The Gloss On Life

Chernobyl Revisited

Some time back, I ran across this web site, hosted by "Elena". She takes her motorcycle (and Geiger counter) on a trip back into the frozen time of Chernobyl. It's fascinating and eerie and worth the 20 or 30 minutes it takes to read through her journey and view the scene. Enjoy the ride.

Biblical Error

See if you can guess which sect of Christianity (I use that term loosely) is based on the following biblical error.

It all starts with Genesis 2:21-22

So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the mans' ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

So, do you see anything missing there and have you guessed the sect yet?

How about this: God put Adam to sleep, but nowhere here or following does the text explicitly state that he woke Adam up. Have a guess yet? If God never woke Adam up (and if he did, wouldn't the scripture say so?) then he must be still asleep. If that is the case, then all that follows must just be part of Adam's dream, including us. Figured it out yet? If we're all just part of this dream of the Great Mind, then nothing material actually exists. It's all just a figment of our imagination, which in turn, are just a figment of Adam's imagination. Got a clue yet? If nothing is real, then there is no physical illness, no physical assault, no physical embodiment of anything -- it's all ethereal. If there is no physical illness, there is no need for medicine at all -- any "illness" is just wrong thinking. That can be fixed by praying for the "Great Mind" to fix it.

Figured it out yet? I'm talking about Christian Science, which is actually neither. It holds no propositions which can be tested by evidence, so it is not science, nor do they believe that Christ actually existed, giving His life upon the cross for our salvation, so they are not Christian either. It is so easy for erroneous teaching to creep into our understanding of the bible, so we should be very careful in reading into the text things that are not there, but also by assuming that what is not stated has explicitly not happened.

How Ameren is dealing with Proposition C

Well, that didn't take long. Ameren has a Pure Power initiative going now. Individual customers are asked to buy RECs (Renewable Energy Credits) for $15 per 1000kWh. Given that they need about 2 million MWh, they only needs customers to purchase about 2 million of these RECs to satisfy their part of Proposition C.

Shrine of Remembrance, Melbourne Australia

I was reading a daily devotional (a day late) and the entry for Veterans Day talked about the Shrine of Remembrance in Melbourne Australia. It was built in the early 1930s as a tribute to those soldiers who served in World War I. It has since been expanded to serve as a shrine for all veterans. What captured my attention, however, was this.

Ray of Light

A special feature of the Shrine is the Ray of Light. Thanks to the combined skills of the astronomer, the mathematician and the surveyor the Ray of Light falls on 'LOVE' on the Stone of Remembrance at 11am on the 11th of November and will continue to do so for 5,000 years at least. The time and date commemorate Armistice (meaning a stay of armed conflict) which marks the end of hostilities in World War 1.

The "Love" spoken about is part of a quotation, "Greater Love Hath No Man". I don't think any more of that quotation is necessary as the location bespeaks the rest of that scripture.

What a remarkable tribute and truly demonstrates much more than simply a deeply heartfelt thanks for serving God and country.

To that, I can only add, thank you Dad for your service.

Labels: Christianity, memorials, military service

Ignorance of the Law

I've heard many times that "Ignorance of the Law is no excuse" and that does seem to be reasonable advice. I wonder, however, if that really does make sense.

In particular, what is required is that one must know the relevant law before taking a particular action. We all know the normal stuff, generally regarding criminal law or traffic rules and such, but is it really possible to not be ignorant of the law in all cases? In order to not be ignorant of the law, one must necessarily know the law in all cases. Is that possible? Well, consider the entire body of law that exists. There is Federal law, State law, County Law, City Law, and private law (think Homeowners associations, for instance.) Within each of those bodies of law are many, many branches. Furthermore, law includes not just the actual statutes, but also all of the opinions and precedents. If I were to spend 8 hours per day, 5 days per week, I doubt that I would be able to even read the entire body of law which has some bearing, in some manner, over my very existence. I would then assert that if it is not possible to know all of the law, then ignorance of the law is an excuse.

Something to think about before advocating for "there ought to be a law" either for or against something.

What would I do different with Proposition C?

So, if I were required to rewrite Proposition C, what changes would I make? First, let me say that I think the market would be best positioned to address this. By allowing customer to contract with their own power suppliers and purchase their own green power, they would vote with their dollars. They would also pay the costs of their choices.

