Makaleha Fire

"I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived. I did not wish to live what was not life, living is so dear; nor did I wish to practise resignation, unless it was quite necessary. I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life, to live so sturdily and Spartan-like as to put to rout all that was not life, to cut a broad swath and shave close, to drive life into a corner, and reduce it to its lowest terms, and, if it proved to be mean, why then to get the whole and genuine meanness of it, and publish its meanness to the world; or if it were sublime, to know it by experience, and be able to give a true account of it in my next excursion."

-Henry David Thoreau

I started this blog after a propeller ripped through my pelvis, gluteals, and vertebral column.  My most vivid memory of the experience is waking up on the morning after the accident and watching the sun rise over Haleakala (aptly translated as House of the Sun) through my window at Maui Memorial Hopsital.  Sokchea was sleeping on a chair beneath the window and as the sun peaked over the mountain the room exploded with a golden light. 

That morning light changed my life.  While it might have been the endorphin infused high of completing my first marathon night of searing, indescribable pain or the simple fact that I was being intravenously pumped with more mind altering chemicals then ever before, but I think there was something else going on.  It was like the nervous laughter of relief that we let out after a near accident.  But multiplied by 1000.  My entire being was screaming out: "I'm alive."  That was the luckiest day of my life.  Not simply because I narrowly avoided death, but because it taught me how to live.  

That feeling is still there hanging around in the shadows of my mind.  But the only time it's palpable is when it's illuminated by the golden fire of the first or last light of the day.  If only for an instant, it shows me what I'm looking for. 

However, I spend the rest of the day as the embodiment of the beast that I railed against two weeks ago.  This week was consumed with insurance audits, reconciling a year's worth of canoe related expenses, paying the IRS, and preparing W2s for distribution.

Yet, as much as I'm overcome with the malaise of daily life, the sun inevitably sets. 

Smart Meters, one last time

The Garden Island Newspaper just published a letter of mine on why we need smart meters.  While it's a 290 word summary of my pro-SM argument, it doesn't address most arguments against SM.  So, here's some elaboration. 

1) The money would have been better spent on PV.  
KIUC spent $11,000,000 on the meters, half of which came from the federal government from a program aimed specifically at Smart Grid improvement projects.  So, only half of it would have been available it were spent directly on PV. 

 If it were possible to put $5 million towards household PV systems, at last year's average installation price ($5.3 per watt) that would get us about 1 megawatt of distributed electricity for our island. That's somewhere around 2% of Kaua'i's daytime energy needs. However, as soon as the sun sets those PV panels stop producing electricity, Yet, we all go home and turn on our TVs and lights, drawing 65  megawatts, all of which is coming from dirty oil. KIUC has to maintain a powerplant with enough capacity to supply all of that power. So, our single megawatt of added PV capacity basically did nothing in terms of making us energy independent.

One of the most important aspects of a smart meter in terms of renewable energy is its proven effectiveness in minimizing peak loads. With consumer education (showing people their power consumption) and time of use pricing, SMs have repeatedly been shown to reduce peak consumption by at least 20%. Using the same numbers we just used above, that's 13 megawatts (20% of 65MW) that shifts to the daytime (when we have the available power). That's the effective equivalent of spending $69,000,000 on household PV systems.  So, the answer is no, spending it on PV wouldn't put us any closer to 100% renewable power.

2) Low income people are hurt the most by time of use pricing. 
As I explained in my last post, our current system is incredibly detrimental to low income folks.  As distributed PV systems become more popular and cost effective, the cost burden of maintaining the grid falls on a smaller and smaller number of costumers.  Currently anyone can oversize a PV system on their house and have an electric bill of zero.  Under the current system, it makes financial sense for everyone to oversize their systems.  However, the more households that put up PV panels, the smaller the proportion of homes that are paying an electric bill and therefore contributing to the fixed costs of grid maintenance (power lines, administrative costs, power plant maintenance, etc).  Yet, those fixed costs are necessary to keep electricity flowing.  So those without the financial wherewithal to install PV are left footing the bill for the fixed costs of keeping the grid up and running.  Under this system, as more distributed renewable energy enters the grid, electricity prices will continue to rise for the dwindling number of households without solar.   A smart grid, enabled by smart meters, can ensure that we work around this fundamental problem.  As with any open market where prices are set based on supply and demand, a variable price structure will take the fixed costs of the grid into account and ensure that the price that KIUC buys and sell electricity for is the real, varying cost of electricity. 

