November 12, 2016
SPLC, NAACP, CAIR and/or ICNA, Planned Parenthood, Lambda Legal, Trans Lifeline.
and ACLU, EFF, National Popular Vote.
Any other suggestions? I think I’m a little light on defending rights of immigrants.
Oops — As JF points out in email, ADL.
I’d also like to fund organizations doing voter registration work, especially in swing states, especially in states where Republicans narrowly control legislatures and/or executive. We need to reduce the amount of gerrymandering in this country, we need representation in the House of Representatives that more nearly reflects the popular sentiment, and we need to ensure that we are well safe from crazy constitutional amendments (a constitutionally mandated balanced budget would be a macroeconomic disaster; recessions would turn into depressions).
I realize I am setting myself up for a deluge of please-help-our-worthy-cause solicitians, both electronic and paper. We get those already, plan is to set up a spreadsheet, and just give once a year, every year.
I was just in Mountain View for most of a week on business, biking to and from work and to work dinners in the evening. The roads are much smoother than here near Boston, the weather was warmer, it did rain once, but wimpily, and it’s flat as a board in Silicon Valley. Biking there ought to be great.
Links go to short YouTube videos illustrating claims/points
However, they blow it. If you need to cover any particular distance, it’s easy to find yourself with no choice but a four-lane road with a door zone bike lane that waxes and wanes with the whim of whoever laid out the road, and parking is prioritized enough that you often find yourself squeezed towards traffic.
One shared use path is designed with the apparent assumption that bicycles are OMFG deadly dangerous to pedestrians, so it’s considered appropriate to encourage lower speeds by installing barriers that make high speeds deadly, and that also makes larger bikes (bakfiets, trailers) difficult to pass through, and that guarantee conflicts whenever people are traveling in opposite directions or if there’s a pedestrian and a bike traveling in the same direction. Imagine, for cars, that a crosswalk was made safe not just by installing a narrowing bumpout in each lane, but by narrowing the road to a single lane for both directions.
Note that this is on a straight path where everything is completely visible, so all that’s really needed in most cases is a “slow for pedestrians” sign. Not all people will go as slow as they should, but not all people will negotiate those gates without injury or conflict, either. Later on, a blind intersection with plenty of cross traffic on the Google Campus goes completely unremarked, and several curves past that are gratuitously blind, either because of untrimmed vegetation, or because bicycles were routed between two chain link fences, and for no particular reason one side (the one that matters) is intentionally made opaque by slatting installed in the fence so that it’s impossible to see oncoming bicycle or pedestrian traffic on the fence-narrowed path.
Incomprehensibly, an underpass with over 7 feet of clearance (I reached a hand up to measure as I passed under, so that’s an estimate – apparently they couldn’t be tasked with actual measurement, but I ride quite tall and cleared easily) was declared to be dangerously low, and thus we’re told to walk our bikes there, as if.
Actual road crossings are designed with zero thought to the convenience of cyclists. At one there’s a gate to force a U-turn to enter it, then a beg button that imposes an interminable wait despite large gaps in motor traffic (I didn’t wait). A cyclist obeying traffic laws to the letter could not ride back that same way – the returning lane slips onto San Antonio, and returning on the sidewalk instead one is greeted with a WRONG WAY sign specific to bicycles (and the sidewalk is clearly intended for bicycles, else the sign would read “no bike riding”). It’s not much wonder that I just wing it.
At another crossing on the Permanente Creek trail, cyclists are vaguely directed to enter traffic and then make a u-turn at the light, as if that is preferable to looking for a gap (which we’d need to look for anyway, to enter traffic to make that u-turn) and just crossing on foot. There’s a sidewalk, but it’s twisty and too narrow for two-way traffic. Crossing on foot is necessary because there’s a big-ass curb in the middle of the road. The same can be seen on parts of Middlefield, where children crossing to/from school have worn goat paths in the median strip, far from any crosswalk. (Video is not great; there were kids, they were waiting to cross, and the median is cut by little footpaths.)
At a larger level, multilane Alma/Central and the RR tracks make a nasty barrier to traveling (peninsula-compass) east-west in Mountain View. Crossings are not well signed, Google Maps doesn’t seem to know about them, the entry is tight, the mirrors at the bottom make it clear the bicycles are known/expected to be there, but the ramps are quite narrow, guaranteeing conflict if there’s 2-way traffic or pedestrians.
This is all doubly annoying because it could be so nice. Remember, flat topography and a mild climate. If there were good, comfortable, safe routes that led anywhere interesting, lots of people could and almost certainly would use them. But right now, Mountain View is failing both in the small (annoying and insulting inattention to details of intersections and safety) and in the large (arteries are for cars – wide, fast, and with varying-width door-zone bike lanes, sometimes very fast).
