Giant Utility Rejects Net Zero Power; Big Fight Follows

by David Wojick

Dominion Energy, Virginia’s big electric utility, is telling the state it does not foresee complying with the 2045 net zero power target in the Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA). The preferred option in Dominion’s latest Integrated Resources Plan (IRP) retires no fossil-fueled power generators, other than the few old ones that are already in the process of retirement. In fact, it adds a lot more fossil juice.

Up front in the IRP, Dominion puts it this way: “Due to an increasing load forecast, and the need for dispatchable generation, the Alternative Plans show additional natural-gas-fired resources and preserve existing carbon-emitting units beyond statutory retirement deadlines established in the VCEA. The law explicitly authorizes the Company to petition the SCC for relief from these requirements on the basis that the unit retirements would threaten the reliability or security of electric service to customers.”

So, in effect, this is a notice to Virginia’s utility regulator, the State Corporation Commission (SCC), that Dominion is prepared to petition for permission to not comply with the net zero power generation mandate in the VCEA.

In fact, this IRP may constitute such a petition. The anti-fossil forces apparently think so because they have petitioned the SCC to reject the IRP because it includes more gas-fired generation. In response, the SCC has initiated a formal legal proceeding to consider this request. A number of green groups have joined the proceeding; there has been a hearing, public comments have been taken, etc. The whole rulemaking deal.

The impetus for this unexpected bout of rationality from Dominion is, as the quote says, an increased load forecast. Specifically, the SCC requires Dominion to use the load forecast from the regional grid operator, which is PJM. They issued a whopping new forecast that is roughly double their earlier ones going back years.

So Dominion is saying they don’t think we can service this enormous new load and comply with the VCEA net zero mandate. They specifically propose not to retire most of their fossil fleet, plus adding almost 3,000 MW of gas-fired generation over the next 15 years. No wonder the anti-fossils are apoplectic.

Unfortunately, they also add a ridiculous amount of renewables. It amounts to about 11,000 Megawatts (MW) of solar and 3,000 MW of mostly offshore wind, on top of the 2,600 MW of offshore already in process. With their usual smoke and mirrors, there is virtually no storage to make this intermittent junk reliable despite costing tens of billions of dollars. If the gas-fired power does that, why not just use it instead of the renewables? Plus, offshore wind is hell on whales. But I digress.

Dominion has 7 million customers in 16 states, so its Virginia no net zero action has much wider implications. Beyond that, it could be a national precedent, so other utilities, states, and interest groups should be watching closely.

What the SCC decides could be very important. Ironically, in a ridiculous sense, the SCC does not exist at this time. Due to a political stalemate, there is only one Commissioner, out of the called-for three, and it takes a quorum of two to issue a formal order. It looks like the most that can happen is that an administrative law judge can render an opinion on the anti-fossil petition.

The SCC legal mess is beyond my knowledge or understanding. Rejecting an IRP seems odd to begin with. Then, too, the VCEA seems to allow what Dominion is describing specifically. Nor is it at all clear that an IRP is a petition when the matter is just presented as an option. Perhaps it is a petition to be allowed to suggest it. The whole fight strikes me as an absurd confusion, but alarmism is like that. Maybe that is the message. Anti-fossil alarmism is an absurd confusion.

This confused action should be fun to watch. Stay tuned to CFACT as the no net zero drama unfolds.

(Click here to read CFACT’s comment to the Virginia State Corporation Commission.)

David Wojick, Ph.D. is an independent analyst working at the intersection of science, technology and policy.

Republished with permission from CFACT.

 


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

94 responses to “Giant Utility Rejects Net Zero Power; Big Fight Follows”

  1. “So Dominion is saying they don’t think we can service this enormous new load and comply with the VCEA net zero mandate.”

    Dominion is essentially saying that it doesn’t mind spending our money on renewable boodogles that may or may not work, but if they intend to keep selling electricity, they need the ability to reliably produce enough of it to meet demand.

    1. It’s self-preservation. Dominion is smart enough to know whose home angry, freezing natives with pitchforks are likely to visit. The elites of the left lack any such common sense.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Just like with cars, we substantially increased gas mileage AND the cars actually have gotten MORE reliable.

        or HVACs : ”
        The most efficient air conditioners use 30% to 50% less energy to produce the same amount of cooling as air conditioners made in the mid 1970s. Even if your air conditioner is only 10 years old, you may save 20% to 40% of your cooling energy costs by replacing it with a newer, more efficient model.”

        Or LED lights after an initial transition and evolution to fluorescents…

        NO reason the same thing can’t happen in other areas of energy use.

        Can’t understand why people would oppose new technologies that have promise.

