Article Post:
Closing The Conservation Gap In Electric Power
Misconceptions Lead to Dismal Investment in Conservation at Electric Power Plants
Today, as U.S. electric power demand grows and environmental and energy security issues become more urgent, there is a growing concern that the current balance encourages the construction of new power plants rather than investment in the conservation of electric power.
This subject is coming to the fore, in part, because of the capacity challenges that the electric power industry will start facing in the next few years. But at least as important is that conservation is coming to the top of the agenda across the U.S. economy-an emphasis that has not been seen for decades.
That, in turn, forces us to focus on the dynamics of conservation or, as it is also called, energy efficiency. Most industry observers agree that there is indeed a "power conservation investment gap" in the U.S. But the gap does not exist for the reasons most people think.
Misperceptions about the reasons behind the conservation gap lead to a focus on the wrong set of fixes and set unrealistic expectations. To close the gap, we must first address these misperceptions and identify the gap’s real causes.
The First Misperception is that power conservation potential has hardly been tapped. The reality is quite different-a great deal of power conservation has already occurred. The U.S. has slowly but steadily reduced its electric intensity-the amount of power used per unit of economic output-over the past two decades.
Overall, the weather-normalized electric intensity of the U.S. economy has declined 18 percent since the mid-1980s. And most of these efficiency gains occurred during a period when the real price of power was steadily declining.
The cumulative effect is quite dramatic-if the U.S. consumed electricity with the same intensity it did in 1987, its power system today would need the daily operation of additional power supply equal in size to the combined power systems of Texas and California.
Misperception Number Two is that conservation and efficiency are free-that the benefits to consumers and producers far outweigh the costs-and that cost is not an issue. But conservation is not just a matter of switching off lamps and turning thermostats down in winter and up in summer. Substantial and sustained power conservation involves real effort and requires real up-front investment and ongoing costs.
Misperception Number Three is that power users underinvest in conservation because they are chronically ill-informed about its benefits. Due to this view, the most common public policy solution for conservation underinvestment today is funding consumer education programs.
Yet the concept that households make poor decisions when it comes to conservation simply does not square with observed data on consumer behavior. Over the past several decades, the statistical evidence is quite compelling-power consumers act quite rationally and in an informed manner by consistently responding to real increases in power prices by consuming less. Last year was a good example.
Consumers responded to some of the biggest price increases they have seen in quite some time by reducing their consumption of electricity. As a result, power demand stayed flat, even though inflation-adjusted economic growth exceeded 3 percent on the year.
Misperception Number Four is that power engineers are just genetically conditioned toward building big and advanced power plants rather than pursuing small and beautiful conservation options. This idea stems from the perception that if cost-effective conservation potential exists, then power producers should naturally invest in conservation rather than production.
Yet when power producers actually do invest in conservation, they find it hard to pay for the investment because the benefits naturally flow to the consumers who end up using less power.
So even if regulators do allow producers to treat these investments the same way they treat production investments-allowing these costs onto the balance sheet as the basis for approved cost recovery-the effect is that higher costs must be recovered from a smaller base of sales. In order to break even, the producer needs a price increase. And that is something customers and politicians typically resist. And this represents the current best case for producers.
Most states do not provide such cost recovery, and no state in the U.S. has put together a regulatory and incentive package that encourages power producers to seek the proper balance of conservation and production investments.
Although the conventional wisdom concerning power conservation underinvestment may not be accurate and current policy is lacking, there are nevertheless real reasons to expect a conservation gap. Power deregulation has created bigger and more liquid wholesale power markets that express the cost of power at any point in time. One lesson from the emergence of power markets is clear: the cost of electricity varies considerably through time and is often well above the price that most customers face.
This is especially true during peak periods of power demand when the cost of electric production (and conversely the value of conservation) is many times higher than the prices customers are being charged. This is intentional-consumers, regulators and politicians want stable and predictable power prices that do not reflect the cost of power during its most expensive times.
It is not surprising that these stakeholders work together to fetter wholesale prices with price caps and disconnect retail power prices from costs with a variety of mechanisms in order to make them less volatile and more predictable. The net result is that the prices customers see are often lower than the costs of the power they are consuming.
Customers invest in conservation based on the retail prices they face. Yet, it is the more volatile cost of power that determines how much conservation is truly cost effective. When confronted with typical retail prices instead of the costs of power, consumers quite sensibly invest in some but not all of the cost effective conservation. The unintended consequence of this well-intended retail price regime is the continuing underinvestment in power conservation from the consumer side.
From this perspective, the root cause of the power conservation investment gap is not an uneducated consumer but rather an informed consumer rationally responding to the prices they face.
The implication is clear: there is a very real electric power conservation gap, and it is on the consumer side of the power sector. Further, the simple fix of confronting consumers with real-time power prices is not desirable. There are very good reasons not to have grandmothers living on social security paying real power costs to keep their air conditioners going in August. Therefore, if the objective is to have power producers invest in the cost effective conservation that consumers do not invest in, then regulatory policies must create a set of incentives for them to do so.
