2009.10.27
Building the smart grid
We're writing an editorial for Wednesday about national investment in a "smart" power grid. President Obama today announced $3.4 billion will go toward projects around the country that will save money and energy over the long-haul. The work has industry support, too. The private sector will invest billions more.
Virginia Tech is receiving a slice of the recovery act support for smart grids. The school will receive a $1.25 million grant to build a smart Grid Information Clearinghouse Web portal that encourages use of electricity in an environmentally responsible way.
Good news all around.
RSS feed 
Waste of taxpayer money. Of course private industry will pursue government money for this project. Problem is this spending will crowd out what private industry would have spent the money on in the absence of this misallocation of taxes. Therefore, the impact to GDP will probably be around $0.80 / dollar instead of one for one or greater had the government not incented resources away from the private market (see Robert Barro, Government spending multiplier).
Comment by Jim — October 27, 2009 @ 3:04 pm
Unfortunately, private industry has never sought to undertake this project die to its size and cost. Like many hugh infastructure project, it requires Govt input to make it feasible. Interstate highways, public utilities, military, etc. Fortunately, Obama and the democrats recognise this and are fixing our infastructure that was ignored for the last eight years.
Comment by Richard — October 27, 2009 @ 3:30 pm
@1 - taxpayers/consumers will have to pay for it either way - do you think AEP will improve the grid just to provide good service?
Comment by Ken — October 27, 2009 @ 3:48 pm
I'm seeing just more control over when we use electricity...now you will get a huge fine or rate if you use too much power at the 'wrong' time...is that right, am I getting it wrong?
Comment by pammala — October 27, 2009 @ 4:46 pm
pammala:
You are both right and correct. The smart grid is wrong for oh so many reasons.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 27, 2009 @ 5:58 pm
Glen, please explain why maximizing efficiency when it comes to using and delivering power is a bad thing? Maybe because it will cost a little bit to set up (and then save more in the long run?) Are you really that myopic or is this about "change" ? Did you fight the move to Unleaded gas?
Comment by scott — October 28, 2009 @ 1:22 am
Scott:
It is not the federal government's job to invest in, run, operate, regulate, or construct power plants and grids. It just is not.
Also, from a practical standpoint, the last thing we need is a national grid. The more connected we are, the greater the danger that failure in one part of the country will lead to failure in other parts, or all over, the country. We are not one nation; we are a union of 50 sovereign states, with a federal government of limited powers.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 28, 2009 @ 9:37 am
We may have once been that, but we aren't anymore...for better or worse. Considering that power generation is also one of those things that crosses state lines quite easily with a lot of power generation for large-scale coal plants, hydro, and other sources located long distances from the population centers...some Federal oversight makes sense. I have my doubts about the smart grid though. I'm not sure I'm enthused about some computer in a control room being able to shut my fridge down for 2 hours during the middle of the summer to shift power around. That might be when we install solar and go off the grid.
Comment by Other John — October 28, 2009 @ 10:10 am
OTHER JOHN:
Federal oversight makes no sense. Amtrak is a disaster, Medicare and Medicaid are bankrupt, Social Security is near bankruptcy, Chrysler is going to quit making domestic automobiles, GMAC needs another 5.6 billion dollars, and you think that the Federal government can actually do something constructive in the energy field? Please!
And I did not get to the intrusive part of the smart grid that you mention. How is it that all the LEFT claimed [wrongly] that Bush was trashing the 4th Amendment, but you want to allow the monitoring and regulation of your daily energy use? GOOD GRIEF!
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 28, 2009 @ 3:42 pm
Glen, you said:
"Also, from a practical standpoint, the last thing we need is a national grid. The more connected we are, the greater the danger that failure in one part of the country will lead to failure in other parts, or all over, the country. We are not one nation; we are a union of 50 sovereign states, with a federal government of limited powers."
If the power companies did not work in conjunction with each other under some sort of federal oversight and regulation, you would find yourself easily double or triple the prices you currently pay. And I don't know your power bill, but I don't want to pay $500+ for a power bill. You would have to subsidize the power companies new fees that they have to pay to lease power over lines they do not own. Where do you think all the Roanoke Area power comes from? The Dam at Smith Mountain Lake?
