Power For USA

EPA’s Sustainability Gambit

January 27, 2012

tags: energy, EPA, EU, Green Book, NAS, Obama, Rio+20

The EPA paid the National Academy of Science (NAS) $700,000 to determine how to integrate sustainability as one of the key drivers within the regulatory responsibilities of the EPA.

Adopting sustainability as a key driver would have an enormous effect on how we develop and use our energy resources.

The study is already known as the “Green Book” within the EPA.

The study did not, however, try to define sustainability, which it should have, because there is no widely accepted definition of sustainability.

Rather than defining sustainability, the NAS used president Obama’s executive order 13514 entitled Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy and Economic Performance that broadly defines sustainability as the ability “to create and maintain conditions, under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, that permit fulfilling the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations.”

The NAS study said the experience of the European Union, that has adopted an all encompassing vision, “is especially relevant”. The EU’s specific priorities include, “climate change and clean energy; sustainable transport; sustainable consumption and production; conservation and management of natural resources; public health; social inclusion, demography and migration; and global poverty.”

As applied to the United States, the study says the EPA needs to establish “how to define and control unsustainable patterns of production and consumption and how to encourage the development of sustainable communities, biodiversity protection, clean energy, environmentally sustainable economic development and climate change controls.”

The study proposes new tools, specifically the use of “sustainability impact assessment” as part of the Environmental Impact Statement process. Environmental Impact Statements for siting power plants, transmission lines and development of mines and drilling etc. can already take years. Adding a sustainability assessment will increase the time it takes to approve projects – and increase the hurdles that result in projects being denied approval.

The study urges the EPA to “create a new culture among all EPA employees.” It encourages the EPA to “hire an array of new experts in order to bring the sustainability focus to every corner of the agency and its operations.”

The study says the EPA should adopt a suite of tools that have the ability to analyze present and future consequences of alternative decision options on the full range of social, environmental and economic indicators.

Little of this was reported in the media.

Adoption of these recommendations would automatically include adoption of the Precautionary Principle, which essentially says do nothing if there is any perceived risk.

The study admits that the EPA would be required to forecast the future – which, of course, is impossible.

All of this comes in preparation for Rio+20 to be held in Rio de Janeiro this summer. It’s to be held on the twentieth anniversary of the United Nations conference known as the Earth Summit, where the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was adopted, which in turn, led to the Kyoto Protocol and a continuing demand for cutting CO2 emissions.

Rio+20 is called the UN Conference on Sustainable Development.

The term sustainability is a catch phrase that means different things to different people. If it’s impossible to define, it’s also impossible to measure.

The EPA is already conducting a war on coal and is doing what it can to obstruct fracking. With a sweepingly defined sustainability added to its portfolio, the EPA will be in a position to control all aspects of energy development and use in the United States.

The NAS report is available at https://download.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13152

* * * * * *

If you find these articles on energy issues interesting and informative, you can have them delivered directly to your mailbox by going to the Email Subscription heading below the photo.

* * * * * *

[To find earlier articles, click on the name of the preceding month below the calendar to display a list of articles published in that month. Continue clicking on the name of the preceding month to display articles published in prior months.]

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2012. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Clean Coal Debacle

January 24, 2012

tags: AEP, Bloomberg, Carbon, China, CO2, coal, Emissions, EU, IGCC, natural gas, Sierra Club

The coal industry has created a problem for itself by saying that “clean coal” refers to Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power plants where CO2 is captured and stored underground.

IGCC plants are exorbitantly expensive to build, costing twice as much as an ultra-supercritical coal-fired power plant, and nearly as much as a nuclear power plant.

They also require that the captured CO2 be stored underground for centuries, something that is impossible to prove.

It’s very likely that most new power plants, at least for the immediate future, will be natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) plants, but at some point, the availability of coal and the suitability of coal-fired power plants for providing base load power, will mean that coal-fired power plants could once again be competitive with NGCC plants.

But IGCC plants won’t be able to compete, unless government regulations force their adoption.

The coal industry would have been wiser to establish that ultra-supercritical plants deserved the label “clean coal”, and to never have assigned the label to IGCC plants.

Ultra-supercritical coal-fired power plants operate at very high temperatures and pressures and have thermal efficiencies of between 38% and over 43% HHV. They use 25% to 35% less coal, respectively.

In addition, properly equipped ultra-supercritical units have lower emissions. Emissions of SOx are cut by over 95%, NOx by over 85%, particulates by over 98%, while 90% of Hg is removed with appropriate emission control equipment.

Ultra-supercritical units are superior to the existing fleet of traditional coal-fired power plants that have a thermal efficiency of only 32% HHV.

For those who worry about CO2 emissions, CO2 emissions from ultra-supercritical coal-fired plants are nearly the same as from NGCC plants.

Ultra-supercritical plants are being built in China, and even in Europe, but except for one unit being built in the United States, they aren’t being built here. And AEP has had to agree to onerous conditions to merely complete the plant it’s building in Arkansas.

The coal industry seems to be running scared ahead of environmentalists, and still assigns the label “clean coal” to IGCC units, where CO2 is captured and stored underground – “forever”?

With utilities announcing retirements of coal-fired power plants and the abandonment of projects to build new coal-fired power plants, the Sierra Club is claiming victory in its war against coal. Interestingly, Mayor Bloomberg of New York City has given $50 million to the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign, so the coal industry is getting nowhere by touting expensive IGCC units as being clean.

Dirty Business, a new film by an environmental group, claims there is no such thing as “clean coal”. It will be shown at the Get Reel festival and highlights coal as being the number one sources of CO2 emissions. The film is narrated by Rolling Stones contributing Editor Jeff Goodell.

It’s clear; the coal industry is making no headway against environmentalists and the EPA.

The coal industry has locked itself into an untenable position where IGCC plants are uneconomic, while ignoring ultra-supercritical plants that are economic and can meet all environmental regulations, except for potential CO2 regulations – which NGCC plants can’t meet either.

(For information on NGCC carbon capture, see Interesting News from California.)

(Link for information on Carbon Capture and Sequestration.)

* * * * * *

If you find these articles on energy issues interesting and informative, you can have them delivered directly to your mailbox by going to the Email Subscription heading below the photo.

* * * * * *

Mercury Reality

January 20, 2012

tags: coal, EPA, Hg, Mercury, OSHA, USGS

Mercury has been attacked as a dangerous toxin emitted by coal-fired power plants.

But how much do coal-fired power plants contribute to the mercury found in our environment? And how dangerous is the mercury that’s been deposited around the country?

U.S. coal-fired power plants emit 41 tons of mercury into the atmosphere, but this is a fraction of the 9,100 tons of mercury emitted globally each year, mostly from natural sources.

Mercury emitted into the atmosphere travels around the globe, so mercury emitted by coal-fired power plants in China is probably being deposited in the U.S.

The EPA has undertaken a program to eliminate the use of coal in power plants, and its efforts will cost billions of dollars. Are these expenditures necessary? Will they really reduce the effect of mercury on our health? Are coal-fired power plants the villains portrayed by the EPA?

A recent study by the USGS can shed light on these questions.

: USGS Mercury Study

This graph produced by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) shows mercury deposition as determined from ice cores taken in Wyoming.

The spikes are mostly from volcano eruptions, and show how mercury travels around the world.

While mercury deposition increased during the industrial revolution, the important question is: Did the increase create a danger to public health?

If the mercury levels found in the ice cores exceed the safety limits established by OSHA and others, then we could conclude that mercury deposition from coal-fired power plants may be affecting public health.

But, if the mercury found in the ice-cores were well below the safety limits, then we could conclude that coal-fired power plants are not affecting public health and the phasing out of coal-fired power plants, at great cost to the economy and in jobs lost, is unnecessary.

The highest level of mercury on the USGS graph was 23 ppt (parts per trillion).

This is an extremely small amount of mercury.

Professor James Rust (nuclear engineering, retired) converted the ng/L (nano grams per cubic liter) shown on the USGS graph, to parts per trillion (ppt) and then compared these concentrations with the safety limits established by OSHA and others.

“The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) occupational exposure limit (8 hr, 5-day week) is 100 micrograms per cubic meter.
“The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommended safety limit is 50 micrograms per cubic meter.
“The American Conference of Government and Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) recommend 25 micrograms per cubic meter for the same conditions as OSHA.
“The Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR) recommends a maximum level of 0.2 micrograms per cubic meter for exposure of children on a continual basis.

“A cubic meter of air has a mass of 1280 grams. Thus 1 microgram per cubic meter is a concentration of 780 parts per trillion by mass.”

Here are the results of these calculations by Professor Rust, for the safe limits for mercury established by each of these organizations,.

OSHA 78,000 ppt
NIOSH 39,000 ppt
ACGIH 19,000 ppt
ATSDR 156 ppt

The highest level of 23 ppt from the USGS graph is infinitesimal when compared with the safety limits established by OSHA, NIOSH or AGOG, and is well below the level established for children.

The amount is so small that, if the USGS chart was posted horizontally at street level on the side of a building, with the highest peak on the graph being 2 inches high, the OSHA limit would be drawn at a height of over 500 feet above the peak amount of mercury, or at a height that was approximately forty stories above the USGS chart.

The USGS study demonstrates that the EPA is pursuing a strategy to eliminate coal-fired power plants for no legitimate scientific reason.

Note:

Concentrations in the USGS graph are given in nanograms per liter. Assuming 1000 grams of ice per liter, the USGS concentrations are also parts per trillion (ppt). Ice is about 900 rather than 1000 grams per liter, but the comparison is sufficiently close to permit a reasonable approximation of ppt.

* * * * * *

If you find these articles on energy issues interesting and informative, you can have them delivered directly to your mailbox by going to the Email Subscription heading below the photo.