        1. No one is opposing new, proven technologies. It is irrational to adopt new technologies before they are tested and proven. That’s what you are asking us to do. You can’t explain the fair share liberals have been demanding for 90 years. You can’t quantify how clean the air should be. Cars are cleaner, HVAC is more efficient, energy is saved, and it’s not enough to satisfy your demands. No matter how much the rich pay, it’s not enough. Every time someone does what you ask, you use that as justification to demand more while claiming that they aren’t trying. You will never be satisfied until you can quantify what the end result should be. Can you quantify your demands?

          1. “Can you quantify your demands?”

            I’m sure he can, but tomorrow they will change.

            And then there’s what will be required after that.

            Businesses and citizens must always do more, pay more and give up more liberties.

  2. LarrytheG Avatar

    Dominion also doing this:

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fd1919409b8bc1e2f48668fd499ce7b202c8c74d0aca54b4671fcea56a4c4e16.jpg

    https://www.energy-storage.news/dominion-energy-in-innovative-and-timely-pilot-of-long-duration-energy-storage-technologies/

    If this kind of storage proves feasible, it would be a game-changer for grid “reliability”in general as well as wind/solar.

    1. David Wojick Avatar
      David Wojick

      Not really. The storage requirements to make renewables reliable are so huge that even at a 10th of today’s battery price the cost is not feasible. See my http://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Constraining-Renewables-is-a-National-Need-Executive-Summary.pdf
      and http://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/WOJICKREPORT.pdf

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        It’s not right now, just like electric cars were not feasible a few years ago. It’s an evolving technology that will get better and better like most technologies that we do rely on today that started out not feasible initially. Take cell phones…. or drones…. or GPS… to name a few.

      2. William Chambliss Avatar
        William Chambliss

        Once again, Mr. Wojick, you posit that the system that is to come consists only of renewable and intermittent resources. This is incorrect. DOM is not retiring any of its entirely dispatchable nuclear resources and is proposing to augment its fleet with new nuclear technology, the Small Modular Reactor currently being developed around the country and advocated by none other than Gov. Youngkin. Along with slow discharging batteries, SMR is a very promising technology. I’m inclined to believe it will be commercially ready well in advance of the 2045 date that current law requires for the retirement of fossil fired generation.

        1. David Wojick Avatar
          David Wojick

          I posit no such thing. But the existing and proposed nukes are a small fraction of projected need, tiny if we include electrification as discussed in our comments. All nukes is another possibility but it is not on the table at this time.

        2. David Wojick Avatar
          David Wojick

          Nukes normally do not ramp up and down very well. If not then running them as intermediate generators would be expensive and running them as peakers very expensive.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            This is true but if overall baseload demand increases due to electric cars and data centers, maybe they do well.

            The big chink in the armor is their cost.

            Climate skeptics argue that electricity should be generated by the lowest cost source that is dispatchable.

            So, would Climate Skeptics actually support nukes if they are much more costly than gas?

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            But if we are going to use MORE power due to electric vehicles and data centers, then we would need more baseload power, which nukes do, right?

        3. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          Chambliss: Had Jim Bacon or Bob Rayner consulted me, I would have advised them not to re-post this. But I’ve been on travel for a week or so.

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            “Another country heard from…”

            Speaking of which, what other country is it this time?

    2. IF being the key word. If only that guy had been able to complete his work on the 100 MPG carburetor before big oil stole the patents…
      I would feel better if the same groups who can’t tell us what the rich’s fair share is and show how they compute it weren’t pushing this fiasco. What road is paved with good intentions?

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Well.. this is not “one guy”. This is an industry not unlike Tesla and Starlink that actually
        are real and going forward.

        Why oppose such efforts in the first place?

        Fair share ? paying what they used to pay because the tax cuts (that are financed with debt).

        1. It is not an industry like Tesla et al. Tesla and Starlink have actual proven products that are available for sale. The battery you presented is an untested, unproven product still in its testing stage. You may HOPE that it is a game changer, but it is still an unknown commodity.

          Those who disagree with you are not necessarily opposed to progress. I am opposed to using your dream that an unproven product will, in fact, work as justification for making policy decisions today for an industry that is fundamental to our nation.

          I dispute your assertion that the rich were paying their fair share pre-tax cut. If that is true, the middle class were also paying their fair share and didn’t deserve their, larger tax cut either. The top 5% make 20% of the income – please show me what their fair tax share is and how you computed the number. Without a formula, it’s all just greed and envy.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            At one point in the past, Tesla and Starlink were concepts like other concepts and over time advanced to reality.

            Until then BOTH were UNPROVEN… and in development and an unknown.

            Those who are opposed are often and typically the same ones who oppose most all advances in technology. Opposed to unleaded gas. Opposed to increased fuel efficiency. Opposed to smog equipment. Opposed to reducing emissions from power plants. Opposed to cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay, etc, etc, etc… same folks

            The tax cut favored the higher income and is financed by selling treasury bonds.

          2. Calling people who disagree with you is not a rational argument. Until you can give rational arguments, you are only expressing an opinion. If you have to resort to name calling, it is a hate filled argument.

