January 10, 2011 - Ballville Dam removal; Lake Erie wind

As many dams in America are approaching their centenary years, dam owners face pressures to maintain or upgrade their infrastructure to comply with safety or environmental regulations - or else face dam removal.  Located outside Fremont, Ohio, the Ballville Dam now faces this choice.

Constructed in 1911, the Ballville Dam was built on the Sandusky River about a dozen miles upstream from Lake Erie to impound and direct water into a downstream hydroelectric station.  The dam is 34.4 feet high and over 300 feet long.  In 1946, the downstream hydroelectric facility ceased generation.  In 1959, the city of Fremont bought the Ballville dam for water supply.  In the ensuing 50 years, issues including upkeep and maintenance costs for the dam led the city to create an alternative reservoir to replace the dam.  The dam has been implicated in fish passage problems, and its removal is anticipated to open up over 22 miles of habitat to gamefish like walleye.  The dam has also been implicated in problems with ice jams above Fremont.  All this, without a revenue stream from the dam, has led Fremont to work towards dam removal.  Fremont has since won approximately $6 million dollars in grant funding to support dam removal, which is slated for summer 2011.


If the dam is removed, large amounts of backed up sediment - including a contaminant burden of heavy metals and polyaromatic hydrocarbons - will either come with it or be swept downstream into Lake Erie.  A report suggests 350,000 cubic meters of sediment may need to be removed to establish the channel of the Sandusky River through the impoundment.  However, the report suggests that the sediment pollutant concentrations are less than or equal to those in existing Lake Erie sediment, and thus that mixing with the lake would dilute any effects.

Interestingly, the Ballville Dam has faced trouble before.  Two years after its construction, the dam failed due to poor anchoring into the sediment, causing serious flooding in Fremont.  Today's dam was rebuilt using a stronger foundation. In 1913, the dam served a useful purpose: supporting the nearby hydroelectric station.  In 2011, without that support for hydroelectric generation, will the Ballville Dam be removed?

Meanwhile, on Lake Erie, the Lake Erie Energy Development Corporation continues to make progress toward the nation's first inland offshore wind development: five wind turbines in state waters about 7 miles off Cleveland.  Great Lakes wind offers many of the advantages of both terrestrial and oceanic wind, while posing other challenges.  Will the Lake Erie project be the first to reach success?

January 7, 2011 - data center power demands

As the volume of digital data we create and consume increases, how much electricity is required to store, manage and analyze this information?  Smart grid technology has been described as relying on the "internet of things", a vision becoming real of constant real-time data communications between interconnected devices like home appliances, heating systems, and vehicles and the overall power grid.  This will represent a multifold increase in the volume of data being produced - and for those entities interested in analyzing that data, a likely increase in the volume of energy required to do so.

Even now, when smart grid communications are still a relatively small portion of the total volume of data flying around the country, it can take a surprisingly large amount of electricity to run a data storage and analysis center.  In Utah, the National Security Agency has just broken ground for its Utah Data Center, a complex enclosing about 1 million square feet of space, 100,000 square feet of which will be devoted to computer hardware.  Sen. Orrin Hatch has been quoted as describing the data center as creating 100 to 200 jobs for information technology specialists and engineers.  The NSA describes the data center as a component of the Comprehensive National Cyber-security Initiative designed to help the intelligence community meet domestic cyber-security requirements.

So how much power will the Utah Data Center consume?  Apparently up to 65 megawatts.  Indeed, the availability and cost of that much power was one factor behind the siting of the facility in Utah.  In 2006, the agency reportedly nearly consumed the entire free electric capacity of the Baltimore, Maryland power grid, causing the agency to look elsewhere for the installation of this new computing capacity.  The relatively low cost of energy in Utah may also have been attractive; the EIA reports that the September 2010 average all-sector electricity price in Utah was just 7.42 cents per kWh, significantly below the U.S. average of 10.24 cents per kWh for that time period, let alone costlier markets like Washington, D.C. (13.74 cents/kWh), California (15.27 cents/kWh), or Connecticut (17.26 cents/kWh).

As society generates more and more data, can we expect to see more and more data centers?  Will they consume more and more electricity?  Because data can be directed to any geographic location, does this place areas with less expensive power at a relative advantage for the economic development opportunities posed by data centers?

