download Skype
|
Energy Interest Conspiracy or Negligence from Politicians?
From many sources it has been voiced accusations of a dark master plan from the energy interests. It has also been voiced that the Californian politicians has shown negligence by not accepting over-charges and price hikes. It is difficult to accept any of the accusations, if you have the slightest knowledge about the root of the problems. We would like to make the following points,
- It is true that the problems were predicted around 15 years ago, but not taken seriously. The prognoses from the energy industry based on growth trends and the ones based on engineering principles did both point to the current situation. They confirmed each other, both on what was going on and why it was going on and as such well defined. The knowledge was however concerns by a small circle of people and not taken seriously by the general community. It was widely published and in the public domain. Any community could have acted on it, if they so choose. Ignorance and false beliefs are rarely a good basis for a working master plan, since that can change too quickly.
- Foremost it is an engineering problem and if any industry should take the blame, it is the design community, the equipment producers and the consumers. The energy interests can only be accused of passivity in a situation that at the time worked in their favor. It is only lately that they are coming out to defend "status quo" on the consumption side, also because it is favorable for them in short term. They have a situation of support on the executive side of the government and want to make the most of it. Lobbying and political "quit for pro" is a common practise in the US, who is otherwise violently against bribery on individual level. This situations could not be foreseen and are therefore not to be considered as a possible part of a master plan.
- The politicians are not educated engineers, neither are they specialists on energy questions. They are often guided by experts and have to make the judgement of the quality of the advices. If they act, they have to take the responsibility for their judgement and trust in the advisers. This is the system of democracy and the responsibility for the representatives of the people. It is very easy to understand that the judgement could have been that the consumption would be much lower and that the effects of peak demand much lesser. The real facts are, that it is a lot of more energy saving to do and it is possible to reduce peak demands in a dramatic way. The philosophy to have a clearing system and buy excess energy from out of state is not only feasible, it is also cost efficient. This can however only be done if the demands are reasonable and within certain limits. Ultimately the people are responsible at the ballot box. If the advices are coherent with commonly used practices or estimates on possible achievements, it is very hard to see that it could be a master plan. The commonly used practises might not work with the estimates or might even be faulty.
- The root of the problem is that common calculations and design principles are based on very rough simplifications and steady state conditions. Old knowledge, developed through hundreds years of experience, has during a few decades been replaced by principles that are based on constant temperature and that the energy needed always is proportional to the temperature difference outside - inside. A change in design, dimensioning and control philosophies, can produce spectacular results in energy saving and especially on peak demands. If the thermal mass of the building structure is utilized to even out indoor temperature fluctuations and move excess energy from day to night, from one day to the next or from periods of warm weather to colder ones. This is what always has taken place in buildings before technology made it possible to maintain any desired constant indoor temperature by a prompt supply or extraction of energy. The implementations of such changes in philosophies are bound to happen. The timing of it is so difficult to estimate or control, that it would be nearly impossible to use in a master plan.
- Statistics shows that the Californians are very good on energy conservation, with a per capita consumption of only 60% of the national average. They have an electricity production that are more or less balanced with consumption on a yearly basis. Their closest neighbors have a large surplus of electricity on a yearly basis. It is therefore understandable that they thought that they could buy excess energy from outside. It is a little naive and only shows the lack of understanding of the dynamics in peak demands. Since all are using the same design principles and operating policies with the same flaws, the neighbors will have limited resources to sell at peak demands. It might be a need of an update and upgrade of energy resources, but the risk is that it will be a very big surplus in the region, once the major flaws on the consumer side are corrected. This situation is not very likely a part of a master plan.
The conclusion is that the causes for the crises are to complex to even believe that it is a result of any type of Conspiracy. It involves too many interests and too many disciplines to be managed. It is however many misconceptions, ignorance and finger pointing. It is too little practical solutions and actions.
© Copyright energysavingnow.com 2000.
© Copyrights to Software @ this site
|
|
BIOFUELS ASIA
conference
2008 - 27th-28th March 2008,
Thailand
Energy Savings in
UK
Energy Savings in
USA
"Disturbed children"
and
"Grumpy old men".
|