* * * * * *

Biofuel Mandates

January 17, 2012

tags: Biofuels, Cello, CO2, EPA, Ethanol, GHG, global warming, Khosla, oil, oil sands, Solyndra

Why are biofuels being forced onto America?

This year the EPA has mandated that 8.65 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol be mixed with gasoline. If a producer can’t obtain cellulosic ethanol to mix with its gasoline, it must pay a penalty in the form of waivers.

So far, in 2010 and 2011, companies have had to “buy” $10 million of waivers. This cost finds its way into the price of gasoline at the pump.

It’s preposterous, but this mandate requires companies to buy a product that doesn’t exist.

This is how the environmental movement has forced untenable rules and regulations onto the American public.

But why?

The two reasons heard most often are:

To free the U.S. from being dependent on foreign oil.
To cut CO2 emissions to help prevent global warming.

The first excuse is ludicrous. There is enough oil in North America to supply the U.S. for decades to come. Of course, a good portion of this oil would come from Canadian oil sands, and they are condemned by environmentalists for emitting CO2. That is the real reason behind the effort to kill the Keystone pipeline.

There is a strong scientific case that CO2 is not the primary cause of global warming. The publication, Climate Change Reconsidered, at http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2009/pdf/CCR2009FullReport.pdf a report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, contains a wealth of information explaining why CO2 is not a real problem. Merely reading the eight-page executive summary will provide people with the information needed to make a judgment on this issue.

The National Academy of Sciences has also concluded that the biofuel mandates “may be an ineffective way to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.”

As has been widely reported, temperatures have remained steady or have declined over the past dozen years, which contradicts all computer programs on which the global warming threat is based.

It’s also been pointed out that biofuels emit CO2, which undermines the supposed reason for requiring the use of cellulosic ethanol – a product that doesn’t exist outside the laboratory in spite of the government having spent over $1.5 billion of taxpayer money in grants and loan subsidies.

Similar to Solyndra, the most outrageous failure and bankruptcy of a biofuels company to-date, was Cello. Cello had gone so far as to show investors a fuel made from petroleum when asking for money to produce ethanol from cellulosic plant material. It received the first round of funding from the government.

Cello went bankrupt in October 2010.

* * * * * *

If you find these articles on energy issues interesting and informative, you can have them delivered directly to your mailbox by going to the Email Subscription heading below the photo.

Please forward this message to those who might be interested in these articles on energy issues.

* * * * * *

UK Report on Renewables

January 13, 2012

tags: CO2, Emissions, GDP, renewable, solar, UK, wind

While I have asserted in several articles that wind and solar are uneconomic and unreliable, it’s interesting to see how the UK has fared under its policy of cutting CO2 emissions through the use of renewables.

The just issued report Renewable Energy, Vision or Mirage, evaluates the current situation in the UK.

In its forward, the report says: “[Governments] have an obligation to the electorate to provide a secure, affordable supply of energy, on which economic competitiveness and the safety and comfort of citizens depends. The evidence shows that continuing along the current path will not do this and certainly does not represent an efficient use of tax revenues.”

The report makes it clear that renewables, with a few notable exceptions, “hydro in Norway and geothermal in Iceland,” are not economic and cannot supply the needed electricity.

The report is technically oriented.

A few of the items that caught my attention were:

GDP in the UK has increased while energy usage has remained flat, resulting in an improvement in energy efficiency. Some of this improvement has been due to actual improvements in efficiency, but some of it has also been due to industries moving out of the UK.

Industry uses more energy than other sectors, so if GDP increases as a result of a large increase in the service sector and a decrease in the industrial sector, it gives the impression that energy efficiency is improving.

In the U.S., energy efficiency has also improved, but some of the improvement is also due to American manufacturing jobs moving to China and elsewhere.

Renewables require government subsidies to exist.
The low density of biomass and lack of supply in the UK means that biomass can never produce a significant amount of electricity in the UK.
The types of large scale storage required to make renewables useful do not exist – and are not in development.
The UK needs to use its large supply of coal to contribute to energy security.
A phenomenon in the UK has been referred to as fuel poverty. The UK’s emphasis on high cost renewables and attempts to eliminate coal generated electricity has driven up the price of electricity to the point that people cannot afford electricity — and with less natural gas available, the cost of natural gas has also increased making that fuel also unaffordable to many.

So far, we in the United States haven’t experienced fuel poverty, though renewable portfolio standards (RPS) that require increased wind and solar generation of electricity are causing an increase in the cost of electricity. We are also fortunate in that fracking has increased our nation’s supply of natural gas so that prices for heating with natural gas will remain low.

The report also provides an excellent history of energy development in the UK.

We in the United States can learn a great deal from what is happening in the UK.

The report is available at: http://www.adamsmith.org/research/reports/renewable-energy-vision-or-mirage

* * * * * *

If you find these articles on energy issues interesting and informative, you can have them delivered directly to your mailbox by going to the Email Subscription heading below the photo.

Please forward this message to those who might be interested in these articles on energy issues.

* * * * * *

Defense Dollars Wasted

January 10, 2012

tags: Algae, Biofuel, Cellulosic Ethanol, DOD, Ethanol, Mabus, Tyson Foods

While the Department of Defense (DOD) budget is being eviscerated and our fighting ability emasculated, the Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus, is forcing the Navy to spend money on biofuels.

The latest example of this was the Navy’s purchase of 450,000 gallons of biofuels, which according to Mabus, was the “largest single purchase of advanced drop-in biofuel in government history.” The biofuels will be produced by blending algae and cooking oil. This, in turn, will be blended with jet fuel.

The 450,000 gallons will cost $12 million. This is money the Navy will have to take away from its other needs, such as buying equipment and paying salaries of servicemen and women.

Secretary Mabus has said he wants a carrier strike group to be fueled by biofuels mixed with diesel fuel to accompany the nuclear carriers on a multi-month tour.

The suppliers of the 450,000-gallon purchase will be algae from Solazyme and cooking oil from Dynamic Fuels, LLC, a joint venture of Tyson Foods and Syntroleum Corp.

The cost will be about nine times the cost of jet fuel normally used to power our aircraft. The biofuels will cost $26 per gallon, or $16 per gallon when mixed with regular jet fuel that costs less than $3 per gallon.

Solazyme previously received $21.7 million in stimulus money to build a bio-refinery.

The Wall Street Journal reported, the “administration has also funded a $510 million program in partnership with the Navy to produce advanced biofuels for the military. In September, the feds loaned $134 million to Abengoa Bioenergy, [the subsidiary of a Spanish company], to build a cellulosic plant in Kansas. In September, the Department of Energy provided POET, which advertises itself as the world’s largest ethanol producer, a $105 million loan guarantee for cellulosic.”

Loan guarantees for cellulosic biofuels will likely become losses borne by tax payers, similar to those incurred from the loan guarantee to Solyndra.

The rationale for these efforts is to decrease our dependence on foreign oil and reduce our carbon foot print.

The National Academy of Sciences concluded that the mandates “may be an ineffective way to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.” The report notes that “currently, no commercially viable biorefineries exist for converting cellulosic biomass to fuel.”

The idea that we should invest in biofuels to cut our dependence on foreign oil is ludicrous, when there is enough oil in North America to supply all our needs for decades.

* * * * * *

If you find these articles on energy issues interesting and informative, you can have them delivered directly to your mailbox by going to the Email Subscription heading below the photo.

Please forward this message to those who might be interested in these articles on energy issues.

* * * * * *

US Energy Policy and China

January 6, 2012

tags: Canada, China, natural gas, Navy, oil, oil sands, PLAN, Shale, South China Sea, Vietnam

Historically, China has primarily been a continental nation, looking to the North, South and West for security threats. For energy, it has huge supplies of coal and the potential for large supplies of shale gas. What it lacks is oil.

Now, it is looking Eastward, toward the ocean – specifically the Pacific Ocean and the sea lanes from the Indian Ocean.

This shift has been caused by China’s growing dependence on oil and China’s role as a major maritime trading power.

How the United States pursues its energy needs will determine whether the United States and China will compete for the same oil resources.

China is in the process of developing a large, modern navy, including ballistic missile and attack submarines, frigates and the supporting ships necessary for a modern navy.

Currently, half these vessels are older and not suitable for 21^st century combat. The Peoples Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) has adopted sea skimming anti-ship missiles, such as the maneuverable Yakhont, that travels at 2.5 Mach with a range of 160 miles. Missile ships, using catamaran hulls that provide a stable platform for cruise missiles, are also part of the PLAN’s arsenal.

It’s been said that if Argentina had had another half dozen Exocet missiles, it would have won the Falkland Islands war against the U.K.

China, using sea based and land based maneuverable missiles, is developing , and may already have, the ability to implement an anti-access (A2) and area-denial (AD) strategy in the South China Sea, that could prove deadly to the U.S. Navy if it had to operate in the South China Sea should hostilities ever occur.

While the PLAN is getting newer, better and bigger, the U.S. Navy is getting smaller.

Currently, the PLAN’s primary focus is to protect the South China and East China Seas; and the existing PLAN is a credible defensive force.

South China Sea and Key Straits

As it looks East, it sees a line of islands stretching from Japan, South, past Taiwan and the Philippines, and then to Brunei and Indonesia. It views this “first row of islands” as an obstacle to reaching the Pacific Ocean, and – more importantly, to maintaining access through the Malacca, Sunda and Lombok straits.

More than five times as many ships pass through the Malacca Strait as pass through the Panama Canal. The Lombok Strait is important since very large crude carriers (VLCCs) traverse it because the Malacca Strait is too shallow.

Over 15 million barrels of oil per day traverse through the South China Sea destined for China, and the other bordering nations. For comparison, the United States uses 20 million barrels of oil per day.

China has claimed virtually the entire South China Sea as belonging to it. (See the dotted line on the map.) The South China Sea stretches from Taiwan, past the Philippines and as far south as Malaysia.