January 5, 2011 - Maine PUC opens smart meter investigation

Smart grid infrastructure has the potential to not only reduce the cost of electricity to consumers, but also to enable society to use energy more wisely.  Smart meter installation programs have been approved by FERC, and are moving forward in a number of utilities' service territories.  In Maine, Central Maine Power's $192 million Automated Metering Infrastructure (AMI) program was originally approved by the Maine Public Utilities Commission in February 2010 (Docket Number 2007-215).  The PUC approved the AMI program based on its benefits, including improving customer service, enhancing storm restoration efforts, and reducing both ratepayer and utility costs.  CMP secured a federal Department of Energy (DOE) grant to fund about half the cost of the AMI program.  Smart meters are now being installed in homes and businesses in CMP's territory, with over 50,000 already deployed in the field out of about 620,000 total meters to be installed.

Yet when it comes to the details of the rollout, concerns have been raised including the alleged lack of an opt-out for ratepayers who do not wish to be metered through smart meters.  Two separate ten-person complaints were filed to the PUC requesting an investigation of the AMI program (Docket Numbers 2010-345, and 2010-389).  This week, the Maine PUC voted unanimously to open an investigation of the issues raised, including both whether there truly is no opt-out, as well as whether such a lack of an opt-out would be “unreasonable, insufficient or unjustly discriminatory”.  The investigation may also include an evaluation of the availability and technical feasibility of alternative metering technologies that don't rely on wireless communications, as well as the cost implications of any such alternatives.

The formal order opening investigation should be issued shortly, with opportunities for public comment and participation.  Will the PUC find that the smart metering program is being implemented properly?  If smart metering brings public benefits to ratepayers, what should utilities do to educate the public about these benefits?

December 28, 2010 - a history of heating my house, and current economics

In the wake of yesterday's blizzard, I've been thinking about how we heat our homes.  At over 150 years old, my house has kept people dry and warm for quite some time.  Much of the house remains the same as it was originally, while other "new" systems like electricity and running water have been installed later in the house's history.  Its heating systems have likely been changed several times in those years.

[Photo: down by the docks on Monhegan Island, Maine.  A large cache of propane tanks rests just out of view on the right.  Propane provides a major part of Monhegan's space heating energy needs.]

When the house was built, its residents likely burned wood to keep warm.  The front room or parlor on the first floor had a fireplace, as did the bedroom above the parlor.   (These fireplaces are now bricked up, as the chimney they used is now dedicated to an oil furnace situated in the basement.)  Until 1885, wood was the dominant fuel used to heat homes in the U.S.  After 1885, wood was surpassed by coal as the dominant heating fuel in the U.S.  It isn't clear whether my house was ever heated by coal.

Today, my house has three primary heating systems: an oil furnace in the basement that feeds warm air to the first floor, a propane "decorative appliance" in the kitchen, and small amounts of electric heat (a baseboard in one room, and a portable heater).  How much does it cost for me to operate these resources?  How are my decisions affected by that cost structure?  What should I do differently?

A few data points:

The portable electric heater is rated at 1,500 W.  In one hour, it uses 1.5 kWh.  One kWh = 3,412 Btu.  Thus in one hour of maximal operation, the heater puts out 5,118 Btu of heat.  Over the past several years, I've paid an average of 15.5 cents per kWh delivered.  This means the portable electric heater costs 23.25 cents per hour of operation -- or yields 146 Btu per penny.

According to the Maine Office of Energy Independence and Security, oil in Maine is retailing for an average price of $2.98 per gallon as of 12/20/2010.  In general, a gallon of heating oil contains about 138,690 Btu.  This divides out to 465 Btu per penny assuming 100% efficiency - or 386 Btu per penny at a more realistic 83% efficiency.

The Maine OEIS reports that the statewide average for propane based on a use of 925 gallons a year is $2.74 per gallon.  Notably, a gallon of propane contains less usable energy than does a gallon of oil; a gallon of propane might contain 91,330 Btu.  This divides out to 333 Btu per penny assuming 100% efficiency.  Even assuming 80% efficiency, this yields 266 Btu per penny.

Compare wood, a fuel the house is no longer set up to burn.  Wood can be an imprecise fuel type, with great variability in both how much wood is really in a delivered cord, as well as in how many Btu are available per cord.  (It's supposed to be 128 cubic feet per cord, but in practice air spaces mean there is almost never that much wood in a cord.)  The EIA recommends a figure of 20,000,000 Btu per cord.  Prices vary widely, but $200 per cord isn't a bad price in Maine.  Using that figure, you get 1000 Btu per penny assuming 100% efficiency, or 800 Btu per penny at a more reasonable 80% efficiency.  This makes wood seem like an attractive option.

