• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

2 Million Without Power in the Southwest

Nuclear power is not some monster. It can be run quite safely.

Very true.

But the real answer is to start building homes and businesses that are much more energy efficient and energy producing. Buildings should be built to be as energy efficient as possible, including ensuring that they are well suited for the environment they are in. And we should be considering adding both solar panels and small wind turbines (where practical) to all buildings to try to create as much environmentally driven power for individual buildings as possible. This would greatly cut back on how much power is used from power plants and even help people when these things happen. People would be able to power their own houses, at least partly, without relying completely on the power plants.

It's not new construction that's the problem. It's the older homes and buildings. Especially in the Northeast where many of our buildings still date from the 18th and 19th centuries and are still in use today.

Micro-generation comes with a couple of concerns for me. The first is a practicality issue.... how much are people going to spend compared to how much they get back out of it.

The second is a safety issue.... The last thing an electric worker wants to hear when he/she drives into an area with an outage is a generator. At least those can be heard. These new micro-generation systems may not be audible from the street. "So What?" you say.... well an improperly installed generator (as probably 70% of them are), can backfeed into the electrical grid and cause a potential hazard to that worker as they try to restore power.
 
So you're willing to see the current $0.16/KwH average rate in America go to $0.80/KwH (or more)? You're also willing to see a new Nuclear Plant built in your home town? You're willing to have a SmartMeter installed in your home and the SmartGrid system activated on all distribution feeders?

Wow, you're a lot more willing to give in than I am (and I work for a utility company)

You make a lot of assumptions.

I would cut a lot of red tape and build the plants publicly and privately. My preference is nuclear; thorium if possible. And yes, I would very much like to have one in my home town. We need the jobs, and America needs the electricity.

Where we differ, I suppose, is that I would support the government building and running it, if necessary.
 
I would cut a lot of red tape and build the plants publicly and privately. My preference is nuclear; thorium if possible. And yes, I would very much like to have one in my home town. We need the jobs, and America needs the electricity.

You better have a might hefty set of shears if you're going to cut THAT MUCH red tape. I have no problem with nuclear power. I grew up around several such plants and my father worked security at one for several years. The problem is that you and I are the exceptions, not the rule. The general population has a NIMBY mentality and is not likely to change any time soon.


Where we differ, I suppose, is that I would support the government building and running it, if necessary.

As for the grid becoming government run.... We just had a hurricane here in New England that took a week to get everyone back online. If this was a government operation we'd STILL have people without power another week later. We may be inefficient and poorly run now, but a government takeover of the grid would be among the worst things that could happen to this industry.
 
Very true.



It's not new construction that's the problem. It's the older homes and buildings. Especially in the Northeast where many of our buildings still date from the 18th and 19th centuries and are still in use today.

Micro-generation comes with a couple of concerns for me. The first is a practicality issue.... how much are people going to spend compared to how much they get back out of it.

The second is a safety issue.... The last thing an electric worker wants to hear when he/she drives into an area with an outage is a generator. At least those can be heard. These new micro-generation systems may not be audible from the street. "So What?" you say.... well an improperly installed generator (as probably 70% of them are), can backfeed into the electrical grid and cause a potential hazard to that worker as they try to restore power.

To your first question, solar is at about 7 years payoff for a grid tied system that has at least a 20 year effective life. Micro-hydro and small wind are much less. But require adequate wind or access to year round running water.

As to safety, the grid tied system my friends are going to get later this year includes a mandated grid cutout in case of a blackout, to prevent backfeed. Electrical worker safety IS a major concern in regards to distributed generation, but its not a reason to fight it as electrical generation companies have.
 
As to safety, the grid tied system my friends are going to get later this year includes a mandated grid cutout in case of a blackout, to prevent backfeed. Electrical worker safety IS a major concern in regards to distributed generation, but its not a reason to fight it as electrical generation companies have.

Except that in way too many cases we (the electric company) find that people have installed these generators and things without providing the proper notifications to us and do not have the proper interconnections (the cutout you mentioned). Additionally, depending on the size of the generation, there may be items on our side of the interconnection that we require, and which the customer is required to pay for.

Obviously we're talking a different scale, but when the wind turbine went up in Worcester, MA a couple years ago they paid over $1,000,000 of interconnection fees in order for us to do the upgrades necessary to interconnect with that turbine. I would guess that a small generator who wants to get the benefits of selling power back into the grid is going to be looking at somewhere between $20-50,000 of interconnection costs that THEY will have to eat.
 
You better have a might hefty set of shears if you're going to cut THAT MUCH red tape. I have no problem with nuclear power. I grew up around several such plants and my father worked security at one for several years. The problem is that you and I are the exceptions, not the rule. The general population has a NIMBY mentality and is not likely to change any time soon.




As for the grid becoming government run.... We just had a hurricane here in New England that took a week to get everyone back online. If this was a government operation we'd STILL have people without power another week later. We may be inefficient and poorly run now, but a government takeover of the grid would be among the worst things that could happen to this industry.



I'd say not expanding the grid to meet future demand would be pretty bad, as well. Waiting until it's profitable to do so may not be an option.
 
I'd say not expanding the grid to meet future demand would be pretty bad, as well. Waiting until it's profitable to do so may not be an option.

These are private companies. When the individual states refuse to allow these companies to raise rates sufficiently to do maintenance in preparation for the future, these companies are not going to do so. I know that's the way it works in the company I work for. We've literally told the regulators that we will ONLY do the work that they allow us to collect payment for through the rates. If they only allow us X amount in the rate case, then we're only going to do X amount of maintenance unless it's emergency.
 
