
But this won't happen unless Alameda County officials take a hard stance right now and reverse their tacit trading of birds for "green power."
Nell Newman (daughter of Paul Newman) is the founder of Newman's Own Organics and a raptor advocate. Graham Chisholm is the executive director of Audubon California.
This article appeared on page A - 14 of the San Francisco Chronicle
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/09/02/EDEG1F70QV.DTL#ixzz0yTtsb7EL
| |
By Julie Schmit, USA TODAY Consumer allegations in California that new smart meters measuring household energy use led to unfairly high bills are unfounded and the meters work just fine, an independent research group said Thursday. The finding — that the 6.7 million meters deployed by Pacific Gas & Electric to customers since 2007 work accurately — may help ease concerns nationwide for utilities pressing ahead with the so-called smart electricity grid aimed at conserving energy use and production. The meters are a key part of the effort to upgrade the grid, an undertaking that President Obama has compared in significance to the building of the interstate highway system. PG&E has been at the forefront, having deployed more smart meters than any other utility in the nation. But rather than being welcomed by consumers, PG&E's meter rollout spawned a backlash of complaints of high bills, a proposed class-action lawsuit, efforts by numerous cities, including San Francisco, to delay meter installations, and street protests over what some consumers say are dangerous radio wave emissions from the meters. In April, California regulators ordered a review of the situation. PG&E's woes also sparked concern among other utilities that consumers may fight the meters in their territories, too. Last month, smart meters were deemed accurate in Texas after an investigation following consumer complaints. "People have been watching California," says Katherine Hamilton of GridWise Alliance. It supports smart-grid deployments. Smart meters track electricity and gas use and wirelessly transmit data to utilities, negating the need for meter readers. Last year, the Obama administration poured $3.4 billion into smart-grid projects in 49 states. The meters are the key consumer component of smart grids. The Structure Consulting Group of Houston, selected by the California Public Utilities Commission to review PG&E's meters, found the meters more accurate than old ones. It also backed up PG&E's claims that a 2009 heat wave and rate increases, one up to 23%, combined to radically boost bills. A prior investigation by PG&E found issues with 1% of the meters, but most led to no change in bills or reduced charges, says Helen Burt, PG&E senior vice president. She says PG&E didn't do a good job educating consumers about rate increases or smart meters. It's added staffing to address concerns and has lowered some rates. The utility has 3.3 million meters left to install. Structure didn't assess health concerns. The Federal Communications Commission says smart meters comply with federal radio frequency emission standards. PG&E says they emit far fewer emissions than cellphones. One would have to live with a smart meter for 13,000 years to be exposed to as much radiation as one gets from a cellphone, with moderate use, in one year, Burt says. |
Thursday, September 02, 2010
ComEd Creates 'Smart Grid Innovation' Corridor Near Chicago
Commonwealth Edison Co. (ComEd) has launched a concentrated hub of smart grid pilot projects in a bid to put to the test a range of technologies, such as rooftop solar and electric vehicle charging stations.
The company, a subsidiary of utility giant Exelon, launched what it is calling a "Smart Grid Innovation Corridor" in 10 Northern Illinois communities where there are already smart meters installed in 130,000 homes. Five pilot tests will take place in the corridor, using the smart meter technology as the foundation.
"Our innovation corridor is unlike any in the U.S.," Anne Pramaggiore, ComEd's president and chief operating officer, said in a statement Wednesday. "It allows us to study a variety of advanced Smart Grid technologies individually and in relation to each other. Through this deliberate approach, we will learn the best and most cost-effective way to deliver value to our customers, help them manage their bills, and improve system reliability."
The news comes the same week as Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced that two million smart grid meters have been installed across the U.S., driven in part by funding from the Recovery Act.
A $5 million grant from the Department of Energy will partially fund one of the five smart grid pilot programs announced by ComEd Wednesday. The three-year photovoltaic pilot is expected to begin next spring, for which ComEd will recruit 100 owners of single-family homes to participate.
