DEBRIS.COMgood for a laugh, or possibly an aneurysm

I knew this would be a bad week way back in June. That’s when I booked a 17-day vacation in Europe and simultaneously learned about a huge development project that was due to launch on August 15. I’m not so cynical that I automatically think every work project will be three-plus weeks late, but in this particular case, I was exactly that cynical.

The problem was that the big development project had a bigger prerequisite… something bigger than we’d ever done. Something that could easily take a couple or three weeks longer to deliver than the projections claimed. Something that could keep me working nights and weekends for a month in a vain attempt to meet what I’ve increasingly come to think of as arbitrary deadlines.

The bigger prerequisite went live last weekend — Labor Day weekend, a three-day holiday for most of the country, but an overtime extravaganza for me and my team. We put in a 19-hour Saturday, a few hours on Sunday, and a full workday on Monday.

Somewhere in the midst of that weekend, I discovered that our water had gone bad: it came out of the faucet cloudy and brown, with little bits of unidentified muck suspended within. A peek into the holding tank confirmed my fears: our well had pumped out 1500 gallons of murk.

Then on Tuesday night, as I sat upstairs briefly decompressing from the day’s stresses, my wife started up her workstation. I wouldn’t have known this, half a house away, except for the terrible screeching sound, audible and soul-scarring even at a distance. I thought she had a songbird in a bench vise. I knew immediately that her computer had lost a disk drive.

Wednesday and Thursday were less hellish, but still I am extremely relieved to be getting the heck out of town.

I plan to write over the next couple of weeks. Travel usually inspires a story or two. Check back soon.

A co-worker was describing the Burning Man festival during a staff meeting. “You don’t have to do drugs,” she said. Imagine the jolt of context that provided to the few people who live out of state and had never heard of Burning Man. The reactions were entertaining.

The Chron has some great photos: Burning Man photo gallery 2003

SF Chronicle: Streisand goes coastal over Web photo effort

One of the 12,700 digital images posted on the Adelman’s Web site depicts a glorious stretch of beach in Malibu — and a lavish bluff-top estate belonging to Streisand.

Arguing that the photograph violated her privacy, Streisand filed a $50 million lawsuit in May demanding that the photo including her house be removed from the site, along with the caption reading “Streisand Estate, Malibu.”

Here’s a funny quote: “I think fighting her is really a public service,” Adelman said. “Someone has to stop her.”

This case provides another example of the risk of demanding that someone “unpublish” information: by drawing attention to it, many more people see the information than would have otherwise. As the Chronicle reports:

According to Adelman, the Malibu photograph in question was downloaded only six times in the three months before the lawsuit was filed. But once the story hit the media, visits to the site surged. An average of 108,000 visitors per day viewed the photograph in June.

Streisand’s attorneys could have, instead of filing a lawsuit, simply requested that Adelman remove the caption “Streisand estate” from the photo. It seems to me that that approach would have greatly reduced the risk that a stalker would find the image. In contrast, by filing a suit the attorneys have virtually guaranteed that every paparazzi in Southern California will be hovering just offshore hoping to catch an image of Barbra through a window.

The privacy question is tough. I understand Streisand’s concerns. And yet, demanding that a comprehensive photo archive of the coastline skip the few hundred yards she owns, just because she owns it, seems ludicrous.

The CaliforniaCoastline.org website contains a page of links to articles about the lawsuit. Every one I read took Adelman’s side. I won’t jump on the Barbra-bashing bandwagon, even though that’s the popular response — just because she’s successful, wealthy, and eccentric does not mean she deserves my scorn.

But I will say I am surprised at the strong-arm tactics her attorneys have employed. I doubt she’ll prevail.

After meeting with installers and trading emails with a friend who has an EV (electric vehicle) and a PV array, I’m now an expert on three of the crucial concepts of solar electricity generation: time-of-use metering, net metering, and rate hikes. If that doesn’t sound interesting, read it this way: over the next 30 years, I’ll pay $65,000 less for electrical power than my neighbors. And, I’ll be preventing 130 tons of carbon dioxide from being created to power my home.

