| Author |
Topic |
Burnaby, BC
Canada
1310 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2012 : 07:16 AM
|
Seems like there's a clamour for cheap power every Spring when power demand wanes, Spring runoff comes online, and the spot market price drops. It seems pretty seasonal.
Anyhow, if anyone's still interested, you can find BC Hydro's review online.
The part causing all the fuss is as follows:
quote:
In addition to the management and cost containment strategies needed
by BC Hydro, the panel also recommends that government review a
number of current energy administrative policies that directly affect
BC Hydro’s cost effectiveness to support achievement of these reduced
rates. British Columbia’s current policies governing electricity, which
focus on clean energy and self-sufficiency, were developed in an
environment different from today’s economic context. Greater flexibility
may be required, and the panel has identified a number of policy options
for government to consider that could affect longer term rates.
Hydro wants to re-evaluate the Clean Energy Act and loosen the Self-Sufficiency clause.
It's true that the current policy was influenced in part by California's horrible experience in over-reliance on the spot market (and BC's part in that).
|
|
|
Coquitlam, BC
Canada
343 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2012 : 09:35 AM
|
Following Frank's lead - I'm a civil-environmental engineer who specializes in water resources - particularly river hydraulics and watershed hydrology. I'm a Professional Engineer in good standing and active in the the provincial association, volunteering as an appointed member of the Association's Sustainability Committee as well as an active member of the Diversion of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (a subset of the APEG membership that promotes renewable technolgies and development while focusing on disseminating factual information on the subject).
I have never worked on the Culliton Creek Hydro Project, but the company that employs me is currently the engineering lead on the Project. In the past I have work on the Bute Inlet Project and the Upper Toba Project(never built), the Kwalsa-Upper Stave Projects (constructed and actively generating power) and number of projects for both BC Hydro and IPP developers.
My sole purpose when I put forward statements as expressed above is to educate the general public in a transparent and truthful way as per my ethical obligations as a Professional Engineer.
Beyond that - I have a vested interest in the preservation of environment which I take every opportunity to enjoy much like everyone else on this forum.
As always, I welcome technical questions on the subject - privately or openly.
C |
|
|
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
253 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2012 : 10:05 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by caurala
My sole purpose when I put forward statements as expressed above is to educate the general public in a transparent and truthful way as per my ethical obligations as a Professional Engineer.
People never seem to get that just because one works in either the government or as a consultant for a company that doesn't mean you become some kind of zombie-shill for them; unfortunately it does mean more often than not that the person in question has relevant and correct information that simply doesn't play well with bombastic overblown rhetoric that much of the "green movement" has unfortunately sunk to. It is ironic and a classic example of self-brainwashing when people make up huge conspiracies in their minds (without any proof at all) just to ignore the facts and even the 'truth' of a given matter just so they can be content with their misconceptions. Many seem to believe that the hundreds of thousands of people who work in government somehow change their entire life view or political persuasions every time a new government is elected.
I'm a software engineer, a data analyst and an information consultant. I've worked with Education ministries, Health Care ministries, social service networks and the Alberta department of energy where I was heavily involved in land schemes for oil and gas projects as well as reclamation projects for the oil sands. When I did I didn't suddenly wake up one day deciding that "the oil sands are my friend", I didn't wake up a card-carrying Conservative member (I voted NDP in the only non-blue riding in Alberta thank you very much) but I was privy to a universe of facts and details that completely discredited the non-stop hysterics and propaganda being pumped out by the likes of Greenpeace and The Rainforest Network, not to mention the band wagon every other nation has decided to jump on - that of attacking Alberta - simply because it deters from their own global pollution problems.
You try and tell people that there isn't a England-sized strip mine in Alberta or that the amount of boreal forest "destroyed" for these projects doesn't even amount to 1/50th the amount that goes up in smoke every year due to forest fire, or that it's disingenuous to point to the fact that only 4-6% of the projects have been properly "reclaimed" since it takes 15 years to get to "reclaimed" status, so there's another 15% on it's way to being reclaimed there's no point in harping about how it's "taking too long" - the length of time was properly determined by people who are as environmental as it gets, and what will you get? A lot of angry baseless accusations. Hysterics of a child being told the uncomfortable truth of a matter they are determined to mischaracterize.
