It’s too bad Coloradans don’t look underground.
Underground technology in drilling and mining has been ignored in our pursuit of sustainable solutions in energy and transportation. We need to look at these old technologies creatively, with a new set of reference points. The ‘Geolithic Thermocline’ can provide reliable sustainable energy; transit tunnel construction offers weatherproof transit paths lasting for centuries. The early leaders of Colorado, who foresaw the need for water resources, would be disappointed that we have not capitalized on everything we know how to do in mining and tunneling.
Energy First – The Geolithic Thermocline
Humans have understood the ‘Geolithic Thermocline’ since they lived in caves. Adobe and other types of earth construction are modern analogs of living in caves, using earth construction to manage interior temperature for heating and cooling. Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP) technology uses the earth as a resource for heating and cooling by using water pumped through pipes or drilled wells to collect the ambient temperature of the earth. GSHP (the above ground portion) concentrates the collected energy to heat or cool as required.
GSHP is available everywhere that a building stands on the earth. Unlike wind or solar, Ground Source Heat Pumps work 24/7, and do not require energy storage to function perfectly. GSHP can be used in every part of the United States, and it is compatible with all existing mechanical equipment via heat exchanger technology. It is completely scalable, and can be installed in single home systems or in large mechanical system installations. GSHP has been reaching rates of installation of 12-15% primarily in new home construction in Texas and Oklahoma over the past decade. Underground collection piping can function for decades with virtually no maintenance, and could conceivably be used efficiently for a century.
Tunneling Creates Safe, Efficient Transit Paths
Tunnels are weatherproof highways for transit systems, perfect for major urban transit solutions, and good for some suburban applications. Trains can be routed in nearly straight paths from station to station. Impacts with surface owners are generally by-passed. Tunnel designs can be optimized to meet the needs of every type of train from light rail through high speed rail, and even maglev. Tunnels and underground transit ways completely and safely separate all surface traffic from the trains, allowing them to run faster and perform without the risk of snow, track debris or incidents with automobiles or freight trains. Best of all, tunnels permit true last mile solutions, delivering the passenger directly to his destination with an elevator or escalator.
Two primary types of tunneling are available, cut and cover, and drilled tunnels using either Tunnel Boring Machines, or more traditional road header cutting machines. Cut and cover is more suitable for areas in open country, some suburban locations and along highway paths. It is cheaper, generally, than bored tunnels, and the first choice of underground construction should be use as much cut and cover tunneling as possible.
Real Sustainability – How Do We Get There?
Real sustainability means forever. As close as we can get to it.
Tunnels are among the most permanent and durable types of construction known to man; piping systems supporting GSHP are similarly nearly permanent. What is missing from our toolbox in the sphere of sustainable economics are the tools we have already, not the uncertain rewards of technologies not developed.
The Colorado School of Mines, CSM, has been leading generations of engineers from all over the world in underground construction. The same skills that CSM’s miners use in mining work equally well in tunneling.
Colorado is also home to dozens of drillers, large and small, with many more available in surrounding states. Drilling technology is many decades ahead of fuel cell and PV technology; shouldn’t we use that technology to pursue GSHP? We don’t necessarily need ‘Black Swan’ scientific discoveries as much as we need breakthrough thinking and organization.
Our solutions are already at hand.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Sunday, October 4, 2009
The Utility Revenue Model Restrains Distributed Energy Development
Utilities and Their Revenue Model
Advocates for clean, renewable, and sustainable energy sources are often unaware of the reasons for utility industry opposition to renewable and distributed energy. It is useful to explore some of the factors affecting rate issues in the regulated utility industry, and to begin to formulate approaches that deal with utility opposition to distributed energy generation.
Utilities and the Regulatory Compact
The Regulatory Compact (RC) is an agreement by the utility to provide service on demand, with fines imposed for failure to maintain adequate service. Under the RC, the utilities are granted a monopoly by state regulators to supply electricity and natural gas to clients in their service area. The utilities also agree to build and maintain generation facilities and a distribution network and to pay for all initial invested capital costs (CAPEX). The utility is then allowed to operate the utility for an ‘all costs in’ operating expense (OPEX) – plus a return to investors.
