Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is Regulated Electricity Anti-Green?
PasadenaPundit.com ^ | April 28, 2005 | Wayne Lusvardi

Posted on 04/28/2005 10:14:20 AM PDT by WayneLusvardi

Is Regulated Electricity Anti-Green? Solar power makes more sense if electricity is market priced - the political ramifications of solar power

Severin Borenstein of the University of California Energy Institute has come up with a sophisticated study that proves common sense. Solar energy doesn't make much economic sense in a system where the retail price of electricity is socialized (i.e., costs averaged over every hour of the day per season and then spread across all customers or classes of customers) such as in California. But if electricity was real time priced by the hour of the day, as is being currently considered in San Diego by SDG&E, then solar power would make more economic sense because it generates most power during peak load hours on hot sunny days.

Electricity can't be stored like water or natural gas. It takes only 1/10th of a second for electricity to get to your house from Hoover Dam or from a coal plant in Utah for instance. This causes the price of electricity to fluctuate rapidly based on time of day, season, etc. California's electricity demands can be envisioned as two concentric circles. On "non-peak" days the demand for electricity can be reflected by a small circle that "pulses" or expands and contracts according to the time of day. However, on "peak" days the demand for electricity can be reflected by a much larger outer circle that also expands and contracts following peak hour loads. Thus California has to have energy plants that generate non-peak power and have reserve capacity to generate peak time power; or have what are called "peaker plants" that generate power only during peak days and hours. Or it must import power from out of state, typically from hydropower plants along the Columbia River in the State of Washington. However, if cheap hydropower is not available due to a drought as has happened recently, energy producers must shift to natural gas to generate power which causes the price of natural gas to spike. Peaker plant power is very expensive compared to non-peak power. We, the customers, never feel these price shocks because the retail price is "regulated" or averaged across all customers. However, if electricity was real time priced then solar would make more sense than paying for expensive reserve or "peak" power.

One of the major impediments to solar power is that it still requires a backup conventional power plant in the event the sun doesn't shine. So the real price of solar power must include the cost of redundant power plants. However, if electricity was real time priced solar power becomes potentially competitive. If I remember correctly, there are typically only about 20 to 30 peak load days in California.

Most political liberals are afraid of anything to do with "markets" and electricity. Much of the rationale for electricity regulation is to regulate the retail price so that customers don't have to suffer from real time price shocks experienced at the wholesale level. Thus, there is political capital and votes to be "bought" in electricity regulation. Shifting to a real time pricing system for electricity would thus have to overcome this entrenched political obstacle. Politicians won't give up socialized electricity pricing easily. But oddly, real time pricing would be friendly to "green power" while the conventional socialized pricing system would not. This might create a schism between environmentalists on one hand and entrenched political interests on the other hand. So we ultimately must ask the question: has the status quo of socialized retail electricity pricing system really been the culprit that has been holding back the adoption of "green power" all along?

Below is the link to Borenstein's study which can be downloaded as a PDF file.

University of California Energy Institute CSEM WP-142 Valuing the Time-Varying Electricity Production of Solar Photovoltaic Cells Severin Borenstein Download this paper in Adobe Acrobat format: http://www.ucei.berkeley.edu/PDF/csemwp142.pdf


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; US: California
KEYWORDS: calpowercrisis; electricity; energy; environment; govwatch; regulation; solar; solarpower

1 posted on 04/28/2005 10:14:22 AM PDT by WayneLusvardi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: WayneLusvardi

Free-market to decide if we prefer fossil fuels, solar power, or nuclear power? I think it's a great idea.


2 posted on 04/28/2005 10:18:04 AM PDT by MacDorcha (Where Rush dares not tread, there are the Freepers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WayneLusvardi
As I recall, some company named Enron tried to do this very thing with a commodity called "broadband" many years ago.

Whatever happened to that company?

3 posted on 04/28/2005 10:21:12 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws help fund terrorism. DEA agents will not keep your children safe from drugs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WayneLusvardi

Making energy more affordable is counterintuitive to the Green's cause, which is to strangle evil America's prosperity.


4 posted on 04/28/2005 10:34:20 AM PDT by Jaysun (Why can't we list "the government" as a dependent on our taxes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WayneLusvardi
However much I agree with time-of-day pricing, you are in need of an an engineering primer on solar power.

Whether solar is economically viable is likely to be situational. For example, the economic viability of solar electricity in rural areas would improve if stationary fuel cell generators ran on propane negating the need for batteries to cover night time. The combination would eliminate expensive line maintenance costs where trees are a constant problem (about $1000 per year per parcel in some places).

5 posted on 04/28/2005 10:44:10 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are REALLY stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MacDorcha
Free-market to decide if we prefer fossil fuels, solar power, or nuclear power? I think it's a great idea.

If and only if each technology incorporates an objectively determined charge into the price of the good to mitigate the risks and externalities (both positive and negative) associated with its use.

6 posted on 04/28/2005 10:46:45 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are REALLY stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: WayneLusvardi

I've read a few articles in Home Power magazine about people who went the solar electric route and were able to get a time-of-day meter for both their own use and what they sold back to the utility. The price for peak vs off-peak on that meter was a multiple of two or three.


7 posted on 04/28/2005 11:16:17 AM PDT by jiggyboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WayneLusvardi

I think that consumers should have the option to "buy" electricity from whichever source they want. A household could choose solar, wind, hydro, fossil, etc and pay a rate based upon their decision. That money would then be used to develop those sources of electicity.

This would allow environmentalists to put their money where their mouth is.


8 posted on 04/28/2005 11:51:14 AM PDT by TheMightyQuinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach


9 posted on 04/28/2005 1:03:04 PM PDT by Libertarianize the GOP (Make all taxes truly voluntary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Hence "Free-market"


10 posted on 04/28/2005 2:32:15 PM PDT by MacDorcha (Where Rush dares not tread, there are the Freepers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: WayneLusvardi
But if electricity was real time priced by the hour of the day, as is being currently considered in San Diego by SDG&E, then solar power would make more economic sense because it generates most power during peak load hours on hot sunny days.

It will also be expensive as all hell since the price mechanism will be "liberally" used to allocate scarce supplies.

11 posted on 04/28/2005 2:38:51 PM PDT by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MacDorcha
There are ways to incorporate the balance of risks and externalities into the price of goods. It would however require decontrol of the insurance industry as well as serious tort reform.
12 posted on 04/28/2005 3:19:38 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are REALLY stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: WayneLusvardi
Electricity can't be stored like water or natural gas.

There's hydro plants that have auxilliary reservoirs that are used for exactly that. The use off peak surplus power to fill the reservoirs, and then release it to power the turbines during peak hours.

13 posted on 04/28/2005 3:26:17 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson