HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » kristopher » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

kristopher

Profile Information

Member since: Fri Dec 19, 2003, 02:20 AM
Number of posts: 29,798

Journal Archives

Maybe you're onto something...

The situation seems to be one where there is a series of papers, written by professional staff at a high level of expertise, reviewed and contributed to by an array of involved major industrial organizations and various stakeholders specializing in the field.

The number of highly qualified professionals involved in the production of this policy and paper is very high.

You say they've made a fundamental lexical error in spite of the fact that they define their usage with precise, unambiguous language on the first page of the document being adopted.

I thought it was just a matter of laziness towards reading combined with a preference for disruption over discussion, but after reading your post 25, I'll admit you raise a real possibility I hadn't considered.

The Official Explanation for the German Energy Transition

The Official Explanation for the German Energy Transition

America's Power Plan
October 28, 2013

...Another side of the coin is what the politicians think of the energiewende. Critics abroad seem convinced that German leaders will come to their senses and change course on energy. Based on what the leaders say in their official documents, these critics are likely to be disappointed.

First, some background. There are two federal ministries responsible for energy, the Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) and the Ministry of Economics and Technology (BMWi). Until the recent election these were headed by Peter Altmaier and Peter Rosler. (Rosler has resigned due his party's loss in the recent election.)

With near unanimous support, the German parliament adopted legislation in 2010 that sets ambitious targets for carbon reductions, renewable energy and energy efficiency, and commits to a phase-out of nuclear power. According to Altmaier, the environment minister for the Merkel Administration, “this is unprecedented and brings to an end decades of public debate in Germany.”

While much international attention is paid to the rapid growth of solar energy and the phaseout of nuclear power, the legislation is a comprehensive energy policy, covering transportation, heat, and electricity use across the whole economy.



Much more at: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2013/10/the-official-explanation-for-the-german-energy-transition?cmpid=BioNL-Tuesday-October29-2013

Or you could just be civil...

I suppose, then, that it's back to the beginning again. I strongly urge anyone still reading to review the thread.

After reading the wrong document (post 8) you clearly stated that the CPUC was making the "same mistake" that the uninformed "technical" journalist had made (post 15). You tried to backtrack with a qualifier, but you are clearly stating that the CPUC document is wrong and, by implication, that the people who wrote it are less informed than you.

Perhaps you should worry less about tossing snark at other DUers and more about simply reading with comprehension and accuracy, for the CPUC docs are actually very clear when they define that in this document, "MW represents the peak power capacity of the storage resource in terms of the maximum discharge rate". (pg 1, APPENDIX A)

Appendix A, btw, is the document actually being adopted.

The CPUC is issuing a policy that "prescribes" the purchase of a certain amount of storage. For their purposes it isn't necessary to define that storage in terms of amount delivered over time. I explained why in post 10, but you chose to call that "techno-garfel" rather than consider that you were off-target.

I then gave examples to demonstrate why the time element of the storage to be purchased isn't predictable enough for a prescriptive approach to be used at this stage. One important goal of the policy is "cost effectiveness". There would be severe negative impacts to that if they tried to determine in advance the hours of storage involved in all of the different applications.

I see from your continued nervous snark that you understand specifying the time dimension would be a ridiculous approach to pursue but that is what your criticism is about - they chose to use the faceplate peak power capacity of the resources being purchased rather than get into the depth of delivery that might suit each of those resources best.

I posed legitimate questions related to the actual policy under discussion.

That would contrast sharply with your contributions to the thread. You have asserted (from "reading" the wrong document) that the California Public Utility Commission doesn't know the difference between energy and power based on the fact that they specified an amount of storage based on the peak power capacity of the storage resource in terms of the maximum discharge rate. Now that you are faced with germane questions that put your claim in doubt, you want to flee the scene.

Before you go, please tell us, how much energy "should" an EV battery store?

Or how about a home, commercial or industrial storage system? Is there a specific number of watt/hours they should each be expected to deliver, and if so, how many hours are going to be optimal in order to reach the cost effectiveness goal that is a central feature of the policy?

I mean, if they already have the knowledge that allows them to prescribe the best size for each storage medium, then why are they even doing this?

