Alternative Energy: Viable?

Just got our bill, looks like we are paying .12 cents per kwh for supply and .06 cents for delivery.

What's yours?

That seems pretty high, ours is 0.07 & 0.07

Harvey wrote

Just got our bill, looks like we are paying .12 cents per kwh for supply and .06 cents for delivery.

What's yours?

Public owned Hydro has it's benefits... ours is 2.7... one of the lowest in the nation.  You guys are getting robbed.

Harvey wrote

Just got our bill, looks like we are paying .12 cents per kwh for supply and .06 cents for delivery.

What's yours?

Wait, 0.12 cents? Or $0.12?

Looks like I pay $0.049/kwh for supply and $0.048/kwh for delivery (along with a bunch of taxes and fees). Used 570 kwh last month (running the A/C too much).

PSEG Electric
Service charge $4.86
Distribution      $0.062951654
Electric            $0.122746114


PSEG Gas
Service charge  $11.68
Distribution       $0.3524139
Supply               $0.45189108/therm

You have to love all the decimal places. The bill does not have any lines for taxes.

Coach Z wrote

When we were buying our home and looked at placed in Placid the real estate agent explained that from the Olympics Orda and LP had a 50 year deal to get way below market hydro electric.  Everyone in LP heats with electric because if this though it makes no sense elsewhere.  Several other people have told me the same thing so I take that as fact.  Can't find anything on it on the Internet.

My real estate agent was born in LP so I take what she told me on its face.

lake placid has a municipal electric company, and munis in NY get below market NYPA hydro power for at least part of their load.  They usually have other supply sources as well, and the electric supply market is cheaper in northern NY.  Some of the NYPA power gets allocated around to different businesses as well.  
The ORDA ski areas are regular utility customers, and not part of any muni.

MM  

I thought this was pretty interesting.  I will look for the follow up piece on battery mfr process and post that when I see it.  My guess is that making batteries is not very environmentally friendly.

http://www.designnews.com/author.asp?section_id=1386&doc_id=278386&cid=nl.dn14.20150818&dfpPParams=industry_auto,industry_alt,aid_278386&dfpLayout=blog

Will be interesting to see what the follow on article states.
They appear to be looking at the larger picture which is what is usually lacking in other analysis.

I don't think that power plant emissions detract much from the value of electric cars.  For one thing, you can control the charging so that the car only charges when low emission sources are available.  Even on places where there is a lot of coal generation, there can be low emission sources every day. Also, the batteries of electric cars can be available for reserves when the cars are parked, which is most of the time.  The additional reserve capacity allows the electric system to accept more wind and solar power without the loss of reliability.  Solar City is bundling batteries with solar systems in California now, and I think that's because electric companies are expressing concern about the loss of reliability caused by the rapid growth of solar.
I'm going to keep my Tesla.

MM  

Every post I dislike this Malted Milk guy more and more

Rich dude driving a Tesla.  If you can afford ridiculously over priced electric car you are a rich guy that is trying to prove you really still are a a liberal reducing your carbon footprint whatever the hell that means while you weight your private jet options.

You continue to live in a fantasy land where you feel like you get to chose the source for your electric.  It's a grid so every extra watt has to come from somewhere and the percentages overwhelmingly say it's coming from a source that makes your Tesla worse than a gas engine car based on the findings of the study I posted.

Give me a f-ing break dude a Tesla?

I suspect he was making a tongue & cheek comment however even that shows what a f-ing idiot he is. Tesla - green, forget it. Let's run some numbers:
The EPA rates the Tesla at 89m/g equivalent based on range and battery storage size. So lets dig deeper...
Charge/Discharge efficiency of Li-Ion batteries = 0.45
Blended generation efficiency of electricity = 0.4
Distribution system efficiency = 0.96
Real M/G = 15!

This doesn't even consider all the extra energy and resources it takes to build the stupid things.

PeeTex wrote

This doesn't even consider all the extra energy and resources it takes to build the stupid things.

But no one tallies the energy and resources in costs to push crude halfway around the world for processing and distribution, not to mention the fact that any other modern car is expensive in precious metals, mining, shipping, and energy as well. It's like the "traditional" one gets a pass as if it's free, but the smell of a "green" initiative gets excoriated.

ml242 wrote

But no one tallies the energy and resources in costs to push crude halfway around the world for processing and distribution, not to mention the fact that any other modern car is expensive in precious metals, mining, shipping, and energy as well. It's like the "traditional" one gets a pass as if it's free, but the smell of a "green" initiative gets excoriated.