And yeah, I know, “reasons”. Y’all ought to look at yourselves, a 10-lane highway jammed up every morning, even with thousands of employees delivered by buses instead of single-occupancy vehicles. I rode a bike to dinner after work and beat the people driving. Here’s two free clues as to why Mountain View ought to install a ton of really nice bicycle infrastructure. #1, no matter what you do about traffic, more cars will always arrive to fill the voids that you create, and with high tech salaries I’m not sure even congestion charges would do the job. #2, if you install really nice bicycle infrastructure, if you need to get around your own town, you won’t care about that traffic, and because the land is so flat and the climate so mild, that’ll be true all year. You might want to knock out a few parking spaces and replace them with bike corrals to make this really be true, but I managed to find bicycle parking a lot closer to the restaurant than anyone driving there.
February 27, 2016
I both drive cars and ride bikes, and for years I didn’t think much about how much driving a car impairs all your senses, as well as your ability to communicate. To hear how other people talk about traffic and safety, I think I’m not the only person to miss this.
Where this usually comes up is in discussions of rolling stops, and stop-then-go at red lights. The claim from cyclists (and this claim is absolutely true, which is why I’m writing this) is that they generally can see and hear better than people in cars, and thus are in a better position to judge if it is safe to go or not. This is one of the several justifications for the Idaho Stop Law.
So, vision. Someone riding a bike is as tall as they are standing up, if not taller. To stop, most people must hop off the saddle because they sit too high to reach the ground with their feet. Modern sedans tend to be about 4-and-a-half-feet tall (I just measured a Civic and a Camry), so whoever is sitting in them is shorter than that. On a bicycle, seated, your head is about 3 feet back from the front edge of the bicycle, but it’s easy to lean forward to within about a foot of the front. In a car, leaning forward gets you to the windshield, which is five feet back from the front of the car. Add to that whatever fog or dirt happens to be on the windshield and the windows, plus the various pillars and mirrors and fuzzy dice, and I hope it’s clear that the cyclist has a far better view of what’s around.
Next, hearing. Luxury cars are actually marketed for their ability to make you deaf to the world. That ought to be enough right there, but I’ve actually mentioned this to a degreed+prestigious colleague whose snap reaction was “no, I can hear okay in a car”. No, really, you can’t. Even without luxury soundproofing, cars have noisy engines, ventilation fans, tire noise, often a stereo, and quite often their windows are up. All these things act to block exterior sound. On a bicycle, the default is that you hear everything. There’s wind noise when you’re moving, but stopped at an intersection there’s nothing between you and the world and the bike is silent.
And you might like to think that maybe hearing doesn’t matter–after all, we let people who are deaf drive and ride bikes–but it certainly does. When I approach intersections, I can hear cross traffic coming before I can see it; that’s redundant safety information, which is a good thing. I can hear cars approaching from behind, and tell if they’re slowing or swinging out into traffic to pass, and I can judge the size of the car or truck as well (big trucks without sideguards are very dangerous). For pedestrian safety being able to hear matters, because I can carry on a conversation with the people around me. “I see you”, “go ahead, it’s a crosswalk, I’m stopping”, and of course “oops, sorry”. I can communicate with other cyclists, “there’s a blind woman walking ahead of you” (in the dark). All the sound signals that we’re supposed to legally make when approaching pedestrians are useless when approaching cars because drivers are effectively deaf. All the communication that’s easy with people around us is impossible with people in cars.
People on bikes also see more because of their ability to always position themselves near an intersection before stopping. That means we always get to see the light cycles and light timings, and even if we haven’t learned them all yet ourselves, we can see how other cyclists react to them. We don’t need to catch sight of landmarks as we drive through the intersection, because we always have plenty of time to look around at the front. Once you know the usual timing for a light (easily derived from countdown pedestrian timers on the street and cross street – which you can see because you are stopped at the intersection) you can also judge from quite a distance the appropriate speed to make the next light, which allows you to moderate your speed to only what is adequate to catch the green. Lower speeds make for easier pedalling, and are also safer.
I had meant to make a much longer rant about “windshield vision”, but I think this is good enough for a start. You might ask yourself, if you could drive and fool yourself into thinking that you weren’t half-blind and mostly-deaf, and not realize what you were missing stuck back in a line of traffic, if you might not be self-fooled about some other things. If your reaction to the facts stated here is that they’re the crazy opinions of one of “those cyclists” – don’t forget, I am a licensed driver, I drive often enough, I own a car, and this is true of most adults riding bicycles (knowing this stuff makes driving a lot less fun. Don’t expect any auto advertising to mention this ever).