People don't care about the facts, they care about how they are being perceived or how they perceive themselves as "environmentalists", subsequently I've had more than a few demands made of me similar to the "full disclosure" requests made here. What is the point? One finds out that someone has knowledge of the facts and that alone becomes the excuse not to listen or learn?
For the record I favour a complete moratorium on oil sands expansion, but that doesn't change the facts I've mentioned; it doesn't change the fact that if we waved our magic wand and closed down all oil sands production today that the same dirty oil production would only pick up the slack elsewhere in the world (with a net benefit to the environment of exactly zero); it doesn't change the fact that Californian heavy or Nigerian light are both dirtier (wells-to-wheels) than the oil sands. It doesn't change the fact that coal(even "clean coal") is far and away a heavier polluter than the oil sands; it doesn't change the fact that land for oil extraction is leased for that purpose, not "sold off to foreign countries"; it doesn't change the fact that if oil production is "unethical" that only means that oil consumption is even more unethical; it doesn't change the fact that while man-made global warming is not a scam, conferences like Kyoto and Copenhagen most definitely ARE political scams, not agreements designed to make the world a better place. Nor should it change these facts. The oil sands are dirty enough to face the truth and still have plenty of ammunition to protest them.
I'm not trying to shift the subject here but if you are going to accuse someone of being a "paid shill" simply because they have the real and rational facts you don't seem to have access to then you're really only doing yourself a discredit. Basically you're admitting that your "movement" doesn't care about education or truth they only care about image and perceived environmental "credibility". |
Edited by - Release on 05/16/2012 10:18 AM |
|
|
Vancouver, BC
Canada
1014 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2012 : 1:31 PM
|
quote:
Talking with a friend that works with Hydro they are nowhere near short on power they do not even run their dams turbines at night because they can not use the power that is generated
does that blow your mind or something?
Who is using power in the middle of the night...considering we havent quite mastered the mega battery how much power do you think they can generate and not use? If they dont use it where does it go?
IF we are never short on power why would we ever import power? |
|
|
123 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2012 : 6:23 PM
|
| Thanks, caurala, for that clarification. |
|
|
322 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2012 : 04:40 AM
|
A nation's prosperity and well-being is directly related to how much energy it has available, and the cost of that energy. In this regard, the world is on the verge of a massive revolution that many people haven't even really noticed yet.
The revolution is called shale gas. Up until recently, the world has relied heavily on oil, natural gas associated with that oil, and coal to produce energy; hydro and nuclear are distant seconds. But starting about 15 years ago, advances in directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing (fracking) allowed natural gas to be extracted from shale formations.
Shale is a sedimentary rock far more common than limestone or similar oil-bearing rocks, is found world-wide, and contains variable amounts of tiny bubbles of natural gas. Fracking allows this gas to be released and brought to a well-head and exploited. When serious drilling of shale deposits started, it was soon realized that the amount of gas that is economically available is nothing short of stupendous- B.C. alone in the last 5 years has proven up hundreds of years of reserves at current rates of consumption- and they have hardly scratched the surface.
Oh sure, there is still some controversy about all this- but the advantages of developing shale gas deposits are so profound that I predict the entire world will quickly come on board; no country can afford not to!
So here is my take on what this all means:
1. Because there is so much available, the cost of natural gas will stay low for centuries. In 2005, natural gas prices reached a high of about $15 per mmBtu (million British thermal units; a measure of how much energy it contains).
But just a few weeks ago, the price was down to about $1.80/mmBtu. It is expected to rise somewhat over the next couple of years to $3.00/mmBtu, but that is only temporary while the infrastructure is being built-up; once the world really starts to develop its shale gas resources, and builds the pipelines and LNG facilities to allow it to be efficiently transported, I predict the price will settle to below $2/mmBtu.
2. Natural gas can be used directly, but its real value is in providing the fuel for thermal electric generating plants, which up to now have mostly relied on coal. Natural gas produces about half the green house gases that coal does, so by switching over to natural gas, the world could easily meet the Kyoto protocol emission targets, and then some!
