Roll Your Own Blackout

[SysOpt]

The point is to send a message, not to actually conserve a whole lot of power.

[Jonty]

I think it was in the year 1984 when Britain was in the grip of the miners strike, or it may have been a few years later in 1992 when most of the coal mines in this country were closed, anyway, to show support for the miners it was decided that at 6pm on a certain day, for everyone to turn all their electrical appliances off so that the power stations would have to quickly do something about this 'loss of power', and to show the government of the day what the ordinary person thought. I seem to remember that the outcome from this action was that the 'switch off' was neglible. Well, thats what was reported anyhow - we probably won't know what actually happened!!

Thought I'd share this with you even though it's a bit off topic!

[GroundZero3]

A friend had this happen to him. His electric company sent out a letter saying to conserve please! So the whole area did and when they got there electric bill it was high. And why? Because the people weren't using a lot of electricity and they charge because they didn't meet a quota! How’s that?

Jason

[This message has been edited by GroundZero3 (edited 06-13-2001).]

[MTAtech]

The best way to protest this administration's stance on energy and the environment is to email the prez. I think the email address is president@whitehouse.gov and to let your US senator know how you feel.

There was an interesting essay in the NY Times a week or so ago by a math professor that proved that attacking our energy problem from the supply side won't work. Since we increase our energy consumption by 5% per year, even if we have a 10,000 year supply at current rates (which we don't - it's more like 100 years) that supply will be gone in 125 years. However, if we just cut the rate of increase by 2-1/2% from 5%, we double the time that the supply is exhausted. Hell, we could get 2-1/2% just by insulating our attics. Given the multitude of ways one can painlessly conserve (compact flourescent bulbs, timers, dimmers, etc.) this seems the most viable.

[SysOpt]

Well, I think the answer is to abandon our reliance on fossil fuels altogether, although conserving them does make sense, since we need time to develop alternatives. Of course, that means something better has to come along. Nuclear energy isn't that great considering the waste. Now if only fusion could be perfected..

[SysOpt]

Anybody here going to do it?

[PhilosopherKing]

http://www.sysopt.com/news/gws/cdata/biggrin.gif

Don't really the see point. I'll be in 'Vegas anyway...they don't believe in conserving anything

[HomeYield]

30 megawatts in the scheme of things, isn't all that much, even for a small control area as that. If the temperature goes up about 5 degrees then that's about a 100 megawatt increase (in the summer).

Nuclear energy is the cheapest energy possible. With the deregulation power companies are looking to get quick megawatt's in to the market and so they are building combustion turbine plants (jet engines) that run off of oil or gas. These are the most expensive and these are the one's that are being built most often. People wonder why they pay such high prices. In comparison, nuclear is is about a 1/4 of the price with no emissions. If you compare the energy prices with a control area that has nuclear units with those that don't, then the one's without will pay quite a bit more. I know a nuclear engineer dealing with the waste and he says that its alot safer than just driving on the street (not the waste itself of course, but after they have sealed it off). The waste can be problem but they deal with it in such a way that abosolutely nothing could get hurt. They are also working on ways of recycling the waste so that it can be reused. It doesn't last as long but I've heard that it is be possible.

[This message has been edited by HomeYield (edited 06-14-2001).]

[Raist]

While conservation efforts will help they are not the sole answer. Increasing production is not the answer either and a combination of the two is not the answer. What very few people realize is that fossil fuels are a finite resource and will eventually be depleted totally. Not to mention the enviromental damage that will be done in the process of using them to depletion. Imagine if people realized that we are all members of the human race and could coexist peacefully without war and terrorism. The combined defense budgets of the worlds larger nations would easily be enough to fund the necessary research to move of from a fossil fuel dependant society to one which we are not dependant on a finite resource and damaging the enviroment in the process. Just my $.02... Sorry so philisophical this morning.. My son had me up half the night and lack of sleep make me a little loopy...

[DiscoLando]

I don't think this idea will really do much good, practically or not. Snopes gives a good account of this email that's been going through lately.
http://www.snopes2.com/inboxer/outrage/blackout.htm

Besides, if there is an energy problem, the ulitmate fault at the moment goes to us as consumers, not the president or the government.