Bonus sensory deprivation video, in case you still don’t believe me: watch the second driver in this video roll right over a bicycle and a bicyclist’s foot, and not be able to believe she did it. Said bicyclist has right of way, in clear daylight, riding straight on a straight road, wearing a dayglo-yellow jacket, with a front flashing light. The second driver did not see, did not hear the crash, did not hear the crunch of the bike as she drove over it, did not hear the guy she was running over yelling at her.
It occurred to me a few days after posting this that “people on bikes behave unpredictably” is consistent with “people on bikes make decisions based on information I don’t have”. Probably not the only explanation, but worth thinking about before jumping to pejorative conclusions.
December 12, 2015
I’m a little reluctant to post this because it’s got a bit of a gloating feel to it (“look at my massive calves and thighs!”) but people should understand that if they don’t have the opportunity to bike to work, they’re missing out and they’re being cheated. That means they have to know the sort of thing that they’re missing.
This doesn’t necessarily work for everyone, but it’s clear that most people are suspicious of doing things because it’s supposed to be good for the planet. Instead, I’d like to suggest reasons for biking to work because it might be good for you. I’ll try to be concrete.
I am 55. I weigh between 220 and 225lbs, and I’m 6 feet tall. That makes me officially quite overweight. I hate dieting and so I don’t really do much more than try to keep sweets out of reach. Beer is a regular part of my diet, and food is free at my new job. I weighed more before I started biking to work 9 years ago, but in the last year I started biking even more.
My commute to work, since March, is 6.1 miles by the fast, direct, and less-fun route, and I reliably do that in 30 minutes on a bike without running red lights. At rush hour biking is faster than driving. If I am in a hurry I can do it in 26 minutes, though I may end up sweaty (all I need to go faster is to breathe more; the legs just go as fast as oxygen debt allows). Traffic jams are not a problem; I ride through the gaps and go almost as fast. Parking is not usually a problem (we do almost fill the bike cage at work, but less so now that the weather is cooler, and there is other parking). If I instead take the less-annoying route, biking takes about as long as driving, but not longer. Oh yeah, my bike weighs about 65lbs.
Since March, I have gained over a centimeter in circumference in my thighs, a centimeter in my calves, and I’m regularly pulling my belt a notch tighter. Even before the new commute when I was biking somewhat less per week, I still had enough wind and stamina to shovel snow like a machine; I expect it’s rather better now because the new commute includes more sprints that punch my heart rate up a bit.
So. Would you like a faster commute to work, no parking hassles (and it’s FREE), a little weight loss, a slightly smaller waist, more muscles, and enough wind to shovel snow without fear of heart attack? If your commute is like mine, perhaps you should ride a bike. If your commute is about as long as mine but too unpleasant for you to tolerate, have you considered pestering your local government for some combination of better enforcement of traffic rules (if it’s speeding cars that make it unpleasant) or a reasonably sized lane in which to ride your bike (or perish the thought, a segregated path or lane)? Failure to provide you an adequate place to commute by bicycle is depriving you of a faster commute and measurable improvements in your health and fitness.
And do understand, if you want this and your roads don’t allow it, you should be angry. If I had to give up biking to work I’d be very unhappy. Statistics say this would increase my annual risk of death by about 30%. Do you think it is reasonable to live with that kind of extra risk? Do you have any idea how much larger that risk is than all the risks that usually get people all wound up and excited? That’s not an acceptable status quo.
One warning; if you’re out of shape, your first commutes will not be as fast or as fun. It’ll take about a month and a half to get over that, and then there will be gradual improvement for a few years — not necessarily faster, but one day you may find yourself regarding hills as merely annoying, instead of as an obstacle to go around. Eventually you’ll learn to run up an oxygen debt charging up hills and then rest on the downhill, because that is fastest, and because one day, you can.
Anyone who takes this seriously, if you’re looking for a bike, you could do a lot worse than a 3-speed with fenders, chain guard, dynamo hub, and fat tires. The fatter the tires, the better; you’ll be more comfortable, at less risk from potholes and road cracks, and you’ll spend less time pumping up your tires because they’ll hold their air longer. If you’re gung-ho, get a cargo bike, either an EdgeRunner , Yuba, Big Dummy, or a Gr8, or maybe a Kr8 or one of the several other US–produced cargo bikes.
My attempts at explaining our net metering discussion, based on information from town meeting last night, discussions with both sides afterwards, and further discussions with friends who happen to know about some of the particulars of high-priced pump storage power suppliers.
I should add that there’s a huge issue with the framing of this issue, and it is possible to view the solar producers as overpaid electricity suppliers, or as freeloading users of our electrical grid, or as very aggressive energy conservers. I’m more interested in the town-wide question of our overall costs, our overall reliability, and our overall reduction in CO2 emissions.
