Saving electricity with CFL, LED

[Jehanne]

[Neo-Scholastic]

A few miles to my north and south live some Amish. While I have seen farm tractors going through town (Cedar Rapids), I have yet to see a horse and buggy in my 30 years here.

I've noticed that about the Amanas too. They seem more modern there than in Indiana and Ohio Amish. Isnt there like a 100 years rule that they can adopt any technology that has been around that long?

[Jehanne]

A few miles to my north and south live some Amish. While I have seen farm tractors going through town (Cedar Rapids), I have yet to see a horse and buggy in my 30 years here.

I've noticed that about the Amanas too. They seem more modern there than in Indiana and Ohio Amish. Isnt there like a 100 years rule that they can adopt any technology that has been around that long?

Not sure. I have seen a few Amish women in their bonnets and skirts pushing gas lawnmowers.

[The Grand Nudger]

The amish here in ne ky are only distinguishable by how they dress and talk (to each other). Otherwise, same as everyone else. You find them in the line at kroger, they work in factories making fuel pumps, and I personally know a couple in IT. Times and people change - even if their religion was organized around resisting that change.

Hands down my favorite guys to work with on an extension grant. Smart as whips, but not above driving fenceposts by hand. There's a local push in the community to get more amish people on the watershed board.

[Ferrocyanide]

That depends on how the retail power rates are set.    In a regulated monopoly system investor owned electric utilities must share their books with a public regulating agency, typically some sort of public utility commission.   In the US, regulated utilities are not permitted to make a single dime of the power they supply to their rate payers.   However much it cost them to generate or procure the power they supply to their rate base customers,   that’s exactly how much they can recover through the rates they charge the end user.

So if the total cost of generating power went down 30% because every one is using less power, the electric cost component of your electric bill will go down exactly 30%.

However, your total electric bill not go down by exactly 30%, because with typical utility, the actual cost of generating or procuring the power to deliver to the customer constitute less than half of electric bill.   The rest of consist of cost recovery on capital investment, transmission and distribution cost, and corporate overhead.

often, the only place a regulated utilities is allowed to make a profit rather than simply pass true cost to the end user is in capital investment on plant and equipment, and in transmission and distribution infrastructure.   But the permissible rate of profit is also regulated.    So a utility can’t just double the profit margin on its capital investment to make up for reduced electric demand.

Reducing total power demand will not reduce the cost recovery on existing utility infrastructure, unless the utility operate under some special rules applicable to some jurisdictions.   However, it will reduce need for future infrastructure investment.  So it will reduce long term capital investment recovery component if your utility bill.

Government owned utilities operate under somewhat different rules that are often specific to each large government owned utility, but the concept id usually similar.

I’m not sure if I understand how your system works.
If a company has X amount of employees and X amount of equipment and maybe X amount of coal and if we all use 50% less power, how does this effect the electricity producer?
It sounds like the electricity producer won’t have enough money and they will have to cut something.

capital investment on plant and equipment + transmission and distribution infrastructure

In other words, they want me to pay for the equipment so that part of the bill doesn’t change. No problem.

So what is left? Maybe the electricity producer could buy less coal and shut down a generator and fire some people.
Because if an electricity producer has a reduced input of money, they have to cut something.

If I have a store where I sell bottles of vinegar and maybe I need to sell 500 bottles per month and I have 5 employees and I sell each bottle ofr X$ since that establishes a certain balance (I can pay my rent, I can pay my other bills and I can pay for the employees).
If people buy less vinegar, that disturbs the balance. I would either have to raise the prices on each bottle or lay off some employees or maybe a combination of the 2.

---

Hydro québéc sell much of their excess hydroelectric generation to New England and New York, particular New York metro area, through dedicated transmission corridors.   Hydro Quebec gets paid higher New York and New England wholesale prices rather than lower Quebec prices when they do this.  The excess revenue it generates through those these sells are partly used to reduce rates for its own retail customers.

So the less power people of Quebec uses, the more that can be made available for sell at a profit to the US.  THe more profit there will be to reduce rates for its retail customers.

If that is true, then that would be bc the CEO of Hydro-Quebec wants to show that she is doing a good job.
Recently, they signed a contract with New York to sell them more power. It was on the news. The CEO did not give any numbers.

This attitude doesn’t match with the other attitude to be eco-friendly.
If they want to be eco-friendly, they should sell it cheap to everyone, in the province and outside the province of Quebec.
This would perhaps convert coal and natural gas users to hydropower. Use the profit to build more plants.