            Your tax cut analysis in not supported by the IRS data:

            Income data published by the IRS clearly show that on average all income brackets benefited substantially from the Republicans’ tax reform law, with the biggest beneficiaries being working and middle-income filers, not the top 1 percent, as so many Democrats have argued.

            https://news.yahoo.com/irs-data-prove-trump-tax-130007569.html

        2. Who is opposing the “efforts” – the research and development of the technology? Answer: Almost nobody.

          What many of us oppose is having the government mandate the use of new technology before it is adequately developed.

          1. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            Congress just needs to repeal the laws of physics.

            That should solve the problem.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            ” Who is opposing the “efforts” – the research and development of the technology? Answer: Almost nobody.

            What many of us oppose is having the government mandate the use of new technology before it is adequately developed.”

            so you oppose unleaded gas, ethanol in gas, sewage treatment mandates, car emission standards, etc?

            People DO oppose wind/solr and in this blog post… storage batteries that Dominion wants to pursue…

            We have cleaner air and cleaner water no question due to govt mandates.

            The mandates often drive the technology. There would be less or no R&D at all if the govt did not mandate.

            That’s how cars got cleaner using technology initially that was not ready for prime time.

            Ditto for sewage treatment. Until the govt mandated standards, the technology did not exist. It got developed in response to the mandates.

            Look back at car safety, seat belts and air bags… same thing. Mandates… technology that did not work as well as it should… but then evolved.

          3. so you oppose unleaded gas, ethanol in gas, sewage treatment mandates, car emission standards, etc?

            All of that technology was adequately developed before it was mandated.

            Please name the people in this blog who have made known their opposition to pursuing better and more efficient battery technology.

            Ditto for sewage treatment. Until the govt mandated standards, the technology did not exist. It got developed in response to the mandates.

            You are dead wrong about that.

            The mandates often drive the technology. There would be less or no R&D at all if the govt did not mandate.

            You are dead wrong about that.

            Look back at car safety, seat belts and air bags… same thing. Mandates… technology that did not work as well as it should… but then evolved.

            You are definitely dead wrong about that.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar

            You don’t remember the issues with unleaded gas and later the “new” emissions systems?
            We’d simply not have better sewage treatment if we did not mandate it to a standard like we have with other things. They set the standard and a goal date and the technology evolves to meet that standard on the goal date if they can.

            The free market would not do that. It would not develop technology for cleaner carsl or anything else if it were not for mandates. And you’ve never heard industry saying they “can’t do that”?

            You are the one who is dead wrong.. not dealing with the realities,. IMO.

          5. We’d simply not have better sewage treatment if we did not mandate it to a standard like we have with other things.

            You said the mandate preceded the technology. That is not correct.

            And you’re wrong about automotive development as well. Most of the safety features and driver assist features people enjoy in their vehicles today were developed by Formula One race teams, and they do not do their research because of any government mandates.

            In fact, apart from driver safety developments or emissions reduction technology, once the teams perfect a particular technology like, say, anti-lock brakes, the FIA usually bans it. They like the driver to do the work.

          6. We’d simply not have better sewage treatment if we did not mandate it to a standard like we have with other things.

            The activated sludge process was discovered and initially developed in 1914, well before the EPA began setting the water quality standards. which led to its widespread use at sewage treatment plants. The mandate did not precede the technology.

            And you’re wrong about automotive development as well. Most of the safety features and driver assist features people enjoy in their vehicles today were first invented and developed by Formula One car racing teams. And F1 teams do not perform their research and development because of any government mandates.

            Also, apart from driver safety developments or emissions reduction technology, once the teams perfect a particular technology like, say, anti-lock brakes, the FIA usually bans it. They like the driver to do the work.

            This means that the teams are constantly working on new and innovative technology to try to gain even the slightest advantage over their rivals – even if for only a single season. That, sir, is the opposite of developing technology only because of government mandates.

            You should not make categorical statements about government mandates and technology when you do not know the history of a particular technology.

          7. LarrytheG Avatar

            govt mandates often spur the technology to meet standards.

            It was mandates that made cars use unleaded gas not the free market.

            Mandates led to stricter emissions, not the free market.

            Sewage treatment got better because of mandates not the free market.

            THe free market does not develop these technologies if there is no market for them.
            Localities are not going to pay for higher cost sewage treatment if there is no mandate.

            Ditto for unleaded gas or stricter emissions or safety …. standards.

            In GENERAL – it ‘s true!

            anything that costs more for R/D has no pay back unless the improved technology must be purchased!

          8. In GENERAL – it ‘s true!

            That is not what you said in an earlier comment. You made a categorical claim that government mandates are the only things that lead to technological developments.

            The free market would not do that. It would not develop technology for cleaner carsl or anything else if it were not for mandates.