What I did and didn’t figure out
This little section still a work in progress, but it is more or less a summary
The most important question is “where do we (want to) sit on the scale between patsies and freeloaders?” It appears that the bulk of the benefits from rooftop solar are spread either throughout the grid (reduced overall electric costs because of marginal-rate pricing) or throughout the world (tiny but non-zero reductions in CO2 emissions). A freeloader would advocate spending nothing, not because there are no benefits, but because we get the vast majority of the benefits from the contributions of patsies in other communities, so why shouldn’t we save our money? If we’re not willing to move some distance from “freeloader” there’s not too much point discussing the details of the benefits. The way the freeloader-vs-patsy problem is usually resolved is regulations and mandates from government — like the requirement on Investor-Owned-Utilities to do a certain amount of net-metering.
Another important thing is that whatever the benefits are, they are cumulative — we are not forced to look at the largest one and say “that’s not enough”. Rooftop solar reduces CO2 emissions AND reduces regional afternoon peak grid loads (thus reducing marginal cost) AND reduces hot-afternoon neighborhood loads (perhaps extending life of aging infrastructure, also reducing our consumption of very-high-priced regional-peak energy even though our peak is in the evening).
However, and this is also very important, there are alternatives to net metering that reduce loads more efficiently; for example, buying (good) LED light bulbs and giving them away for incandescent bulb replacement cuts a greater amount of energy consumption for the same amount of money, till we run out of bulbs to replace. LED light bulbs are not directly comparable because their savings aren’t as well-timed to regional peak loads as rooftop solar, but the overall energy savings are a good deal larger.
The benefits of net metering are likely of a decently large size (within a factor of two of the “subsidy”, one direction or the other) but very difficult to predict even in a given year. Effects on marginal cost pricing are often spiky, not smooth. Any effects on equipment lifetime are difficult to measure (it’s hard to observe the failure that didn’t happen). To the degree that they reduce peak loads, other conservation measures (LED lightbulbs, more efficient air conditioners, painting roofs white, improved roof circulation/insulation) also have a similarly spiky payoff that may over time yield substantial cost savings.
Yet more information, see also, “The Future of Solar Energy” (MIT). We probably get more bang for our buck if we spend our money on large-scale solar installations, rather than rooftop-by-rooftop. Details in the paper (I skimmed the executive summary), they make sense to me. Note one of the authors is Belmont resident and town meeting member Henry Jacoby.
Fixed costs and subsidies
The fixed portion of a typical electric bill is about 50%, but we don’t charge like that. That is, the usual price of electricity is designed to reward conservation and to be friendly to frugal users, who are disproportionately poor and/or retired. This is especially sensible in our current situation of tightly-constrained supply (non-Belmont readers – we have an aging bottleneck in our supply, and a replacement is under construction), but it remains sensible in the face of the need for CO2 emissions reduction.
Based on this crude calculation of fixed and variable costs, the 20 solar power producers in town who do net metering (who sell their excess production back to the light department and receive in return the full retail price for that energy) receive a “subsidy” of about $800 per year each, which results in higher costs to the non-solar ratepayers. The subsidy can either be viewed as underpayment of the fixed costs of a connection, or receiving far more for the energy they sell than other suppliers receive – either way, the light department says it’s $800. However, there’s 10,000 of us, and only 20 of them – per year, this subsidy costs each non-solar ratepayer about $1.60.
Compensating for social costs of CO2
Another way of looking at this number is to consider what we consider the social cost of a ton of CO2 – probably about $40. To put that into perspective, a $40 tax per CO2 ton is about 40 cents per gallon of fuel oil or gasoline (that is, burning 100 gallons of light petroleum yields about a ton of CO2). For power generation in the northeast, the “marginal emissions rate” is 914 lbs of CO2 per megawatt-hour, or 2200 kWh per ton of CO2. Marginal emissions rate is not the average over all production – it is the amount of CO2 emitted for the next MWh we request, or the amount avoided if we use 1 MWh less. (This calculation tends to underweight nuclear because the economics of nuclear plants tend towards always-on; the MWh we avoid using will be something other than nuclear).
As near as I can tell, each home solar installation avoids the consumption of about a MWh per year, perhaps double. From the pure social benefit view of things, we’ve declared that is worth $10 – $40 per year. Each home solar installation produces on average about 6MWh per year, avoiding about 3 tons of CO2 emissions, and from a social benefit point of view that is worth about $120. This would be double counting if we had a proper carbon tax, but we don’t yet. (Thanks to Roger Wrubel for this much better information.) One problem with accounting for the social benefit is that it is spread over many other people, not just the residents of Belmont — if we are expected to pay it, it should be required by regulation or imposed as a tax, and not voluntary. But contrary to that, note that right now it is a regulation that for-profit electric companies do net-metering; for those companies it is not voluntary. Yet another complication; someone, somewhere, is probably getting a “Renewable Energy Credit” for that solar energy. A friend in Texas with solar panels says that RECs are worth $60 per MWh, but he thinks the companies that do the “our panels on your roof” game have claimed them — and in some sense that is double-counting the social benefit.