Homeowners will receive free rooftop solar panels and installation, with the resulting electricity generation and consumption to be monitored by the utility to examine the customer benefits, hourly pricing signals, impact on customer load, and how well participants are able to sell back unused solar electricity.
ComEd will also launch its first intelligent substation as part of another pilot test. An existing Oak Park substation is being equipped with microprocessor-based controls and advanced digital devices that will go online in December. The substation's automated monitoring and analysis capabilities are to be designed to improve reliability and maintenance.
A third pilot program will see smart-charging infrastructure installed throughout the Chicago area for an electric vehicle pilot program. Partnering on the project will be General Motors, the Electric Power Research Institute and the city of Chicago. The Chevy Volt from General Motors will be tested in the program beginning in 2011.
The remaining pilot programs will focus on self-correcting power lines and reducing surprise voltage on distribution lines. Both will go into effect in December.
The Smart Grid Innovation Corridor includes Bellwood, Berwyn, Broadview, Forest Park, Hillside, Melrose Park, Oak Park, River Forest and Chicago's Humboldt Park neighborhood.
The company, a subsidiary of utility giant Exelon, launched what it is calling a "Smart Grid Innovation Corridor" in 10 Northern Illinois communities where there are already smart meters installed in 130,000 homes. Five pilot tests will take place in the corridor, using the smart meter technology as the foundation.
"Our innovation corridor is unlike any in the U.S.," Anne Pramaggiore, ComEd's president and chief operating officer, said in a statement Wednesday. "It allows us to study a variety of advanced Smart Grid technologies individually and in relation to each other. Through this deliberate approach, we will learn the best and most cost-effective way to deliver value to our customers, help them manage their bills, and improve system reliability."
The news comes the same week as Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced that two million smart grid meters have been installed across the U.S., driven in part by funding from the Recovery Act.
A $5 million grant from the Department of Energy will partially fund one of the five smart grid pilot programs announced by ComEd Wednesday. The three-year photovoltaic pilot is expected to begin next spring, for which ComEd will recruit 100 owners of single-family homes to participate.
Homeowners will receive free rooftop solar panels and installation, with the resulting electricity generation and consumption to be monitored by the utility to examine the customer benefits, hourly pricing signals, impact on customer load, and how well participants are able to sell back unused solar electricity.
ComEd will also launch its first intelligent substation as part of another pilot test. An existing Oak Park substation is being equipped with microprocessor-based controls and advanced digital devices that will go online in December. The substation's automated monitoring and analysis capabilities are to be designed to improve reliability and maintenance.
A third pilot program will see smart-charging infrastructure installed throughout the Chicago area for an electric vehicle pilot program. Partnering on the project will be General Motors, the Electric Power Research Institute and the city of Chicago. The Chevy Volt from General Motors will be tested in the program beginning in 2011.
The remaining pilot programs will focus on self-correcting power lines and reducing surprise voltage on distribution lines. Both will go into effect in December.
The Smart Grid Innovation Corridor includes Bellwood, Berwyn, Broadview, Forest Park, Hillside, Melrose Park, Oak Park, River Forest and Chicago's Humboldt Park neighborhood.
Xcel's smart grid a "learning lab" for dos and don'ts
POSTED: 08/29/2010
Steve Chavez, an employee at Xcel's Distribution Control Center in Denver, monitors electricity distribution, including the smart-grid system in Boulder. ( Denver Post file photo )
In 2008, Xcel Energy planned to turn Boulder into an "international showcase" for reliable, renewable energy by rewiring the area with a state-of-the-art distribution grid.
The company's resulting SmartGridCity project has since indeed set an example in the electricity industry after missing its 2009 target for completion and running three times over the utility's original $15.3 million budget, according to filings with the state Public Utilities Commission.
Now, as other utilities test new ways to improve their own reliability and efficiency, energy experts say they are looking at Xcel's Boulder experiment as both a trailblazer and a cautionary tale.
"It's being used as kind of a poster child of how not to do smart-grid deployment," said Michael Shames, executive director of the San Diego-based Utility Consumers' Action Network, a Southern California watchdog group.