Further, it's impossible to identify the major cost causers using analog meters.  The utility needs to maintain a spinning reserve in order to account for major spikes to the system.  So, a home that uses energy predictably and in small increments is cheap and easy to account for, while a commercial entity that has major and unpredictable energy swings adds a huge cost to the system.  With our current system, the inefficiencies of the big user are averaged into our system and we all pay the costs.  With a smart meter, that high cost user can be isolated and charged more for the energy spikes. 

And, many are using the argument that everyone has to shower and do dishes at night, and we can't penalize for that type of energy use.  Luckily on Kaua'i, turning on the water requires no electricity, and most homes on the island are now using solar hot water or gas, which also don't require electricity.  So, while time of use pricing will incentivize turning off lights and minimizing the TV at night, those efficiency measures are integral if we're going to be generating the bulk of our power from PV. 

3) Radiowaves are labeled as a carcinogen by the WHO. 
It is listed as a type 2b carcinogen, but that is the equivalent of pickled foods and coffee.  It means that they can't rule out the possibility of RF waves causing cancer.  But, as in all things, dosage is important.  We're surrounded by RF all day long, both natural and artificial. The American Cancer Society is careful to say that there is no evidence that SMs cause cancer.  Standing 9 feet from an SM that is on (2 minutes per day) exposes you to 250 - 1,250 times LESS RF than talking on a cell phone. That means that 10 minutes of cell phone usage is equivalent to standing near a smart meter for 24 hours a day for a year and a half. 

4) EMF (electromagnetic field) exposure makes some people sick. 
According to the World Health Organization, that's not true, and, even if it were, the power of an SM is miniscule compared to a cell phone.  From the WHO:
"A number of studies have been conducted where EHS individuals were exposed to EMF similar to those that they attributed to the cause of their symptoms. The aim was to elicit symptoms under controlled laboratory conditions.  The majority of studies indicate that EHS individuals cannot detect EMF exposure any more accurately than non-EHS individuals. Well controlled and conducted double-blind studies have shown that symptoms were not correlated with EMF exposure.
It has been suggested that symptoms experienced by some EHS individuals might arise from environmental factors unrelated to EMF.   Examples may include “flicker” from fluorescent lights, glare and other visual problems with VDUs, and poor ergonomic design of computer workstations. Other factors that may play a role include poor indoor air quality or stress in the workplace or living environment. There are also some indications that these symptoms may be due to pre-existing psychiatric conditions as well as stress reactions as a result of worrying about EMF health effects, rather than the EMF exposure itself."

Whereas EMF exposure has never been shown to get anyone sick, we know that the pollution from burning fossil fuels kills 34,000 people a year and puts 18,000,000 more in the hospital for respiratory issues.  Not to mention climate change and war.  

5) Those who advocate for a smart grid have been greenwashed by corporate propaganda. 
In my opinion, this point merits the most discussion.  I am weary of new technology and even more weary of the government telling us that that technology is necessary for us. It has been my biggest hesitation with smart meters.  But, there is not a large environmental organization on the planet that disputes the importance of a smart grid.  There are 100s of feasibility studies showing us the way forward to a world of 100% renewable power.  Every single one of them mentions the integral importance of a smart grid and demand response management (lowering our demand in response to price signals based on availability of electricity).  It took me awhile to come around, but there is simply no way for us to get to 100% renewable energy without a smart grid. 

6) But we're a co-op, and should share all costs. 
No.  When a small group of people are going against the will of the co-op in using an outdated technology that adds a huge cost to the system (outside of just meter readers), then those people should be charged for that cost.