HOWEVER, there are details that suggest that the story is not so simple or complete. There are (at least) three good reasons why solar is worth more than just the CO2-reduction benefit, or costs less than the claimed subsidy.
Need to calculate “subsidy” carefully
First, the price of electricity is not constant – it is more expensive during the day, and cheaper at night. Solar production only occurs during the day. The constant price charged by the light company is an average designed to let them break even considering consumption over 24 hours, 365 days per year. However, the average price is not too far below the usual daytime cost – the bulk of the electricity is consumed during the day, therefore the average price is going to be closer to the daytime cost. This is not that big a factor. But nonetheless, it is a factor, and it shaves a bit off the “subsidy” because solar energy is sold back during those hours when the power company’s supply costs are higher; in rare but somewhat predictable cases, the power company’s costs are so high that they are losing money on every additional kWh they sell to normal customers, and solar on the local net saves them money, even when they pay the full retail cost that they charge their customers.
Cutting (or not) the peak load.
The second reason has to do with cutting the peak load; there are (apparently) costs associated with wholesale power consumption and delivery that depend on Belmont’s peak power consumption over various periods of time. To the extent that solar reduces this peak, it saves money – however, for Belmont, the peak load usually occurs late in the afternoon or early in the evening well after the peak hours for solar production, so again, here the factor is not large. It would be nice to know what this formula is.
Marginal pricing and a silly market example
The third reason is the interesting one, and the tricky one. Why is electricity more expensive during the day? How is that price determined? The short, opaque answer is that the price of electricity is roughly determined by its marginal cost. Consider a simple example that will get more complex:
Suppose you had to make a 1000-egg omelette. For that many eggs, you pay attention to the cost of eggs, so you buy as many of the cheapest eggs you can find. Say, you can buy eggs at 8 cents each – but only 500, then that source runs out ($40 for those eggs). The next cheapest you can find cost 15 cents per egg, but you can only get 300 of those ($45 for those eggs), and you still need 200 more eggs. The next best price is $20 cents per egg, but that supplier only has 199 ($39.80 for those). The next cheapest supplier remaining always has eggs, but at a price of one dollar per egg (at those prices, it’s not surprising). Fortunately, you only need one. Your total cost is $125.80 for eggs.
According to one person I talked to, the suppliers in electric power markets are paid the marginal production cost, even if it is much higher than their bid. That means that if eggs were priced like power, on that day when you need to buy 1000 eggs and the last egg cost a dollar, you would pay a dollar for each of the eggs, even though 999 were offered at $.20 or less. The total cost is therefore $1000.
Another person I talked to says that’s not entirely right – that suppliers get paid what they bid, but the suppliers are not dummies. They know roughly how much capacity everyone has, they know the general plans for omelette-making, and they game their bids accordingly – so the bids were not for $.08, $.15, and $.20 – they were much higher, because they knew you were going to need a lot of eggs. It’s not quite the festival of price-fixing you might imagine it could be, because some suppliers (nuclear, in particular) cannot easily take their plants off-line, and they don’t save much money even if they could, there are many suppliers, and they are also a regulated utility.
If someone has better information on how this pricing works I would love to have it, and I would also be happy to align the egg prices to kWh supplier prices – or if it works better to ordinary egg prices, to make them a clean multiple, like double.
I found two better sources and they both suggest that the power market pricing really is based on marginal costs, with a few sensible exceptions for things like emergency reserves. One paper is part of an ISO-NE slide deck on power pricing, and the other is a study of the effects of wind power on power markets in other parts of the country.
Note the importance of the marginal, last egg. Using power pricing rules, if you needed one less egg, then the last egg costs only $.20, and thus the cost of omelette supplies is only $199.80, and the savings are $800.20. Using kitchen pricing rules, that last egg avoided saves us only $1 – far less.
This looks a fabulous advantage for solar “eggs”, because they are usually available on summer afternoons when demand can be very high – but on a given day, you don’t know if you’re going to get lucky and avoid buying the eggs that make the difference between $1000 and $200. Some days your omelette is so big that you can’t avoid the expensive eggs, some days the low-cost suppliers have enough eggs that it’s not an issue, some days your omelette is small enough that it’s not an issue. The demand and supply have to be “just right” to get lucky like this. But when it happens, it’s a really big win. Does it happen often? Is the win that big? I don’t know any of this for sure.