[SoopaStar]

Scott-
you want to conserve? Tell ya what, I will buy a Honda Insight for you...if you trade the title to your BMW to me!
Paul

[SysOpt]

Hey, if you want to rip out my bimmer's engine and put in something that conserves more fuel but is just as powerful, I'm all for it... http://www.sysopt.com/news/gws/cdata/wink.gif It gets 20-30mpg as it is, not a huge gas guzzler.

[Pablo-Anon]

Yeh.. lets protest against Bush's energy policy... we could have protested clintons except for the fact that he did not have one!
Blame Bush for problem thats been mounting for 10 years... LOL.. go for it dude....

[rahlquist]

Ahh the bigger point would be driven home not if everyone turned off at a certain time, but if everyone turned back on at a certain time. Say everyone shut off everything they can at 5 or 6pm and then at 8pm everyone fire everthing back up and then some.

The resultant swing from low load to extreme high load would send the grid into shock(pun intended).

[SysOpt]

Pablo-Anon:

I never said whether I was for or against this measure - posting news to this site, and asking the question "anybody going to do it?", does not mean that I support the cause. The entire point is to share something interesting and get a discussion going. But thanks for your assumption.

[Kabuki]

Well, I remember there being a program for military use of depleted uranium, where they would mold it into a shell (mortar or tank) with a lead and teflon shield. Basicly it is made to be armor piercing, and is used to start bad reactions in fuel systems.

On a lighter note, I am planning to put solar panels up on my garage to help in combating the rising costs of energy. Also, I saw on Slashdot a while back that General Electric is planning to bring out a water heater that runs off of Natural Gas. Prety normal, right? The neat part is that it is catalyzing the gas with a fuel cell, and also produces enough electricity to run most households.

[gyoung]

A more effective approach would be to vote out the representatives and elected officials that put Califonia in this position in the first place.

Get some people in there that can fix the problem and not try and blame it on someone else or just give it a quick fix!

[This message has been edited by gyoung (edited 06-15-2001).]

[BFlurie]

"Roll your own blackout" is a typical feel-good suggestion that ultimately does nothing. Use reasonable intelligence and practice conservation all the time.

1. Turn stuff off that you're not using. Duh.

2. Use less heat and air-conditioning. Close off and shut off heat & air-conditioning to rooms you don't use much. Use a ceiling fan summer and winter in your most-used areas.

3. Put your water heater on a timer and install a widely available water-heater insulation kit.

4. Make sure your attic has at least 12" insulation and is properly ventilated (a thermostatically-controlled gable fan works well to reduce summer attic heat).

5. Use fluorescent-style bulbs (you can get them for lamps now) instead of the usual resistance bulbs.

6. Use big-energy users like washing machines, dryers, dish-washers, etc., only when you can fill them completely. Use them during off-peak times, like the latest you can at night, or before 7 AM.

7. Use one of the clothes-dryer exhaust filter kits to exhaust its heat into the house in the winter. A big heat-saver.

8. Use a humidifyer in the winter -- you can turn the thermostat down quite a bit and still feel just as warm.

9. In the winter, let hot bath-water stay in the tub until it cools down. Inconvenient maybe, but another big heat-saver.

10. Open up your house, or use a whole-house attic fan at night in summer if your area gets cool enough.

11. Open drapes during the day in winter to take advantage of free solar heat. Close them at night.

11. For automobile-usage, plan your trips to do as many errands as possible to minimize them.

Actions such as these speak louder than chanting mindless slogans, altho they might not "feel" as good.

[hawkeye177]

I will turn off all my computers if I remember to turn them off.

[Richard_Cranium72]

I have made my home into an energy conserving structure..

Operation of heating/cooling systems is foremost.

Regardless of the R-factor of insulation, if you do not observe common sense, your energy costs will be excessive.

I do NOT run my A/C during the day..

I have a full basement. Upon arriving home to a very warm house, I open the basement door, cut on the attic fan and the a/c at the same time.

This draws cool/moist air from the basement(which a/c units like)and removes hot air from the a/c ducts and the attic.

In less than 5 min the house is 75F or so.

Many people do not insulate properly, seal air leaks around doors and windows. Run the a/c when not home or let doors stand open.

Keeping the appliances in top notch order saves energy.

A fridge needs teh cooling coils cleaned a couple of times a year.