However, if required to use the Proposition C framework, I think there are only 4 major changes I would make to that proposal. (See, I'm not all criticism.)

• I would add nuclear to the list of renewable sources. Nuclear produces no greenhouse gases and the waste can be largely dealt with via breeder reactors (of the sort used in France today). The total amount of long term waste, in such a case, is greatly reduced.
• Change the percentages for required use to 5% by 2015 and 10% by 2020. That gives companies about 6 years to get their first plants proposed and built, a far more reasonable time frame. After 2020, 12 years from now, we can reexamine the situation, as a state, to see what changes or adjustments need to be made.
• Next, I would change the 1% annual increase limitation. That 1% only takes into account the actual operating costs of the plant generating the renewable energy, but does not allow any sort of amortized cost for constructing such a facility -- it basically appears to assume that the construction is free. To allow for that sort of construction cost structure, since that cost structure can't really be known too far in advance, particularly not at the point of writing legislation, leave it to the PSC to set reasonable rates (if we have to have a PSC at all.)
• Remove the penalty provisions. There is no reasonable way to penalize a regulated monopoly which does not also negatively impact its customers. That's a fact; deal with it.
  

Those are the changes I would propose to make Proposition C more workable.

Practical Effects of Missouri Proposition C

Now that I've examined the text and found it seriously wanting, I want to go through a bit of practical analysis to see just what it might mean and whether or not it is even possible to comply with this new legal mandate.

I'll start by referencing the Missouri Public Service Commission 2007 Annual Report. In that report, on page 6, we find total electrical usage for the state of MO during the calendar year 2006, the most recent year for which such statistics are available. There, we find that in 2006, customers in MO used 57,846,700MWh. That seems like quite a lot, but let's use the 4%, 8%, and 11% thresholds in the Proposition to reduce that to 2,299,468MWh, 4,598,936MWh, and 6,323,537MWh respectively. We now, using 8760 hours in the 2006 calendar year (no leap day), arrive at 263MW, 525MW, and 722MW for hourly generation requirements. Are those reasonable amounts of power to obtain from renewable sources?

Looking at the Ameren UE web site, for instance, we find a Fact Sheet about various aspect of Ameren, including the power generation facilities they own and how much power they produce. They have several coal facilities -- Meramec, for instance is a 4 unit plant with 842MW capability, Callaway is a 1 unit nuclear facility with 1190MW capability, and there are several natural gas facilities with from 140MW to 511MW capability. So, the minimum 263MW for the 4% threshold, required by 2012, would basically amount to an entire generation facility, probably with 2 units (although with maintenance requirements, a 3 unit facility would likely be needed) by 2012 and a larger 4 unit facility would need to be online by 2015.

So, how much power could be generated using a solar plant, wind power, or a biomass plant and would it be practical to have such a plant operational by the start of 2012 (3 short years from now)?

I'll answer the last question first. In 3 years, it would not be possible to build a plant to meet the 2012 requirements. It probably wouldn't even be possible to complete the necessary regulatory hurdles by then, much less appease the NIMBYs or BANANAs (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.) By 2015 (6 years from now), it might be possible to have a 4 unit biomass facility operating, although that poses some other challenges I'll address later.

So what sort of plant could be built? A reasonable wind turbine might be a Suzlon S88 capable of generating 2.1MW. It would require a minimum of 250 ft in elevation (and hence 500 ft between turbines). Thus, each turbine would require at least 2 acres. For a facility which was capable of generating 263MW, 125 of those turbines would be needed or 250 acres. Pretty small as far as land area goes, but that is only with the turbine spinning at its maximum rated speed. According to that chart, the minimum wind speed for operation is 9mph with a maximum speed of 32mph. (With wind speeds greater than 32mph, the turbine has an internal mechanism to prevent it from turning faster than the maximum rating, attained at 32mph.) Where in MO is there a constant 9 mph wind, much less a sustained 32mph wind speed? I can find no data, but can only assume that the output rating is linear to the wind speed, between 9 and 32 mph, but don't know what the output is at the minimum wind speed. To ensure that there is enough capacity, assuming lower wind speeds, let's say that there is a need for 600 of these turbines and 1200 acres of land (as well as transmission capacity for the 1200MW peak generation (or more likely 300MW nominal).