Who gets the benefits of our solar “spending” / are we freeloading on the IOUs?
There is a further caveat; the price of electricity is set regionally in a regional market based on regional supply and demand. When the highest-priced supplier’s energy is not needed, everybody wins. A solar panel in Arlingon is just as effective at this as a solar panel in Belmont. Therefore, a Belmont electric company that is only interested in what is best for Belmont might quite reasonably choose to let other communities install solar, and we will benefit from that at no cost to Belmont. Or, alternately the electric company might feel, and again quite reasonably, that if they are going to take $16,000 from the pockets of their rate-payers each year, that it might better be spent buying some other peak-shaving energy supply where we obtain more load reduction per dollar. This would be even more reasonable if the electric company could point to where they had spent $16,000 and obtained a more effective reduction in demand or CO2 emissions.
We pay for insurance, we pay for reliable reserve capacity
And on top of that, I think there is yet more to worry about. We need a certain supply of responsive, expensive backup generation “just in case”, and it’s no surprise that sometimes it has fixed costs, and those fixed costs are only paid when they can sell energy into expensive peak markets. Their fixed costs don’t go away just because there’s less demand for their services, and if those costs have to be amortized over less use, then either the cost of peak-load generation goes up or else the peak-load generators go out of business. Solar might let us pay for peak supply less often, but at those times when we still need, it might be more expensive. There’s a limit to how high these costs can rise; if/when it is cheaper to install large batteries around the electrical grid, we’ll do that instead – and that cost will come down over time, too.
The wind power study linked above mentions this also — wind is variable, therefore some quick-starting reserves need to be kept on hand, and these have expenses that cannot be met in a normal power market:
“Although fundamentally very different, both MISO and PJM operate a capacity market that is designed to provide a source of income to generators that may not sell enough electricity to be economically viable, but are necessary to RTOs in order to satisfy target reserve margins and ensure system reliability. As more variable energy sources are added to an RTO system, the premium for reserve capacity could rise.”
Delivery also has costs, not sure how they are priced.
The eggs and omelettes example can be extended to include the problems of electrical delivery. Here in Belmont we are constrained by the limits of our aging substation, and that is why we are spending money to replace it. But this problem occurs in general throughout the grid; wires have capacities, substations have capacities, nothing is perfectly efficient, and sometimes it is broken. It as if eggs were delivered by bicycle messengers – some ride big bikes, some ride little bikes, you have to be sure that you have enough messengers to deliver your eggs when you need them, even though other omelette-makers are bidding for their services at the same time. And, sometimes the messengers hit bumps and break a few eggs, and the further the eggs must travel the more bumps they hit and the more eggs you lose. In rare cases, a messenger crashes, all the eggs they were carrying are lost, and the messenger and/or bicycle is out of commission for a while. When there aren’t enough low-priced messengers to get the eggs that you need when you need them, then you need to pay more.
Here, I have not yet heard or figured out what the pricing structure for electricity/egg delivery is – because delivery is less interchangeable than electrical energy, it doesn’t make sense for everyone to pay the cost of the most expensive link in the system. So I don’t know exactly what is going on in this market except that I am sure that prices will spike when links are near their capacity. I know that when there is only one messenger service that everyone must contract with, they can game the prices to make a lot of money – that was Enron’s business.
I have some sympathy for the light company’s position, but not at all for their explanation. It’s not as simple as “we subsidize them”, nor is the “subsidy” as large as is claimed. I’m not exactly begrudging the current home solar generators the $1.60 that I toss their direction each year, and it’s a small enough amount of money that I’d like to see the light company spending that much each year installing or investing in a better source of renewable, peak-shaving power, subsidizing conservation, or something similar. It would prove their point very effectively.
It need not be solar – a good-sized battery at our new substation might allow us to smooth the peaks of our consumption, completely avoid last-minute purchases, and perhaps even to sell into that market. That might not make sense at today’s battery and electricity prices, but those are both changing.
Below, an earlier version of this contained a math error — LED bulbs are indeed a very superior investment.
Or consider what $16,000 spent on LED light bulbs to replace incandescent bulbs will return in one year, and over time. At current prices that will buy 640 (good) “100-watt replacement” bulbs, and each of those bulbs uses 80 watts less. If we assume that 640 bulbs are each operated 5 hours each day, that is 256kWh saved per day, times 365 days gives you a little over 90MWh savings per year. Each year we buy more bulbs and save more, till we run out of incandescent light bulbs to replace. If half the homes in town have only one such costly light bulb in common use, it would still take us 8 years to do this.