100% agree!  The ML242 post the more I like him!!  

These guys keep dissing the subsidies for solar, completely ignoring the fact that the fossil fuel industry is subsidized too!!   

it cost too much. It cost too much!  Without the subsidize it wont be cost effective or sustainable.  Well either would the fossil fuel industry!!!



 

Your mistake is that you confuse average emissions with incremental emissions.  Electric vehicles can be controlled only charge when emissions are low.  Con Edison already has rates to do that. The whole EV thing doesn't work if you allow them to charge during peak periods when emissions are high because the system doesn't have the capacity to support that.  The other thing is that the added battery storage of EVs can be used for reserves by the electric system when the cars are parked.  California already has programs to directly control when the charging occurs and to use the batteries for reserves.  The additional reserves allow the system to accept more solar generation, which also reduces overall emissions.  
But why all the hate?  Is it about my Tesla?  That car is way cheaper and attracts more attention than my AMG SL63.

MM

ScottyJack wrote

ml242 wrote

But no one tallies the energy and resources in costs to push crude halfway around the world for processing and distribution, not to mention the fact that any other modern car is expensive in precious metals, mining, shipping, and energy as well. It's like the "traditional" one gets a pass as if it's free, but the smell of a "green" initiative gets excoriated.

100% agree!  The ML242 post the more I like him!!  

These guys keep dissing the subsidies for solar, completely ignoring the fact that the fossil fuel industry is subsidized too!!   

it cost too much. It cost too much!  Without the subsidize it wont be cost effective or sustainable.  Well either would the fossil fuel industry!!!

The US electric system was originally built with federal bonds, and the whole thing was subsidized until they had enough customers to pay the bills.  It is not possible to start a capital intensive industry like that without subsidies, and it's not possible to transform a working system into something much greener without subsidies.  The US and NY in particular has made a political commitment to take carbon out of the electric system, and that is going to require subsidies until the system is rebuilt in a way that allows solar and other clean sources to be used reliably.  If you don't think carbon emissions are a problem, you won't like the subsidies, but most of the world agrees that carbon needs to be reduced.

MM

Milo Maltbie wrote

   That car is way cheaper and attracts more attention than my AMG SL63.

MM

Bad-ass car bro

I'd rather have a 1971 Dodge Power Wagon but that's just me

OK - lets address these one at a time:

ml242 wrote

But no one tallies the energy and resources in costs to push crude halfway around the world for processing and distribution, not to mention the fact that any other modern car is expensive in precious metals, mining, shipping, and energy as well. It's like the "traditional" one gets a pass as if it's free, but the smell of a "green" initiative gets excoriated.

The cost to move crude via tanker is very low/almost negligible on a cost per gallon basis. However I do have a big beef with the shipping business on emissions, did you know that as soon as a big ship (whether it's a freighter, tanker or cruise ship) gets outside of territorial waters they burn low cost high sulfur  fuels - it's a travesty. AN electric vehicle has more carbon footprint than a standard gas powered vehicle because of the magnetic s and copper in the drive system and the Batteries which conventional cars don't need. Lithium is not very recyclable, the price of the raw material has tripled in the last 10 years and 70% of the worlds reserves are controlled by South America. This does not bode well for the electric car or Li-Ion battery market. Your average gas powered car is more recyclable and uses less energy to produce and the current fleet uses less energy to operate, not zero but less. In my mind traditional methods don't get a pass and neither do those so called green technologies, each get scrutinized and the best should be chosen. You know who wants EVs, those companies that make and sell generation and distribution equipment, the energy companies don't care so much because they know in the long run it ain't a bad deal for them. Just like solar - you get 1 gallon for every 2 you put in. You have been snookered.

 

ScottyJack wrote

These guys keep dissing the subsidies for solar, completely ignoring the fact that the fossil fuel industry is subsidized too!!   

it cost too much. It cost too much!  Without the subsidize it wont be cost effective or sustainable.  Well either would the fossil fuel industry!!!

Subsidies and tax incentives are fine if they are used in smart ways. The issues I have with the current programs are that they are really not trying to address the environmental issues but are rather politically driven. You may think I am a die hard conservative, not so, the greenest thing we can do is fund planned parenthood and birth control to the hilt. As an individual, don't have a big family and homosexuality is the greenest thing going.