          9. LarrytheG Avatar

            If I said that, I was wrong. I don’t believe I did. I said that technologies that result is less pollution are spurred by mandates. THAT CONTEXT! ” cleaner cars or anything else of a similar nature”.

            Now you’re playing wordsmith games. Go away now.

            I made it pretty clear in my other overall comments the context. You’re choosing to play silly games now – argumentative just to be so.

          10. LarrytheG Avatar

            Nope. The higher treatment standards required advances in technology that would not have
            been developed without the mandate. Sewage would continue to be treated as before.

            Do you not remember the issues with unleaded gas where the existing technology was not
            handling the unleaded gas without problems and changes had to be made?

            Do you not remember the auto companies saying they could not meet the new emission standards without a technology breakthrough? Do you think catalytic converters would have been developed if there was no mandate requiring that technology?

            You are the one making the wrong categorical statements my friend. You’re not dealing with realities of how mandates have always spurred technology beyond what the free market would have created without the mandates.

  3. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    The big picture, is Virginia residents characteristically have among the highest electric bills, not because of high cost per kilowatt-hr, but because we already have electrified with heat pumps vs. mostly natural gas used in the other Northeast states. So we already have high demand due to electrification, compounded with a growing successful computer cloud industry that is huge new consumer. Add to that even + more heat pumps and + electric cars, and you realize the problem is the enormous growth of electricity, which liberals consider the only moral way to run the state and Country. On a country-wide basis we need trillion$ to electrify to the extent liberals are demanding.

  4. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    The big picture, is Virginia residents characteristically have among the highest electric bills, not because of high cost per kilowatt-hr, but because we already have electrified with heat pumps vs. mostly natural gas used in the other Northeast states. So we already have high demand due to electrification, compounded with a growing successful computer cloud industry that is huge new consumer. Add to that even + more heat pumps and + electric cars, and you realize the problem is the enormous growth of electricity, which liberals consider the only moral way to run the state and Country. On a country-wide basis we need trillion$ to electrify to the extent liberals are demanding.

  5. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    The big picture, is Virginia residents characteristically have among the highest electric bills, not because of high cost per kilowatt-hr, but because we already have electrified with heat pumps vs. mostly natural gas used in the other Northeast states. So we already have high demand due to electrification, compounded with a growing successful computer cloud industry that is huge new consumer. Add to that even + more heat pumps and + electric cars, and you realize the problem is the enormous growth of electricity, which liberals consider the only moral way to run the state and Country. On a country-wide basis we need trillion$ to electrify to the extent liberals are demanding.

  6. walter smith Avatar
    walter smith

    A surprising bit of sanity for our regulated, politicized, utility.
    I still am thinking about two shareholder proposals. One demanding nuclear and the other demanding the CEO be a real engineer with real electric industry experience and knowledge, preferably a nuclear engineer.
    Despite a certain returned commenter’s belief that if we wish it, it will come, the renewables are not consistent or reliable or cost justified. My strong advice for all the alternative cheerleaders is to only get all of their energy from those sources and prove they mean it and it can work dependably all the time. This would require people like John Francois (marry rich) Kerry sailing to his G20/ WEF virtue signals, instead of flying on his (wife owned) private jet. And when he has to exit the OBX for a hurricane warning with everybody in their electric car, he can wait inline for an hour or two to take an hour to charge his electric loser vehicle. No matter how much money the govt throws at it, it will be at least 50 years, if not never, before viability.

  7. William Chambliss Avatar
    William Chambliss

    Dominion presented 5 different plans to the Commission. Two of them fully retire all fossil units by 2045. Dominion professes to have no “preferred plan,” but it did file several sensitivity studies around 1 of the 5 and that one indeed does not comply with all the various requirements of the Virginia Clean Economy Act. However, it should be noted that the VCEA does not compel the utility to operate an unreliable system and Dom may petition the Commission to permit continued operation of ANY unit needed to preserve reliability. Its filing this year indicates a present belief that such a petition will become necessary. The plans presented, contrary to the assertion in the post, do postulate the addition of significant amounts of storage during the planning period (15 years). These are all indicated to be lithium based batteries, but today the Company has announced its intention to deploy two different battery technologies, one based on iron oxide and the other on zinc, on its system in 2024. The Company is seriously exploring storage. Lithium batteries are, as of now, depleted in 4 hours of operation, but the newer technologies may last for days, not hours. This is a potentially dramatic, not to say transformative, development, tantamount to recent announcements by Toyota and others in vehicle battery capabilities. Stay tuned.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      re: ” VCEA does not compel the utility to operate an unreliable system and Dom may petition the Commission to permit continued operation of ANY unit needed to preserve reliability. Its filing this year indicates a present belief that such a petition will become necessary.”

      and despite the claims that Virginia/Dominion would have NO CHOICE but to shut down fossil fuel plants to reach zero emissions!