A electric hot water heater needs the sediment flushed out at peridoc intervals, more so in areas of "Hard" water" to keep the bottom element from coming in contact with the debris, wasting power.

Fix your lot to accomidate low power usage.

7 years ago, I planted some fast growing Leyland Cypress, Red Maples, Japenese Maples and Dogwoods to the South of my residence.

Today the Cypress is about 20' tall and shades the A/C unit and a good portin of the house, likewise the decidious trees provide shade as some of them are about 16-18'.

Ever notice how people are "Cold" in the winter at 72F but "Hot" in the summer until chilled to about 68F ??

Dress down in the summer, take a cool shower instead of turning the a/c down to 48F

In the winter, put some clothes on, wonder why your feet are cold and you're running around barefoot dressed in "Summer" clothes ?

For the record, my Cooling bill in the Summer on "Budget" billing is $44.00 per month..

Water is heated with Gas for about $35.00 also used for drying clothes..

Common Sense will help this country in this time of energy shortage.

DrVette

[MTAtech]

First, the cheapest electric production today is wind power, not nuclear, at 2.5 cents per KWH.

Second, there was a good reason Clinton didn't have an energy program - we didn't need one. Until recently, there was an oil glut - with prices adjusted for inflation cheaper than in the 1960's. Besides, I thought conservatives like Bush are supposed to be against government interference in the free market? Isn't that the line when the poor want an increase in the minimum wage? I guess oil companies have more clout than the poor.

The reality is the public doesn't want the pain of an energy policy. Clint Eastwood in 'Dirty Harry' said, "the people want results but don't want to do what needs to be done to get those results." The same people that NOW want an energy policy would shoot you if you tried to ban their SUVs.

While on SUVs, the reason we have so many is that they are exempt from federal fuel economy rules. Why is that? Because SUVs are the most profitable sector for auto companies and they lobbied heavily to get the exemption. If they were not exempt, we probably wouldn't be having a crisis.

[HomeYield]

This problem has been building for decades. With California having as many major cities as it does and continuously growing to accomodate more and more people for more and more businesses, did it never accure to somebody that they might need some more power. They haven't built a power plant in years, and the only thing they can do right now is to revamp the old ones to try and push out a few more MW's. Pretty much CA and get any more energy into the state is through 2 DC tie-lines which aren't worth it for anybody trying to get power into the state, more MW's are lost in the transfer than actually get delivered. They have secluded themselves from the outside market and on top of that they have completely ignored the supply and demand curve by trying to put a price cap on the energy prices, which will royally screw somebody over in the end, whether it be rate payers or the power companies themselves. Nobody is going to win. Only good thing to come from this is just to learn from a mistake and make sure this doesn't happen in other parts of the country.

[stevepaige]

The following is quoted from an article
entitled "Assessing the California Energy Crisis" By Mark W. Seetin

"The New York Mercantile Exchange "NYMEX," established in 1872, is the largest energy futures exchange in the world and the only futures market in the United States devoted exclusively to pricing, hedging, and trading industrial commodities. The merger in mid-1994 with Commodity Exchange, Inc. ("COMEX,") that provides a forum for trading gold, silver and high-grade copper futures contracts, created the world's largest physically based commodity exchange.

The Exchange pioneered the development of energy futures and options. From a modest 34,000 heating oil contracts traded in 1978, NYMEX energy futures and options volume grew to more than 89 million contracts in the year 2000 and now includes crude oil, gasoline, natural gas, electricity and propane, in addition to heating oil.

NYMEX provides the world's most efficient forum for energy price risk management. The visible and highly competitive daily trading of energy futures and options on the exchange provides a true world reference price for each of the commodities traded.

NYMEX has no stake in the direct outcome of the current crisis in the California electricity market. As a regulated, neutral public marketplace, it draws no direct benefit from either higher prices or lower prices. NYMEX only seeks the opportunity to compete in the provision of marketplace services, having never sought the role of government-granted franchise to provide these services. In fact, NYMEX has expressly fought against the establishment of government-created or -sanctioned franchises to serve as marketplaces for electricity, believing those institutions should develop in response to market forces alone competing for the business of market participants in the same way that market participants should be competing with each other.

