If you are involved in Management or Customer Service and are responsible for communicating the value of smart meters to your utility customers, you don’t want to miss this online discussion - Communicating Smart Meter Value. more...
Join social media mavens Matthew Burks and Amanda Shewmake as they provide an insider's perspective on how HR, communications and marketing professionals in energy companies can harness the power of social media to be more effective and productive. more...
The convergence of power and information technologies in the smart grid has created opportunities for finer grained and broader controls of energy flows. These opportunities can improve electric service in multiple dimensions: lower cost, greater reliability, greater customer satisfaction, and more...
Significant cost over runs. Changing business requirements. A well thought out plan is essential. Attend this free webcast discussion to hear inside hear three experts in utility operations discuss what utilities need to evaluate when they are considering upgrading or more...
The smart grid is shifting the playing field for utilities. And when the game changes, it pays to be prepared. A nimble solutions partner can help you design the solutions that keep operations on track, even as new challenges come more...
Deliver a profitable, productive and commercially successful large scale CSP business in India. Building on the success of past events in USA, Europe & MENA, CSP Today brings to New Delhi the most relevant international experience for the concentrated solar more...
Two day conference that tackles the most important challenges. A blend of European knowledge from the companies who have been installing offshore wind turbines for the last decade alongside local state governing bodies and leading project developers. Permitting, securing long more...
Autovation 2010 is a not-to-miss educational forum that will attract utility executives from around the world looking for new ways to optimize their operations through automation technologies. more...
The North American convention provides a remarkable opportunity to play a part in guiding renewable energy policy for the 21st century. Attendees will create a resolution that, along with similar resolutions already drafted on four other continents, will help set more...
Hosted by the GridWise(R) Alliance and the U.S. Department of Energy, the GridWise Global Forum will convene thought leaders from the highest levels of government, business, NGOS, and academia from around the world to discuss the ultimate enabling potential of more...
Introduction to Natural Gas Trading & Hedging - This program provides a comprehensive understanding of the structures that underlie Natural Gas trading. Beyond Essentials: Option Applications in Energy - This course provides a solid practical and conceptual (non-quantitative) understanding of more...
Electric Business Understanding provides a comprehensive overview of the electric industry. Position yourself for career advancement by gaining a solid understanding of how the electric business works including key physical, market, and regulatory aspects and how market participants navigate this more...
Electric Market Dynamics offers participants an in-depth understanding of North American electric markets and how they function. Enhance your career by furthering your knowledge of market structures, pricing mechanisms, services offered in markets, and how various participants use the markets more...
Gas and Electric Business Understanding provides a comprehensive overview of the natural gas and electric industries. Position yourself for career success by gaining a solid understanding of how each business works, including key physical, market and regulatory aspects, as well more...
We know you have something to say!
There is an immediate need for articles on
the hot topics in the Power Industry!
EnergyPulse, like no other publication,
also provides a means for our readers to
immediately interact with experts like you.
The new administration's priority attention to energy is a much needed step in the right direction. The report of the National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG) might be considered a reasonable first pass (a grade of B-?), given that it was produced in a relatively short time, and driven from a petroleum industry point of view. However from a perspective of the challenge we face and the nation’s real needs it must be given a failing grade.
The NEPDG report has seven key weaknesses that must be addressed and have so far, during the last 3 years, been ignored. In priority order these are:
Time Horizon
The energy challenge to 2020 can to some degree be addressed as outlined in the report, but doing so will put the future beyond 2020 in more jeopardy than it is in now. No policy and no projections that stop short of 2050 should be allowed. The present approach will address the problem for those of us over 50 at the expense of our grandchildren.
Supply Limits
Limits to the supply of oil and natural gas are ignored. Worldwide oil availability will be in decline long before 2020, and natural gas by 2030. (Natural gas production in North America is already in decline, since a peak in 2002). Neither will be significant in the energy picture by 2050, but replacements must be developed.