China believes there are large oil and natural gas resources under the seabed.

Many islands within the South China Sea are claimed by several nations, including China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei. These disputes have the potential for conflict, though China’s navy is too strong for any of the other countries to challenge China – without the support of the United States.

China views the presence of the U.S. Navy in the South China Sea as a threat.

China’s growth is expected to result in its importing much larger quantities of oil, so the straits and the South China Sea will grow in strategic importance to China. China is increasing its oil imports from the Mideast and Africa. It has also invested in Canadian oil companies, and would sorely like to import oil from Canada. It’s also exploring for oil in the South China Sea.

The United States energy policy can increase the potential for conflict between the United States and China – or, minimize the threat of conflict.

By developing oil resources in Alaska, the [U.S.] outer continental shelves, and on federal land, and by partnering with Canada to develop Canada’s oil sands, the United States can avoid having to compete with China for Mideast and other oil resources.

While it may not be possible to avoid conflict over the islands and navigation rights in the South China Sea, it is possible to be certain we don’t go head to head with China, competing for oil.

For additional information on China’s Navy and maritime interests, see The Great Wall at Sea, published by the USNI.

* * * * * *

If you find these articles on energy issues interesting and informative, you can have them delivered directly to your mailbox by going to the Email Subscription heading below the photo.

Please forward this message to those who might be interested in these articles on energy issues.

* * * * * *

MIT Report on Grid Problems

January 3, 2012

tags: EV, grid, MIT, PHEV, smart grid, solar, wind

The recent MIT report, The Future of the Electric Grid, establishes why changes are needed to the grid, i.e., to create the smart grid.

What’s remarkable about the MIT report is that it leads to conclusions that are opposite of the intent of the report.

The report establishes that policy decisions are at the root of problems with the grid.

Forcing the use of wind and solar onto the system is creating problems on the supply side, while another policy, the push for electric vehicles, is causing problems on the demand side.

The report says:

“One of the most important emerging challenges facing the grid is to incorporate more renewable generation in response to policy initiatives.”

And:

“Increased penetration of electric vehicles and other ongoing changes in electricity demand will, if measures are not taken, increase the ratio of peak to average demand and thus further reduce capacity utilization and raise rates.”

In other words, there would be fewer problems if it weren’t for these two policy decisions – forcing the use of wind and solar, and the use of electric vehicles.

In so far as the grid is concerned, we would be better off without wind and solar generated electricity and without electric vehicles.

Contrary to what is reported in the media, the MIT report says, “The U.S. electric grid is not broken today.” And, “The grid is currently functioning well.”

In essence: The grid is stable and reliable, unless we add wind and solar.

This doesn’t preclude improving the grid through the use of new sensing and communication technologies.

Improving the stability, reliability and efficiency of the grid, can be achieved by utilizing enhanced communications between all elements of the grid, with these improvements being the result of incredibly improved sensing and communication technologies.

Wind and solar are uneconomic and should not be part of the problem in the first place, while problems associated with electric vehicles can be easily managed by restricting battery charging to off-peak hours. For example, battery charging can be restricted to off-peak hours if home charging systems control the hours during which charging can occur.

The MIT report says:

“Exploiting these variable energy resources [wind and solar] will require building more transmission than if fossil-fueled or nuclear generating plants, built relatively close to load centers, were driving system expansion. The use of very long transmission lines can cause technical problems and compromise system stability.”

One of the report’s recommendations is to recover fixed costs through fixed customer rates rather than charging customers based on usage.

This contradicts the long accepted idea that people should pay for what they use, and not be forced, in essence, to pay for what other people use.

Once again, green house gasses become central to the report’s conclusions, when it says a national policy is required for green house gas emissions. The report’s prejudice is revealed when it refers to “dirty diesel”. Only those with an agenda refer to fossil fuels as “dirty”.

And the report calls for the adoption of demand response, where utilities, and governments, have control over homeowners’ equipment, including air-conditioning units and refrigerators.

Most of the proposals in the MIT report are because of wind and solar on the supply side, and electric vehicles on the demand side. The purpose of the MIT report is to establish the actions that need to be taken because policy decisions are forcing the use of wind and solar and distributed generation on us.

The MIT report clearly demonstrates, once again, why wind and solar are bad for America.

* * * * * *

If you find these articles on energy issues interesting and informative, you can have them delivered directly to your mailbox by going to the Email Subscription heading below the photo.

Please forward this message to those who might be interested in these articles on energy issues.

* * * * * *

Capacity Factor and Reality

December 27, 2011

tags: AWEA, energy, natural gas, New York Times, renewable, solar, wind

Capacity Factor is key to understanding the ineffectiveness of the most popular renewables, wind and solar.

Power generation equipment, from steam turbines to wind turbines, are assigned nameplate ratings.

The nameplate rating defines the amount of electricity a unit, be it a gas turbine, steam turbine or wind turbine, can produce, if operated continuously.

For many reasons, all power generation installations are not able to operate consistently, all the time. There are maintenance issues, cycling issues, efficiency issues and several other issues that cause units to not generate electricity at their nameplate rating.

The theoretical amount of electricity that can be generated by a unit over one year can be calculated by multiplying the nameplate rating, by 365 days and then by 24 hours, with the answer expressed in kilowatt-hours, kWh.

Taking the total amount of electricity actually generated during the year and dividing it by the amount that could theoretically be generated, gives the Capacity Factor.

The capacity factor of a nuclear power plant is typically 90% or slightly more. This means that an investment in a nuclear power plant can be expected to generate 90% of the electricity that could theoretically be generated based on its nameplate rating.

Wind turbines have a capacity factor of around 30%. This reflects the fact that they don’t generate electricity when the wind isn’t blowing or when the wind blows too hard, say over 55 mph. It also reflects that between the units lowest operating speed, say 5 mph, to its most efficient operating speed, say 35 mph, it operates at different efficiencies. Wind turbines are least efficient at low wind speeds; say 5 mph, with efficiency gradually increasing as wind speed increases, until the wind turbine is operating most efficiently.

An investment in a wind turbine generates only 30% of the electricity that could theoretically be generated based on its nameplate rating.

Typical capacity factors are:

Nuclear 90%
Coal 85%
Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) 85%
Wind 30%
Concentrating Solar (CCS) 22%
PV Solar 16%

It’s been said that electricity from nuclear, coal and NGCC power plants is more valuable than electricity generated by wind, CCS or PV power plants.

The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) actually misleads the public when it announces that “x” megawatts (MW) of wind turbines have been installed during the year.

Comparing the MW of installed wind with the MW of installed nuclear, coal or NGCC, overstates the amount of electricity that can be produced by wind turbines.

It compares apples with oranges, and misleads people into thinking that equal investments in MW of wind or NGCC power plants produce equal amounts of electricity.

Wind also has the disadvantage of generating electricity at night when it isn’t needed. The NY Times noted this past August that the investment in wind energy couldn’t provide electricity during the afternoon when it was needed to meet the air conditioning load.

Understanding capacity factor helps to understand why wind and solar are so expensive and why they can’t produce enough electricity to meet our needs.

* * * * * *

If you find these articles on energy issues interesting and informative, you can have them delivered directly to your mailbox by going to the Email Subscription heading below the photo.

Please forward this message to those who might be interested in these articles on energy issues.

* * * * * *

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2011. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Emergency Power

December 20, 2011

tags: coal, electricity, EPA, grid, RES, RPS, wind

The rapid closing of coal-fired power plants, coupled with the imposition of renewable portfolio standards (RPS) with the increase in renewables that produce electricity when it isn’t needed, but not when it is needed, means there will be a greater probability of rolling blackouts in coming years.

Storms, such as those that caused extensive power outages in Connecticut, already have people thinking about emergency backup power for their homes and offices.

Some of my neighbors in Illinois lost nearly all the furniture and belongings in their basement recreation rooms, when a storm caused a power outage and the sump pumps didn’t work.

Driving around the neighborhood after the storm, there were carpets, clothing and furniture lining the street, waiting to be picked up and taken to the landfill.

Subsequently, at least one neighbor installed a backup generator that was connected to the natural gas line. The generator comes on automatically when there is a power failure and can supply the home with all the electricity needed for refrigerators, furnaces, air-conditioning and lighting.

This shouldn’t be necessary in the United States. Shortages of electricity and rolling blackouts used to be the province of under-developed countries.

While storms are not preventable, having adequate power supplies from the grid used to be the norm. Occasionally a hurricane would create such extensive flooding and damage that power interruptions couldn’t be avoided, but seldom did they last for more than three days.

Today, the grid and power generation installations are weaker and more susceptible to outages.

The lack of transmission lines is one problem, partially caused by people not wanting them in their back yards, or because the transmission line would go through forests or environmentally sensitive areas.

Renewables are another problem. This past summer, blackouts were barely averted in New York and New Jersey when a heat wave caused an increase in load and the newly installed power generation, which was from wind, couldn’t supply the needed electricity. Wind generates electricity mostly at night, when it isn’t needed, and can’t generate very much electricity when air temperatures are high and the air is thin.

It was the availability of coal-fired power plants that prevented the blackouts, but these plants are being shut down because of EPA regulations. They won’t be available in the future when needed to supply electricity on hot summer afternoons.

Backup generators, such as those installed by my neighbors, cost about $5,000. Larger units for offices or building complexes can cost as much as $25,000.

But these may have to become the norm, because we aren’t building the base-load power plants and transmission lines we need.

The so-called smart grid doesn’t help very much. It may trim peak load or help prevent local outages caused by minor damage from ice and wind, but it can’t supply electricity if the power plants and transmission lines haven’t been built, or have been shut down prematurely.

* * * * * *

If you find these articles on energy issues interesting and informative, you can have them delivered directly to your mailbox by going to the Email Subscription heading below the photo.

Please forward this message to those who might be interested in these articles on energy issues.