3. The advent of cheap energy, which produces half the green house gases compared to coal, and major improvements in battery technology will make electric cars the vehicles of choice- I predict more than half of us will be driving an electric car or plug-in hybrid within 5 years.
4. Since a natural gas fired thermal generating plant produces base load energy (energy that is available year round, all the time), it will quickly become the supply of choice- far better than relying on water flows or, even worse, wind, to provide energy. I predict that big hydro projects, like B.C. Hydro's Site C project, will be shelved in favour of much cheaper, and much more environmentally-friendly natural gas fired generating plants in the Fort Nelson area, where the massive Horn River shale gas deposits are located- and conveniently close to the tar sands, which can use large amounts of that energy. It will also take far less time to permit and build a natural gas generating plant compared to a hydro plant- and again, the 50% reduction in green house gases compared to coal will appeal to all the climate warming enthusiasts.
5. With shale gas available in so many countries, the stranglehold that some countries have in terms of providing energy to the world will be removed- watch out Russia (they provide much of the gas for Europe right now) and the Middle East (where we get most of our oil). So geopolitics are about to become very interesting- for example, Israel has recently found major reserves of shale gas offshore near Haifa, and may become a net exporter of energy, rather than having to rely on gas from Egypt and other sources. Israel is already promising to sell its excess energy to Jordan as a reward for being a peacemaker in the region. Iran has about half of the world's currently largest shale gas deposit- so there is no reason why they need to develop nuclear power, and all the more reason to fear that their nuclear program has an ulterior motive.
6. The U.S., China, and India are currently the world's biggest producers of green house gases, which come mainly from coal-fired generating plants. However, it is relatively easy to convert these plants to natural gas- which will happen as quickly as possible now; last year, U.S. coal production dropped 15%- and that trend will continue as more and more shale gas is brought to market.
7. Nuclear power will largely go the way of the dodo bird- which is why Japan is not at all worried about shutting down all of its nuclear power plants after the Fukushima fiasco, and Germany too is phasing out nuclear. And again, it is not just that there is so much gas available, but that as liquified natural gas (LNG), it can be readily and safely transported world-wide. The ENCANA/EOG/Apache Energy LNG project in Kitimat is just the tip of the iceberg!
Anyway, if this is all news to you- well, remember you heard it here first!
If you want to read more, check out this site: http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/about_shale_gas.cfm |
Edited by - FrankB on 05/17/2012 7:01 PM |
|
|
322 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2012 : 05:09 AM
|
Oh, and in the interests of disclosure, I am indirectly doing some engineering work for the Kitimat LNG plant.
And right now, I'm planning to buy a plug-in Prius, just as soon as they become available in Canada. |
|
|
123 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2012 : 1:05 PM
|
| Thanks, Frank, again for the disclosure. *I believe* you honour your Professional responsibility to abide by the principles of the Code of Ethics for the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia (APEGBC)by doing so. |
Edited by - tzoflier on 05/18/2012 12:32 AM |
|
|
North Vancouver, BC
Canada
1656 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2012 : 1:34 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by tzoflier
Thanks, Frank, again for the disclosure. You honour your Professional responsibility to abide by the principles of the Code of Ethics for the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia (APEGBC)by doing so.
That's BS. The Code of Ethics does not require an APEGBC member to provide disclosure when sharing personal opinions in a non-professional capacity. There are ways a member could violate their code of ethics through participation in an online forum (for example by leaking confidential information or not acting as faithful agents of their clients) but that could not be corrected through disclosure. |
|
|
1080 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2012 : 2:53 PM
|
| Of course it's BS, and he looks utterly ridiculous doing it. Again, tzoflier has always refused to disclose his own affiliations when going off on his pedantic safety rants, and cannot qualify his statements with experience. Here he is trying to come across as an authority on the responsibilities of APEGBC members, and falls flat on his face by incorrectly interpreting the Code of Ethics. It begs the question, are other posts of his also based on quick internet searches followed by poor comprehension and reasoning skills, in matters where he has no experience? Perhaps the sound of tzoflier disclosing his affiliations and experience, and the sound of silence, are one and the same. |
|
|
322 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2012 : 6:58 PM
|
Hey- this is an interesting topic, so let's stay on track; no personal attacks please!
