Northeast Blackout:
Understanding the Latest Blackout
9.3.03
Thomas Casten, Chairman and CEO, Private Power LLC
I have been on vacation, building and researching
bread ovens, during the week of the worst yet power
outage. (Sadly, more outages will follow, as the wires
are thoroughly congested.) This has produced a unique
insight and way to describe the situation. I think
history has repeated itself, but you be the judge.
A history of bread ovens in the Swiss/French border
area notes that the church introduced grain suitable
for bread in about the 12th century. The Carolingian
kings owned the bread ovens, known as banal ovens
because of rules regulating their use.
Although anyone could use the communal oven for
a fee, the oven belonged to the lord, and he controlled
its use. He had the right to fine anyone who avoided
the use of his ovens, his mills, his presses, his
bulls, or his sawmills: these fines were called bans.
Footnote: The Bread Builders, 1999, page 115, Chelsea
Green Publishing Company, Daniel Wing and Alan Scott
The laws called "les bans," were referred to as
the banality laws. (Funny how that word has evolved
to mean commonplace or trivial. Such bans on competition
have certainly been common in all of commerce, but
their impact has not been trivial.) Over the next
five centuries, the oven ownership passed from the
kings to the municipalities, but the bans were kept
in place and oven use became even more onerous for
the people. Recall the dismal pace of economic progress
between the 12th and 17th centuries. A half of millennium
after the introduction of bread, people were finally
allowed to own their own ovens.
North America has just suffered the biggest power
blackout yet, because of modern banality laws. Within
25 years of the commercialization of electric power,
the Wire Lords persuaded every State government to
enact bans on private wires. Those bans remain in
place and greatly discourage the construction of distributed
generation, near the loads. DG is often made uneconomical
by the confiscatory charges of the Wire Lords for
back-up power, moving surplus power to neighbors,
and for the privilege of connecting to the grid. All
electricity flows to the nearest user in an interconnected
grid, so increased local generation would immediately
reduce the flow of power through the congested T&D
system. Since losses are related to the square of
the current flow, even modest introduction of DG would
significantly reduce line losses and reduce the strain
on an increasingly congested T&D system. If independent
power generators had the option of running their own
wire across the road to a nearby shopping center or
hospital or other power user, the wires companies
would drop their DG killing charges and seek to at
least earn a fee for carrying local power. The wires
lords, left without banality laws, would knock on
DG developer's door and say, "Let us reason together."
Few new wires would cross any roads, but the cost
charged by the lords, without banality laws, would
be reasonable. As a result, the power industry would
stop building wasteful central plants that throw away
66% of the fuel energy on average as heat. Instead,
the industry would move to localized combined heat
and power projects that recycle heat and achieve 85%
efficiency. This would mitigate a long series of problems
including economic competitiveness, balance of payments,
system vulnerability to weather and terrorists, air
pollution and emission of greenhouse gasses. But instead
we have banality laws.
Perhaps we could all learn from prior bans on competition
to understand the worldwide energy mess. But the flat
earth view of wires being a natural monopoly is so
widely held and so little challenged that few see
the obvious solution -- end the ban on private wires.
A Nobel Laureate, Richard Smaley, has become concerned
about energy waste as well. He asks audiences to name
and rank the top ten problems facing the world, and
finds energy is the problem that connects to all of
the others. What he does not realize is how the banality
laws prevent optimal solutions. The DG community fights
for fair and reasonable interconnection charges and
reduced backup charges without realizing that their
projects actually create huge benefits to the rest
of society and should be paid for the locational value
of the power, for the saved wires, saved T&D losses,
and saved cost and pollution.
As you read the daily journalistic analysis of the
blackout and see government officials lining up for
more investment in the obsolete central system's wires,
think about the impact on world problems if it takes
four hundred more years to end the ban on private
wires.
Readers Comments
Date |
Comment |
Dennis Taylor
9.9.03 |
Were Mr. Casten to spend as much time researching
the early commercialization of electricity as
thoroughly as he has bread ovens, he would recognize
the canopy of wires that covered cities. Of
course there were no siting requirements to
deal with – or should we return to those
days of cat’s-cradle networks? As for
the “confiscatory” charges for backup
power, does it cost the provider less to install
the wires and generation to meet the backyard
producer’s needs due to its own lack of
reliability? It is the number of kilowatt-hours
in the denominator that dictates the unit cost
of service.
|
**** ****
9.9.03 |
Patrick Doss-Smith 9.9.03
I have not done much research into either
the taxes on bread ovens or the early history
of the electric grid, though I've used homemade
bread ovens based on an 1830'S French design
and I've used the electrical grid as well. What
I can say for certain is that if the economy
actually existed to serve everyday people, then
Mr. Casten's assertions would probably be quite
accurate. However, the problem in his argument
is that he is talking about corporations, who,
like lords of old, most often serve themselves
first and the peasants last, if at all. Our
current concept of free market has completely
left out the idea of "fair market" and frankly,
I don't trust most corporations any further
than I can throw a bread oven. I'm sorry Mr.
Casten, I feel that you are correct that private
ownership of wires would be beneficial but the
risk of unethical behavior amongst the "corporate
lords" is far too great.
|
Jack Ellis
9.9.03 |
Mr. Casten makes an interesting, very relevant
argument about the current state of the electric
transmission and distribution network. Through
their dominance of the wires business, utilities
do exert an unhealthy influence on competitive
electricity technologies in an attempt to protect
their monopolies. Any debate over the relative
merits of central station versus distributed
generation technologies is little more than
an academic exercise at this point precisely
because the institutional and economic barriers
erected by utilities to limit competition are
so daunting.
However those who wish to replace utility
service with some form of self-generation should
understand that standby service will be costly
in any form. They can either pay a flat fee
each month as they do for other forms of insurance,
or they can pay a steep use fee each time they
must switch to grid power just as they would
pay for ambulance service. The first method
will likely be cheaper because it provides more
revenue certainty to the standby service provider,
but the second method would be cheaper for a
customer that is confident about the reliability
of its self-generation facilities.
Jack Ellis
|
Ravinder Singh
9.9.03 |
Mr. Thomas you have lightly explained the critical
situation. I am a WIPO awarded inventor and
engineer of innovative projects & technologies,
I find no reason for Jack and Dennis to react--.
They don't seems to be familiar with power sector.
When we talk of DG we don't mean 1to5 Kw equipments.
Combined cycle could have rating of over hundreds
MW - they are twice more efficient, cost less,
are less polluting and can be located closest
to load centers. Similarly CHP plants are available
from 25 KW to hundreds of MW depending on requirement
and are thrice more efficient. BUT THE CENTRAL
OBJECTIVE IS TO MAKE BEST USE OF ENERGY RELEASED
BY FUELS. And we must promote these viable technologies.
Mr. Dennis, The overhead lines are like freeways
which every one be entitled to use and usage
charges should be reasonable. ( telecom, pipelines
, Internet, broadcast services etc. are share
infrastructure- Utilities must also learn to
share the powerlines). Since powerlines are
similar, FERC may order usage charges to be
paid by DG, who may also order enhancement of
capacity of powerlines where ever required.
Objective should be to provide electricity econmically.---Ravinder
Singh, ravindersinghy77@yahoo.com
|
|