Here's my letter published in TGI:

Vote ‘yes’ for energy independence
As Kauai begins a new year, we, as citizens, have a rare opportunity to make a difference in our energy future. In the upcoming KIUC meter fee election, we can either vote yes in support of sustainability and energy independence or vote no in support of business-as-usual and fossil fuels.

Crude oil prices have gone up 400 percent in the last decade. Add in the hidden costs of pollution, foreign wars and climate change, and it’s clear that we need to find a new energy source for our isolated island community. It’s time for us to strive for energy independence. We can’t continue to burn diesel fuel as our primary fuel source and we can’t transition to an island run primarily off renewable energy if we don’t have a smart grid in place.

It’s not about saving KIUC money on meter readers or bringing our utility bill down (because energy prices are going to continue to rise). It is about being able to accurately match the supply of electricity with the demand. It’s about flattening out the daily demand curve by promoting the use of electricity when it’s readily available (when the sun is shining) and discouraging it when it’s not (at night). It’s about shedding the stranglehold of oil on our isolated island community and minimizing our contribution to climate change. Most importantly, it’s about using the resources that we have (sun, wind, and water) to power our island. A smart grid, by enabling time of use pricing and furthering consumer education based on real time energy usage, is a necessary bridge to a sustainable future.

Those who opt out of a smart meter should be responsible for paying the direct costs associated with opting-out. Please vote yes in the KIUC election.

Luke Evslin
Kapahi

An Energy Revolution

Winter is the hardest time of the year.

Since all of our electricity comes from the sun, we have a finite amount of electricity.  It's determined by the angle of the sun, the cloud cover, and the length of the day.  On sunny summer days we have more power than we know what to do with.  When it's cloudy and the days are short (our average winter day), we're on severe energy rations.  At night, our battery bank keeps us running, but it only has as much power as can be filled up throughout the day.  While we do have a generator for back-up, we try our hardest to never use it.  So, our average winter night means no more than one LED light bulb on at a time, nothing plugged in or running other than the refrigerator and oven, and lights out at 10pm.  Unless it was sunny all day, we can't watch a movie or do laundry in the evening.  We can't use the toaster until the sun is shining.  The fan for our composting toilet has to be turned off from October - February.  I don't think much about using electricity in the daytime (because it's abundant) but every flick of the switch at night means I have a little less of a valuable commodity. 

After a life-time "on-the-grid," the lesson of finite electricity has been, by far, the most valuable experience of living "off-grid."  When you're living in a home connected by powerlines to a utility, you don't have to think much of where your electricity comes from or how much there is.  Up until a decade ago, things were simple.  Electricity came from the utility which, for the most part, burned an oil derivative or coal in order to produce it.  We, as consumers, were customers of the utility.  The more we consumed, the more they profited.  Like any traditional business model, it's in their best interest to sell us more electricity.  Every time we turned on a lightbulb, our meter would begin to spin and electrons would flow down the line from the power plant into our home.  The electrons were, for the most part, created in a large internal combustion engine which also created more than a dozen proven carcinogens and carbon emissions.  Every watt of electricity that flowed into our home generated a corresponding tick of the meter which was paid every month based on the value that the meter reader saw when he visited our neighborhood. 

When oil was cheap, the effects of climate change unknown, and distributed PV (i.e. rooftop solar panels) nonexistent, the system worked perfectly.  However, none of those are true anymore.  We are beginning to realize the true costs of oil and coal in the form of incessant foreign wars, climate change, pollution, oil spills, deforestation, and mercury poisoning.  We are running out of easy-to-access sources of oil, which has caused the price of crude oil to go up 400% in the last decade.  And, most disruptive to the model is the fact that anyone can install a photovoltaic panel on their house which promises to supply them with free electricity.  These factors are quickly necessitating a paradigm shift in our utility model. 