So to respond to one earlier comment on the Ashlu project- Gwen Barlee claims that a few dozen fish (not salmon) were killed because of ramping problems on the Ashlu River- Innergex supposedly shut the water flow down too quickly, and fish were stranded in drying pools and died. Innergex claims this was inadvertent, and due to some mechanical problems that they are working on to correct.
Now when Innergex built the Ashlu plant, they supposedly degraded 1500 m2 of fish habitat to build their power plant. Now I would suggest that the bedrock shelf on which the plant was built is hardly fish habitat- but admittedly, I'm not a biologist. As a result of the apparent loss of habitat, Innergex was required to provide 4500 m2 of compensating habitat; however, instead, they actually built 60,000 m2 of new channels which I understand have resulted in hundreds of thousands of new salmon being produced.
Now in addition to the massive number of new fish- all of which tremendously helps the restaurant industry to continue to offer killed wild salmon to their customers, the Ashlu plant also supplies 49 MW of clean, carbon-free, renewable energy, and provided over $150 million in investment in jobs and economic activity when it was built. Finally, of course, the power that is generated is used to reduce our energy deficit (yes, despite what you hear, B.C. is a net IMPORTER of electricity, according to B.C. Hydro's own studies), and provides power for schools, hospitals and factories.
And again- in the interests of disclosure, we do work for Innergex, helping them with their management of avalanche and debris flow hazard.
|
|
|
322 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2012 : 7:18 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by J Mace
quote:
Talking with a friend that works with Hydro they are nowhere near short on power they do not even run their dams turbines at night because they can not use the power that is generated
does that blow your mind or something?
Who is using power in the middle of the night...considering we havent quite mastered the mega battery how much power do you think they can generate and not use? If they dont use it where does it go?
IF we are never short on power why would we ever import power?
Easy- B.C. Hydro sells their excess power when the demand in B.C. is low, and we don't need it. This generates a tremendous amount of money, which helps keep our electricity rates low, and helps to reduce greenhouse gases (because when utilities in Alberta or the U.S. use our power, they need to generate less using non-renewable, coal-fired generating plants).
The key is what the NET result of buying and selling power is- and B.C. Hydro's own studies show that we are net IMPORTERS of power; you can check the studies out here: http://www.bchydro.com/planning_regulatory/meeting_demand_growth/forecasting_growth.html
So even if we did have surplus power, and could sell it- what's wrong with that?
British Columbians over the last 150 years have tremendously benefited from developing and selling our natural resources- from gold, copper, and other minerals, to coal, oil and natural gas (all non-renewable!), and then timber, salmon (millions of dollars worth, I might add!).
So why is there now such an outcry about selling some of our energy, and helping offset our electricity costs, and helping the environment?? When we allow private companies to develop a run of river power project, they take all the risk, must sell that power to B.C. Hydro, and must transmit it through B.C. Hydro's grid system; so the citizens of B.C. retain total control over the sale of that resource! Also, a private power company operates under a short term water license- with no promise of renewal after 30-40 years!
|
Edited by - FrankB on 05/17/2012 8:01 PM |
|
|
North Vancouver, BC
Canada
1656 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2012 : 7:40 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by FrankB
Hey- this is an interesting topic, so let's stay on track; no personal attacks please!
Sorry, didn't mean to hijack your thread.
On the topic, IPPs are a dramatic example of a government stepping in to create market transformation. It's similar to subsidies that were applied in Germany to simulate the market for solar panels. It doesn't necessarily make short-term economic sense if you only look at the cost of the power that is being produced vs the alternatives that are available today. If you look at the wider and longer term picture, there are other economic and societal benefits. |
|
|
Vancouver, BC
Canada
1014 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2012 : 9:11 PM
|
I agree Frank, I was pointing out the silly statement about night time power use and the reality of how we can and cannot use power.
I know with the big dams we have now there are many environmental concerns regarding reservoir levels and how much they can spill that are satisfied even before they can generate power.
When you think about how about how easy it is to just flip a switch and get power its pretty amazing and complicated.
Sounds like your not a fan of wind energy, yet hydro is about to take on two more wind farms for a total of four BC farms.
