Survey: Utilities believe nuclear, wind have most potential to serve environmental needs

[FBaggins]

Many polls regarding the smart grid come from the consumer perspective, focusing on the potential of this technology to help them visualize, if not manage rates, and get smarter about energy consumption. An annual survey from Black & Veatech, a construction and engineering company focused on energy and water infrastructure, focuses on the point of view of electric utilities.

The latest “Strategic Directions in the Electric Utility Industry Survey,” reveals that capital spending on new electric infrastructure has declined for two years in a row — the first time this has happened since the 1930s. For the spending that is happening, priority is being given to information technology related to the smart grid and improved security against cyber attacks. Spending on programs for energy efficiency and demand-side management is now about 2 percent of revenue among the average respondent. That is a significant increase.

Other relevant findings:

1)Utilities believe nuclear energy has the most potential for helping the United States meet new environmental requirements and carbon emission reduction needs. Wind generation and natural gas were second and third.

2)Nearly 70 percent of the survey respondents are working on or will work on some sort of wind generation project over the next three to five years.

3)Solar technology projects are being undertaken by about 73 percent of the respondents over the next three to five years.




http://blogs.zdnet.com/green/?p=10335

[randr]

1. When are we ever going to get a discussion on the use of Thorium?

Go here for info: http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/

[wtmusic]

4. There have been many of them in E/E

That's considered nuclear too.

[kristopher]

6. Thorium isn't used because it has more problems than once through uranium

See "breeder reactors"

[BeFree]

2. Of course

They lose revenue streams when solar is widespread. No fuel costs and solar systems last 10 years with little maintenance.

Using solar power steals from their future profits. They hate the sun.

[dkf]

3. Yup. Solar is the only future for individual independence from energy woes.

Of course utilities will do what they can to stop us from having our own capabilities. It's a no brainer for them and a no brainer for us.

[kristopher]

5. Solar panels have a life of about 40 years...

The is some maint. required as you indicate, but the heart of the system is very long lived.

[kristopher]

7. Nuclear is the only option that preserves their empire...

What a surprise, eh? A great read on the social ramifications of this energy structure is

Energy Strategy: the Road Not Taken (Archive)
AUTHOR: Lovins, Amory
DOCUMENT ID: E77-01
YEAR: 1976
DOCUMENT TYPE: Journal or Magazine Article
PUBLISHER: Foreign Affairs


In this landmark piece from 1976, Amory Lovins describes the two energy choices then facing the nation. There is the "hard path" and the "soft path". This path resembles federal policy of the time and is essentially an extrapolation of the recent past. The hard path relies on rapid expansion of centralized high technologies to increase supplies of energy, especially in the form of electricity. The second path combines a prompt and serious commitment to efficient use of energy, rapid development of renewable energy sources matched in scale and in energy quality to end-use needs, and special transitional fossil-fuel technologies. This path diverges radically from incremental past practices to pursue long-term goals. Lovins argues that both paths present difficult—but very different—problems. The first path is convincingly familiar, but the economic and sociopolitical problems then facing the nation loomed large and insuperable. The second path, though it represents a shift in direction, offers many social, economic and geopolitical advantages, including virtual elimination of nuclear proliferation from the world. For Lovins, it is important to recognize that the two paths are mutually exclusive. Because commitments to the first may foreclose the second, Loins argues that we must choose one or the other—before failure to stop nuclear proliferation has foreclosed both.

Available for free download http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E77-01_EnergyStrategyRoadNotTaken

[FBaggins]

8. You idol's "solution" doesn't involve power companies?

That's strange... I can't remember seeing that in any of his pieces. Can you link to that one?

[kristopher]

9. Post 7

[FBaggins]

10. If post count required some actual original thought

you would still be a newbie. :)

Why post if you actually have nothing to say?

The survey showed significant percentages of respondents had wind and solar projects under way... they obviously don't consider those sectors to be eating in to their market share.

[kristopher]

11. What they prefer and what they are forced to accept are not the same thing.

Thought of any kind isn't your strong point, is it?

[FBaggins]

12. So you're saying that you think wind and solar are not economically viable?

Thanks.

Once again... in your hero's worldwide plan for clean energy by next week... were those solar/tidal/wind/etc plants all in someone's back yard?

[One_Life_To_Give]

13. Grid Operator's need not worry

Manhatten is not going to become self sufficient with every building disconnected from the grid. Given the storage issues of battery maintenance etc. They stand to win by an eventual repeal of net-metering when daily solar/wind/tidal etc. supply exceeds load. And charging premium rates for supplying energy when needed.