What about a solar generation facility? PGE has a planned solar facility set for CA with a rating of 550MW. This will be located in or near the Mojave desert, a reasonable location for a solar plant. Here is a link to the PGE project page. Note, the last picture with the 14MW generation plant in Bavaria. While I am unable to estimate the amount of land used, it certainly looks to be in the 20-30 acre range. Thus, it would take, perhaps, 600 acres of land for 400MW. In addition, solar can really only be used for peak generation, not for base load, so the amount of solar power used would need to be considerably higher as it would not be in use constantly.

Finally, what about a biomass plant? The typical design for a biomass plant is that they take in biomass, which with yeast, is converted to ethanol. The waste biomass is then burned to generate power. See here for an example of how a biomass plant would work. Only the excess power generated is available for use as a significant fraction of the power generated is used to power the ethanol plant itself. From this press release, it seems clear that a $200M plant would generate 200,000 tons of renewable (burnable) biomass per year. I'm not up for trying to do that calculation at the moment -- figure out how much energy, and hence electricity, could be generated by burning 200,000 tons of biomass. From this page, we can estimate that the Ameren Meramec plant consumes roughly 7000 tons of coal per day or 292 tons per hour to generate 842MW or about 3MW per ton of coal. The left over biomass is probably less efficient, but let's use this number anyway. 200,000 tons of biomass per year would generate 600,000MW per year or about 70MW per hour. This, from a $200M facility.

The one remaining factor is the cost. From the original PSC report, we see that the electric industry generated $3.4B. Given the generation, statewide, of 57,486,700MW, that comes to $59.1 per MW (or 0.0591 per kWh, a more familiar number.) A 1% increase in that number is $34M per year increase in rates. With a useful life of say 40 years, plus 10% annual maintenance cost (just a guess), that comes out to $1.5B for the total cost of the plant plus annual operating expenses for the 40 year life. With biomass, the 70MW would cost $200M (not including operating costs). We would need, say, 5 units of those (to cover 1 being down for maintenance) at a cost of $1B just to build and maintain. That puts operating costs (and the purchase of the source biomass product) at no more than $12M per year (for each of 40 years, remember). If the wind turbines are $1M each (probably a bit low), that would be $600M for the turbines, but operation and maintenance. That is likely the cheapest option, but the least reliable. Solar is very expensive, with the 550MW plant that PGE is putting in costing in the neighborhood of $2B or so, well above this threshold.

In short, I don't think this is doable in any form for the cost restrictions required by the law. If this power is purchased from out of state (and RECs redeemed), the cost would be even higher. To prepare for this, I would expect our power rates to at least double, perhaps worse, just so the company can finance the construction of these plants, and that certainly won't be online within the required 3 years and probably not even with 6 years.

Killing the nuclear power industry?

It would actually be pretty easy. Currently, I think there are about 25 applications on file with the NRC to either build new plants or new units at existing plants. That's a significant number, considering that each unit can supply roughly 1200MW of power.

But, when President-elect Obama takes office, he could kill them all with the strokes of a pen. First, he could simply close Yucca mountain to any new sources of waste. Then, he could order the NRC to decline approval for any new unit or plant which does not have a contract with some facility or site to store or process their waste long term.

Those 2 items, I think, would kill the entire industry.

Missouri voters approved Proposition C, mandating the use of renewable energy. I don't think the voters realize just what the legal text says, so I'll try to work through some of it. It was obviously written by people who have not a clue about how businesses actually work.

The actual legal text is located at this link. Note that the statute performs a wholesale replacement of the existing green energy provisions in the law.

First, let me discuss what constitutes renewable energy, under the statute. Renewable energy is derived from any of the following sources:

• wind
• solar thermal sources
• photovoltaic cells and panels
• dedicated crops grown for energy production
• cellulosic agricultural residues
• plant residues
• methane from landfills or from wastewater treatment
• clean and untreated wood such as pallets
• hydropower (not including pumped storage) which does not require a new diversion or impoundment of water and that has a nameplate rating of 10 megawatts or less (no new dams - ed)
  
• fuel cells using hydrogen produced by one of the above named energy sources
  
• and other sources of energy, not including nuclear, which become available after the effective date of this section and which are certified as renewable by rule by the department (of natural resources)
  

That is a fun list It does not include geothermal. I guess since that "takes" heat from the earth it is not renewable. Funny, however, that geothermal is listed by the SoS on the ballot, but not in the actual legal text. This is only for the purpose of generating electricity. Hence, it really appears that we're supposed to burn methane or ethanol for power generation? Oh, goodie.