One of the main problems is that rooftop PV eats away at the bottom line of utilities.  A large portion of what we pay for electricity goes towards supporting the fixed costs of the grid (line and power plant maintenance, administrative costs, etc).  If the utility guarantees that they will purchase PV power from homes at a set price, then, assuming that the amortized price per KWH produced by a PV panel is less than it is to purchase from the utility (called grid parity, which it is in Hawai'i and the southern US)  it makes financial sense on an individual level for everyone to oversize their systems.  The excess power that they produce ensures that their meter runs backward enough so that they don't have to pay an electric bill.  However, this creates two related problems:

1) The sun isn't always shining.  So, the service that the utility provides is still necessary. They still need to maintain their power plants and the lines to your house.  When a cloud passes overhead or the sun sets, the utility then needs to crank up their generators to cover the sudden loss of power. 

2) The more homes that oversize their systems, the higher the burden of covering the fixed costs of the grid (line and power planet maintenance, administrative costs, etc) for the rest of the homes.  You still with me?  The fixed costs of the grid don't change as rooftop PV panels gain in popularity.  So, imagine an island of 100 homes.  There is a central power plant and everyone is connected to it.  That plant and the power lines cost $100,000 ($1,000 per home) per year to maintain.  One day an expert PV salesman shows up, and sells large PV systems to 10 houses.  Those 10 homes are no longer paying an electric bill, because the utility is paying them the avoided cost of fuel (which Kaua'i does) for their excess power or simply running their meter backwards (net metering) for every KWH they receive.  However, the utility still needs to maintain the same generation capacity, because peak power occurs at night and nobody is generating any solar power at night.  So, the overhead costs are now saddled on the remaining 90 homes ($1,111 per home).  As rates rise, the PV salesman is able to sell systems to 30 people the next year.  Meaning that only 60 homes are paying for the overhead of the system ($1,666 per home) which is factored into their usual rates (which also include variable price inputs like fuel).  Pretty soon, everyone but the lowest income group on the island now have oversized PV systems and those few remaining folks are footing the bill.  Rates have risen up to 20% in some places for those exact reasons.  This doesn't work.  Look at this recent example from HECO for what utilities are doing about it (limiting the expansion of solar). 

We're stuck in a world where the utility company charges the same amount per electron whether it came from oil or the sun.  Because of this, we have a dwindling customer base which will result in either the utility going bankrupt (and not being able to maintain the grid) or the lowest income families being pushed into destitution with higher rates. 

The system is inherently flawed and bound to fail. 

In order to live within our means, we need to incentivize electricity when it's readily available (when the sun is shining) and discourage it when it's not.  We have to change the way that we look at the flow of electrons.  Instead of a one-way line from utility to us at a set price, we need to democratize our energy so that electrons become a commodity which we buy, sell, and trade at a market price based on the current supply and demand.  We can very quickly revolutionize our island by becoming fully participatory members of a completely distributed energy system.  Our utility can transition from being an energy supplier, to being merely the middleman in a market of electrons. 

But it starts with smart meters. 

The fundamental problem with analog meters is that all we know about our electricity consumption is in a monthly total.  We don't know if we consumed that power when it was readily available (sunny day) or when it wasn't (late at night).  So all electricity outflow is priced at one rate, and all electricity inflow at another.  There is no way to distinguish between an electron that was generated on a sunny day on a PV panel in a field in Lawai or at night in the bowels of Port Allen in an internal combustion engine.  Daytime use can't be incentivized, and a variable fair market price for electricity which ensures that the overhead of the grid is being spread out evenly is impossible.  The one-way flow of information from analog meters ensure the failure of distributed renewables into our grid, and they maintain the status-quo of the traditional utility-customer model.

If we have any hope of realizing 100% renewables for Kaua'i, accurately pricing energy consumption and production based on supply and demand is a necessary first step. 

It's time to shed the strangehold of oil on our isolated island community and minimize our contribution to climate change by using the resources that we have (sun, wind, and water) to power our island.  A smart grid, by enabling time of use pricing and furthering consumer education based on real time energy usage, is a necessary bridge to a sustainable future.

*As always, I feel the need for a bit of a guilty disclaimer.  Being off-grid removes me from this system.  Instead of being a participatory member in a potential vibrant market of electrons, I become a self contained island.  When it's sunny and my batteries are topped off, my excess electrons are completely wasted.  Living off-grid is a relatively inefficient use of resources.