      Today the word Luddite has become intertwined further in partisan politics involving global warming.

      unleaded gas would ruin internal combustion engines

      California emissions would ruin automobiles

      more recent:

      ” war on R-22 refrigerants”

      and

      cue the “war on incandescent lights”

      The usual suspects have fought for decades in advances in technologies to reduce emissions and improve efficiency. Now rebranded as Climate Skeptics.

      1. how_it_works Avatar
        how_it_works

        The difference, of course, is that AC systems using the alternative R410A were available long (at least 10 years) before R22 was banned.

        Now R410A is scheduled to be banned in 2025 and you can still buy systems using R410A, I haven’t found any for sale using the alternative refrigerant.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          Yes. But the point is they are being replaced over time because of their adverse impacts.

          1. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            I think they’re jumping the gun a little bit with banning 410A in 2 years when systems using the alternative refrigerant aren’t even commonly available yet.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            could be… the changeover to unleaded and later ethanol was not without some hitches.

      2. “The usual suspects have fought for decades in advances in technologies
        to reduce emissions and improve efficiency. Now rebranded as Climate
        Skeptics.”

        Why did they fight? Did they tell you why they disagreed?

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          They fought change primarily. Like changing to unleaded gas. or emissions standards for vehicles or safety standards for vehicles or efficiency standards in HVACs, etc… same usual suspects. Did they tell us why? Sure.. but it was the same type of reasoning they use now…

      3. and despite the claims that Virginia/Dominion would have NO CHOICE but to shut down fossil fuel plants to reach zero emissions!

        How will they reach zero emissions without shutting down fossil fuel plants? By definition, burning fossil fuels produces emissions.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          The zero emissions is a goal just like prior goals for clean water and less polluting cars… The goal dates can and do change as they must and will.

  8. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    The big picture, is Virginia residents characteristically have among the highest electric bills, not because of high cost per kilowatt-hr, but because we have already electrified with heat pumps vs. mostly natural gas used in the other Northeast states. So we already have high demand due to electrification, compounded with a growing successful computer cloud industry that is huge new consumer. Add to that even + more heat pumps and + electric cars, and you realize the problem is the enormous growth of electricity demand, which liberals consider the only moral way to run the state and Country. On a country-wide basis we need trillion$ to electrify to the extent liberals are demanding.

    Liberals view the situation as stagnant so they think we can start from where we are and reduce per capita use, but they forget there is tremendous growth of population and energy demand. On a global level 25% population increase and 85% increase in standard of living in the next few decades. Good luck meeting that enormous demand with 100% renewables. Of course, 100% fossil fuels cannot keep up with demand either. We need all of above.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Actually, to the contrary, progressives are not assuming stagnant. I think they’re relying on efficiency, i.e., progress, to keep pace. I think by definition, progressives cannot be Luddites.

      Ya know, an end to steam locomotives, incandescent bulbs, etc., etc.

      1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
        energyNOW_Fan

        Liberals assume immediate ban on fossil fuels would quickly result in a panacea of economic growth and life span. We will all live to 200-yrs and be millionaires: what’s not to like?

      2. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
        energyNOW_Fan

        Liberals assume immediate ban on fossil fuels would quickly result in a panacea of economic growth and life span. We will all live to 200-yrs and be millionaires: what’s not to like?

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Worked for booze in 1920.

  9. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    “I want my incandescent lightbulbs. LED bulbs are a communist plot.”

    1. Correction: Fluorescent bulbs were a “communist plot”. LED lighting is objectively superior to incandescent lighting.

      1. how_it_works Avatar
        how_it_works

        Unless it’s 5000K LED lighting, then it’s awful. The cheapest LEDs tend to be the 5000K ones, warmer color temperature LEDs cost more to make since they need more phosphor.

        Then you have all of the defective LED streetlights that have been installed that are now turning blue and purple. From what I saw they were 5000K when they were working right.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          1st generation? next ones will be better? usually the way evolving technology works…

          1. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            White LEDs, as far as I know, have always been available in various color temperatures, 2700K (close to incandescent), 3000K (a little bluer), 5000K (looks like lighting in a meth lab).

            5000K LED lighting is horrible for pretty much any use, but especially for streetlighting and headlights. But it’s the cheapest, and some people think it looks cool.

            Before I knew better, I bought a 10 pack of 5000K LEDs. I think I’ve used 3 or 4 of them. Just don’t like the light they put out, and I figured out why.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            how so? I know it’s different but it puts out light which is the point of street lights.

            but also total confidence that they will improve them.

            Only a few short years ago TVs were tubes… and now they’re thin sheets… and they can be
            literally as big as a stadium.

            I don’t understand why we applaud technology in some respects and diss it in other sometimes.

            The first cars were abominations…. the first TVs an abomination… street lights used to be whale oil and then a dozen other evolutions before LED and that progression has not stopped….

            We seem to have two minds about technology at times. We love it then we hate it.