Letting these companies go 100% free to do what they want will end up with the situation you have in California last summer, where the power companies scheduled brown-outs and delivered power to Mexico and Canada instead of the people they served because it generated more profit.
And besides. The Power Companies on the whole WANT to build the smart Grid, because they can then reduce their overhead for providing power to the people. They want to be more efficient, not less efficient. It seems like if you had an open bucket of water and you wanted to deliver it to consumers who'd pay by the glass.... wouldn't you want to sell 100% of that water, and not spill any? You'd figure a way to make sure you don't spill that water by putting a top on the bucket. You'd make your operation more efficient.
The only person I've even seen who thinks the smart grid is a bad idea is you. The industry wants it, (hell, they NEED it), the government wants it... I'm sure the public would like to save money in the long run because of it... But you don't because you might have to subsidize it by paying a little tax in the near term to save in the long term. I'd imagine you haven't changed your lights to CFL or LED even though your ROI is much higher. Do you have a background in engineering, or are you strictly Law? Because it certainly doesn't seem like you know enough about our power infrastructure to be able to discuss
Comment by scott — October 28, 2009 @ 9:37 pm
Scott:
First, California's energy problems are all self inflicted due to--no surprise--government ineptitude. The Legislature deregulated wholesale energy prices, but regulated retail prices, thus keeping consumer prices supposedly artificially low. The result was the market unable to function due to government intervention, causing energy shortages, brownouts, blackouts, higher prices in some instances, and companies selling their product where they could get a market return.
Second, I do not oppose power companies working together. I oppose government intervention, because government is 1) not supposed to be involved in private industry; and, 2) incapable of effective action in the marketplace.
Third, a single grid is an incredibly dangerous idea. If a failure in one part of the grid, be it due to engineering failure, or terrorism, were to cause a larger regional or even national failure, how great would that be?
Fourth, I am absolutely against the internal and daily monitoring of my energy use. I'll say it again; the same people who were horrified at the thought of the government monitoring terrorists' overseas telephone calls into this country have no problem at having the government and power companies controlling the power supply in their house. This is insane.
Fifth, you can downplay tax increases all you want. My experience is that the people who don't mind tax increases are not the same people who pay them.
Sixth, I love my old fashioned light bulbs. The government has no right or authority to ban them. I plan to stock up and keep on using them. You can have all the low wattage, mercury containing CFL bulbs you wish, I don't want 'em.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 29, 2009 @ 5:30 am
Thanks for not fully reading my post. I said I wasn't liking the idea of someone being able to shut down my fridge remotely...that thought is my biggest concern with the whole concept, no matter how much it might help balance energy usage...but I guess you either didn't go that far, or missed it. I'd much rather go total solar and get off the grid, than have someone flipping appliances in my house on and off remotely. Maybe it's because I mentioned solar instead of building my own mini coal-fired power plant in my backyard.
Comment by Other John — October 29, 2009 @ 8:23 am
So, The government deregulated energy companies and its the government's fault the energy companies were so greedy for profit that they had rolling blackouts? I think a 5th grader could see a flaw in that logic. Deregulation of an infrastructure entity allowed for excessive profit taking and a business model that put people in the dark. It was nobody's fault but the energy company and THEIR ineptitude to keep a company working.
As for your bulb situation, you don't have to use CFL. You can always be a pioneer and save even MORE money by purchasing LED lights. They will last even longer and use even less power than CFL, AND over a long time span you'll save money too.
It's moving this way with or without you!
Comment by scott — October 29, 2009 @ 10:29 am
I've been using CFL's since about 2002, when I got my first apartment and decided I hated changing bruned out hall lights in the middle of the night. I'm still using a few of those bulbs I bought then, and use them in all but 3 fixtures in my house (2 outdoor and 1 dimmer switch). The energy savings has been nice, and the light is about the same as a conventional bulb, but there's less burned out bulbs (I've actually only replaced 4 in 7 years, all 4 of them got nuked by shorts in the fixtures themselves), and less risk of a fire due to excessive heat. The amount of mercury is extremely minimal, and I've saved myself a lot of hassle by not having to replace bulbs at inconvenient times. We also run energy star appliances and take advantage of passive solar heating in the winter, and maximize our electrical savings by using wood for most of our heat (maybe the environmental savings aren't as good by burning wood...but it's at least renewable!). The major resistence to improving energy efficiency through common-sense means is something that baffles me. If nothing else, I'd think the monetary savings would make conservatives flock to them...but I guess not. I know it's why I did, I've saved hundreds of dollars already. I still don't like the idea of legislating how people ought to use energy...but the hard and fast opposition to voluntary, individual efforts is amazing.