Btu per penny may not be the only factor I consider in allocating my heating burden across these fuel sources.  For example, I can set the portable electric heater up anywhere in the house, while the oil-based warm air system is permanently installed in the first floor of the house.  Wood may appear economical, but without further capital investment (in a wood stove) is unavailable as a heating source.  Still, this look at the history of the house is illustrative.  What did previous owners spend on heating?  What fuels did they use?  Do we pay more today to heat our house than they did in 1860?  Are we more comfortable today than was the house's first owner?

December 27, 2010 - REC price crash in Australia

A renewable energy credit or certificate (either way, a REC), represents the renewable attributes associated with a particular megawatt-hour of generation. REC markets are one tool states use to incent the development of renewable generation capacity.  RECs are designed to be additive to other energy products.  This means that the revenue stream a project owner reaps from RECs is on top of the energy and capacity values of its project.  The philosophy behind this policy incentive is that because renewable projects are socially desirable but tend to demand greater revenue streams - and revenue certainty - than do other traditional projects.  (This may not be universally true across the board of all renewable projects, but is generally accepted as the primary policy explanation for RECs.)  Developers can either sell RECs into the spot market at a floating market-based price, or secure long-term contracts to sell the RECs at a specified price fixed in the agreement.

[Photo: a view toward Acadia from the backside of Great Cranberry Island, Maine.]

What happens when REC prices crash?  A look at Australia's REC market is illustrative.  Under Australia's Renewable Energy Target law, load-serving entities must ramp up REC purchases toward a target of 20% renewable by 2020.  RECs are awarded to generators for every MWh of renewable power produced in excess of a regulatory baseline established by the Office of Renewable Energy Regulator.  As in other markets, REC value is determined by supply and demand.  Throughout 2010, RECs have generally been between $35 and $45 (in Australian dollars).  Prices of at least $45-$50 are seen as necessary to support the development of new wind in Australia.

Today, Australian REC prices are below $30.  Analysts point to the glut of REC supply created from broad acceptance of small-scale residential and commercial solar panels funded through government subsidy, which caused the utility-scale market to tank.  Australian RECs may still have been serving a purpose - supporting widespread rooftop solar - but are no longer functioning to incent the development of large-scale wind farms, something they were broadly expected to do.  Indeed, companies placed large bets on the continued value of the REC market.  For example, Australia's largest renewable baseload generator, NSW Sugar Milling Co-operative, faces receivership unless the REC price nearly doubles.

So what to do?  Australia is in the midst of restructuring its REC markets to carve out small-scale RECs as a separate market with a $40 fixed price, while simultaneously restoring the (government-mandated) demand for large-scale RECs.  Will this bring the large-scale REC market back to life?

December 22, 2010 - Ocean thermal energy conversion

As any sailor knows, the Earth's oceans are enormous and powerful. About seventy percent of the Earth’s surface is covered by its oceans. These oceans contain vast amounts of energy - many times more than is consumed by mankind. Through the confluence of water's physical properties and natural energy dynamics, combined with a considerable amount of technology, much of this energy can be harnessed. Whether or not it is cost-effective is dependent on the specifics of each project and its technology, as well as whether any governmental incentives or subsidies exist.

A summer view from the dock at Great Cranberry
Island across to Mount Desert Island.

When we think of the potential of ocean energy, offshore wind development often comes to mind. Offshore wind may rely on oceanic siting and conditions, but its primary energy source is the wind. The waters of the ocean itself are understood to contain even more energy, in the form of moving water like currents, tides, and waves, as well as in subtler embodiments such as gradients of temperature and salinity.

December 21, 2010 - Penobscot River dam removal one step closer

The plan to remove several hydroelectric dams on the Penobscot River reached a milestone yesterday: transfer of ownership of three dams from PPL to the Penobscot River Restoration Trust.  The Trust plans to remove the Veazie and Great Works dams, while building fish passage at the Howland dam.  By removing the two dams and generation assets, about 16 MW of renewable capacity will be removed from the grid, although permitted increases in power production upstream are expected to recover this capacity.

The lower Penobscot River seen from Fort Knox in
Prospect, about 25 miles downstream from the
dams to be removed.

The sweeping Penobscot River dam removal project arose from a 2004 settlement agreement called the Lower Penobscot Basin Comprehensive Settlement Accord.  In that settlement, seven conservation groups, hydroelectric company PPL Corp., the Penobscot Indian Nation and state and federal agencies, agreed to the removal of both the two dams as well as the removal of flashboards and the installation of a fish bypass at the Howland Dam.