          3. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            As far as why it matters:

            “Are you using warmer colored lighting where possible? When purchasing outdoor lighting products for your home, look at the correlated color temperature (CCT) for the lamp or fixture, and make sure it’s 3000 K or lower. Higher numbers contribute more to light pollution. ”

            https://darksky.org/what-we-do/advancing-responsible-outdoor-lighting/home/

          4. LarrytheG Avatar

            I only have lights on the eaves…all point down… I use motion detector outside and inside (in some spaces). That’s something you could not do with CFCs and incandescent without shortening their life.

          5. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            5000K is more bluish and less reddish/yellow. I find it to look harsh, especially when used at night.

            2700K is more reddish/yellow and less bluish. It’s closest to what an incandescent light looks like.

            Worth noting that towards the end of their popularity, 2700K CFLs were much easier to find than 5000K CFLs.

            In fact the builder put 2700K CFLs in every light fixture in my house, most of which still work just fine and which I have no intention of replacing till they fail.

            With LEDs it seems that 5000K is much easier to find than 2700K. Hopefully that changes.

          6. LarrytheG Avatar

            I still have some CFLs and will replace them with LEDs when they fail. I will say that LED on
            cars are pretty obnoxious.

          7. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            The LED on cars appears to be 5000K LEDs, which is exactly why they look obnoxious.

            They COULD use 3000K or even 2700K LEDs, but then they wouldn’t look so much like what people expect LEDs to look like!

          8. LarrytheG Avatar

            they need to incorporate auto-dim!

          9. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            Changing the LEDs to be 3000K or 2700K would make a big improvement by itself.

          10. LarrytheG Avatar

            You do seem to know.. so I’ll take your word on it!

          11. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            No need to take my word, get a 5000K led bulb and a 3000K led bulb and compare the difference. If you’ve just been buying LED bulbs without paying attention to that, you probably already have some 5000K bulbs, so get a 3000K or even a 2700K and see if you like that better.

            EDIT: The color temperature is usually written on the bulb near the base along with the other info.

          12. LarrytheG Avatar

            talking about car LEDs or street lights?

          13. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            In this case I’m talking about LED bulbs for your home, but they’re rated in color temperature (2700K, 3000K, 5000K) just the same. Once you see the difference between them you’ll see what I mean.

          14. LarrytheG Avatar

            So I must not really understand. I’m looking at a soft white 75watt equivalent that says 1100 lumens. oops.. on the side it says 2700K and it is “warm” as opposed to “cool”. 13 yr life, $1.26 annual cost.

          15. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            Ok, that 2700K is the color temperature which tells you it’s about the same color as an incandescent light. 2700K is considered “warm” and 5000K is considered “cool”. You’ll also find 3000K which is also considered “warm”, but I’d say it’s a little “cooler” than 2700K.

          16. I recently swapped out the low beam headlamp on my Ducati. The ‘stock’ halogen was all but useless. I put a 3000K LED in its place and it works just great.

          17. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            Unless it’s a projector headlight, that probably just screwed the beam pattern up.

          18. I don’t know whether the pattern is screwed up or not but it is 1,000% better than it was with the stock halogen bulb.

            The LED I used was specifically designed for use on that bike and others with similar headlight arrangements (low and high beam are separate bulbs).

          19. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            You may well be blinding oncoming drivers, which is the usual result of putting an LED bulb into a headlight assembly designed for halogen bulbs. (It’s also not allowed by regulations–there are NO LED bulbs acceptable for use to replace a halogen headlight bulb, no matter what the sellers claim).

            I have to ask–why not just use the high beam, instead of making your low beam brighter???

            At least by doing that you have the option to stop blinding oncoming traffic by switching back to the (normal unmodified) low beam.

          20. The first cars were abominations….

            The first cars were electric…

          21. LarrytheG Avatar

            yes… battery? how did they charge the batteries?

          22. yes… battery? how did they charge the batteries?

            They didn’t.

            And I was not disagreeing with you.

            The first cars were abominations – electric-powered abominations.

          23. LarrytheG Avatar

            Wait. They produced the batteries and no way to recharge them? correct? That doesn’t
            sound right. Surely they must have had a way, no? It would seem dumb to produce a battery
            and not also have a way to charge them.

          24. By 1900, they recharged by plugging them into the wall outlet, just like today. These were vehicles for the wealthy or commercial trucks, not for the common man. Many of the wealthy had electrified their homes. Those outside the city had home generators. They were not designed for long trips – the 1900 version of a grocery getter.

            See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_electric_vehicle

          25. LarrytheG Avatar

            wall outlet back then? When did we get an electrified grid? Was it before or after the first electric cars? Look it up!

          26. Yes. Edison’t electric system was based on DC current, which loses power over distance. He had local generation plants every few blocks to keep the power up. That’s why Westinghouse/Tesla won the battle and A/C was used. If you had taken the time to look it up, you could have eaten the egg on your face.