Although some attempts have been made, so far, no state in the U.S. has created a structure that gives power producers sufficient incentive to close the conservation gap. With the renewed focus on energy efficiency, the time is right to meet the challenge and close the conservation gap in order to balance the investment playing field between new power plants and conservation.
Doing so will certainly not eliminate the need for new power plants in the future. But it will reduce power plant requirements, lessen price increases, create environmental benefits, increase energy security and create greater incentives for long-term research and development in efficiency.
Daniel Yergin, chairman of CERA, received the Pulitzer Prize for "The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power" and the United States Energy Award for lifelong achievements in energy and the promotion of international understanding. Vist CERA at http://cera.ecnext.com.
Article Source: High Quality RSS Feeds and Articles on 350+ Topics
Article Post:
Advantages of Alternative Energy
The Major Benefits of Using Alternative Forms of Energy Like Wind & Solar
The ongoing discussion about energy is one that can be polarizing. So, just what is the advantage of alternative energy over fossil fuels?
While researching your options for your electricity needs, you will learn that an advantage of alternative energy is that once you purchased the equipment, you will no longer have a need to purchase electricity from a provider. This can be a life-changing event. With alternative energy, you can now supply your own home with all of the power necessary for your needs without the worry of power outages and other problems with providers.
In fact, you could even tap into their network of power lines and sell the excess electricity that your home will not need back to the power plant. They have to buy it from you. An advantage of alternative energy is that it is clean, meaning it does not produce the harmful pollutants that burning fossil fuels do. This makes the power plant want to buy this electricity from you to help them reduce the amount of pollutants that they release into the air.
After you have a good idea of how much your electric need will be, have the power company install a meter to measure how much electricity you generate for them. You will love to see the meter reader coming to see how much they are going to pay you, instead of it being the other way around inmost cases. The amount of money you will earn will be the difference between how much alternative energy you can produce, with the equipment that you have installed, and the amount that you consume.
Another advantage of alternative energy is that we are finding ways to use it in our vehicles. This will reduce the amount of oil that we will have to buy from other countries. Also it will cut down on the amount of pollutants released into the air.
The technologies that are being discovered for using alternative energy are changing the way we look at burning fossil fuels. The advantage of alternative energy over fossil fuels is that it can easily be replenished from the wind, the sun, or from water power. Fossil fuels are in limited supply and once we have used them all up, we won’t be able to get anymore. Once we have mined all of the coal that the Earth holds, we will not be able to quickly reproduce more.
With the population growing and the consumption rate of fossil fuels rising at an alarming rate, the need for alternative energy sources becomes more and more evident. Studies are currently underway for new ways to utilize this technology.
Read more about renewable energy at SolarCompanies.com
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Richard_Chapo
http://EzineArticles.com/?Advantage-of-Alternative-Energy&id=523871
Article Post:
How To Get A Rebate for Using Alternative Energy in Illinois
Renewable Energy Resources Program Helps Fund Residential Solar Power
Alternative Energy is all the rage after the State of the Union speech given by President Bush. If you live in Illinois, you should know there are already rebate programs available.
How To Get A Rebate for Using Alternative Energy in Illinois
Rebates for using alternative energy platforms are handled under the Renewable Energy Resources Program. The program is designed to motivate Illinois residents to use alternative energy by providing financial incentives in the form of rebates for those that modify their energy use.
The Renewable Energy Resources Program has been around for awhile, but new regulations went into effect on January 1, 2006. Under the regulations, rebates for going solar may now be as high as $10,000 for eligible solar thermal systems and up to 30 percent of the cost of solar panel systems. These new rebates, however, have a finite life span. You must apply for either or both of them by April 30, 2006.
Make Sure Your Home Meets the Criteria for the Renewable Energy Resources Program
To get in on these healthy rebates, there are a few requirements you must meet. First of all, you must be eligible. Eligible parties included individuals, businesses, schools, non-profits, and institutions of higher learning. You must also be a customer of utility company, meaning you can not be an off-grid energy residence or structure since the rebates are designed to move utility customers to non-utility energy sources.
Solar panels systems are typically used to produce electricity. If you are going with a solar panel system, the requirements are very simple. The system must be approved by Underwriters Laboratories, a fairly common certification throughout the solar industry. The system must also have a rated capacity of 800 watts for production.
Solar-thermal systems are used to produce heat, often in the form of hot water. If you are going with a solar thermal system for your alternative energy needs, it must be approved by the Solar Rating and Certification Corporation or similar certification. The system must produce at least 50,000 BTUs a day or have at least 60 square feet of collectors. Put in simple terms, you need to have roughly a system measuring 8 x 8 feet. If you are using the system for a pool, you only get the rebate if the pool is available to the public for regular use.
While President Bush surprised many by highlighting alternative energy platforms in his recent speech. Alas, Illinois was already heading down that road.
Rick Chapo is with SolarCompanies.com, a directory of solar energy companies. Visit us to read more articles on solar power and renewable energy.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Richard_Chapo
http://EzineArticles.com/?How-To-Get-A-Rebate-for-Using-Alternative-Energy-in-Illinois&id=157802