* * * * * *

Hurricane Reality Check

December 16, 2011

tags: CO2, GHG, global warming, Hurricane, Irene, NY, Vermont

In recent years, especially after the movie, An Inconvenient Truth, it has been popular to predict that upcoming hurricane seasons would produce more and bigger storms.

With all this hoopla, it’s worth taking a look at the facts.

This year’s hurricane season has officially come to an end, and it hasn’t been as severe as predicted. There have been eighteen named storms, but only one hurricane hit the United States. Two tropical depressions also hit the United States.

The following table shows there have been periods of greater hurricane activity before CO2 in the atmosphere increased by any significant amount.

In addition, Dr. Chris Landsea, National Hurricane Center, has noted that many hurricanes went undetected before the advent of satellites.

This is an important point, since we can now see embryonic hurricanes as they emerge from North Africa – and then track them as they cross the Atlantic, with many swerving to the North and missing the United States by a wide margin. We might never have known about these storms prior to the use of satellites unless some hapless ship got in the path of a hurricane.

Hurricane Lisa in 2010 that rambled near the Cape Verde Islands off the coast of Africa is an example of a storm that might not have been seen without satellites. This year, tropical storm Cindy, far out in the Atlantic, might not have been known about, though it crossed the shipping lanes and a ship might have reported it before the advent of satellites.

This table summarizes the number of hurricanes in the last century. Bringing the table up to date, 2010 and 2011: one category 3 hurricane.

Decade	All Category 1-5	Major Category 3,4,5
1900-1909	15	6
1910-1919	20	8
1920-1929	15	5
1930-1939	17	8
1940-1949	23	8
1950-1959	18	9
1960-1969	15	6
1970-1971	12	4
1980-1989	16	6
1990-1999	14	5
21^st Century
2000- 2009	23	7
Hurricanes that hit mainland U.S. Source for 20^th century storms: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/deadly/Table5.htm Source for 21^st century storms http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/index.html http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/2011/index.html

Of the hurricanes that reached the continental United States, there were 90 during the first half of the twentieth century and only 75 during the second half: An average of 7 major hurricanes reached the U.S. each decade during the first half and only 6 during the second half of the century.

CO2 levels in the atmosphere were greater in the second half of the twentieth century, the reverse of hurricane frequency.

The insurance industry is clamoring for action to be taken to stop global warming because they have suffered large losses in recent years.

However, it was the increase in coastal populations that caused the higher insurance losses. In his testimony to Congress, Professor Lomborg pointed out that “the two coastal South Florida counties, Dade and Broward, are home to more people than the number of people who lived in 1930 in all 109 counties stretching from Texas through Virginia, along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts.”

This year was an exception, in that Irene caused extensive flooding in Vermont, New York and New Jersey. Though unusual, this was similar to the flooding that occurred in Connecticut in 1955 from Diane when 200 dams received partial or total failure and there were 77 lives lost.

We will likely experience periods of strong hurricanes in the future, but any attempt to attribute them to global warming should be looked at with a jaundiced eye.

* * * * * *

If you find these articles on energy issues interesting and informative, you can have them delivered directly to your mailbox by going to the Email Subscription heading below the photo.

Please forward this message to those who might be interested in these articles on energy issues.

* * * * * *

Lighting Alternatives

December 13, 2011

tags: CFL, electricity, Halogen, Incandescent, LED

There’s a high probability that Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) represent the future in lighting.

Earlier articles, Lighting Aint Simple, and The CFL Debacle, explained lighting basics.

Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs) have been forced on the American public with the outlawing of incandescent bulbs.

As explained earlier, the economics for CFLs are only favorable if the CFL is used for more than 3 hours each day. A typical CFL, rated to replace a 100W incandescent bulb, is rated to use 25 watts, with light output of 1750 Lumens and a life of 8,000 hours.

CFLs use about 75% less electricity than incandescent bulbs.

A 100 watt CFL costs about $1.40 more than an incandescent A19 bulb, the type used in table or floor lamps. The cost differential for overhead R40 or R30 lamps, used in ceilings, is about $4.30.

If a CFL is used for three hours each day, it will recover the added cost in about two months. In this case, it would make sense to replace the A19 incandescent bulb with a CFL if there is no other alternative.

But, if the CFL is used for much shorter periods of time, such as in a closet where it might be used 5 or 10 minutes each day, it would take around five years to recover the extra cost. This is most likely a bad investment.

The story is worse for overhead R40 and R30 flood lamps. A CFL used in this application for 3 hours per day would take 6 months to recover the increased cost. If used for 10 minutes a day, it would require 9 years to recover the increased cost.

It’s important to know that a CFL cannot be used for dimming, unless specifically designed for such use. Using an ordinary CFL in a dimming circuit can cause a fire.

LEDs designed to replace an A19 Edison base incandescent bulb, cost around $20 each. To be suitable for replacing a 100 W incandescent bulb, the LED lamp should have a rating of around 1700 lumens, and a color temperature of around 2900 K.

Obviously, a $20 lamp is uneconomic, even if it uses 90% less electricity than a 100 W incandescent bulb. At $20 each, it would require nearly 2 years to recover the added cost of the LED lamp.

The cost of LED lamps is decreasing rapidly, and could reach a cost where LED lamps are an economic replacement for a 100 watt incandescent bulb in ten years or so.

LED lamps are economic where the labor cost to replace a lamp exceeds the premium for incandescent or other lamps, such as sodium vapor street lamps.

A recent Wall Street Journal article described the use of LED lamps in commercial and street lighting applications where the high cost of labor to change out a lamp, justified the more expensive LED lamps.

There is another alternative to CFLs for home use.

Halogen lamps for replacing 100 W incandescent bulbs are available. They can be superior to CFLs in life and color rendering. Halogen lamps rated 1490 Lumens, with a color temperature of 2900 K, are available.

When replacing a 100 W incandescent bulb that is used for 3 hours each day, the Halogen lamp will pay for itself in 3 1/2 months. While the payback period is slightly longer than for a CFL, the improved light may be worth the cost.

LEDs have a bright future in lighting and will undoubtedly capture the lion’s share of the lighting market in ten years or so.

In the meantime, we are encumbered by a politically motivated Congress to having to pay more for lighting.

In addition this, legislation has cost American jobs, with the bulk of CFLs made in China.

By outlawing incandescent bulbs, Congress has taken away our ability to use the lowest cost alternative.

* * * * * *

If you find these articles on energy issues interesting and informative, you can have them delivered directly to your mailbox by going to the Email Subscription heading below the photo.

Please forward this message to those who might be interested in these articles on energy issues.

* * * * * *

Another Misleading Report

December 9, 2011

tags: Brattle Group, Carbon, CO2, Conservation, Demand Response, EIA, EnerNOC, environment, Keystone, NREL, Smart Meters

The Brattle Group proudly issued their report that energy efficiency will result in a 5% to 15% drop in electricity consumption by 2020.

Prestigious publications published summaries of the report.

It’s unbelievable that an unscientific poll could form the basis of a report intended to influence policy makers. The Brattle Group should be ashamed of itself for issuing such an unscientific report.

The Brattle Group surveyed 50 so-called experts, asking for their opinion as to whether energy efficiency would cause a reduction in the usage of electricity.

Of the 50 “experts” who were surveyed, 22 were from utilities, 10 were from non-profits (TSAugust was not surveyed) and 8 were from government. For example, the manufacturer of smart meters participated in the survey, as did a representative of NREL, the government organization promoting renewables and energy efficiency.

Furthermore, the report was issued in conjunction with Global Energy Partners, an EnerNOC Company, which sells energy and demand response solutions and obviously has a vested interest in promoting these approaches.

In other words, the overwhelming majority of survey participants, 40 out of 50, had a bias for, and a vested interest in, promoting energy efficiency.

The Brattle Group also asked the question in a way that made the report’s conclusions irrelevant.

The question was: How much will energy efficiency lower consumption compared to what it would have been?

The question infers there is a baseline against which to make a comparison, but the report doesn’t refer to or establish a baseline. Responses, therefore, were irrelevant opinions without meaning – and unscientific.

The only baseline that makes sense is the forecast of electricity consumption made by the Energy Information Administration (EIA). The EIA’s, April 2011 projections, forecast that electricity demand would grow at a 1% rate between now and 2035, essentially the same as population growth.

The EIA forecast already INCLUDES the impact of the various technologies highlighted by the 50 responders as the reasons why electricity consumption will decrease by 5% to 15%. (Page 73 of the EIA projections makes this clear.)

The report said “enhancements in energy efficiency may eliminate the need to make investments in the power supply system.”

The lack of new investments, however, could lead to a shortage of electricity, and there is no careful examination of this possibility in the report.

Here is how the 50 participants expect to cut energy usage 5% to 15% by 2020, which, as noted, are already largely included in the EIA’s forecast of 1% growth.

The use of Demand Response (DR), including smart meters, will reduce peak demand by 7.5% to 15%.
Changing consumer behavior is identified as the way by which demand can be cut. It refers to smart meters, home energy management and new rate structures that penalize electricity usage during peak periods, as the next approach for cutting energy usage.
Next, the report cites the establishment of aggressive codes requiring people to invest in such things as insulation and Energy Star appliances.

It should be noted that DR requires home owners to agree to allow utilities to control their thermostats, or allow utilities to interrupt electricity to their refrigerator or air-conditioning units.

For the most part, the report lacks specific data as to how savings will be achieved. One exception is a statement that 40% of consumers will buy high efficiency air-conditioning units by 2020.

There is no statistical explanation for the statement. Undoubtedly, new air-conditioning units purchased for new buildings will be high efficiency units. There won’t be enough residential construction over the next 8 years to support such a statement. There also aren’t sufficient cost savings to justify replacing existing units before they fail. So what is the scientific or statistical basis for such a statement?

These highlight the unscientific nature of the Brattle Group report, though they are not isolated instances.

