Long ago and far away, I was a "Kelly Girl". That does not mean that there was a gender re-assignment surgery in my past. It does mean that at one time (okay, a couple of times, in fact) I was between jobs, a condition I usually refer to as "self-unemployed" since so much of my life I have worked for myself under contract to others in various sorts of arrangements. However, the real point of mentioning that strange fact about me is to call to your attention that often things are not what they seem. At one point I worked for Warner Music for a brief period, as a Kelly Girl, if memory serves, when they were starting to do some "records consolidation" work, scanning contracts onto microfilm as I recall, although it might also have been the early stages of computerization for them. I worked in a building high atop Sunset Boulevard, in Hollywood, which tickles me now because I have a lot of fond memories of that time when I was young, in love and newly married to my lovely and loving wife, Maggie. I am not sure what the relationship, if any, my working there had to do with the takeover of Warner Music by Bertelsmann Music Group, the German conglomerate, except that it happened about that time. But all-in-all I had good feelings about them so one day, when a tempting, nearly irresistible, offer came in the mail from BMG Music to join their (negative response) music "club" I succumbed.
I have been reasonably happy with the "club" because from time to time they offer what amounts to a pretty good deal, and they have a convenient online presence at bmgmusic.com
that allows me to "negatively respond" to their monthly offer of the latest hits without it costing me a stamp to send back the reply card. This week I received "my order" for recordings that was to include many of my intended holiday gifts to family members. The invoice was perfect. Exactly what I ordered. The contents of the shipment were, to say the least, totally unrelated to anything on the invoice.
Having spent a good deal of time solving computer mysteries, I suspect that the fact that I had ordered multiple copies of multiple items just gave the automated warehouse "pick" system a mental hiccup (that's 'hiccough" to you Canadians and Brits who might be reading this). It reminds me of the Northridge Earthquake in California in 1996. "Lucy" the CalTech Seismology spokesperson was on television, as she usually is in response to any report of earth movements, explaining that it took them longer than usual to actually locate the epicenter of the quake because the software that took in the readings from all the reporting stations around Southern California had filtered out what it considered to be "noise in the microwave system" and failed to analyze the data that was being received. The computer program "thought" that so much activity from so many stations at once had to be a disruption of the data links, and couldn't possibly be the devastating reality that killed so many people and left my wife and I stranded in the dark that very frightening California morning.
Sometimes reality just doesn't seem to connect with what is being presented. That's what happened to me today. I could not believe what I was reading. A report that was purportedly about encouraging distributed electricity generation, and in particular aimed at suggesting regulatory guidelines that it wanted to see adopted by all 50 states to create such a regulatory environment for what is sometimes known as co-generation of electricity. In particular, distributed generation from environmentally friendlier energy sources was being encouraged, so this survey established as the highest rated version of what was a desirable and equitable solution for the distributed generators of power as one which allows excess power generated to accumulate as a simple "credit" on the customers "bill" from the power distribution system, or could be paid at retail rates by the utility company at the end of each annual period. That seems not so unreasonable, except that this same survey evaluated that a regulatory system that was similar but required the utility to pay monthly for excess generated power as being inferior, because it might cause additional administrative costs for the utility. Very similar, though lower rated was any plan that provided for the utility to pay for the excess power generated at the "avoided cost" of the power, which is to say the lesser of the cost to purchase the power "elsewhere" (what is a distributed generation source if not "elsewhere"??) but AFTER deducting the retail costs of off peak power, or the costs avoided in not having to develop sufficient capacity not to have to purchase the same amount of power to meet demand. Okay, I grant that is at least somewhat logical.
Stranger still, however, is that higher rated than either the system paying "avoided costs" monthly, or "retail" value of the excess (net) power generated, on a monthly "cash" basis is a system whereby the utility may blank out the customer's positive balance at the end of each annual cycle, thus "gifting" itself whatever accumulated credits were was not eventually used by the customer's own electric use during that year. Now admittedly I am looking at the 31st page of a lengthy 114 page study, and I may be misinterpreting, but I think the way it is laid out is pretty clear. Inconveniencing the local power distribution company by requiring them to pay monthly is rated as less desirable in terms of promoting co-generation and distributed generation systems than requiring the "customer" who generates more than they use to avoid generating more than they use unless they want to pay the cost of that generated power as they make it and then give it away at the end of each annual billing cycle.
Is it something in the water? Who writes position papers like this that seem to bear no relationship to the "real world"? Take a look for yourself.
(Remember I am talking about Section 1:21 on page 31 of 114 (though that page is NUMBERED as page "21" in the text of the document itself)).
I like to end on good news. The good news in all this is that this study judges that New Jersey has the best legislation and currently has regulations in place to encourage distributed generation of power, and co-generation. In general, however, most of the states that have implemented a formal statewide policy do not include "CHP" as the simultaneous co-generation and use of heat and power is called. The problem with that is that although traditional small generator technology like the diesel units used as standby generators all over the world, have a peak efficiency of about 37% of the fuel being converted to usable energy. "Co-generation" is used in different context to have two different meanings, the first is that kind which is just distributed generating, though in some circles the term means a kind of "commercial electric generation". The second meaning involves additional exhaust heat recovery processes that can result in net use of up to 90% efficiency of the fuel energy expended, especially where the utility "customer" uses that energy for its own facilities or community facilities to accomplish heating or cooling. The exhaust heat can be used for either heating or inverted to cooling energy through a "chiller". Co-generation of this type begins to sound ideal for desert locations like mine, especially when considering microturbines which typically can achieve nearly 90% efficiency in the CHP situations. Unfortunately, in Phoenix and surrounding areas, where ambient temperatures can easily surpass 100 degrees Fahrenheit, the fuel consumption goes way up too. More than double according to one study in Denver, who also were well aware when they started that they too would pay a penalty for microturbines at such high altitude and low air density. When it hits 100 in Denver, fuel costs absolutely skyrocket.
What is also NOT clear is whether CHP processes that would qualify for the various state incentive programs include those used strictly to generate further efficiency in extracting electricity from the fuel used in the generating process. The Arizona Public Service (APS) plant I visited a couple of years ago, used large General Electric turbines to turn their generators, and also extracted the exhaust heat to a steam process that created a second level of generating capability. So if I install a CHP process on the back end of my otherwise not so very efficient Natural Gas burning, spark-ignited reciprocating engine that further powers a steam generator via the extraction of exhaust heat, does that qualify as a "CHP" system, or only if I use the heat energy "directly" from a chiller to cool my auditorium or store, or to heat my swimming pool am I allowed to claim that it is CHP in the context of what qualifies as environmentally beneficial distributed generation. Shouldn't increasing fuel energy efficiency from somewhere in the 30% range to even just 75% or 80% or more qualify as "environmentally desirable" in itself? I'd genuinely like to know. If you want to point some of the state regulators to my inquiry in this column, I would be glad to hear from them.
Okay, maybe that didn't sound like such great news. How about the fact that distributed generation and environmentally friendly power generation are receiving more and more favorable regulations all the time, and that even by the time you read this, things may have improved significantly where you live. The Canadian Province of Ontario is offering some attractive incentives for wind, photovoltaic, hydro and biogas derived electric generation right now. It might be worth a look to the north, where CHP is already the norm.
love
Stafford "Doc" Williamson
Return to index of articles
Return to DaoChi Energy of Arizona - Home Page
| ||||||||