Hydrogen
The inevitable--and probably at least 30-year--effort of shifting from a hydrocarbon to a hydrogen economy is largely ignored. The Bush administration has put some priority on the development of a hydrogen economy since the NEPDG report was issued, but this is seen by many as a way to postpone the real needed actions.
Efficiency and Conservation
The potential on the demand side is severely underestimated, and the priority for the demand side is far too low.
Renewables
Far too little attention is given to either the potential of renewables, or the challenges of realizing their potential, and the shift to renewables is not optional. Only the timing and rate of speed are optional.
Relative Costs
Saving energy costs much less than developing additional supply, and can have an impact much more quickly. The report fails to touch on this subject.
Regulations, Incentives, and Perverse Incentives
This subject is touched on lightly, relative to distributed power, but is largely ignored. It is a key topic to be dealt with in any effective energy policy.
Energy will be the most important issue facing the country in this decade, even more than, but inseparable from, terrorism. We need a policy and strategy that set aside partisan differences, ignore special interest pressures, and give the Energy Challenge the priority it deserves.
The worst aspect of this problem is that present legislation (passed in the House and pending in the Senate) is largely based on the NEPDG report, remains unchanged since late 2001, and is largely contrary to the country’s real needs. There is major emphasis on development of new domestic supplies with large subsidies for oil, gas, coal and nuclear, and little attention to the demand side or to renewables. In spite of the fact that, since the legislation was written, oil prices have doubled, coal prices have nearly doubled, natural gas prices have more than tripled, and energy company profits have soared, the proposed subsidies haven’t changed. Also E&D activity hasn’t exactly soared. Clearly domestic prospects are not attractive enough for development on the shareholders money, but legislators don’t get it.
Assertions
The energy challenge we face is the most important issue of this decade in terms of its impact on future generations. If we get the answers right, we have a good chance to take the challenge in stride, with no more than minor economic impact. If we get them wrong, this decade will prove (in retrospect) to have been the most important decade in the country’s history. The decisions we make can either set us on a path of smooth transition to a new energy economy, or on a slide toward a future of deprivation for our children and grandchildren and generations to come. Unfortunately, most of our elected leaders are living in a world of no information, misinformation, or disinformation. Unless this situation changes, they are unlikely to make the best decisions.
No information results mainly from the fact that energy has not been an issue, so the homework has not been done. Misinformation derives mainly from dealing with assumptions and opinions rather than facts, well-meaning but one-sided viewpoints, too short time horizons (20 years or less), and expecting that the future will be like the past. Disinformation comes mainly from two sources, one of which has some claim to innocence:
- Economic models that are based on invalid and usually unstated fundamental assumptions
- Selfish special interests that are, at best, economical with the truth.
Following is a set of declarations or assertions that introduce the key issues, and that can be made with a high degree of confidence:
Supply side
World conventional oil availability will be in decline by the end of this decade, and no amount of additional drilling will change that.
USGS (United States Geologic Survey) year 2000 projections of oil "potential" availability from 1996 through 2025 are demonstrably invalid.
American oil production has been in decline for years--the lower 48 since 1970 and Alaska since 1988 -- and the decline is irreversible.
A key European oil supply source, the North Sea, is now in decline also.
America consumes about 25% of world oil, and imports over 60 % of her oil supply. As major LCD’s (like China) develop and OPEC populations explode, America will not be able to maintain her present share of world oil at any price.
Unconventional oil is not a solution to the coming shortage, because it cannot be produced fast enough, regardless of how abundant it may prove to be.
Developing presently restricted North American oil and gas sources will likely be both necessary and economically desirable, but this is a short-term palliative, not a solution, and will only hasten the ultimate depletion of a resource with better uses than powering SUVs. A policy of "drain America first" is strategically very shortsighted.
Natural gas growth projections from now to 2020, made as recently as 2000 will not (and can not) be met, and before 2030 worldwide natural gas availability will also be in decline.