The report makes similar claims about natural gas usage.

The report doesn’t even mention the impact that electric vehicles, PHEVs and EVs, or that Cloud Computing will have on demand for electricity. These are not minor omissions.

The only reason I can see for publishing the unscientific Brattle Group report was to encourage State legislators and members of Congress, who won’t have time to critically analyze the report, to support measures that may not be in the best interests of their constituents, but that are widely supported by environmental activists.

Such ideas as smart meters, time of day pricing and forcing uneconomic decisions on consumers are currently in vogue, and supported by those who want to cut the use of fossil fuels.

The report references a carbon constrained world, which is shorthand for cutting CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. For example, EnerNOC, on its website, advertises carbon accounting, under the “CarbonSMART” logo, as one of its offerings.

We all need to be alert to this type of demagoguery in the guise of so-called scientific reporting, which is too often championed by the media in support of cutting the use of fossil fuels.

The influence of activist environmentalists in stopping the Keystone XL pipeline demonstrates how relentless these groups can be.

The Brattle Group report is very unfortunate. In my view, the report is essentially opinion, masquerading as science.

* * * * * *

If you find these articles on energy issues interesting and informative, you can have them delivered directly to your mailbox by going to the Email Subscription heading below the photo.

Please forward this message to those who might be interested in these articles on energy issues.

* * * * * *

Storing Electricity

December 6, 2011

tags: Batteries, Beacon Power, CO2, electricity, GHG, Hydrogen, renewable, RES, RPS, solar, wind

Storage of electricity is the holy grail of renewables. Without the ability to store electricity, renewables will remain uneconomic.

Electricity must be generated as it is consumed, unless there is a way to store excess electricity for use at a later time – referred to as time-shifting renewables.

The storage issue isn’t a one size fits all issue.

Renewables require the ability to store very large quantities of electricity.

Uninterruptable power supplies, on the other hand, only require storing enough electricity to provide a buffer until back-up supplies can be brought on-line. The nature of the buffer depends on the required quality of the electricity supplied by the storage medium, in terms of voltage stability, interruptible cycles and frequency.

There are storage devices covering the spectrum between these two extremes, for doing such tasks as smoothing transmission and distribution to provide better quality in terms of voltage regulation, power factor correction and integrating distributed generation.

The real storage issue relates to renewables.

Electricity can be stored as chemical, thermal or mechanical energy.

Batteries utilize chemical storage. These include lead-acid, Lithium-ion, Sodium-Sulphur and flow batteries.

Salt pits at concentrating solar power (CSP) plants are a form of thermal storage. Using ice in cooling systems is another method of thermal storage.

Pumped storage, where water is pumped uphill to a reservoir, is a form of mechanical storage. Compressed air is another form of mechanical storage. Flywheels, such as those produced by Beacon Power Corp., which recently went bankrupt, is another method for mechanical storage.

Another approach is to use hydrogen as a storage medium.

Storage becomes a critical element of grid operation as the impact of renewable portfolio standards (RPS) or renewable energy standards (RES) become more pronounced. Specifically, as the percentage of electricity from renewables grows from a few percent to 20% or more.

In California, where RPS has been taken to an extreme, regulators are in the process of requiring utilities to equip their systems with increasing amounts of storage. This, of course, will increase costs and the prices paid by consumers for electricity. (Assembly Bill 2514 directs the California Public Utilities Commission to determine energy storage procurement targets.)

In attempting to explain the value of energy storage, the CPUC avoids the financial cost of storage by including societal benefits in the cost equation, such as avoiding use of fossil fuels and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

All of the storage mediums described above, have limitations.

Pumped storage, which is a proven technology, requires building expensive dams and reservoirs, while incurring objections from environmental organizations.

Most batteries have limited storage capacities. Those that could store large amounts of electricity, such as Sodium-Sulphur, are very large and expensive.

Compressed air storage requires a large space, with sufficient volume in which to store the compressed air.

In summary, we currently lack the ability to store large quantities of electricity at low cost.

Until this changes, renewables will remain a very costly and inefficient method for generating electricity.

* * * * * *

If you find these articles on energy issues interesting and informative, you can have them delivered directly to your mailbox by going to the Email Subscription heading below the photo.

Please forward this message to those who might be interested in these articles on energy issues.

* * * * * *

Pipelines Required For CCS

December 2, 2011

tags: Carbon, carbon capture, CCS, CO2, CO2Europipe, coal, EU, Europe, GHG, global warming, Sequestration

While the ability to capture CO2 from coal-fired and natural gas power plants remains under investigation, and the ability to store CO2 underground remains in doubt, people are now looking at what it would take to transport the CO2 from where it’s been captured to where it might be sequestered.

The second edition of Carbon Folly contains a map that I prepared showing where CO2 pipelines might have to be built in the United States.

: USA CO2 Pipelines

The map is based on transporting CO2 from 417 coal-fired power plants, rated 100 MW and above, to locations where it might be possible to sequester the CO2. The map does not include pipelines for transporting CO2 from the remaining coal-fired power plants, natural gas power plants or from cement mills and other industrial operations, such as steel mills.

The total length of the pipelines shown in the map is nearly 11,000 miles.

In November 2011, the CO2Europipe project published a map showing where CO2 pipelines would be needed in Europe by 2050.

EU CO2 Pipelines 2050

There were some important differences between the two approaches.

While my projections limited transporting CO2 from only 417 coal-fired power plants, the CO2Europipe project included industrial locations, such as steel mills. It also grouped point sources into clusters.
The CO2Europipe project also included underwater pipelines to allow sequestration under the North Sea.
The projected cost of the European pipeline was about $68 billion, or roughly three times my estimate. Part of the difference is caused by the higher cost of pipelines routed underwater. The CO2Europipe project also had more engineers working on the project, which probably resulted in more detailed estimates.
The European pipeline would also cross country borders. Cross border issues complicate construction, funding and sequestration. Local popular discontent with CO2 sequestration is complicating decision making.

There were also some similarities between my projections and those of the CO2Europipe project.

The CO2Europipe project concluded there would be a need for at least 13,000 miles of pipelines.
The CO2Europipe report also reiterated there would be safety issues when transporting CO2 at high pressures of approximately 2,000 psi. Issues surrounding the purity of the CO2 stream, mixing of different streams and prevention of crack propagation are examples.
The report also reiterated the fact that locations for sequestering CO2 had not been properly evaluated.

Carbon Folly contains more detailed information about CCS and the pipelines required for transporting CO2. Carbon Folly also explores other related issues. See www.carbonfolly.com

Three earlier articles also discussed CCS in more detail. See Carbon Capture; and CO2 Pipeline Concerns with CCS; and CO2 Pipeline Rights of Way.

The EU study of CO2 transportation issues, coupled with problems surrounding CO2 capture and sequestration, reinforces the impression that CCS is a boondoggle that should be abandoned.

* * * * * *

If you find these articles on energy issues interesting and informative, you can have them delivered directly to your mailbox by going to the Email Subscription heading below the photo.

Please forward this message to those who might be interested in these articles on energy issues.

* * * * * *

Electric Vehicle Update

November 29, 2011

tags: Batteries, Better Place, Denmark, EV, Israel, Leaf, Nissan, PHEV, Volt

Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and pure electric vehicles (EVs) are slow out of the starting gate.

Through October, total PHEV and EV sales are less than 15,000 vehicles: reportedly 5,003 Volts and 8,048 Leafs.

It’s still early, and it’s anticipated there will be around 40 additional PHEV and EV models introduced in 2012, which could stimulate sales.

Fires

Fires have also been in the news.

The latest involved a Volt after it had undergone testing at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) testing site. The fire occurred three weeks after the test. It’s believed the test damaged the battery pack which wasn’t properly discharged after the test. Two subsequent tests of the Volt also resulted in fires at least a week after the test.

This has brought into focus the need to train first responders on how to safely handle car accidents involving PHEVs and EVs.

The most recent house fire in Mooresville, N.C., involved a Volt, but it’s believed the fire started external to the Volt. The other house fire earlier this year in Connecticut was also not started by the Volt.

In the Mooresville fire, there is a question as to whether the external battery charger started the fire.

Resale Value

A new concern has emerged, especially in Israel, concerning the resale value of EVs. It’s believed the resale value after four years of an EV will be 70% below its original value, compared to typical gasoline powered vehicles, where the resale value is 40% below the original value.

This has become a critical issue in Israel where Better Place is launching its new EV concept and has targeted sales to rental and leasing agencies. Better Place intends to lease the batteries to car owners and charge a monthly fee for using and recharging the battery, as well as replacing batteries in ten minutes at special changing stations to alleviate the need for recharging by the owner. Discharged batteries would be replaced with fully charged batteries at these changing stations.

Israel was chosen as the test market for the concept due to its insular location and small geographic footprint. Denmark was to be Better Place’s next target market.

The resale value issue now hangs over the entire PHEV and EV market. Underlying this issue is how to determine the value of a $10,000 used battery, as well as the remaining life of the battery.

Utilities

Utilities are still struggling with how to handle battery recharging of large numbers of PHEVs and EVs. It’s important for batteries to be recharged during off-peak hours, unless the utility can control the battery charging process. For example, stopping charging during peak periods when charging requires bringing additional generating capacity on-line.

San Diego Gas & Electric has been exploring this issue. It has also said it would prefer that battery charging be kept separate from other uses of electricity.

(See earlier three part series on The Hidden Cost of PHEVs Part I, Part II and Part IIIfor a full analysis of this subject.)

The electric utility industry is promoting PHEVs and EVs. This is logical since electric utilities could increase their sales and profits by selling electricity for charging batteries during off-peak hours.

The Edison Electric Institute has issued a slick brochure advising utilities, under the guise of being ready for PHEVs and EVs, on how to establish a friendly interface with the public. Its advice includes a section on “Very Important Passengers” which explains how to create allies of State and Federal Regulators and local legislators.