            “On September 4, 1882, the electrical age began. That day, Thomas Edison’s Edison Illuminating Company flipped the switch on his power
            station on Pearl Street in lower Manhattan, providing electricity to homes at a price comparable to gas. By the end of the month, they had 59 customers. By the next year, they had 513.”
            My research on the rest of my posts is equally accurate.

          27. LarrytheG Avatar

            not about Edison or Tesla… simple thing… when was the electric car first invented ? When was grid electricity available to charge it through a wall outlet? You’re once again avoiding facts and realities to pursue an irrelevant point!

          28. Larry, my post started – By 1900, they recharged by plugging them into the wall outlet.

            You don’t get to change my time frame just so you can fabricate an argument.

          29. LarrytheG Avatar

            Right, and I had asked when they first were invented and how they were charged then and you deflected…. right?

            More facts for you:

            “Around 1832, Robert Anderson develops the first crude electric vehicle, but it isn’t until the 1870s or later that electric cars become practical.”

            “When did electrical grid come out?

            The U.S. electric grid dates back to 1882, the year that Thomas Edison unveiled the country’s first power plant at the Pearl Street Station in lower Manhattan.”

            So BEFORE there were wall outlets but AFTER electric cars were invented, HOW did they get recharged? What means?

            THAT was my question I initially asked.

          30. “Only a few short years ago TVs were tubes… and now they’re thin sheets… and they can be
            literally as big as a stadium.”
            I don’t recall that CRT tubes were outlawed or that LED TVs were subsidized by the gov’t to achieve that goal. Some on the left claim that progress only happens through gov’t intervention. What intervention led to Fulton inventing the steam boat? Were oars outlawed to encourage its adoption?
            Some claim that only gov’t intervention lowers emissions. Between 1910 and 1920, automobiles replaced horses in major US cities, without subsidies and without outlawing horses. Thousands of tons of feces were removed from the city streets and local streams. NYC no longer barged tons offshore every day and dumped it into the ocean, polluting swimming areas along the east coast. I guess that those who specialize in BS don’t consider HS to be an emission.
            Some say that scientific progress only happens with gov’t intervention. To them, I offer: Bell Labs, Edison’s research facility, IMB, DuPont, GM and a host of others who engaged in research long before the gov’t took note. In fact, the capitalist every liberal loves to hate, John Rockefeller, made money at Standard Oil not by gouging customers, but by out researching his competitors. When he started SO, the waste in the oil industry was 50% (it took 2 bbl of crude to get one bbl of refined product). His research division by 1900 had reduced that to 1 bbl crude = .95 bbl refined product. He cut retail prices from 50 cents / gal to 8 cents / gal. After SO was trust busted, the price rose to 13 cents / gal. And he helped save the whales.
            If you want to see the environmental record of command economies, look at the Aral Sea and Lake Karachay.
            The claim that conservatives don’t support and adopt new technology is ridiculous. Those who make such claims are really saying that the market doesn’t set the same priorities they would set. In other words, only they get a choice – the rest of us can eat cake.
            Perhaps, if they could actually quantify their goals and set limits on how much is enough, it would be possible to determine if they represent science or the insanity of a mass movement.

          31. LarrytheG Avatar

            tell me about how unleaded gas and ethanol in gas came to be in terms of “outlawed”. When I speak of technology, the context is with regard to reducing pollution. We have cleaner air and water because of “mandates”, no question and the technology followed. I’m sure you remember the issues with both unleaded and ethanol that took a few years before the technology caught up with it. The “enough” you speak of is determined prior in analysis and studies then the law is made and the changes evolve in whatever length of time it takes forit to happen. THey have goals but realities dictate how long it takes, for instance, for the auto fleet to age out the vehicles that do not meet standards. It happens and the result is cleaner air , so clean that many cities have cleaner air
            than they’ve had in decades.

          32. “The “enough” you speak of is determined prior in analysis and studies
            then the law is made and the changes evolve in whatever length of time
            it takes forit to happen.”

            Then you should have no problem telling us what constitutes clean air so we know when we reach it. Same for fair share. Give us the numbers and how you computed them.

          33. LarrytheG Avatar

            They do specify what constitutes clean air, chapter and verse… do you not follow it at all?

            https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table

            “fair share” – the progressive tax structure – where the amount you pay is based
            on how much income you receive. Richer folks buy lower taxes with experts who
            manipulate tax law to reduce their taxes.

            There needs to be a “floor” to overall tax policy just like there is for most tax credits that
            apply to all folks. You can get a credit for energy efficient equipment or college, of day care
            but it is capped…. Medicare costs more for higher income than lower income. Ever hear of tax
            expenditures? Things that ought to be taxed but are not.