However, even after eight years of spending at this level we’ve only cut our annual consumption by 8MWh, versus the (estimated) 120MWh that rooftop solar saves us. For one year, rooftop solar is ahead, but after two years of LED purchase the savings per year are 180MWh, and after 5 years 450MWh — 3.75x our savings from solar. Notice that solar is better timed to the regional peak, but LED lightbulbs are better timed to the Belmont (early-evening) peak, and also have the effect of reducing the A/C load on summer evenings by a small but non-zero amount.
So LED light bulbs are generally a better way for the light department to spend money for load reduction, till we have run out of places to put them. (Note that in a town full of rational consumers, we would already have LED light bulbs in all sockets run more than two hours per day — over a period of 5 years, such a light bulbs saves $11.50 per year, and nobody would pass up that deal just because the light department had given away their annual quota of light bulbs).
(Note also that if you worry about losing heat from light bulbs in the winter, that resistive heating is not a great source of energy – with a heat pump you get 3 times as much warmth for a given amount of energy consumption, and you get it where you want it, not close to the ceiling warming up a room you’re not in or the snow on your roof).
After reading more papers and thinking about how the auctions work, I think the rule for marginal pricing is that it applies to each auction, and there are multiple auctions. There’s an auction the day before; there’s an hourly auction the next day, and I think there is an auction every five minutes. The marginal price in the day-before auction determines what is paid in that auction; the marginal price in the hourly auction determines what is paid in that auction, and similarly for the five minute auctions. But the marginal prices in the five minute auction (which may be very high) I think only apply to that auction — it does not result in more money in the pockets of the suppliers who sold into the previous evening’s auction, or in the most recent hourly auction. And because it is for only a short amount of time it is not as much overall power as what is bid for in the hourly markets, hence the high price for energy only applies to a smallish amount of energy (usually, you hope).
An interesting thing to notice is that wind appears to sell only into the short-term market of at least one RTO (regional transmission operator PJM, mid-Atlantic plus Ohio and a bit more). This makes a certain amount of sense; we have a better idea how hard the wind will be blowing just an hour ahead of time, rather than 12-24 hours ahead of time, and the prices tend to be higher in those markets — and the wind providers bid $0 so they are guaranteed to get in on whatever market there is, knowing that they will be paid marginal price, not their bid:
“During calendar year 2011, wind represented 2% of the marginal generation used for the real-time energy market. Wind was never a marginal generation source for the day-ahead market in 2011. As discussed above, the day-ahead and real-time markets typically include 95% and 5% of energy transactions, respectively. In 2011, wind power accounted for 1.5% of electricity generation in PJM.”
This has the potentially unfortunate effect of putting wind more directly into competition with short-term reserve supplies. Some RTOs establish separate markets for “capacity” that tries to capture the ability to reliably deliver electricity on demand, and wind does not score well on this metric.
In 2009, PJM conducted a study that considered the wholesale power price impacts of adding 15,000 MW of wind power in the PJM market. Results from the study indicated that the addition of wind power would decrease wholesale market prices by $4.50 per MWh. As a result, market-wide expenditures for wholesale power would go down. For comparison, PJM’s system-wide load-weighted average LMP was $45.19 in 2011.
Adding 15,000 MW of wind power would be a quadrupling, from about 2.5% of PJM’s total generation capacity to about 10% of total generation capacity. Here, it’s not clear if “wholesale market prices” mean over the entire power generation market (day-ahead and real-time) or only in the smaller real-time market.
I am not much closer to knowing how much a given amount of rooftop solar reduces the marginal cost of electricity. One particular difficulty in comparing effects from this paper is that wind tends to peak when demand is lower, the opposite of solar:
“The profile of wind generation is inversely correlated with the load demand profile in ERCOT. Much like other regions of the country, when load demand is high, wind production is low and vice versa.”
That means solar ought to have a relatively larger effect in reducing the wholesale market price (for the definition used in that paper).
Here’s an interesting source of information that I have yet to digest. I am trying to figure out what fraction of the total ISO-NE capacity solar represents, and how much an additional fraction of solar is likely to affect the overall wholesale price (in what market, for how much energy? day ahead? real time?) and to compare that to Belmont’s contribution. And by “figure”, I mean an educated conservative guess — if moving from 2.5% to 10% wind in PJM cuts wholesale prices by 10%, we might expect a similar inverse relation (or better, because of better alignment with regional peak demand) in the 0-10% range for solar. Useful/interesting facts so far — Massachusetts “nameplate” solar capacity is currently 666MW, forecast to roughly double by 2023 or 2024. ISO-NE’s solar is 909, forecast to rise to 2450MW through 2024. This document from ISO-NE suggests actual delivered solar power of 331 GWH out of a total of 127,108 GWH for 2014, or about 1/4 of one percent. It would not be outlandish to project savings of a similar magnitude or larger in “wholesale prices” — the effect is diminishing with larger scale, 0.25% is not much scale, PJM sees a 10% reduction in “wholesale prices” by increasing wind’s share to 10%, and wind isn’t even well-timed against high load like solar is. Note that wholesale prices are only a fraction of retail prices, but based on the figures here I estimate that the claimed solar subsidy costs each Belmont customer not quite 0.13% of their retail bill.