The brochure encourages the use of federal and state grants and tax credits for stimulating the purchase of PHEVs, EVs and charging stations.

Summary

Overall, the evidence to-date indicates very slow growth in sales of PHEVs and EVs, and the continuing emergence of new issues, such as resale value.

* * * * * *

If you find these articles on energy issues interesting and informative, you can have them delivered directly to your mailbox by going to the Email Subscription heading below the photo.

Please forward this message to those who might be interested in these articles on energy issues.

* * * * * *

Thanksgiving Promise 2011

November 25, 2011

tags: Pilgrims, Thanksgiving, Turkey

The Puritans gave thanks for their bountiful harvest in their new land on the first Thanksgiving in Massachusetts.

Today, most of us gather around our families on Thanksgiving Day, where we look forward to the big game, or the Macy’s parade in New York, and to Thanksgiving dinner.

The emphasis seems to have shifted from giving thanks to joining in the festivities, and watching the big game or parade.

Not that Thanksgiving shouldn’t be a happy day, but this year, let’s take the time to think about why we have a Thanksgiving Day, and give thanks for the blessings our families have received and for the safety of our men and women who are in danger in far off places – and for our country, the shining city upon a hill.

“They set sail from England with a dream.
Their new nation would be a guiding light.
It would be an example for the whole world,
a shining ‘City Upon A Hill’.”

* * * * * *

If you find these articles on energy issues interesting and informative, you can have them delivered directly to your mailbox by going to the Email Subscription heading below the photo.

Please forward this message to those who might be interested in these articles on energy issues.

* * * * * *

CES as Cap & Trade Light

November 22, 2011

tags: cap and trade, Carbon, Clean Coal, CO2, coal, electricity, global warming, natural gas, RES, RPS, solar, wind

RES, RPS and now CES are being discussed in Congress and various states.

The White Paper on a Clean Energy Standard, published earlier this year by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, makes it clear that there is some support in the Senate for a cap & trade mandate – albeit, only a light version.

The Clean Energy Standard (CES) is essentially the same as a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) or a Renewable Energy Standard (RES), except it would cover all 50 states. Some 26 states already have an RPS or RES in various configurations.

RPS, RES and CES all require utilities to generate or procure a minimum percentage of their electricity from renewable sources, primarily wind and solar, which are more expensive than traditional sources of electricity.

This results in families having to spend more on electricity – conceivably much more. A recent EIA study of increased costs by state showed that electricity costs for families could be as much as 60% higher.

Interestingly, the white paper asks whether some states should be exempt from the CES requirement. This raises a fairness issue in addition to all the other issues.

The white paper asked whether there should be credits, ala cap & trade, and if so, how should they be apportioned?

The Senate Committee issued the white paper and requested public comments, with the chairman, Bingham (D), Arizona, and ranking member Murkowski (R), Alaska, jointly issuing the white paper. So this is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue – there are a number of Republicans and many Democrats who claim there is a need for CES or a carbon tax.

The Committee listed six questions for which it was seeking comments.

None of the questions asked whether a CES was needed. This would have been the most important question, but what the Committee was seeking were comments on HOW TO implement a CES, NOT whether it was needed.

Here are the six questions:

What should be the threshold [size of the utility] for inclusion in the new program?
What resources should qualify as “clean energy”?
How should the crediting system and timetables be designed?
How will a CES affect the deployment of specific technologies?
How should Alternative Compliance Payments, regional costs and consumer protection be addressed?
Are there policies that should be considered to complement a CES?

There were sub-questions, but the Committee made it difficult to comment on the sub questions with the admonition that not adhering to the required format would disqualify submissions.

Here’s an interesting sub question posed in the white paper:

Should partial credits be given for certain technologies, like efficient natural gas and clean coal? If partial credits are used, on what basis should the percentage of credit be awarded?

Credits, and accounting for them, interjects the same type of bureaucracy that was proposed in the Waxman-Markey, American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 – cap & trade legislation that passed in the House, but was rejected by the Senate.

The white paper admits that CES would result in families paying more for their electricity, saying:

The RES contained in S. 1462 last Congress included cost containment mechanisms such as limiting the electric rate impact … to not more than four percent per retail customer annually.

It would appear as though there is some support for CES (“cap & trade light”) in the Senate, so that the final decision on whether families will pay higher prices for their electricity may rest with the House.

The white paper is available at http://energy.senate.gov/public/_files/CESWhitePaper.pdf

* * * * * *

If you find these articles on energy issues interesting and informative, you can have them delivered directly to your mailbox by going to the Email Subscription heading below the photo.

Please forward this message to those who might be interested in these articles on energy issues.

* * * * * *

Latest on Biofuels

November 18, 2011

tags: Algae, Arizona, Biofuels, Cellulosic Ethanol, corn, Ethanol, Gasoline, oil, Rhode Island, Switchgrass

The Wall Street Journal had a glowing article about the latest development for using algae to produce ethanol.

A casual reader would assume that the age of “algae” was at hand, possibly to replace the age of “oil”.

The article said that 25,000 gallons per year of ethanol could be produced, at low cost, from one acre of algae.

My earlier article, The Ethanol Problem, pointed out that Congress has mandated that 35 billion gallons of ethanol be mixed into our gasoline by 2022. Of the 35 billion, 15 billion gallons are to come from corn ethanol and the remaining 20 billion from cellulosic ethanol.

Since cellulosic ethanol is still experimental, and most probably a pipe dream, we have a problem.

While we can use approximately 40% of our corn crop to produce 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol, we can’t produce another 20 billion gallons from cellulosic materials, such as switch grass and poplar trees – and we certainly can’t use our entire corn crop to make ethanol.

Ergo, algae to the rescue.

A little arithmetic, however, quickly dispels the vision of algae as the white knight.

Only 68.5 gallons per day of ethanol are produced from one acre of algae.

To grow enough algae to produce 20 billion gallons of ethanol requires a land area slightly less than one-and-a-quarter (1 ¼) times the size of Rhode Island.

Granted that the land mass of Rhode Island can fit nicely into the state of Arizona, it’s still no trivial matter to carve out this much land in Arizona, or Texas, or any other large, sunny state, when environmental issues will come to the fore, such as endangered species.

Joule Unlimited Technologies Inc., the developer of this process, plans on building a demonstration facility in New Mexico.

It’s no question that their SolarConverter bioreactor prototype is an interesting concept, but there is a long way to go before ethanol from algae is produced in sufficient quantities and at a reasonable price to solve the problem created by Congress. The current price of ethanol from Algae is somewhere between $17 and $25 per gallon.

The easiest way to solve the problem created by Congress is to change the law, and cancel the mandate for the additional 20 billion gallons of ethanol over and above the 15 billion produced from corn.

This will save tax payers a lot of money.

While there may be a breakthrough someday that will allow algae to become a viable producer of ethanol, that day is not in sight.

Besides, there’s enough oil in North America to supply all our gasoline for decades.

* * * * * *

If you find these articles on energy issues interesting and informative, you can have them delivered directly to your mailbox by going to the Email Subscription heading below the photo.

Please forward this message to those who might be interested in these articles on energy issues.

* * * * * *

Geothermal Power

November 15, 2011

tags: electricity, energy, Fracking, Geothermal, Grants, Hot Rocks, Loan guarantees, Maori, New Zealand, Pele, renewable

Approximately 20 geothermal plants in the United States have a combined nameplate rating of 3,421 MW or 0.3% (three tenths of one percent) of total US power generation capacity (1,121,686 MW).

It’s believed that geothermal resources currently identified in the United States could provide a total of 20,000 MW of capacity. Federal government grants and loan guarantees over the past three years have amounted to over $300 million.

Realistically, US geothermal generating capacity in 2020 could reach 5,000 MW.

There is another type of geothermal that has extreme environmentalists excited. It’s Enhanced Geothermal, commonly referred to as “Hot Rocks”, which is a futuristic proposal where water is pumped deep into the earth to create steam from very hot rocks located well below the earth’s surface. Most people see this as a fantasy rather than a real possibility.

An Australian company has been trying for over a dozen years to no avail to drill two wells to a depth of 14,000 feet where rocks are hot enough to boil water, so that water could be injected down one well and steam could be extracted from the other for use in a steam turbine generator. They use fracking to create splits in the rock to allow water and steam to migrate.

Traditionally, geothermal generates electricity using three methods.

Direct Steam

Direct steam uses high temperature steam as it emerges naturally from the earth to drive a turbine generator. These are the most cost-effective plants, but sites with steam are rare.

Flash Steam

Flash steam systems take high temperature brine (above 400 °F) from the earth and injects it into a low-pressure chamber where the brine flashes directly into steam. The steam then drives the turbine generator.

Binary cycle

The binary cycle method passes moderate temperature brine (below 400 °F) through a heat exchanger where its heat is transferred to another fluid which vaporizes. The vaporized fluid drives the turbine generator.

In the binary cycle, the fluid from the geothermal source never passes through the turbine and the rest of the plant. Instead, the brine is contained in a separate loop from the time it leaves the geothermal source, to where it passes through the heat exchanger and then returned to the earth. The fluid that is converted to a vapor in the heat exchanger travels through the turbine in another loop. The two fluids never come in contact.

Moderate temperature brine is the most common geothermal resource so Binary cycle plants tend to be the most common.

: Binary Geothermal Power Plant

This diagram from the U.S. Idaho National Laboratory shows a Binary system.

A discouraging aspect of geothermal is that the amount of energy available from a geothermal source gradually declines, though reinjection of fluids can help preserve the fluid volume of the reservoir. The reservoir should outlive the useful life of the equipment so the investment is worthwhile, but each location has a finite life, just as any other man-made endeavor.