Seems to me like these are great ways to help generate power in the winter when rainfall is locked up in snow and the farms get battered by storms/wind and then come spring summer when the storms die off we have the freshet.
Why would you not want to see more of a trend towards solar and wind energy rather than fracking ?
|
|
|
3022 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2012 : 9:13 PM
|
to either Frank or caurala; my experience with these projects is limited to the few found near the Kennedy river and my chief complaint is the Noise factor that is extreme[not using that word lightly] where I can hear these for several kms. Not sure if that is a constant thing or seasonal, but in each case I always hear them and wonder 1/ why? 2/ how come no serious noise abatement is installed? Why wait for complaints?
It seems irresponsible to install these without all considerations and if this is the "standard" why can't the builders/owners go one better above the standard? |
|
|
100 Mile House, BC
Canada
178 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2012 : 9:55 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by FrankB
So why is there now such an outcry about selling some of our energy, and helping offset our electricity costs, and helping the environment?? When we allow private companies to develop a run of river power project, they take all the risk, must sell that power to B.C. Hydro, and must transmit it through B.C. Hydro's grid system; so the citizens of B.C. retain total control over the sale of that resource! Also, a private power company operates under a short term water license- with no promise of renewal after 30-40 years!
BC Hydro has signed over 100 contracts to purchase power from IPPs, even if that power is not needed, which is the case now.
It would make more sense for BC Hydro, and its ratepayers, to use its own power, or import from the US, since those options are a lot cheaper than IPP power.
In this situation, BC Hydro has taken all the risk. The losses will be passed onto the ratepayers.
see this recent article:
http://www.vancouversun.com/Hydro+awash+private+power/6605915/story.html
|
|
|
Coquitlam, BC
Canada
343 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2012 : 06:23 AM
|
Cambium - the noise is usually a function of two things located at the powerhouses. First, there is the turbo machinery - spinning turbines will cause high-frequency noise. Much of this noise is dampened by the the structure that houses the machinery. Admittedly, much can be done by selective siting of the powerhouses but the common practice to house turbomachinery in open portal structures with sheet metal sheathing does little to abate noise.
The second noise-generating aspect of the powerhouses occurs when the water leaves the powerhouse via the tailrace (or channel that returns the water to the natural stream).
Certain types of turbine contribute to this source of noise - impulse turbines (i.e. Pelton wheels or Turgo units) jet water using between 1 and 8 nozzles against a wheel equipped with scooped buckets at atmospheric pressure, discharging into an open pit leading to the tailrace whereas reaction turbines (i.e. Francis units) are fully submerged - the water passes through a scroll case (similar to a snail shell), turning the turbine as it goes before ejecting the water into a submerged pit.
Once the water enters the tailrace, inherent turbulence akin to natural rapids, noise is generated as the water flows through the channel.
When the tailrace and powerhouse are situated in areas that are conducive to noise propagation (i.e. noise carrying down a valley) then noise can be bothersome.
I believe that much can be done to reduce the noise effect of powerhouses and their associated works; however, I am not a mechanical engineer and cannot comment on the feasibility of such measures.
C |
Edited by - caurala on 05/18/2012 08:38 AM |
|
|
322 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2012 : 3:10 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by HT
quote:
Originally posted by FrankB
So why is there now such an outcry about selling some of our energy, and helping offset our electricity costs, and helping the environment?? When we allow private companies to develop a run of river power project, they take all the risk, must sell that power to B.C. Hydro, and must transmit it through B.C. Hydro's grid system; so the citizens of B.C. retain total control over the sale of that resource! Also, a private power company operates under a short term water license- with no promise of renewal after 30-40 years!
BC Hydro has signed over 100 contracts to purchase power from IPPs, even if that power is not needed, which is the case now.
It would make more sense for BC Hydro, and its ratepayers, to use its own power, or import from the US, since those options are a lot cheaper than IPP power.
In this situation, BC Hydro has taken all the risk. The losses will be passed onto the ratepayers.
see this recent article:
http://www.vancouversun.com/Hydro+awash+private+power/6605915/story.html
Well again, reliable data needs to be used when reviewing this issue- and the best data comes from B.C. Hydro and their independent consultants, not the Vancouver Sun.