There is still no consensus on what constitutes a "smart grid," but by any definition, Xcel set out to be at the head of the class with SmartGridCity. Beyond two-way meters that periodically relay customers' usage data, Xcel installed equipment that reports outages automatically, substations that communicate with each other at broadband Internet speeds, and plugs that allow hybrid vehicles to serve as batteries for the entire grid.
"It's a very aggressive approach, and they're learning a lot with it," said Don Kintner, a spokesman for the nonprofit Electric Power Research Institute. "I don't think there's anything like SmartGridCity in the U.S."
Varying results
Other U.S. utilities from San Francisco to Chattanooga, Tenn., have taken more incremental steps, with varying results. Spurred by $3.4 billion in federal stimulus funding distributed in 2009, almost 100 utilities are upgrading some part of their distribution networks, with improvements such as wireless meters and pole-top outage sensors.
Oncor, a Dallas-Fort Worth, utility, has installed 1.2 million smart meters and 1,500 smart switches to detect line breaks remotely. It expects to upgrade more than 3 million customers by 2012, at a cost of about $690 million.
Xcel spokesman Tom Henley said these projects do not compare with Boulder's ambitious approach, which by the end of this year aims to not only make the grid more reliable for 24,000 smart-metered customers but also more capable of handling the future stresses that unpredictable wind- and solar-generation sources will place on it.
"They're not looking at the entirety of the grid," he said. "We're looking at the holistic design of it and not just smart meters."
SmartGridCity received no federal funding because the project was in motion long before the Congress passed the stimulus bill.
Another for-profit, state-regulated utility chose to budget for less technology but cover more customers. San Diego Gas & Electric introduced its smart-meter proposal in 2005 and plans to equip all of its 1.4 million customers with smart meters by the end of next year. The California Public Utilities Commission approved in 2007 a $572 million budget for the program.
San Diego's Smart Meter program promises to lay the foundation for future goals like preparing the city's more than 10,000 rooftop solar panels and 2,000 expected electric cars to plug into the system by the end of next year.
San Diego's program took more than five years to move from idea to implementation because it had to clear a series of cost "gates" before proceeding, said Ted Reguly, director of SDG&E's Smart Meter Program Office.
"To run a big project like this, you need to break it down into littler projects with small goals . . . to be sure you're going in the right direction before you move forward," Reguly said.
State regulators and consumer advocates also monitored major project decisions through a "technical advisory panel," a key concession brokered after Shames' UCAN demanded more oversight. As of this month, the company is still within its regulator-approved budget, according to filings with the California PUC.
SmartGridCity was "the first out of the gate" in testing that kind of technology, Xcel's Henley said. Much of the software and equipment Xcel chose was evaluated for the first time in Boulder, he said.
Instead of soliciting competitive bids — as SDG&E, Oncor and many other utilities did - Xcel chose some of its technology vendors based on how much they "brought to the table," Henley said. Software and equipment vendors donated hardware and expertise in exchange for a real-world lab to test their technologies.
Xcel declined to release the value of these partners' contributions, citing confidentiality agreements. A confidential Xcel estimate valued four vendors' contributions at $21.6 million.
The company still estimates the overall project is worth $100 million, even after its own share of the budget ballooned in two years to $44.8 million — a cost ratepayers will foot.
Own fiber-optic network
Information-technology costs associated with SmartGridCity have reached $19.2 million, according to a PUC filing. For instance, Xcel chose more expensive broadband-over-powerline technology and dug its own fiber-optic network to link its new devices because existing telecommunications companies were unwilling to share their networks at the time, according to Xcel.
The PUC did not treat Boulder's smart-grid project as a separate rate case until this year, after it was clear Xcel's expected costs were three times as high as initially suggested.
"Essentially, this was a decision by Xcel to launch a SmartGridCity pilot project," PUC spokesman Terry Bote said. "We were not asked to give prior approval, . . . but where decision points needed to be made, that's where we became involved."
Xcel points out that its pilot program had successes — power-line sensors prevented 63 unplanned outages in 2009 — long before most utilities had that capability. Henley said the utility will assign dollar figures to more than 60 "value propositions" that SmartGridCity will have demonstrated by the end of this year.