Nuke builder demands more money from Finland

Areva ups Olkiluoto compensation demand

The French-German nuclear contractor Areva-Siemens has increased its demand for compensation over an abandoned deal to provide the third reactor at the Olkiluoto nuclear power plant. The company is now demanding a total of 2.6 billion euros in compensation—an increase of 700 million euros on its previous demand.

The legal disputes around the third reactor set to be built at Olkiluoto in Eurajoki have taken a new turn. Both the Finnish consortium Teollisuuden Voima (TVO) and Areva-Siemens are demanding compensation from the other party.

The project has been delayed by at least seven years from its original start date of 2009, and the builder Areva-Siemens and the customer TVO have traded accusations as each tries to blame the other party.

TVO announced on Tuesday that Areva had updated its arbitration claim with an increased demand for compensation. The sum is now 2.6 billion euros—700 million euros more than originally claimed....


http://yle.fi/uutiset/areva_ups_olkiluoto_compensation_demand/6907271

A nuclear plant that's 7 years behind schedule and currently at 300% + original cost estimate in a country that has no "antinuke" forces to deal with.

This project was to be a flagship operation for the nuclear industry - they said it would be a transparent case study in how the 'modern' nuclear industry could deliver on-time and on-budget when the regulatory regime was working with them.

I'd say they've done a spectacular job of showing the world exactly that.

For background on this clusterf*&k see wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant

US Homeowners Want Solar, Find Two New Reports

US Homeowners Want Solar, Find Two New Reports

Chris Meehan
October 28, 2013

<snip>

Market Strategies’ report, released on Oct. 16, is based on 1,001 interviews conducted in June of 2013. The survey and the resulting E2 (Energy & Environment) report found that interest in residential solar energy installations is stronger and broader than expected. That includes when homeowners are informed that the average PV system still costs about $30,000, Market Strategies said. “With few exceptions, this interest is strong across virtually all age and income groups,” the company found. “A majority of respondents across every income group continued to show interest, even low-income households with incomes under $25,000.”

Overall, Market Strategies found that 61 percent or respondents were 'somewhat' or 'very interested' in purchasing and installing a home solar system. The response was most favorable (75 percent) among the youngest age group —18 to 34 year olds — while 66 percent of those between the ages of 35 and 54 were interested. Consumers over 55 years old were least interested with only 46 percent showing interest.

The CAP report (released Oct. 21), “Solar Power to the People: The Rise of Rooftop Solar Among the Middle Class” based its results on who has installed solar in three of the U.S.’s top markets: Arizona, California and New Jersey, and used U.S. Census data to determine median household incomes for each zip code. In all, it looked at more than 100,000 solar homes installed from as early as 2002.

As suggested by the title, CAP’s report found the highest among middle-class homeowners. “Through our analysis of solar installation data from Arizona, California, and New Jersey, we found that these installations are overwhelmingly occurring in middle-class neighborhoods that have median incomes ranging from $40,000 to $90,000,” the report stated. “The areas that experienced the most growth from 2011 to 2012 had median incomes ranging from $40,000 to $50,000 in both Arizona and California and $30,000 to $40,000 in New Jersey.”

“Rooftop solar has become an important energy resource for the middle class,” said report author ...


http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2013/10/us-homeowners-want-solar-find-two-new-reports?cmpid=SolarNL-Tuesday-October29-2013

California's Public Utility Commission doesn't know the difference between energy and power?



Riiiiiiiiiiight.

How does prescribing the depth of capacity assist the CPUC effort?

You are showing your true self yet again.

Tell us, how much energy "should" an EV battery store? Or how about a home, commercial or industrial storage system? Is there a specific number of watt/hours they should each be expected to deliver, and if so, how many hours are going to be optimal in order to reach the cost effectiveness goal that is a central feature of the policy?

I mean, if they already have the knowledge that allows them to prescribe the best size for each storage medium, then why are they even doing this?

The document (PDF) PP referred to is from the CPUC

In other words, you think you are correct but you aren't even reading the correct document.

Well, at least that is consistent with your prior efforts here.

So you think of CPUC documents as "technical journalism"?

And that the California Public Utility Commission doesn't understand the difference between power and energy?

I don't think you are correct.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next »