Comment by Other John — October 29, 2009 @ 10:52 am
Don't kid yourself scott. There are definitely upgrades needed in the energy infrastructure, but the smart grid is not all about more efficiency. Greater efficiency and redirection of energy could be accomplished regionally, without the minute by minute monitoring of individual homes. Part of this is about government control and freedom. While many seem to be leaning toward the idea of some grand experiment in socialism, somewhat naive in their notion that we can make it work when no other nation in the history of the world had been able to make true socialism succeed, there are many others who still believe they should be free to live their lives in the manner they choose in the privacy of their own home (and yes, before you ask, that includes sexual orientation). Personally, I don't want some energy czar monitoring my daily use of energy and turning my hot water heater off because I've already had a shower today, or deeming that my "TV time" is up for the week and shutting down my television. I will and have taken steps to reduce my families energy use through green initiatives and conservation. It saves money and is the right thing to do. However, I don't need the government or the power company causing me to lose 3 weeks worth of work on a computer project for my employer by deciding right then would be a good time to reduce power to my home.
"Big Brother has decided to turn off your oven to reduce power use on Christmas Eve, so forget about that turkey. After all, it's a religious holiday you probably shouldn't be celebrating anyway. Just have a sandwich." Sounds great doesn't it.
Comment by Another Chris — October 29, 2009 @ 10:58 am
Such paranoia. When I lived in Florida, the electric company had made some strides toward a smart grid. You could volunteer to take part in a program that would give them some control over things like your water heater in exchange for a break on your rates. I took part in that, and never noticed any effects, other than a lower utility bill.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 29, 2009 @ 11:09 am
Dan, how did they do it? Did they install additional hardware on your water heater that they could communicate with to shuit off the current to the unit? I'd honestly like something like that where I could shut the weater heater off, or at least reduce the thermostat during the daytime when I'm gone, and middle of the night when I'm sleeping...when we don't need the water, sort of like a programmable house thermostat. Considering how much energy is needed to heat the water though, I don't know if that would save money, or cost just as much or more....but if you experienced a savings, I guess that answers my question! I lack a programmable thermostat at the house for now...I do it manually, and turn the heat off when we have a fire going (it usually is more than sufficient by itself) and only turn it on (at 65) when we're gone for long periods of time when it's not sunny during the day and the temps are fairly cold, just to keep it from getting too cold or freezing a pipe. Our power usage this year with a few additional tweaks to our habits has dropped our bill about another 15-20% so far.
Comment by Other John — October 29, 2009 @ 11:23 am
OJ,
Lowe's sells timers for about 50 bucks that go inline on the power supply to your water heater. Some of the more expensive tanks have built-in timers.
Comment by Art Hill — October 29, 2009 @ 11:48 am
@OJ #17: There was additional hardware involved, as I recall.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 29, 2009 @ 11:50 am
Art, thanks for the info! Dang, and I worked at Lowes for almost 2 years and don't remember seeing them either, though, I was in the garden center so that might be why! I'll have to take a look at that, a few years back I had a crummy efficiency apartment that I could not sublease for the last 4 months I had it, so I used it basically for storage. My electric bills ran about $40 a month while I wasn't there, and then I remembered the only thing on was the water heater. I shut the circuit for that and the bill dropped to just over $10, so I might recover the cost of that timer device within a few months. Thanks!
Comment by Other John — October 29, 2009 @ 11:52 am
Scott:
I wrote very clearly that the government only partially deregulated the power companies. The government deregulated only the wholesale price, but continued to regulate, and keep artificially low, the retail price. The government did this because it is 1) inherently incompetent; 2) inherently ignorant in business and economic matters; 3) inherently political; and, 4) inherently cowardly.
The government is the enemy.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 29, 2009 @ 1:31 pm
@9...GFK
Koontz...I continue to be amazed at your monocular view of how things got to be where they are today. You've bitched and complained that Medicare/Medicaid and SS are bankrupt or nearly bankrupt and that it's all the Federal Government's fault. Never once...not one single time have I ever seen any any of your posts the fact that a male and a female in the United States today is living longer that a male or female did in the late 1930's. The system as designed in the 30's regrettably didn't take into account that people would be living longer.
I find it interesting that the advent of Social Security actually didn't take place in the 1930's...but actually much much earler. You might take a read here: http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html
You'll see that similar provisions for the elderly and poor have been in place since the English settled the colonies in 1601.
Comment by Will — October 29, 2009 @ 2:21 pm
Will:
Shouldn't the all knowing, wise federal government have known that people would live longer, and design their system accordingly? After all, if the government is such a better provider . . . .
The federal government does not possess the constitutional authority to administer either a compulsory or voluntary retirement or health care program.
As for the history of "social security", Thomas Paine calling for a system to take care of the elderly does not translate into there actually being such a system. And I have great sympathy and can find authority for providing for the widows and orphans of war veterans. Wholly different issue.
But "social security" did not begin until 1935. It was sold as a lie, it is a fraudulent ponzi scheme, and should be dismantled. The sooner the better.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 29, 2009 @ 3:15 pm
Koontz...
Were you around in 1935 when it was "sold" to the American public? I know I wasn't but can rely completely on those who were.
Comment by Will — October 29, 2009 @ 3:47 pm
@23...GFK
I just read you post a third time and was completely amazed at the utter absurdity of the comments about the government knowing that the life expectancy of adult males and females would increase. Surely, you can't be that obtuse in your thoughts.
The comments would be good for a laugh...if they weren't so within character.
As for authority to administer any program...if the House of Representatives and Senate approve such a program (since they are supposedly the representatives of a majority of their electorate) I believe they can administer whatever they decide to administer.
I think that's called Democracy.
Comment by Will — October 29, 2009 @ 3:53 pm
Will:
We are not a democracy. We are a republic with a written Constitution. The Congress's powers are set forth in Article I, Section 8. Social Security ain't in there.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 29, 2009 @ 4:43 pm
Now, we are not a Democracy? Ah I see....Fixed news must be working over time.
Comment by Bill Hudson — October 29, 2009 @ 4:49 pm
@26...GFK
Koontz...according to Webster's Dictionary:
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
So in your mind, we don't have free elections...we don't have a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people either directly or indirectly through a system of representation.
My oh my...
Comment by Will — October 29, 2009 @ 5:14 pm
Bill Hudson:
We are not now, nor have we ever been, a democracy.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 29, 2009 @ 5:16 pm
I am having one of those, "I know you are but what am I" moments.
#29 Well, here on earth in this county that is what we call it. It is far from perfect and is a work in process. Or if you want in Greek it means,"The power of the people" Kind of sound a little liberal there ah? Don't fret.Think of it maybe as a American experiment that we are still trying to figure out but it is yes a democracy at least here on earth.
Comment by Bill Hudson — October 29, 2009 @ 5:40 pm
Mr. Hudson and Mr. Will:
You both need to review a different dictionary. The United States is not a democracy. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 29, 2009 @ 8:45 pm
Webster has probably been around a lot longer that you Koontz. I'll take him over you.
A Republic...according to Webster...discusses the head of state (the president) and the elected body that is supposed to speak for the people.
You can knit pick all you want.
I'm about of the opinion that you are the only one that holds such a great opinion of yourself.
Comment by Will — October 29, 2009 @ 9:50 pm
Actually Will, I have hundreds of grateful clients, millions of adoring fans, and a large loving family, all of whom think I hung the moon. I'm just waiting for folks like you to see the light.
And Webster is dead. If his book's current editors do not realize that the United States is not now, nor has never been, a democracy, then they need to seek different employment.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 30, 2009 @ 7:18 am