Source:
https://cultmtl.com/2021/12/hydro-quebec...s-legault/
http://news.hydroquebec.com/en/press-rel...ransition/

Hydro-Québec just signed a $20-billion deal with New York State
by Lorraine Carpenter
Dec 01, 2021


UPDATED DEC. 1: On Tuesday Hydro-Québec signed a $20-billion deal to supply electricity to New York State for 25 years. When the arrangement between Hydro and New York State Public Service Commission was first announced on Sept. 20, Quebec Premier François Legault said that the deal, which was in the works for three years, is part of “making Quebec the green battery of northeastern America.”

Legault also highlighted the work of Hydro-Québec CEO Sophie Brochu and Quebec delegate in New York Catherine Loubier, stating that the announcement is “huge news for the environment” as renewable energy will replace fossil fuels.

[Anomalocaris]

I’m not sure if I understand how your system works.
If a company has X amount of employees and X amount of equipment and maybe X amount of coal and if we all use 50% less power, how does this effect the electricity producer?
It sounds like the electricity producer won’t have enough money and they will have to cut something.

capital investment on plant and equipment + transmission and distribution infrastructure

In other words, they want me to pay for the equipment so that part of the bill doesn’t change. No problem.

So what is left? Maybe the electricity producer could buy less coal and shut down a generator and fire some people.
Because if an electricity producer has a reduced input of money, they have to cut something.

If I have a store where I sell bottles of vinegar and maybe I need to sell 500 bottles per month and I have 5 employees and I sell each bottle ofr X$ since that establishes a certain balance (I can pay my rent, I can pay my other bills and I can pay for the employees).
If people buy less vinegar, that disturbs the balance. I would either have to raise the prices on each bottle or lay off some employees or maybe a combination of the 2.

---

Technically, utilities do not have to cut staff, overhead or existing equipment when electricity demand decreases,  if the utility commission allows them to pass the cost of staff, overhead and existing equipment to the rate payers.    It cost them less to procure or generate the power required to meet demand, so only that portion of your rates will go down.  Other parts will stay the same, but the total will go down.

However, realistically, public utility commission is subject to public and rate payer pressure,  so the utility will a;so come under pressure to reduce staff and overhead if total electric demand goes down.

This attitude doesn’t match with the other attitude to be eco-friendly.
If they want to be eco-friendly, they should sell it cheap to everyone, in the province and outside the province of Quebec.

That’s not how it works.   Hydro energy is a limited asset.  Only so much water comes down the river each year.    And the existing transmission network can only carry so much of the power out of Quebec to where there is external demand for it.   HQ is selling all it can generate and the transmission system will carry at the market prices.     Selling it for cheaper will not create additional hydro energy out of thin air for them sell.

[Ferrocyanide]

Technically, utilities do not have to cut staff, overhead or existing equipment when electricity demand decreases, if the utility commission allows them to pass the cost of staff, overhead and existing equipment to the rate payers. It cost them less to procure or generate the power required to meet demand, so only that portion of your rates will go down. Other parts will stay the same, but the total will go down.

However, realistically, public utility commission is subject to public and rate payer pressure,  so the utility will also come under pressure to reduce staff and overhead if total electric demand goes down.

If we switch from incandescent to CFL or LED and that allows them to reduce staff and maybe shutdown 1 generator (coal burner + generator), then logically, I would be saving $$$.
But if they don’t do that, they simply have a reduced input of $$$$ from the consumer and they will have to either accept the loss or raise prices.

In the case of Hydro power, the turbines and generators are already built. The water flow is free (In the case of coal, it takes human labor to bring the coal to the plant).
They can shut the door which stops the water from turning the turbine but what’s the point? That doesn’t reduce operating cost for the Hydro plant.

When CFL and LED bulbs advertise that I will save $$$$ by using these bulbs, I am not sure if that is true.
There are employees, there is equipment and power lines to maintain. The water flow is free. I don’t think the Hydro plant would be able to reduce staff.

That’s not how it works. Hydro energy is a limited asset. Only so much water comes down the river each year. And the existing transmission network can only carry so much of the power out of Quebec to where there is external demand for it. HQ is selling all it can generate and the transmission system will carry at the market prices. Selling it for cheaper will not create additional hydro energy out of thin air for them sell.

I’m not sure I understand what that has to do with being eco-friendly.
Looks like they are going to place a transmission line.

Source:
https://poststar.com/news/local/guest-es...1b76b.html

As noted, CHPE engineers have developed an innovative plan to bury the transmission lines for the entire length of the project.