Time-of-Use Metering
The vast majority of ratepayers in California pay a flat fee for each kilowatt-hour consumed. Of course, fees and fines apply to anyone using more than PG&E’s arbitrary “baseline” quantity, but regardless, each consumer pays the same for power whether it’s at noon (when demand is high) or midnight (when demand is low).

In contrast, time-of-use customers pay a lot less for power outside peak times, and a lot more (three times more, in the summer) for power used during peak times. For our purposes, “peak” means noon to 6PM, weekdays. The benefit of TOU metering to PG&E is that TOU customers consciously avoid drawing power during the times PG&E has the least available to sell.

A reasonable person might wonder why any of this matters: if you’re installing a solar energy system, one might ask, why do you care about electricity rates? After all, you’ll be generating your own power, especially from noon to 6PM. The short answer: because PV arrays don’t generate power at night. When the sun isn’t shining, PV users rely on the utility’s electrical grid for power. And so it makes sense to find a way to pay the least amount possible for electricity during these times.

Therefore, PV users are great candidates for TOU metering, because on most days the PV array fills 100% of the household’s energy needs during the TOU peak periods. Homeowners then pay only the much-lower off-peak rates when they do consume power.

But the deal is even better than that. If the PV array generates surplus energy, PG&E pays market rate — the inflated peak rate — for it. At night, PV users buy back power at the lower off-peak rate.

In other words, because of the pricing, 1 kwh fed into the grid between noon and 6pm is worth three drawn from the grid between 6pm and noon the next day. This is the key to PV array sizing: generate enough surplus power during peak hours to cover the cost of the household’s power needs for the rest of the week. Even though there are only 30 peak hours in the week, the 3:1 price differential makes this an attainable goal.

In basic, practical terms, it means most folks can get by with a smaller PV array than a straight usage analysis would indicate.

Net Metering
There is a seasonal component to this analysis. PV arrays generate more power during the summer, because days are longer and skies are clearer. Most PV households end the summer with a net energy credit — meaning, the PV array has generated more power than the house has consumed over six months’ time.

In the winter, solar energy generation drops, and consumption rises. Interior lights are used for more hours than in summer. People spend more hours indoors, running the heater. And so the household burns more power than the PV array creates.

The ideally-sized PV system will balance the estimated summer surplus against the winter deficit, and end a 12-month cycle with a net of 0 kwh. In a move that is surprisingly beneficial to the PV user, PG&E allows PV users to settle their accounts annually. The utility charges the customer only for the net amount of grid energy consumed for the previous year.

Rate Hikes
With a correctly-sized system, a typical household can expect to break even on a PV investment in 10-12 years. This calculation can be only an estimate, because we cannot predict how fast utility rates will climb.

The best we can do is look at the history: since 1970, electrical rates in California have climbed, on average, 6% per year. Project today’s $80 electrical bill 15 years into the future: at 6% per year, it doubles. In 30 years, my monthly electrical bill would probably be over $500.

Summary
The numbers surprise me: solar energy really does make financial sense, at least in California. The only downside is the large initial investment. But even then, the state pays for half of it, and I’ll get it all back in about 10 years (plus free power for another 20-30 years!).

It’s like the rent-vs-buy argument: paying rent is like throwing money away, because at the end of the year, renters have no equity to show for their expenditure. Most homeowners, as smart as they were to buy a house, continue to rent their power. It’s not necessary, and there are great benefits to those who choose to buy it instead.

Today’s Chron contains a roundup of Recall humor: Hey, did you hear the one about the California recall election? My two favorites are:

Larry Flynt, running for governor of California. His goal — change our state bird to the spread eagle.   — Craig Kilborn

It’s been reported that some of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s opponents have been circulating naked pictures of Arnold on the Internet. In a related story, Arnold is leading the other candidates by four inches.  — Conan O’Brien