"Now, it's going to be easier for other people to do cost-benefit analyses because of the data they (Xcel) gathered," said Katherine Hamilton, president of GridWise Alliance, a smart-grid advocate. "So I think it was a great learning lab."
The company's resulting SmartGridCity project has since indeed set an example in the electricity industry after missing its 2009 target for completion and running three times over the utility's original $15.3 million budget, according to filings with the state Public Utilities Commission.
Now, as other utilities test new ways to improve their own reliability and efficiency, energy experts say they are looking at Xcel's Boulder experiment as both a trailblazer and a cautionary tale.
"It's being used as kind of a poster child of how not to do smart-grid deployment," said Michael Shames, executive director of the San Diego-based Utility Consumers' Action Network, a Southern California watchdog group.
There is still no consensus on what constitutes a "smart grid," but by any definition, Xcel set out to be at the head of the class with SmartGridCity. Beyond two-way meters that periodically relay customers' usage data, Xcel installed equipment that reports outages automatically, substations that communicate with each other at broadband Internet speeds, and plugs that allow hybrid vehicles to serve as batteries for the entire grid.
"It's a very aggressive approach, and they're learning a lot with it," said Don Kintner, a spokesman for the nonprofit Electric Power Research Institute. "I don't think there's anything like SmartGridCity in the U.S."
Varying results
Other U.S. utilities from San Francisco to Chattanooga, Tenn., have taken more incremental steps, with varying results. Spurred by $3.4 billion in federal stimulus funding distributed in 2009, almost 100 utilities are upgrading some part of their distribution networks, with improvements such as wireless meters and pole-top outage sensors.
Oncor, a Dallas-Fort Worth, utility, has installed 1.2 million smart meters and 1,500 smart switches to detect line breaks remotely. It expects to upgrade more than 3 million customers by 2012, at a cost of about $690 million.
Xcel spokesman Tom Henley said these projects do not compare with Boulder's ambitious approach, which by the end of this year aims to not only make the grid more reliable for 24,000 smart-metered customers but also more capable of handling the future stresses that unpredictable wind- and solar-generation sources will place on it.
"They're not looking at the entirety of the grid," he said. "We're looking at the holistic design of it and not just smart meters."
SmartGridCity received no federal funding because the project was in motion long before the Congress passed the stimulus bill.
Another for-profit, state-regulated utility chose to budget for less technology but cover more customers. San Diego Gas & Electric introduced its smart-meter proposal in 2005 and plans to equip all of its 1.4 million customers with smart meters by the end of next year. The California Public Utilities Commission approved in 2007 a $572 million budget for the program.
San Diego's Smart Meter program promises to lay the foundation for future goals like preparing the city's more than 10,000 rooftop solar panels and 2,000 expected electric cars to plug into the system by the end of next year.
San Diego's program took more than five years to move from idea to implementation because it had to clear a series of cost "gates" before proceeding, said Ted Reguly, director of SDG&E's Smart Meter Program Office.
"To run a big project like this, you need to break it down into littler projects with small goals . . . to be sure you're going in the right direction before you move forward," Reguly said.
State regulators and consumer advocates also monitored major project decisions through a "technical advisory panel," a key concession brokered after Shames' UCAN demanded more oversight. As of this month, the company is still within its regulator-approved budget, according to filings with the California PUC.
SmartGridCity was "the first out of the gate" in testing that kind of technology, Xcel's Henley said. Much of the software and equipment Xcel chose was evaluated for the first time in Boulder, he said.
Instead of soliciting competitive bids — as SDG&E, Oncor and many other utilities did - Xcel chose some of its technology vendors based on how much they "brought to the table," Henley said. Software and equipment vendors donated hardware and expertise in exchange for a real-world lab to test their technologies.
Xcel declined to release the value of these partners' contributions, citing confidentiality agreements. A confidential Xcel estimate valued four vendors' contributions at $21.6 million.
The company still estimates the overall project is worth $100 million, even after its own share of the budget ballooned in two years to $44.8 million — a cost ratepayers will foot.