NYMEX has been an active participant in regulatory and legislative proceedings related to electricity deregulation and restructuring at both the state and federal levels since 1994. Directly related to California electricity "deregulation," the Exchange provided testimony four times before the California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC"), two times before the appropriate California Legislature committees, and more than a half-dozen times before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC"). The Exchange has provided formal written comments in these proceedings on about two dozen occasions. The theme of our testimony and comments has been consistently to support true market competition.

The debate that has taken place over the years regarding electricity deregulation or restructuring has been largely one between supporters of government intrusion to induce prescribed results and the supporters of unmolested competition. To date, there are no examples of a truly competitive free market for electricity in the United States.

Critical Market Considerations Have Been Ignored

The area of consideration where NYMEX has provided most of its input has been on market structure. NYMEX has advocated allowing market structure to develop on its own without government interference. Unfortunately, we have not been very successful in this pursuit. California, in particular, rejected this position. In response to this, in proceedings before the CPUC and legislative bodies in 1995, NYMEX predicted the ultimate outcome of California's policies to be lower competition, higher prices, and lower consumer value. The past eight months these predictions have become manifest.

The chronicle of California's attempts to create a competitive market for electricity is one of mistakes and missed opportunity. California missed the opportunity in the mid-1990s to foster the creation of a truly competitive electricity marketplace. Our remarks today are intended to address the two most frequently asked questions; 1) What went wrong with California's efforts to deregulate the electricity market, and; 2) How can it be remedied?
Mark W. Seetin is vice president for government affairs of the New York Mercantile Exchange. This commentary is based on his April 12 testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform hearing on the California energy crisis.

What went wrong in California?
To call the product of the 1995-96 regulatory and legislative process "deregulation" flies in the face of all generally recognized and accepted definitions of the term. Indeed, as a result of the implementation of AB 1890, and California Public Utility Commission rulings and orders, the regulatory "overburden" of the electricity market in California arguably increased dramatically through the creation of the California Power Exchange (PX) through which the utilities were compelled to buy and sell their electricity, as well as the rules adopted within the PX regarding the "one price clears all" pricing method, and the calculation of the Competition Transition Charge (CTC) designed to compensate utilities for their "stranded costs." The net effect of the legislation and rules was to create a monopoly power exchange, and, worse, force the bulk of the California electricity market into a "day ahead" spot market, instead of allowing the market to choose its own venue of exchange, and terms of commerce. The CPUC went even further in attempts to "micro manage" in last year's actions to effectively forbid the use of commonly used financial instruments such as direct contracts, forward contracts, futures and options, with the sole exception being that of the use of the Power Exchange's "block forwards." The result of that disastrous combination of policies is evident today, as California faces the most serious threat to its electricity marketplace ever. At this time, under AB 1X passed in January, the state of California, through the Department of Water Resources (DWR), is the sole legal buyer and seller of electricity. While the DWR supplanted the now-defunct PX because the utilities had become "insolvent," the net effect is that the California electricity market remains a government monopoly.

How can it be remedied?
Direct access is key because it is the epitome of what is meant by market competition. The engine of competition in any market is the head-to-head competition for a customer that takes place between suppliers of the market's underlying product. Rivalries develop in such head-to-head competition and these rivalries lead to experiments to better serve customers through innovations in product and service or the lowering in cost. The competitive process cannot take place unless the seller directly serves customers - otherwise there is no market whatsoever and no sales. This is how competitive free markets operate for virtually every product and service.

This might seem obvious to the average person, but under "deregulation," electricity has operated according to a different paradigm that has relied to a varying extent on market artifices to serve in the middleman function. The artifices are state-created or -mandated franchises to serve simultaneously in the role as buyer for any (sometimes all) sellers and seller for any (sometimes all) buyers. They have consistently been formed to serve the spot market (i.e. next-day market, hourly market over the next 36 hours) and to clear offers to sell at one price.

It is no accident that where electricity markets have been structured to rely more heavily on this type of artifice, the development of direct access has been more inhibited and the level of real market competition has been muted. As a case in point, California was expressly designed to frustrate the development of direct access. The consequence of this action was eventual disintegration of competition, higher prices, and virtually no customization to better serve customers.

Ironically, direct access has not been the central consideration in either state or federal proceedings to date to "deregulate" electricity. In some venues, it has been accorded serious consideration, but even in these circumstances, the major focus has been on developing competition in generation. This has been conducted without regard precisely to how end-users would directly participate.