Feedback and questions
So, enough details? Constructive comments and corrections are extremely welcome, I’ve got no time for ad hominem attacks, imputing nefarious motives, and I take a dim view of cherry-picking information. Checking my math is great; I’ve found one large error, though the rest of the numbers seem about right. I’d love references. I’d love better explanations of how the electricity market works (I’ve been working hard to figure this out, there are apparently rounds of bidding that occur a day ahead, an hour ahead, and then every five minutes, and apparently you really want to avoid spending money in the five-minutes market. “The rugby team just showed up, I need to make a ginormous omelette, pronto! What, we’re out of eggs?”)
A question via email from friend JF: “Right now, the cost of the solar panel pay back (since subsidy doesn’t seem to be the right word) for the majority of us is rather low. But won’t that increase as users increase? In that case, won’t what it costs non-solar users like me get to be something that isn’t acceptable? (I do understand that this will mean that the number of solar users will increase and the number non-solar users will decrease, of course. )”
The answer is yes, certainly. On the other hand if it turns out that there is a net benefit to rooftop solar, then for small multiples of the current number of installations the benefits also increase. There is a point at which the increase in benefits falls off, but I think this would not happen even for ten times as many rooftop solar installations (i.e., 200, out of 10000, or 2%). Note again that we don’t get to capture the full magnitude of the benefits, and nothing prevents us from capturing the benefits of other solar installations — there is an incentive to (in game thoretic terms) “freeload”.
One point made in conversation with the light company is that it is important to “get the price right”. I think they are worried about a range of possible futures, that might include much more affordable solar, a rapid increase in the number of installations, and a widespread expectation of net metering prices for solar (or worse, a lot of people who had committed money to a solar installation and perhaps now have a strong financial interest in continuing it).
Questions (not a complete list)
Who’s getting the RECs for rooftop solar in Belmont?
Are we already paying something like a carbon tax for some or all of our power?
I think we are — $10 per ton — but I’m not sure of the details.
In what ways is Belmont Light already spending money to reduce electrical demand, peak or otherwise? How effective is that spending? (Need to start here to look for answers.)
Are we being clear about what we think our social obligations are? Do we wish to err in the direction of being freeloaders (doing less, getting more) or chumps (doing more, getting less)?
Related interesting stuff
An interesting summary of the economics of the Tesla PowerWall. Note their uncertainty about how the cost of the inverter is accounted in SolarCity’s proposed package deal; I’m glad to know I’m not the only puzzled person here.
March 21, 2015
Not too long ago, we had #BlackLivesMatter protests that blocked some of the roads in the Boston area. There was much handwringing about how ambulances and other emergency vehicles were (potentially) delayed, but in that one-time event only one ambulance was diverted, and I heard of no particular harm from this one event.
Meanwhile, almost every work day there are traffic jams that impede ambulances. On the days that I shop at Fresh Pond Mall, in the few minutes that I am outdoors I often notice an ambulance slowed or even stopped by traffic. I assume if I spent an hour watching during the rush that I would see one or more of these delays every single day. The delays at the protests were larger, but if you roll the dice with small delays again and again and again, eventually there will be losses. Oddly enough, nobody makes too much of a fuss about these delays.
November 2, 2014
Once upon a time when bike share was proposed for cities like New York and Boston, there was much hand-wringing and pearl-clutching about all those inexperienced cyclists riding around without helmets (except for Hitler; Hitler knew that mandatory helmets for bike share would kill bike share). Boston even went so far as to install helmet vending machines to deal with bike share’s “big safety problem”.
But earlier this year, someone totaled up all the bike share rides in this country (and they can count them for real, because each ride comes with rental data), and in 23 million rides, there was not a single fatality.
So do we still think that bike share needs helmets? Then surely, any other activity with a higher fatality rate and a high rate of head injuries also needs helmets. Let’s see, driving, a fatality rate of 1 in 10.9 million trips, and severe head injuries involved in 41% of fatalities. In 23 million car trips, we’d expect over two fatalities, and a 65% chance that at least one of those fatalities involved a severe head injury.
So are we rational about risk, or not? (And this is not even total risk, this is just risk of violent death, as opposed to death by nonviolent cancer, heart attack, and stroke.) Why would we promote helmet use for bike share, but not for drivers in general, when the measured risk of fatal head injury is definitely higher for drivers?