Second let me note the time frames involved and the amount of energy required from renewable sources. From the text:

• No less than 4 percent for calendar years 2012 through 2014.
• No less than 8 percent for calendar years 2015 through 2019.
• No less than 11 percent for each calendar year beginning 2020.

Let me ask a few questions. 4 percent of what? Instantaneous power consumption? Average power consumption? Averaged over what time period. Minute? Hour? Day? The other factor here is what does this mean in practical terms. How many MWh are used daily/weekly/monthly/annually in the state. That will give us an idea of what 4% actually represents. Is that an entire generating plant? Part of one? What about 8%? What about 11%? What does this actually mean when President-elect Obama wants to put 1.5M plug-in hybrid vehicles on the road by 2012? What sort of additional power would the percentage of those vehicles here require?

Next, the text defines a "Renewable Energy Credit" (REC) as a certificate of proof that 1MHh has been generated using one of the methods identified above. The utilities in MO encompassed by this statute *cough*Ameren*cough* would have to either generate the required power from renewable sources or purchase RECs in the appropriate amount from either instate or out of state suppliers. As an incentive, each 1MWh generated by the company would count at 1.25MWh against the total requirement above.

Now, the kicker. The company can only raise retail rates by a maximum of 1% per year based on cost factors, generation factors, and presumably a host of other criteria. 1%. Cool. Nice way to put a power company out of business, idiots. If they can't recover their own costs and can't pass them on, the balance sheet will quickly go negative. Practically speaking, then the company must raise rates quite a bit before this takes effect in 2012 so that the 1% annual upward adjustment is something they can handle. In fact, Obama may help them quite a bit here. Since he wants to demonize coal and since a significant fraction of MO power is generated using coal, the cost of coal may well increase substantially, thereby making these currently expensive, alternative energy sources "comparable". Hang on to your wallets.

Then, the DNR must set up rules by which it certifies what constitutes a renewable energy source. It is one which does not cause undue air, water or land use impacts, including impacts associated with the gathering of generation feedstocks. So, we can use switchgrass, but can't use a tractor to harvest it. I have pictures of some of those old Soviet posters proclaiming the virtues of the farming collective in mind.

Finally, there is one amusing item in here, which demonstrates the utter cluelessness of the people writing this text. If the company does not comply and is not able to comply (unless through circumstances beyond their control), they can be assessed a penalty. This is the text of interest: Penalties shall not be recovered from customers. ROTFL. Um, excuse me, but for a business a penalty (or tax, same thing) is a cost and by definition is passed on to their customers. To state otherwise is to try to defy the laws of economics.

So, what is the likely effect of this law. Well, MO is an unlikely site for solar or wind, so that really only leaves the other renewable sources. I doubt geothermal on a mass generation scale will work here either. That leaves the biomass options. Consider how much biomass would be required to generate 11% of the entire MO electric load and that is a large number. I would venture to guess that it might actually require dedicated acreage which exceeds the currently airable land currently under cultivation, but would need to look at the actual current usage as well as the amount of biomass required for each unit making up the 11% portion. If, as I suspect, we are unable to meet that threshold using biomass, that would require the purchase of energy from other states, possibly competing for those resources. If that is the case, those costs must be passed on to the consumer. CA tried this sort of nonsense a few years ago and got themselves into a world of hurt. They tried to regulate the consumer side, but not the wholesale side, and as a result, ended up with rolling blackouts and worse, not to mention a nice $5B debt.

One possible way out is if solar becomes feasible for the average homeowner. Then, roof-mounted panels could generate enough power to be sold back into the grid, or could remove, partially, some homes from the grid. That should be able to be counted, but given the way this is worded above, such individual effort probably would not count against this requirement.

In short, I have trouble believing that the people who wrote this really understood anything about business, but have never in fact worked even for a minute in the private sector (perhaps other than to collect a paycheck, which is about the only thing collectivists seem to do well.)

MO voters will regret this in future years when it really starts to bite. Hopefully, by then, it can be repealed. It should be.

Labels: missouri law

Well, my company has instituted a new blogging policy and as long as I don't mention the company name, I'm good. I'll try blogging some again, now that the 2008 presidential election is over. It should be a "fun" 4 years.