The cost of producing geothermal electricity is the lowest of all renewables, execpt possibly for hydro, but it’s still more expensive than electricity generated by natural gas or coal-fired power plants. It will be difficult to significantly lower the cost of geothermally generated electricity, since these installations use established technologies (heat exchangers, turbines and electric generators) in traditional ways. Drilling and exploration represents 24% to 50% of the cost, so new drilling technologies may help lower the cost of new plants.

Though we mostly welcome geothermal when it is competitive with other methods for generating electricity, not everyone in the world does.

Even in Hawaii, people are afraid of disturbing Pele, the goddess of fire. The same is true in Indonesia, as was recently reported in the Wall Street Journal.

I learned on my trip to New Zealand that there is considerable concern about using geothermal resources, of which New Zealand is blessed, for generating electricity. Many of the geothermal areas are sacred and are a part of Maori history.

In the final analysis, geothermal can economically produce small amounts of electricity, but it shouldn’t be showered with federal grants and loan guarantees since it has such a small impact on our economy and our ability to generate electricity, and is irrelevant with respect to becoming energy independent.

* * * * * *

If you find these articles on energy issues interesting and informative, you can have them delivered directly to your mailbox by going to the Email Subscription heading below the photo.

Please forward this message to those who might be interested in these articles on energy issues.

* * * * * *

More Costs and Higher Prices

November 11, 2011

tags: Capacity factor, coal, electricity, Green, natural gas, renewable, solar, wind

Renewables, such as wind and solar, generate electricity intermittently, where it’s impossible to predict when the wind will stop blowing or the sun will be clouded over.

The need for costly back-up power is well documented.

Not so obvious is the impact that intermittency has on existing coal-fired and natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) power plants.

NGCC and coal-fired power plants are designed to run at a steady load, except for planned maintenance periods where they are carefully shut down at the beginning of the maintenance period and slowly brought back on line when maintenance is completed.

The advent of renewables has resulted in these plants being cycled, up and down, to accommodate the variables caused by intermittent wind and solar power plants.

This cycling has resulted in less efficient use of the power plants, as well as costly damage to the plants.

This means higher costs and higher prices to the consumer for electricity.

The first casualty of cycling these plants is lower capacity factor. This means that these units are producing less electricity than they could. In other words, efficiently generated electricity is being replaced by inefficiently generated electricity from renewables.

The next casualty is damage to components from thermal cycles. In other words, components that are designed to operate at more or less stable temperatures, after being slowly brought up to operating conditions, are whip sawed between lower, then higher temperatures. These unplanned thermal cycles damage the boilers and turbines.

This damage causes increased spending on preventative and corrective maintenance, which results in higher costs to consumers.

The next casualty is to the pollution control systems. The changes in load result in changes to flu-gas temperatures and pressures that result in less efficient operation of these systems. In addition, the cycling of temperatures also damages this equipment.

Coal-fired power plants receive the most wear and tear from this thermal cycling.

Some examples.

Headers in boilers are thick, expensive and hard to reach components that have been cracked as the result of thermal cycling.
The boiler structure that supports firewalls and water-tubes expands and contracts at different rates than the firewalls, etc. This uneven expansion and contraction causes severe damage to the firewalls and tubing.
Different expansion rates cause damage to the super heater tubes and their supporting structures.
Boiler water chemistry is altered when boilers are operated under variable temperatures and pressures. Boiler water chemistry is crucial to preventing chemical attack of boiler tubes.
Steam turbine rotors consist of huge, solid forgings. Gas turbines have buckets mounted on diaphragms keyed to forgings. These rotors, unless designed for thermal cycling, must be brought up to speed slowly so as not to be deformed by changing temperature. The coefficients of expansion between components are also different, which requires steady operating temperatures under load. Clearances are tight and deformation could cause rubbing and damage.

These are merely a few examples of the problems caused by operating coal-fired and NGCC power plants in anything other than steady conditions.

As an aside, I have worked inside the fire-box of marine boilers to point-up the brickwork, and to clean the tubes using a handheld steam lance. For a long while, I had the scar on my left arm from a burn caused by the high temperature of the steam hose.

The public isn’t aware of these problems and higher costs. All they hear about are the so-called “Green” benefits of wind and solar.

In the real world, renewables cause problems, and increase the price of electricity to consumers.

* * * * * *

If you find these articles on energy issues interesting and informative, you can have them delivered directly to your mailbox by going to the Email Subscription heading below the photo.

Please forward this message to those who might be interested in these articles on energy issues.

* * * * * *

VCs in the Energy World

November 8, 2011

tags: Batteries, Biofuels, Cleantech, Fracking, GE, Jack Welch, Lexan, solar, Solyndra, VC

Venture Capitalists have been extremely successful in the digital arena. Moore’s law has benefited nearly everything digital.

The energy arena is very different, and the question is open as to whether VCs will be successful in this arena.

The VC model assumes that one or two out of ten investments will be hugely successful and that another three or four will achieve some success. It’s expected that one or two will fail completely and that the remaining few will remain in operating purgatory.

VCs get their money from pension funds, university endowment funds and others. These investors expect very large returns on their investment, in a relatively few years.

For the most part, VC-backed companies haven’t had to make large investments – their businesses have generally not been capital intensive until after the IPO when the public company can access the money market.

The VC gets its payoff with an IPO for its one or two big winners and by selling the best of the rest to existing companies.

The digital world has been very kind to VCs in that IPOs have been bountiful, and existing companies have needed the technology that the VCs remaining businesses have developed.

Now look at the energy world where the businesses are generally capital intensive and where reliability of existing systems is critical. There’s no Moore’s law that causes existing technologies to be outdated every eighteen months; in fact, most technologies last for decades.

There are exceptions: Smart meters, software and battery charging stations, to name three.

In addition, many energy technologies have been around for years and are not readily susceptible to technological breakthroughs.

Batteries are the obvious product that fits this category.

Small, incremental improvements are the norm, such as using flexible turbine blades as opposed to more or less rigid blades with shrouds. But large existing companies do this type of incremental development where quality and reliability are crucial and the company has to stand behind its product.

Energy requires fundamental research in physics and chemistry, something that doesn’t fit the VC model.

For example, if a new extraordinarily thin electrical insulation was developed that was also flexible, inexpensive and impervious to chemical and ozone attack, it would be a disruptive technology that would revolutionize the manufacture of motors, generators and transformers, but such a material will probably be developed in a laboratory and not by a VC.

VCs aren’t in business to conduct scientific experiments.

It’s true that private capital has supported inventors and new technologies, but this has been patient money not looking for short-term gain.

It used to be that laboratories in industry, such as at General Electric and AT&T, would do fundamental research. Unfortunately these labs are now focused on applied research.

Today a chemist won’t mix compounds together and be surprised when a new material emerges. This is essentially what happened when Daniel Fox at General Electric’s laboratory in Niskayuna invented Lexan. It didn’t happen overnight and was preceded by considerable research.

It then took an entrepreneur within GE, named Jack Welch, to commercialize it using GE’s resources. His film of a bull-in-a-china-shop demonstrated the superior qualities of Lexan, and Lexan became a resounding success.

Another reason why energy isn’t the domain of VC firms is that it takes years, and sometimes decades, to develop and demonstrate the suitability of a product or process.

A recent example is the development of fracking for extracting natural gas from shale. In the early 1980s, George P. Mitchell, a Houston-based independent oil and natural gas producer began to wonder whether it would be possible to extract natural gas from shale. It took nearly twenty years for him to develop the process for accomplishing this feat.

The energy arena is so large that one would think that VCs could make profound contributions. They grabbed cleantech as the segment that might be amenable to their strengths, but thus far they have not had great success.

It’s possible that a VC will produce a winning company, but it’s going to be far more difficult than VCs originally thought.

There is a role for government in funding fundamental research now that industry has decided not to. Government can do this through its many laboratories and through universities.

A university could spin off a company with a new technology and that company might then be backed by a VC.

Government shouldn’t try to commercialize technologies or support nascent companies. Selecting winners isn’t something government should attempt to do. Government bureaucrats are motivated by ideology, not market forces. That’s the genesis of Solyndra and other failed energy companies like it.

The market place is the best means for identifying the technologies and companies that will be successful.

First Solar has been a winner for the investment arm of the Walton family, which bought the company from its founders and then took it public with an IPO in 2006. The market place will determine its ultimate success.

VCs have invested in solar and bio-fuel companies, mostly without success.

It will be interesting to see whether VCs will have any big winners in the energy arena, but governments shouldn’t make bets using tax payer money.

* * * * * *

If you find these articles on energy issues interesting and informative, you can have them delivered directly to your mailbox by going to the Email Subscription heading below the photo.

Please forward this message to those who might be interested in these articles on energy issues.

* * * * * *

What Killed Nuclear Power?

November 4, 2011

tags: China, FPL, France, Fukushima, Germany, Japan, Nuclear, Vogtle

The knee-jerk response would be the Fukushima disaster.

But, just as in the movie “Who Killed the Electric Car”, the answer is not so simple.

Germany did decide to kill the nuclear industry after Fukushima, but Germany may be the exception.

In Europe, France, despite some anti-nuke sentiment, appears to be standing by its nuclear policy. Sweden and Finland are building reactors and are also committed to building storage for their nuclear waste.

The Czech Republic is considering building additional nuclear reactors at its Dukovany site, probably recognizing that Germany will be in desperate need of electricity after it shuts down its nuclear power industry.

China is going ahead with its nuclear energy plan, albeit with a slightly smaller target due to the delay caused by Fukushima. It has also decided to only build Gen 3 reactors, which precludes building reactors similar to those at Fukushima.

Indonesia plans to build four reactors. India and other countries seem to be continuing with their plans.

But, what about the United States with its existing fleet of 104 reactors?

A few are being shut down for extraneous reasons, primarily because of environmental cooling water issues.