It also looks like for profit business plan:

Part of the electricity delivered from Quebec to New York comes from the Apuiat wind project, in which the Innu community is a shareholder. Hydro-Québec has also partnered with the Mohawks of Kahnawake, who will be co-owners of the Quebec portion of the new transmission line.

^^^^^It’s a business. It has nothing to do with hydro power being a limited resource.

[Anomalocaris]

Huh?

if you have a finite amount of hydro energy you can sell, you can be sure to sell every last MWh of it at a profit, or at no profit.   either way the same amount ot renewable energy makes it to the end user, why would you not want to sell it at profit?

I can tell you why some people argue it should not be sold at profit.   their objective is to pretend to be environmentally concerned while squeezing environmental energy producers financially.   their ulterior motive is to create the situation where investment in green energy look to be unprofitable, so as to reduce the amount of renewable le energy that would be built to compete with dirty energy.

much of the crocodile tears about how renewable developers are insincere if they try to make a profit are shed by lobbiests who work for coal generation lobby.   wonder why?

[Ferrocyanide]

Huh?

if you have a finite amount of hydro energy you can sell, you can be sure to sell every last MWh of it at a profit, or at no profit.   either way the same amount ot renewable energy makes it to the end user, why would you not want to sell it at profit?

I can tell you why some people argue it should not be sold at profit.   their objective is to pretend to be environmentally concerned while squeezing environmental energy producers financially.   their ulterior motive is to create the situation where investment in green energy look to be unprofitable, so as to reduce the amount of renewable le energy that would be built to compete with dirty energy.

much of the crocodile tears about how renewable developers are insincere if they try to make a profit are shed by lobbiests who work for coal generation lobby.   wonder why?

I’m a little confused as well since you wrote:

Hydro québéc sell much of their excess hydroelectric generation to New England and New York, particular New York metro area, through dedicated transmission corridors. Hydro Quebec gets paid higher New York and New England wholesale prices rather than lower Quebec prices when they do this. The excess revenue it generates through those these sells are partly used to reduce rates for its own retail customers.

So the less power people of Quebec uses, the more that can be made available for sell at a profit to the US. The more profit there will be to reduce rates for its retail customers.

So, I’m not sure what is going on. Are you saying you are in favor of the plan?
Are you saying New Yorkers getting stiffed with a higher bill compared to Quebecers?
Are you saying that you want New Yorkers and Quebecers to pay the same rate?
Are you saying that hydro energy is a limited resource and New Yorkers should pay more?
Are you saying that hydro energy is a limited resource and New Yorkers + Quebecers should pay more

[Anomalocaris]

Huh?

if you have a finite amount of hydro energy you can sell, you can be sure to sell every last MWh of it at a profit, or at no profit.   either way the same amount ot renewable energy makes it to the end user, why would you not want to sell it at profit?

I can tell you why some people argue it should not be sold at profit.   their objective is to pretend to be environmentally concerned while squeezing environmental energy producers financially.   their ulterior motive is to create the situation where investment in green energy look to be unprofitable, so as to reduce the amount of renewable le energy that would be built to compete with dirty energy.

much of the crocodile tears about how renewable developers are insincere if they try to make a profit are shed by lobbiests who work for coal generation lobby.   wonder why?

I’m a little confused as well since you wrote:

Hydro québéc sell much of their excess hydroelectric generation to New England and New York, particular New York metro area, through dedicated transmission corridors. Hydro Quebec gets paid higher New York and New England wholesale prices rather than lower Quebec prices when they do this. The excess revenue it generates through those these sells are partly used to reduce rates for its own retail customers.

So the less power people of Quebec uses, the more that can be made available for sell at a profit to the US. The more profit there will be to reduce rates for its retail customers.

So, I’m not sure what is going on. Are you saying you are in favor of the plan?
Are you saying New Yorkers getting stiffed with a higher bill compared to Quebecers?
Are you saying that you want New Yorkers and Quebecers to pay the same rate?
Are you saying that hydro energy is a limited resource and New Yorkers should pay more?
Are you saying that hydro energy is a limited resource and New Yorkers + Quebecers should pay more

You should really do a little research on basic economics before asking staccato dumb questions that might sound cleverly rhetorical.

Power system economics is more topical, but basic economics will show you well enough why those questions are idiotic.

I would take the time to explain to you why.    But your tone suggest you do not ask in good faith.  Rather you are one of those supremely ignorant conservatives who thinks what he heard on conservative blogosphere is enough to enable him to outsmart people who are actually, like, not dumb.