So in a nutshell, power from IPP's can almost always be used- and it must be used because it can't be stored. In this regard, B.C. Hydro does have the ability to "store" some power by retaining more water in their big reservoirs, and using IPP power instead.
But even if this is not the case- like, if the B.C. Hydro reservoirs are absolutely full, and there is a lot of IPP power available, we should still be selling the excess power to either Alberta or the U.S.- if only because this then allows those areas to reduce the amount of power that they need to generate from coal fired plants.
Fully 60% of the U.S. power comes from coal fired plants- and environmental activists seem to forget that any greenhouse gases, or other pollution generated by a coal fired generating plant in the U.S., doesn't stop at the 49th Parallel. And global warming caused by those gases is affecting the entire world- it doesn't suddenly get any colder when you cross the 49th Parallel.
In this regard, we really need to think globally, and not be selfishly thinking regionally- if we can promote the use of more carbon-neutral and renewable power by sharing the resources we have in that regard; great!
|
Edited by - FrankB on 05/18/2012 8:29 PM |
|
|
521 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2012 : 4:24 PM
|
I agree with others that power from "the run of river" projects is a very cost effective means of generating power with minimal impact on the environment. And one big advantage over renewable energy generation, such as solar or wind, is that the energy produced from these IPP systems is "fairly" constant over time. High reliance on solar or wind energy requires large storage facilities.
BC is fortunate to have a very cost effective means of storing power with the large dams in the province, whether it be from not using water from the dam, or pumped hydro. I'm not aware if pumped hydro is actually being used in BC? Storage capacity will vary considerably with the climate and seasons however. More reliance on solar or wind energy, requires more storage facilities to deliver that power when it's needed. And you would have a much greater fluctuation in river flows (from the dams) with renewable energy systems in place that are relying on the dams for storage. |
|
|
322 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2012 : 5:52 PM
|
One of the most commonly heard arguments against run of river power project is that they produce most of their power during spring runoff when it is least needed.
This is sometimes correct- but only if you are myopically thinking only of B.C. Again, since the vast majority of our power comes from hydroelectric plants, we are blessed with abundant fully renewable, carbon-free power. So as long as the lights or air conditioners, or heating systems are on somewhere in North America, we need power, and we should be encouraging the use of renewable power as much as possible, even if that means shipping it out of the province. I can never understand why we are so different from the citizens of Quebec- who applaud their government every time they announce another mega-electrical project that will allow them to ship more power to New York state, and keep domestic costs down.
Another argument is that we could easily cover our growing power deficit in B.C. if we clawed back some of the power owing to us under the Columbia River treaty, and not by using power from IPP's. But even if we could do that, it would mean that more power would need to be produced from nuclear and coal-fired generating plants in Washington State to offset the power that they would lose- which, again, doesn't make sense if you're thinking globally.
Finally, there is the conservation argument- all we need to do to reduce our growing power deficit is to conserve more. Well, conservation programs, like the PowerSmart program, have been promoted for years by B.C. Hydro- and have so far not managed to curb increasing demand. During Earth Hour this year, when people are strongly encouraged to use as little power as possible for just one hour, B.C. Hydro reports that power consumption dropped by a fantastic 1.67%! The bad news- that's down from 1.8% last year.
Conservation will also not help us move over to electric cars or plug-in hybrids, something that I think is critical if we really do more than pay lip service to environmental issues. When you consider the cost of mining the non-renewable metals needed to make cars, the cost of building and running the plants to produce them, the enormous cost of providing the non-renewable petrol to run them, the cost of building the highways needed for them to drive on, and the amount of pollution that they produce, I submit that cars are the greatest source of environmental degradation on the planet, and anything we can do to change that- like switching to electric cars that run on power from renewable, or at least low carbon sources- is worthwhile.
And finally on that same general theme- what, pray tell, is the problem that people have with Smart Meters??? Their primary use is to allow consumers to be more aware of and track their electrical consumption- much like modern cars that show you exactly what your fuel consumption is, or "smart" cell phones that allow you to track exactly how much air time you're using.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Culliton Creek Hydroelectric Project