Of the remaining units, 71 have already received extensions to their operating licenses allowing them to operate for an additional 20 years beyond their original 40-year license.

The immediate effect of Fukushima has been to put in jeopardy the granting of license extensions to the remaining units, which could result in more of the existing units being shut down prematurely.

But, even if all the units are granted extensions, some will have to begin to shut down 20 years from now in the 2030s, unless they can receive a second extension. A second extension becomes problematic since the units will be 80 years old by the end of a second extension.

It would appear as though nuclear in the United States faces a slow death.

Building new units would revive the industry. Two units are essentially under construction at the Vogtle site in Georgia. A few others are still being actively talked about. FPL and Progress Energy have just received authority to bill its customers for new units they may build.

The fact remains, there are very few new nuclear reactors being built in the United States, which would indicate that the nuclear industry in the United States is dying a slow death.

But why aren’t new reactors being built?

The anti-nuclear crowd might claim credit, but the real reason is more mundane. Nuclear power plants cost too much, and take too long to build.

It costs at least $5,000 per KW to build a new nuclear plant (probably closer to $6,000/KW). It also takes five years or more to complete the plant.

Compare this with a natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) plant that costs around $1,200 / KW and takes one to two years to build, or an ultra-supercritical coal-fired power plant that costs around $2,800/KW and takes three years or so to build.

The current very low cost of natural gas means that NGCC power plants win hands down over nuclear power.

The high cost of building new plants is killing nuclear power in the United States.

The only ray of hope for nuclear power is the possible emergence of small, modular nuclear reactors. They, however, are still on the drawing board.

* * * * * *

If you find these articles on energy issues interesting and informative, you can have them delivered directly to your mailbox by going to the Email Subscription heading below the photo.

Please forward this message to those who might be interested in these articles on energy issues.

* * * * * *

True Cost of Electricity

November 1, 2011

tags: Carbon, CO2, coal, EIA, electricity, global warming, natural gas, NGCC, solar, wind

There is a battle being waged about the true cost of electricity.

Proponents of various methods for generating electricity use the numbers that favor their particular interests. For some, this includes placing a price on carbon.

That’s why you will see different numbers purporting to show the true cost of electricity.

Here’s a brief overview of some of the methods being used.

Levalized Cost of Electricity (LCOE)

This attempts to take the different costs of building and operating a power plant over ten, twenty or thirty years, converted to equal annual payments in today’s dollars.

Unfortunately, the values attached to variables have a large influence over the final, so called, true cost.

Perhaps the most important variable is the discount rate used for determining the annualized cost of building the power plant. The second variable that is difficult to predict is the cost of fuel. For example, LCOEs calculated four years ago when the price of natural gas was three times as high as it is today, resulted in high LCOEs that were divorced from today’s reality.

The third is the cost of money and whether it should be included in the calculation. The fourth is the number of years over which to spread the cost. Finally operation and maintenance costs may or may not be included.

Another factor that can distort the LCOE is whether subsidies from the federal or state governments are included when determining capital or operating costs. (This is true for any method used to calculate costs.)

Overnight cost

This calculation evolved due to the very long time it took to construct nuclear power plants.

The idea is to assume the plant will be built overnight so it will not incur interest expense. The same principle can be used for coal-fired power plants that take three years to build. It can also be used for natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) plants, but the time it takes to build these plants is relatively short, so it has less significance.

Bus Bar Cost

This excludes the cost of building the infrastructure around the power plant so that Bus Bar Cost is the cost of electricity as it leaves the generator. It includes the cost of money and the cost of operation and maintenance.

Cost per kilowatt hour (cents per kWh)

This is supposed to represent the cost of producing each kWh of electricity. It incorporates either the LCOE approach or the Bus Bar approach. It doesn’t include the cost of back-up power for when a plant isn’t producing electricity or for building transmission lines needed to bring the electricity from where it’s produced to where it can be used.

Cost per Kilowatt (Dollars per KW)

This is the cost per KW of constructing a power plant. It can utilize the overnight cost or include the cost of money.

While there may be accepted definitions for these various approaches, the fact remains that numbers reported by the press are invariably sloppy.

Even when reported accurately, the LCOE is fraught with misinterpretation. The factors having the greatest potential for causing confusion are the discount rate, the cost of fuel used in the calculation and whether the cost of carbon is included.

Capacity Factor

This isn’t always factored into the cost of electricity, but should be because it describes the amount of electricity that a power plant produces regardless of its nameplate rating.

The nameplate rating establishes the theoretical capacity of a power plant to generate electricity, but doesn’t take into effect when the plant isn’t generating electricity.

For example, the capacity factor of nuclear power plants is typically 90%. In other words, over the period of a year, it generates 90% of the electricity it theoretically could, based on its nameplate rating.

The capacity factor of coal-fired power plants is generally around 85%.

The same is true for NGCC power plants.

Wind turbines have a capacity factor of 30%, though recent studies indicate it may be much lower.

If it costs one dollar to build a power plant, but it can only generate 30% of the electricity that’s expected from its nameplate rating, it actually will cost 3 dollars to build a plant that can generate all the electricity expected from its nameplate rating.

This is why it’s wrong to compare the cost per KW of building wind farms with the cost per KW of building coal-fired or NGCC power plants, without including the effect of capacity factor.

It’s unfortunate, but true, that it’s necessary to question every cost number published by the media or by various groups.

Cost of Carbon

Another cost that can distort these various measurements is the cost of carbon.

This is especially true for coal fired power plants.

The cost of carbon can be $15/ton of CO2, or $50/ton of CO2, or even higher, depending on who is making the calculation.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) is using $15/ton when calculating the LCOE for coal-fired power plants.

The cost of carbon is being used by proponents of global warming to promote wind and solar. On a visit to several Senator’s offices in Washington DC, I was told by one of the staff member responsible for energy issues that the government needed to establish a price on carbon.

The bottom line?

Coal and NGCC power plants produce the lowest cost electricity, unless the cost of carbon is included when calculating cost.

Electricity from wind is, at best, twice as expensive as electricity from coal-fired or NGCC power plants.

Electricity from Solar is typically three times as expensive as electricity from coal-fired or NGCC power plants.

There can be exceptions, but this pattern generally holds true.

* * * * * *

If you find these articles on energy issues interesting and informative, you can have them delivered directly to your mailbox by going to the Email Subscription heading below the photo.

Please forward this message to those who might be interested in these articles on energy issues.

* * * * * *

Concentrating Solar

October 28, 2011

tags: alternative energy, coal, CSP, natural gas, Nuclear, renewable, solar

There are three types of concentrating solar power (CSP) systems. They are all fundamentally different from photo-voltaic (PV) solar which converts sunlight directly to electricity.

The first of these CSP systems is referred to as a “Power Tower” or “Solar Tower”, where a field of mirrors surrounds a tower and focuses sunlight from the mirrors onto a receiver at the top of the tower. The mirrors are electronically controlled to follow the sun to focus as much sunlight as possible onto the receiver. The receiver contains a fluid that is used to produce steam or vapor, which then drives a turbine generator.

: Power Tower

The second CSP system consists of solar troughs with long rows of mirrors that focus the sunlight onto a tube that extends the length of the trough. The tube contains a fluid that is used to produce steam or a vapor that then drives a turbine generator.

Trough collector

The third type uses a parabolic dish to focus the sunlight onto a receiver at the focal point of the parabolic dish. The receiver contains a fluid that can drive a generator. The original design used a Stirling engine driven by an expanding fluid, such as air.

Parabolic Dish

Some of the projects that were to use concentrating solar (CSP) are being converted to PV arrays where PV panels are arrayed over a wide area. Costs are driving these changes.

For example, Stirling Energy Systems filed for bankruptcy on September 23^rd.

Many of the CSP projects are receiving loan guarantees or grants from the Department of Energy.

Concentrating solar requires high levels of insolation (solar intensity) and can only be used in the desert southwest of the United States. The measurement for insolation is watts-per-square meter. Spain, with moderatly high levels of insolation was a major developer of CSP. The dark orange areas of the map are the areas suitable for CSP in the United States.

(Insolation should not be confused with insulation.)

: USA Irradiation Map

These systems have capacity factors of between 16% and 22%, which means that they produce small amounts of electricity when compared with natural gas, coal or nuclear, which have capacity factors of between 75% and 92%.

Efforts are being made to improve the ability of a CSP system to generate electricity after the sun sets by storing heat in a salt reservoir. The heat from the salt reservoir can last for around four hours, which extends the CSP plant’s ability to generate electricity.

The cost of generating electricity from CSP systems is around 30 cents per kWh without subsidies, though this figure is disputed by CSP advocates. Obviously, if CSP could compete with natural gas and coal, CSP plants would be built without subsidies. These systems also require expensive, dedicated transmission lines to bring the electricity to where it can be used.

* * * * * *

If you find these articles on energy issues interesting and informative, you can have them delivered directly to your mailbox by going to the Email Subscription heading below the photo.

Please forward this message to those who might be interested in these articles on energy issues.

* * * * * *

Power For USA

Energy facts from oil to electricity

EPA’s Sustainability Gambit

Clean Coal Debacle

Mercury Reality

Biofuel Mandates

UK Report on Renewables

Defense Dollars Wasted

US Energy Policy and China

MIT Report on Grid Problems

Capacity Factor and Reality

Emergency Power

Hurricane Reality Check

Lighting Alternatives

Another Misleading Report

Storing Electricity

Pipelines Required For CCS

Electric Vehicle Update

Thanksgiving Promise 2011

CES as Cap & Trade Light

Latest on Biofuels

Geothermal Power

More Costs and Higher Prices

VCs in the Energy World

What Killed Nuclear Power?

True Cost of Electricity

Concentrating Solar

Donn

Email Subscription

Recent Posts

Other TSAugust web sites

Follow “Power For USA”

January 2012
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Dec
						1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28	29
30	31