Except that in way too many cases we (the electric company) find that people have installed these generators and things without providing the proper notifications to us and do not have the proper interconnections (the cutout you mentioned). Additionally, depending on the size of the generation, there may be items on our side of the interconnection that we require, and which the customer is required to pay for.

Obviously we're talking a different scale, but when the wind turbine went up in Worcester, MA a couple years ago they paid over $1,000,000 of interconnection fees in order for us to do the upgrades necessary to interconnect with that turbine. I would guess that a small generator who wants to get the benefits of selling power back into the grid is going to be looking at somewhere between $20-50,000 of interconnection costs that THEY will have to eat.

I am aware of the dangers, I had friends when I was living up north who did high tension work. Helicopters and the whole bit.

And the whole house systems my friends are looking at run in the 25-30k range for everything. The principle to grid tied isn't to become a net energy provider but to eliminate the hassles and expense of maintaining battery banks, the bane of my off grid friends' existence. (Not really a bane, more luke a constant, low grade pain in the ass.
 
These are private companies. When the individual states refuse to allow these companies to raise rates sufficiently to do maintenance in preparation for the future, these companies are not going to do so. I know that's the way it works in the company I work for. We've literally told the regulators that we will ONLY do the work that they allow us to collect payment for through the rates. If they only allow us X amount in the rate case, then we're only going to do X amount of maintenance unless it's emergency.

So you're willing to see the current $0.16/KwH average rate in America go to $0.80/KwH (or more)?

looks like, according to you, it's a rate increase either way. i'd prefer an expanded grid for that money. if it means building the infrastructure publicly, so be it.

where we agree is probably the cutting of red tape. in a growing nation, there are going to be electrical facilities near some people. make them as safe as possible. and yes, as i previously stated, i would volunteer my own town. what i'm not willing to do is wait until it's too late and a company decides they might finally be able to sell the idea to shareholders.
 
looks like, according to you, it's a rate increase either way. i'd prefer an expanded grid for that money. if it means building the infrastructure publicly, so be it.

The cost to upgrade the grid is going to be there, no matter what. The thing that people tend to forget is that electricity is a regulated utility, but not owned by the government; which means these companies are caught between the shareholders and the regulators (two completely opposing interests). Public ownership of utilities is a rather expensive and potentially problematic undertaking. Are towns that can't maintain their snow plowing budgets going to be able to operate their own electric companies?

where we agree is probably the cutting of red tape. in a growing nation, there are going to be electrical facilities near some people. make them as safe as possible. and yes, as i previously stated, i would volunteer my own town. what i'm not willing to do is wait until it's too late and a company decides they might finally be able to sell the idea to shareholders.

One other factor to remember.... Very few places in this country does one company own the electrical system from cradle to grave. The Federal and State regulators generally try to ensure that no one company owns the Generation, Transmission, and Distribution assets in any one area. That makes it even more difficult to do many of these upgrades because it requires multiple companies getting onboard to do it.
 
The cost to upgrade the grid is going to be there, no matter what. The thing that people tend to forget is that electricity is a regulated utility, but not owned by the government; which means these companies are caught between the shareholders and the regulators (two completely opposing interests). Public ownership of utilities is a rather expensive and potentially problematic undertaking. Are towns that can't maintain their snow plowing budgets going to be able to operate their own electric companies?

it would have to be done federally. my grandfather was an engineer who worked under the REA. had that been left to the "free market," many areas would not have had access to electricity until many decades later, if ever.

some vital utilities may not be efficiently delivered by for-profit companies. interstate highways and the electrical grid are two excellent examples.
 
it would have to be done federally. my grandfather was an engineer who worked under the REA. had that been left to the "free market," many areas would not have had access to electricity until many decades later, if ever.

some vital utilities may not be efficiently delivered by for-profit companies. interstate highways and the electrical grid are two excellent examples.

So you think the Government can provide electricity MORE efficiently and for a LOWER cost? Ummm.... you have seen that the USPS is going out of business, right? You have noticed that we have a massive debt problem, right? You have noticed the government bureaucracy is a standard for everything wrong, right? What makes you think government electricity would be any different?
 
So you think the Government can provide electricity MORE efficiently and for a LOWER cost?

government is more likely to build infrastructure where there might not be an immediate profit motive to do so.

Ummm.... you have seen that the USPS is going out of business, right? You have noticed that we have a massive debt problem, right?

yes. and that's an excellent argument for reallocation of funds and increased revenue in the form of taxes to address the debt problem and infrastructure. as for the postal service, it should be allowed to set its own first class rates, and it would be a good idea to stop requiring it to contribute more than is necessary for the pension fund, at least until it is solvent.

You have noticed the government bureaucracy is a standard for everything wrong, right?

no. and you arguing this would be like me arguing that the financial collapse is an absolute indictment of capitalism. i do believe that capitalism has a major role (and responsibility) in bringing prosperity to our nation, but i do not believe that capitalism must play the only role.

What makes you think government electricity would be any different?

because the market has not provided an adequate grid to meet our current needs, and it's not just because there wasn't enough deregulation. wide swaths of the country would still be under served by the grid due to low population density and low or non-existant potential for profit. the interstate highway system is a similar situation.

America is best served by an electrical grid with enough reserve to allow us to transition from oil to another fuel using electricity as the bridge. right now, we don't even have enough electricity to meet current demand in many areas. it has to change, and waiting for it to become profitable is not an option. energy is a national security issue, and it should be treated as such.
 
Think of the deaths this will cause in hospitals, nevermind in regular homes from heat loss, etc.

yeah, because it's getting cold as hell in that neck of the woods.
 
Back
Top Bottom