NYMEX is of the opinion that direct access is the most critical component of a truly competitive market. In fact, without direct access, there can be no truly competitive market. With respect to competition in generation, suppliers would have at least as great an incentive to reduce their generating costs in serving a direct access market as one where they are steered into selling to a government-franchised artificial buyer. Furthermore, direct access is the only vehicle through which the customized needs of end-users would be served.
NYMEX is of the opinion that direct access is the most critical component of a truly competitive market. In fact, without direct access, there can be no truly competitive market.

Under the alternative to direct access, transactions are concentrated in the state-franchised spot market pool, which is subject to greater overall price volatility and higher incidence of spiking prices. Tending towards the extreme, California adopted policies that drove the overwhelming majority of their transactions into the spot market. In contrast, a market centered on direct access transactions would never find itself at the mercy of the spot market to the extent California has been. There would be far greater reliance on forward contracting.

Coupled with direct access is the critical component of access to the transmission system. Access to firm transmission is the essential "third leg" of a California recovery program. It is axiomatic that there be "user friendly" access to the transmission system to complete and perform the obligations of commercial transactions. For example, for all the goods and services delivered by truck there must be an accessible road and highway system for the deliveries to be completed. Analogous to this, in electricity it is absolutely essential for buyers and sellers to be able to acquire and transfer rights to firm transmission in the electricity grid so that they can be assured they can meet the delivery obligations associated with their commercial operations. As in other markets, it is contemplated that rules and procedures ensure fair, competitive, and effective use of transmission capacity.

In fact, the California Independent System Operator ("ISO") presented such a system in January. The Independent System Operator ("ISO") staff presented a framework to deal with system congestion in a way that was supportive of direct access. Their proposal comes under the generic heading of a "physical rights" model that provides the greatest possible support for direct access. While the California grid is in great need of upgrading and enhancement, a congestion management plan such as the ISO staff developed for action last January was the correct remedy for congestion-induced inefficiencies. This plan would harness market efficiency to enhance the overall performance of the transmission system. This is because, in addition to engineering criteria, it maximizes the market performance of the system based on market incentives as well. Tragically, this has been completely absent from California's market. The California Senate and Assembly should urge the ISO to immediately submit a congestion management plan to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC"), so the tools necessary for California's "electricity recovery program" can be available as soon as possible.

California's major flaws were that it undercut the development of direct access and forced its market to rely artificially on the spot market. It did this through mandating participation in the spot market by utilities, applying the add-on competition transition charge ("CTC") to artificially render direct access transactions as uneconomic, and not providing an effective program for firm transmission. The result has been very limited participation in direct access in California. The remedy for this serious flaw is to immediately implement direct access with as few restrictions and as much flexibility as possible.

Conclusion
Perhaps the single most important thing that California failed to do in avoiding a supply and price crisis was to remove impediments in the electrical grid to true competition among buyers and sellers of electricity. Any California plan that addresses this issue should support direct access to the market for all buyers and sellers - the current system still greatly restricts access. California's plan relied on market artifices, frustrating the development of direct access and driving an overwhelming majority of transactions onto the "spot" market, where one is forced to trade only "day-ahead." The result of the monopoly Power Exchange's "spot" market was higher volatility and higher prices for electricity. Buyers and sellers of power could not be reasonably assured that they could make or take delivery of electricity in forward contracts. The California plan stressed developing competition among generators, but failed to provide for the most critical component - direct access. This and other critical factors, such as access to firm transmission on the power grid, which support truly competitive markets, were omitted in the California plan. These omissions must be remedied for a real and sustained recovery from the current debacle to occur."

[cammobus]

I take a Cynical Approch to this mess ...... the people of Calif. allowed their politicians to set the energy & enviromental policies they wanted ..... ( or what the tree huggers convinced them they wanted ) - it is all a matter of propaganda, ie ... no new power plants, no nuke plants, no windmills - animal rights activists call the condor quseanarts - lets conserve instead !!!! well now there getting a chance to conserve through rolling blackouts

so basically ..... they wanted less power plants & more conservation ...... let'm sit in the dark & sweat ..... maybe the people of california will wish up to the bull they have been fed and change there gov. leaders but using the fed to bail them out for there mismanagment would not give them the opportunity to learn from there mistakes oh yes and you should pay the fair market value for what you consume