Own fiber-optic network
Information-technology costs associated with SmartGridCity have reached $19.2 million, according to a PUC filing. For instance, Xcel chose more expensive broadband-over-powerline technology and dug its own fiber-optic network to link its new devices because existing telecommunications companies were unwilling to share their networks at the time, according to Xcel.
The PUC did not treat Boulder's smart-grid project as a separate rate case until this year, after it was clear Xcel's expected costs were three times as high as initially suggested.
"Essentially, this was a decision by Xcel to launch a SmartGridCity pilot project," PUC spokesman Terry Bote said. "We were not asked to give prior approval, . . . but where decision points needed to be made, that's where we became involved."
Xcel points out that its pilot program had successes — power-line sensors prevented 63 unplanned outages in 2009 — long before most utilities had that capability. Henley said the utility will assign dollar figures to more than 60 "value propositions" that SmartGridCity will have demonstrated by the end of this year.
"Now, it's going to be easier for other people to do cost-benefit analyses because of the data they (Xcel) gathered," said Katherine Hamilton, president of GridWise Alliance, a smart-grid advocate. "So I think it was a great learning lab."
Doing More While Using Less Power
By ERICA GIES
SAN FRANCISCO — Energy efficiency is a way to meet the world’s growing energy needs, just like building more power plants — except that it costs less, emits no carbon dioxide or radiation, and does not rely on scarce resources in potentially hostile places.
Efficiency is often confused, detrimentally, with conservation. Conservation connotes making do with less — turning down the heat or driving a smaller car. Efficiency means getting more bang per buck. For example, California’s 35 years of efficiency standards for appliances have created refrigerators that use 75 percent less electricity than models from the 1970s. Yet today’s refrigerators are larger, have more features and cost less in inflation-adjusted dollars.
In transportation, “we could double fuel economy for light-duty vehicles by 2035 without changing the size or acceleration of vehicles,” said Lester B. Lave, an economics and engineering professor at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh and the chairman of a 2010 report on efficiency potential from the National Academy of Sciences.
He said buildings could use nearly 60 percent less electricity by 2030 by installing existing technologies, like compact fluorescents or LEDs, insulation, double- or triple-paned windows, and on-demand or solar hot water heaters. Tuning up and optimizing settings on climate controls would also contribute.
Experts say that economy-wide efficiency improvements could have a head-turning effect on the U.S. energy mix, helping to halt climate change, reduce energy insecurity and fix the economy. Yet in the vociferous debate about how to get off fossil fuels, efficiency has taken a back seat — partly because of the difficulty of talking about it concretely.
“It’s harder to talk about something that doesn’t exist, that you don’t produce,” said Cathy Zoi, the assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy at the U.S. Energy Department.
Highlighting this blind spot is a recent book, “Invisible Energy: Strategies to Rescue the Economy and Save the Planet,” by David Goldstein, a physicist who won the MacArthur genius award in 2002 and works as energy program director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a nonprofit environmental advocacy group.
Mr. Goldstein argues that the United States could reduce its projected energy consumption 88 percent by 2050, and that a 30 percent reduction is possible by 2020.
Other estimates are somewhat lower. The National Academy of Sciences study, on which he was a consultant, found that projected U.S. consumption could be cut 17 percent to 20 percent by 2020. McKinsey & Co., using prerecession consumption projections, put the potential reduction at 23 percent by 2020. The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, an efficiency advocacy group, estimates the savings at 17 percent to 20 percent over the period, and 40 percent to 60 percent by 2050.
But Mr. Goldstein stands by his figures. “I found it very frustrating because if you’re trying to do this in a sound, scientific way, you’ll find that you’re faced with a tradeoff” between being believable and being right, he said during an interview.
Mr. Goldstein looks at what is possible; other reports tally what is likely. Ms. Zoi said she had worked with Mr. Goldstein on efficiency issues for many years. “He pushes the envelope with the technical potential and he helps to define the debate,” she said.
Mr. Goldstein argues that mistaken assumptions in mainstream studies have led them to greatly undervalue the potential gains. For example, he says, most look only at current technology without taking adequate account of technological change.