The problem is with the current model for utility revenue generation
Utilities generally only make money for selling gas and kilowatts. Conservation in the present model actually encourages the utilities to raise rates because they do not earn any revenue on kilowatts and therms of gas that never get sold, and the remaining service base (CAPEX) of utility customers carries a proportionately larger percentage of CAPEX. Conservation does help reduce additional CAPEX in generation, but reducing consumption for existing generation facilities means that under current regulations, the utility is allowed to recover CAPEX across fewer units sold, which translates into a higher cost for service.
Stranded Costs & Grid Connection Fees
Not only do remaining ratepayers pay higher costs, but the utilities believe that they should be able charge distributed energy generators using renewables charges for stranded costs, i.e., the costs of plants and distribution who have costs that are not being defrayed via the normal rate structure, and connection fees related to being connected to the grid, even though they customer may be net neutral or even adding power to the grid.
The RC extends to the effect on CAPEX of mandating a percentage of generation from wind and solar power. Until a reliable and cost effective means of storing electrical power is developed, the usefulness of these two prominent, renewable, but intermittent, energy sources will be limited.
Why?
The regulatory compact requires the utility to provide power even when supplies of wind and solar are not available, and forces the utility to build redundant generation capacity that would not be required without the mandate. For example, if 20% renewables is required by legislative mandate, then the utility builds the renewable facilities equal to 20% of their demand, plus 100% normal capacity, for a total CAPEX build out of 120%. Combining reduced demand through conservation with a declining base of ratepayers due to distributed generation, means the remaining ratepayers are required to pay for the entire 120% of capital construction, according to current regulations.
Utilities, and the developers of distributed generation, need proposals regarding updating the utility revenue model to reflect conservation and distributed generation. The current iteration of the utility revenue model is a major obstacle in the path of adoption of sustainable, renewable energy.
Advocates for clean, renewable, and sustainable energy sources are often unaware of the reasons for utility industry opposition to renewable and distributed energy. It is useful to explore some of the factors affecting rate issues in the regulated utility industry, and to begin to formulate approaches that deal with utility opposition to distributed energy generation.
Utilities and the Regulatory Compact
The Regulatory Compact (RC) is an agreement by the utility to provide service on demand, with fines imposed for failure to maintain adequate service. Under the RC, the utilities are granted a monopoly by state regulators to supply electricity and natural gas to clients in their service area. The utilities also agree to build and maintain generation facilities and a distribution network and to pay for all initial invested capital costs (CAPEX). The utility is then allowed to operate the utility for an ‘all costs in’ operating expense (OPEX) – plus a return to investors.
The problem is with the current model for utility revenue generation
Utilities generally only make money for selling gas and kilowatts. Conservation in the present model actually encourages the utilities to raise rates because they do not earn any revenue on kilowatts and therms of gas that never get sold, and the remaining service base (CAPEX) of utility customers carries a proportionately larger percentage of CAPEX. Conservation does help reduce additional CAPEX in generation, but reducing consumption for existing generation facilities means that under current regulations, the utility is allowed to recover CAPEX across fewer units sold, which translates into a higher cost for service.
Stranded Costs & Grid Connection Fees
Not only do remaining ratepayers pay higher costs, but the utilities believe that they should be able charge distributed energy generators using renewables charges for stranded costs, i.e., the costs of plants and distribution who have costs that are not being defrayed via the normal rate structure, and connection fees related to being connected to the grid, even though they customer may be net neutral or even adding power to the grid.
The RC extends to the effect on CAPEX of mandating a percentage of generation from wind and solar power. Until a reliable and cost effective means of storing electrical power is developed, the usefulness of these two prominent, renewable, but intermittent, energy sources will be limited.
Why?
The regulatory compact requires the utility to provide power even when supplies of wind and solar are not available, and forces the utility to build redundant generation capacity that would not be required without the mandate. For example, if 20% renewables is required by legislative mandate, then the utility builds the renewable facilities equal to 20% of their demand, plus 100% normal capacity, for a total CAPEX build out of 120%. Combining reduced demand through conservation with a declining base of ratepayers due to distributed generation, means the remaining ratepayers are required to pay for the entire 120% of capital construction, according to current regulations.
Utilities, and the developers of distributed generation, need proposals regarding updating the utility revenue model to reflect conservation and distributed generation. The current iteration of the utility revenue model is a major obstacle in the path of adoption of sustainable, renewable energy.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)