Politicians and energy policy

Interesting. Gas prices have a ways to go yet. Perhaps $5.00 per gallon.

No wiring needed anymore. RF or carrier current signaling are all that's needed. I'm undecided about the merits. What's the cost differential (i.e. make it an option)?

Ok Mike, although I have spent significant time in Florida, I don't want to argue this point endlessly. Besides, you seem to be rather sleep deprived and I am sure you have better things to do. So I will grant you that what I am saying does not apply to people living alone in Florida. Ok?

However, I stand by my statements for the rest of us. I have spent some significant time living without AC and I have a pretty good feel for how a house responds to external weather. Humidity simply does not enter the house easily unless the wind is blowing hard and even in Florida, the wind does not blow hard all the time.

Regardless, my point about the lack of usefulness of controlling the AC is valid. Someone else mentioned that they control the water heaters. That is useful because a water heater can go without power for hours and still provide usefully warm water. But the utility is limited. Unless you are drawing hot water, the water heater cycles on very infrequently. So by cutting off *all* water heaters during peak loads saves only a *very* small amount of peak power.

The real power sink is the AC. An AC that is off for more than a half an hour on a hot day will let the house get much warmer. Peak loads are a lot longer than a half an hour. The result is that you have simply made the AC draw no power for a little while and then draw a lot more power for the rest of the time. On the average, this provides *NO* reduction in peak power. Actually that is not correct; there is a small savings in power because the house is warmer and less heat enters a warmer house.

Maybe the fridge can be cut off during peak loads, like the water heater. But if it is turned back on during the peak period, like the AC, it is going to run continuously and consume the same amount of energy on the average while letting your food get warmer. It may only be a couple of degrees, but the milk will not keep as long at 40C as it does at 35C and that is sort of the point of a fridge, keeping things cold, no?

What other appliances can be cycled during peak loads, in a useful way that won't impact their operation?

I understand the concept. I am saying that other than the water heater, there is no point in this sort of control to reduce the peak loads seen during the summer, and the water heater is not a significant load during peak hours. So the entire idea is much ado about nothing.

Rather than trying to be superior and cute with your little digs, why don't you come up with something useful to say? I am happy to discuss this, but you just seem to want to express an attitude.

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

messagenews:_IGdnWTL4tjngKXVnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com...

All the plans I have seen have a ***ZERO*** cost differential. Some

Even if they do lower the rate a bit for the off peak usage, how much will they raise the peak rate??? I was in a house where the water service changed their pricing to save consumers money if they conserved water, in essence a reversed sliding scale, higher rates with higher usage. It worked so well that they were bringing in less money and had to raise the rates for everyone!!! I swear this is the gosh honest truth. I was in college at the time and it was not a good thing since none of us had much disposable income.

Even if we save the construction of a few power plants, the power company will always be raising rates. Near here in Baltimore they deregulated electric and the rates doubled!!! The whole idea of deregulation was to save consumers money. Instead it just allowed the utilities to make *more* money! But that is a whole 'nother story and we won't talk about that.

Rick

I'm not sure we aren't talking past each other. I thought that was what I described. We had two meters, one exclusively for the hot water heater with a timer that shut it off during the typical peak load period. If you let them install this second meter, you got a reduced rate, likely only on the hot water meter, but a reduced rate none the less.

We didn't have a smart meter 40 years ago and it worked. Why do you need a smart meter now? The smart meter is really a way to gain control over your electric consumption in a very invasive way. Letting the utility control the hot water heater had very little impact on the household because the water heater could work effectively even being shut off for four hours a day. But other loads will be significantly impacted if they are shut off for even half an hour. When they are shut off, it will have a noticeable impact on their functioning. The power company doesn't care if you are cool in the summer. They just want to reduce the amount of construction they have to do.

What is your point? A setback thermostat reduces the use of AC (or heating) when no one is in the house. This has nothing to do with peak loads. Typical peak loads are in the late afternoon and early evening when people return home from work. They turn on appliances, crank up the AC and start cooking dinner. Notice that the setback is not being used. In fact, this is when the AC is having to work a lot harder to bring the temperature to normal. It is *not* the time when you want the power company cutting off your AC, even for 15 minutes.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, I am saying that anyone who tells you it will save significant power ***without impacting your comfort*** is lying.

Now we are talking about a totally different thing. If there is not enough capacity to meet peak demand, then yes, having your AC cut off for 15 to 30 minutes is better than losing all power for 15 to 30 minutes. But the line I have heard is that the "smart" power meters will reduce peak loads without impacting your comfort. Yeah, right...

What are the three big lies again? I'll respect you in the morning, the check is in the mail and "I'm from the Government and I'm here to help!"

You won't see a significant humidity increase in a closed house over a

Rick

Opps, that should have been 40F and 35F... I am so used to using metric for everything that I sometimes forget to use US units when talking to others.

Rick

Back in the days of the flat rate water heaters, the price difference was huge for the power. The voltage on the flat rate wire was always less than or equal 220V and the power company could change it in steps other than on/off. The advantage for the power company was that it could change the loading to hold it more or less constant over time. This made the power plant design a lot simpler since it didn't have to change power outputs very quickly.

The non-carbon based power plants are all harder to vary the power out of so I can see this idea coming back. Things like solar, wind, and hydro-electric generally cost a lot to build but the last watt is basically free. For them it makes a lot of sense to have a load that the power company can control.

You can expect to see the rise slow down soon. The long term trend will continue to be towards higher oil prices. There is a natural cap somewhere around $200 per barrel. Oil sands and tar sands are profitable up there. There is a huge amount of oil trapped in sands.

Oil sands should be popular at the current emotionally publicized price of $130 (depending on the strength of the Canadian dollar, which would likely get better if the oil sands extraction rate increases).

nor of

ear any

t these

banks

u and

kup

n.

quoted text -

OOps. "Popular" s/b "profitable".

We're (US) already getting a considerable fraction of our oil from Canada. Isn't most of this from tar sands?

Tim

-- Deep Fryer: A very philosophical monk. Website @

and

up

you

it's

power

now.

gives

That sounds like not too bad of an idea so long as the peak demand doesn't last too long. The down side is that a lot of people arrive home just about the time of the peak so they may set their timed thermostats to cool the house earlier. The peak demand will be lowered at the cost of more average demand.

It is matter of how much above the production cost the price goes. The cost to develop the physical plant has to be paid off. The quicker the pay off looks the more money that people are willing to invest.

No, I think it is where the biggest growth is but Canada has a fair amount of lighter stuff that is cheaper to produce. As oil passed about $70 a barrel, oil sands started looking good. At $100 they are worth investing in. At $200 they are very attractive.

a.

Except for the fact that the media's popular price (lately over $130/ barrel) has little relationship to the price the oil refiners are actually paying for the stuff.

I recall reading somewhere that the majority of our imported oil comes from Canada.

of

any

these

banks

and

Oil sands production has been popular for several years now. Popular enough to produce quite an economic boom in Northern Canada. This began back when crude was passing $60 per barrel.

you

it's

power

gives

Then anyone accepting such a thing is a fool.

If the high-demand hours cost more, so be it. That electricity cost more to produce it should cost more to consume. In the case of your water company, if the intention is to lower the usage, then their plan worked. If their intention was to put off needed upgrades, it failed (miserably). Economics doesn't care squat about your disposable income.

"Deregulation" isn't. Look at the mess Grayout Davis made with CA a few years back.

Are they giving discounts? Why would I want one?