Steve Nadel, executive director of the energy efficiency council, agrees. “Even things like LED lighting and smart manufacturing, technologies in which we’re investing lots of money to make them a reality, are not usually included in these studies,” he said.
The academy report, for one, only counted existing technologies, Mr. Lave said, acknowledging that it probably underestimated true potential as a result. “The unlikely thing is that there will be no technological advances over what we have available today,” he said.
Mr. Goldstein factors in potential gains from now-unknown technologies by extrapolating from past performance. The efficiency of refrigerators and air conditioning units, for example, has improved about 4 percent a year over the past 35 years, according to data from the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers.
Ultimately, efforts will bump up against physical limits, but that point is still far away, he said. Ms. Zoi, who works on appliance standards for the energy department, agrees.
So do the manufacturers. In August, the association recommended that the U.S. government set standards to improve the efficiency of refrigerators, freezers, and washing machines 26 percent to 42 percent by 2015. The performances of other appliances would improve to a lesser degree.
Mr. Goldstein says that most reports also err on the side of perceived prudence because planners prefer a conservative approach: if they rely on potential efficiency gains rather than building new power plants, they risk taking the rap for future power outages. But that approach to supply security has a cost.
“When you’re deciding how much attention and money to throw at efficiency compared to other choices, a lowball estimate means you’re committing the country to very expensive resources when you could have spent a third as much,” Mr. Goldstein said.
Utilities are among those who favor a more conservative approach, partly because they have to pay fines in some states if they fail to meet efficiency targets. A report last year by the Electric Power Research Institute, a body financed by the energy industry, put the potential reduction in projected consumption at just 8.7 percent by 2020. Lisa Wood, executive director of the Institute for Electric Efficiency, part of a trade association for utilities, said she believed that a realistic target was somewhere between that figure and McKinsey’s 23 percent.
But Mr. Goldstein says his higher estimates are fully realistic — based on his experience working in California with the state’s recently retired energy commissioner, Art Rosenfeld, a pioneering innovator of efficiency policies.
Begun in the 1970s, California’s efficiency program implemented appliance standards and building codes and decoupled utility profits from electricity sales. The result has been to hold consumption steady despite a population growth of about 43 percent, making the state the most efficient per capita in the country.
“We halved per capita electricity use over the past 30 years,” Mr. Rosenfeld — who now advises the U.S. energy secretary, Steven Chu — said during an interview. “In terms of past trends,” he said, Mr. Goldstein’s estimate “is not as crazy as it sounds.”
The debate about the potential scale of efficiency savings matters because, aside from environmental benefits, it has a direct bearing on the economy.
“We spend about $1.1 trillion each year on our utility bills in this country,” said Ms. Zoi, of the Energy Department. “And let’s just say we could really easily reduce this by 20 percent. That’s an extra $200 billion you could put into productivity of other things like health care, schools, businesses that grow.”
Being more efficient would also make the U.S. economy more competitive. “There’s a tremendous amount of energy — and money — to be saved in the commercial and industrial sectors,” Mr. Lave said.
Still, the obstacles to efficiency are many.
“Policy makers are supportive of energy efficiency in concept, but there’s this whole argument of ‘just leave it to the market,”’ Mr. Nadel said. Politically, too, building a power plant brings visible, vote-winning jobs, so “efficiency is everyone’s second choice,” he said.
But some market incentives are misaligned. “Major energy providers make more money out of kilowatt-hours that they sell rather than the ones that they don’t sell,” Ms. Zoi said.
Decoupling utility profits from the amount of energy sold, as California did in 1983, is a way to fix this problem, and it is a growing trend. Twenty-nine other U.S. states have since followed that lead or are about to do so, according to the Institute for Energy Efficiency.
Ms. Zoi said the U.S. Energy Department was giving the states information and grants to help them develop effective policies. One strategy is an energy efficiency resource standard, setting targets for annual efficiency improvements, accompanied by performance-based cash rewards or penalties. The institute says 25 states have implemented target-based incentives or are about to do so — mostly in association with decoupling.