Milo Maltbie wrote

The US electric system was originally built with federal bonds, and the whole thing was subsidized until they had enough customers to pay the bills.  It is not possible to start a capital intensive industry like that without subsidies, and it's not possible to transform a working system into something much greener without subsidies.  The US and NY in particular has made a political commitment to take carbon out of the electric system, and that is going to require subsidies until the system is rebuilt in a way that allows solar and other clean sources to be used reliably.  If you don't think carbon emissions are a problem, you won't like the subsidies, but most of the world agrees that carbon needs to be reduced.

MM

Never said carbon emissions were not a problem, they are one of many problems. Unfortunately solar panels & EVs are not the answer. If my daily driver was an EV I would use it during the day and charge it at night. When does solar produce energy? At least wind will generate at night when they are not down for repairs. At least Hydro runs 24-7 and Nuks are the best if you can stand the risk. The fact that an EV uses almost twice as much energy as a conventional car seems lost on you and the fact that Solar generation time, not to mention the energy & pollution cost to build go right over your head.  
i
Let's invest wisely, not politically. Research in biology to create algae and bacteria that will rapidly pump down CO2 and make fuels using natural processes. Research in quantum physics and sub-micron structures that will be used to make solar panels that are highly efficient as opposed to the ones we have today, Research in low level radioactive batteries that will convert all those millions of gallons of radioactive waste into power producers and hundreds of other ideas that survive the first level "back of the napkin" sanity checks, not the crap that someone who could use their grade school education (well maybe not US grade schools) could debunk in 10 nanoseconds. Stop buying into all the crap the capitalist, big companies and big government has fed you and go back to basics, simple, non-sexy low tech solutions are all around us. It's OK to burn gas or liquid fuels, particularly if they were generated from the waste of the fuels we have already burned (like poop and CO2) - but who wants to invest in poop. Liquid fuels are the best energy storage mechanism we know of, light weight and energy dense.

The problem with most of the so called ecologists and greenies is that they want their cake and eat it too. They drive that Hybrid SUV or EV, have the expensive super light kayak, Carbon fiber or TI bike and drive up from NJ to the Adirondaks for the weekends and ride lifts all day on their season passes and think they are so green - not.  If my car is not emitting CO2 it must be green - right? The only green car is the one that was destined for the land fill, sits in the back 40 and never gets driven.

PeeTex wrote

Your average gas powered car is more recyclable and uses less energy to produce and the current fleet uses less energy to operate, not zero but less. In my mind traditional methods don't get a pass and neither do those so called green technologies, each get scrutinized and the best should be chosen.

You have no data to back any of that up.  You also don't seem to know that NY is developing a process to evaluate the cost of the entire life cycle of various types of generation.

 

PeeTex wrote

 Unfortunately solar panels & EVs are not the answer. If my daily driver was an EV I would use it during the day and charge it at night. When does solar produce energy? ... The fact that an EV uses almost twice as much energy as a conventional car seems lost on you and the fact that Solar generation time, not to mention the energy & pollution cost to build go right over your head.  

If you had an EV, you would charge it at night when the most efficient generation is running, when heat rates and emissions are lowest.  (The total energy used by EVs depends on the generation source, but it's doubtful that its more than conventional cars. Do you have any data to answer that question?)  If there were a large fleet of EVs, most of them would be parked most of the time.  If you connected those to the grid, the electric company could pay for the use of the batteries in peak hours. That would reduce fossil generation in peak hours, which is the least efficient, dirtiest generation, and (at least in NY) most likely to be near large populations.  Both overall electric system efficiency and public health would improve.  The batteries also allow more solar to be added without loss of system reliability.  All that stuff is happening in California right now, where solar is growing faster than the capacity of the system to use it.

PeeTex wrote

i
Let's invest wisely, not politically.

Investors will never back environmental improvements unless the government requires those improvements.  The whole "don't let the government interfere" thing is just a tactic to prevent any action. It's used by lobbyists from the coal and other industries, and the dumbest people believe it like it was their religion.  All environmental investments are intrinsically political.  Get over it.

This is the last post here for me. I'm bored with the combination of ignorance and crankiness you display.

MM

Hope you mean this thread. I learned a lot MM.

Milo Maltbie wrote

All environmental investments are intrinsically political.

Yes.

Also tons of stuff gets subsidized and tons of money is wasted. Sometimes something good is accomplished in the process. Not always though. I can think of a few trillion I'd like back, for sure.

campgottagopee wrote

I'd rather have a 1971 Dodge Power Wagon but that's just me

The one, the only. Camp. FTW.