            “Tax expenditures make up a substantial part of the federal budget. Some of them are larger than the entire budgets of the programs or departments that spend money for the same or related purposes. For example, the value of the tax breaks for homeownership, although reduced by the 2017 tax act, still exceeds total spending by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development.”

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3b7594982e11a5e5a5b407445505b3b6567b50260b7b4a98b5c5526841edd3e5.jpg

            https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-are-largest-tax-expenditures

  10. LarrytheG Avatar

    This is how we go forward with reducing emissions and increasing efficiency. It takes the govt. The free market won’t do it on it’s own, but when the govt gets behind it, technology companies work to develop better technologies:

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b0bb006d525cfb431eca5d73609d2a20782150dc4201d7b5b15214004042a6ab.jpg

  11. I have never seen a thread this long with this many participants miss the mark for so long.

    Argue all you want about LEDs and EVs, the real drivers of Dominion’s power issues are the high power demand of data centers in general and particularly the even greater demands purportedly created by AI.

    Sit down and read the IRP and PJM’s reports and new infrastructure requirements. The level of the increased demand created by existing data centers and those under construction alone is absolutely stunning. Add in those currently under consideration or in the process of being filed and you will find the load requirement is both impossible to fill in the short term and unsustainable in the long term. Add in the impacts of an EV mandate and you have a disaster of a magnitude that is almost inconceivable.

    Non-industrial scale users elctric bills will soar as we are forced to underwrite the infrastructure costs for these 21st Century robber barons and you can throw Clean VA out the window. Even if Dominion could replace its fossil fuel facilities and achieve some measure of current capacity with renewables, that will not supply the existing demand much less the future demand.

    Don’t take my word for it, look at PJM’s planned infrastructure maps. It will be impossible to reach your precious carbon and renewable goals when you factor in the amout of coal-fired power that will be imported into the Commonwealth. Note I said will be imported and not may be imported for as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow to enable your solar panels, that interstate transmission infrastructure and out of state power supply is coming.

    Don’t blame Dominion or even the Imperial Clown Show, this set of circumstances comes as a direct result of actions by our local elected incompetents and conflicted criminals.

    1. William Chambliss Avatar
      William Chambliss

      You are right that meeting the load demands of the burgeoning data center industry is the centerpiece of this years IRP from Dominion. I don’t think that point has exactly escaped notice.

      You are also correct that PJM has infrastructure expansion plans. Headline, though, NONE of that is to accommodate new coal fired generation.

      Here’s an example:

      https://www.utilitydive.com/news/maryland-officials-press-ferc-to-reject-pjm-directive-to-exelon-for-785m-i/694203/

      This is a set of 25 transmission projects needed (says PJM) to maintain reliability due to the shutdown of a large coal unit in Maryland. Coal-fired power will continue to flow across the PJM network and some will physically arrive in Virginia, but in smaller and smaller amounts going forward.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Yes. And one might also want to ask what a data center is actually doing and in doing that is it diverting to online something that was more physical, more consumptive of energy resources?

  12. William O'Keefe Avatar
    William O’Keefe

    It may be as simple as Dominion seeing the hand writing on the wall. Offshore wind companies are pushing for larger subsidies and cancelling contracts because of costs and problems with blade quality. It also is probably taking account of the politics of this years election. All in all, there are storm clouds on the horizon, especially if its $9 billion figure was low balled.

  13. The Science and Environmental Policy Project spoke to the Dominion / SCC hearing in its weekly press release. (Search for ‘Loudoun’) https://www.sepp.org/twtwfiles/2023/TWTW%209-23-23.pdf

    Green Dreams: This week, the Virginia State Corporation Commission held hearings on the five-year plans of Dominion Electricity and its subsidy Virginia Power on its 2023 Integrated Resource Plan. Having signed up to give oral testimony, Ken Haapala monitored part of the hearings. The hearings were continued to October 24. Two noteworthy observations were made: 1) many environmental groups do not understand the importance of carbon dioxide for green plants; hence
    for all life on Earth; and 2) local governments are promoting data centers which require massive amounts of highly reliable electricity, which many government officials have voted to undermine.
    For example, experts for the Sierra Club emphasized the fabricated social cost of carbon (dioxide), apparently totally unaware that thanks to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide green life on this planet is flourishing. This is sad because some of the so-called experts are professors at major universities.
    On the second issue, Loudoun County has become a data center for Virginia. Today, tax revenues from data centers account for more than 30% of Loudoun County’s operating budget. The
    equipment in data centers is very expensive, the counties tax centers and equipment, yet the data centers employ few people and do not strain government services. Properly zoned land prices in Loudoun are about two to three million dollars per acre. One of the first things planned and built in a new data center is an electric power substation. Typically, the substation is 100 megawatts, the planning costs are $200,000 to $300,000 and the construction costs are $20 to $30 million.
    Yet, many politicians in the state who desire such facilities voted for wind and solar power which cannot deliver the reliable electricity needed.

Leave a Reply