Still, Ms. Wood said, the utilities trade group would rather see a federal cap on carbon emissions than an array of state standards. Mandates that impel utilities to adopt a set quota for wind or solar generation, or efficiency savings, can be difficult for managers, she said. “If everybody had to meet a carbon goal, then you’d do what made sense from a cost-effectiveness perspective, and the order would be energy efficiency first.”
U.S. efficiency legislation is frequently included in energy or climate bills. But because these bills have politically controversial elements, efficiency policy languishes.
For example, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which is currently stalled in Congress, would set an efficiency savings target of 5 percent by 2020.
The House of Representatives and Senate versions of the Save American Energy Act, also stalled, call for 15 percent electricity savings and 10 percent natural gas savings in that period, which would eliminate the need to build 390 power plants, according to the energy efficiency council.
Progress is also hindered in both residential and commercial buildings by split incentives between landlords and tenants, Ms. Zoi said. Investments to improve a building’s energy system are paid for by the owner, who usually does not pay the utility bills. “There’s no incentive to make those capital investments,” Ms. Zoi said.
The cost of energy plays a role, too. States with comparatively high prices for energy, like California, have made the most striking progress. Similarly, businesses were motivated to make upgrades and consumers to buy smaller cars when the price of oil hit $147 a barrel in July 2008.
Reluctance to change is evident in politics as well. Without real-world examples, policy makers are nervous about taking whole-of-economy steps, Ms. Zoi said. To combat this inertia, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has financed more than 7,000 efficiency projects, she noted.
But perhaps the biggest barrier to maximizing energy efficiency is the natural reluctance of people to try something new. Mr. Lave, chairman of the Academy of Sciences study, said the industrial sector was illustrative.
“It’s clear there’s a lot of low-hanging fruit around,” he said. “It’s also clear that companies are utterly uninterested” in making an investment unless it earns an annual return of at least 40 percent, he added. “It’s not rational.”
“The question is: Why don’t you pick up these $100 bills that are lying on the floor?”
Toronto Star
Electric car upswing would crash grid: Toronto Hydro chief
Recharging a car battery pulls about triple the amount of power used by a
typical home
Why? As chief executive of Toronto Hydro, he has to run the wires that, in a few years, will charge up the batteries of thousands of cars across the city.
And he knows that right now, he can’t do it.
“If you connect about 10 per cent of the homes on any given street with an electric car, the electricity system fails,” Haines told an audience at Ryerson University Wednesday. “It basically can’t handle that load.”
What to do? That’s part of the reason why Toronto Hydro, Hydro One and the Ontario Power Authority have pledged a total of $7 million over the next five years to kick-start Ryerson’s new Centre for Urban Energy.
Cities suck up most of the energy consumed in Canada, but they don’t produce much.
The centre will look at that conundrum, examining how urban areas can produce more energy, more cleanly; how they can use less energy; and how they can store and distribute it differently.
The electric car is an immediate issue. The province estimates 5 per cent of vehicles will be electric by 2020, Haines said; but he thinks it could be higher, and in any case electric vehicles will be concentrated in cities.
Recharging a car battery pulls about triple the amount of power used by a typical home, he said. Compounding the problem, most people will want to plug in their cars after work in the early evening, which is just when household demand for power hits its peak.
“You connect this huge load on the grid, and the grid simply won’t handle that type of load,” said Haines. “We need some innovative solutions.”
Clearly, shifting car-charging time into lower-use periods is among them, but someone has to figure out just how to go about it.
Ryerson’s Ravi Seethapathy, who pushed for the creation of the centre, said Toronto is a good example of another urban problem: Most of its power is generated many miles from where it’s used, and there are choke-points in the wires bringing power into the city.
“Ideally, renewable energy should be put in the city,” he said, but most of it is being generated in “moose pasture” and still has to be carried long distances to market.
And even if more power is generated within the city, he said in an interview, the system isn’t currently wired to handle it.
The centre won’t just look at electricity. Seethapathy said there’s no reason why more appliances, including air conditioners, couldn’t run on natural gas.
Geothermal energy has also been neglected in urban setting, he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)