Oil has declined 2%-4% per year for many years in the lower 48, is declining at 6%/yr or worse in the North Sea, and has declined at >10%/yr. In Prudhoe Bay in spite of major secondary recovery activities. There is a real risk that natural gas supply in North America will "fall off a cliff" sometime in the next 1 to 5 years.
Before 2050, neither oil nor natural gas will be significant as energy sources in the US. Whether by exhaustion or replacement with alternatives is our choice.
Alternatives to oil and gas
Nuclear power will be an important part of the solution, but it is not politically palatable right now, and will need to be based on Integral Fast Reactors when restarted to avoid fuel shortages in only a few decades. Work on IFRs is presently forbidden in the USA.
Coal will be a major source for decades yet, and can probably become economically clean, with considerable R & D. However, if we maintain the growth trend of coal of the last 30 years, it too will peak (at 2-3 times the present consumption) and will be in decline before the end of the century.
Wind power is an economical alternative, and there is enough harnessable wind to meet America’s total energy needs, but there are problems of variability to be overcome.
Solar power will also be part of the solution, but it needs a lot of R & D to become economical for all but a few special applications. It can be economical for peaking power now, but the utility industry seems to be ignorant of the potential.
Bio-mass, mainly in the form of agricultural waste, will also be a significant contributor, especially for replacement of a good fraction of petroleum shortages.
Other alternatives (geo-thermal, tidal, wave) must also receive attention.
All alternatives require major investment to be realized and demand a long-term commitment and plan.
Demand side
Even with the present fuel mix, America could maintain its present economy on less than half the energy presently consumed, without individual sacrifice.
Changing to renewable sources of primary energy also reduces the primary energy needed. A complete switch from fossil fuels to renewable energy would reduce non-nuclear primary energy needed by at least 50%.
Both the industrial and consumer segments of the economy have vast opportunities to reduce energy waste, by both conservation and efficiency.
Retrofitting the economy to reduce waste will create jobs and economic benefits for at least a few decades.
Reducing energy demand can be achieved for less than half the cost per KWh of increasing supply.
New, high-tech, and sophisticated developments will contribute, but the greatest early gains will come from simple, low-tech, well understood, and easily applicable improvements.
While market advocates deride the need for government intervention, we must face the fact that we do not have, and probably cannot have, a free market. Demand side initiatives are presently impeded by both lack of appropriate incentives and presence of perverse incentives and subsidies.
Prior to 1996 and so-called “deregulation,” California was the nation’s leader in addressing demand side incentives and disincentives, and California is the most energy efficient state in the union.
California has only scratched the surface.
Demand side initiatives are vigorously opposed by major selfish special interests—foolishly, myopically, amorally, and unpatriotically. Government has always had to bridle big business, and this issue is no different.
Several conclusions can be inferred from the above assertions:
Our time horizon must go well beyond 20 years. What we decide now and launch in this decade must look to 2030, 2060, maybe even 2090.
We must develop alternatives to fossil fuels.
We must develop the alternatives while we still have the fossil fuels, or we will not have the energy with which to develop them.
Demand side initiatives are both quicker and more economical than supply side.
In the very short term (10 years) we face rising energy costs, (with possible brief respites), that will act like a tax, slowing economic growth. Energy-wise this is a good thing! Frantic supply side initiatives to prevent this result will not succeed, and will be counterproductive in the medium and long run.
Clearly we need a balanced and measured approach; focused on the long-term national interest, unswayed by short-term special interests, and dealing with all of supply side, demand side, alternatives, regulations, and incentives.
Background
In dealing with the question of energy, we need to start by trying to understand and/or suppress some of the sources of confusion. We also need to start with a basis of facts before getting to projections, assumptions and opinions. Finally, we need to quantify issues as much as possible, always within a comparable framework. The following will address a few key aspects of these topics.
Metrics1
We need to understand a few key metrics in order to quantify our discussion, within a consistent framework. The key metrics are:
Quads2 – A quad is a quadrillion Btu’s of energy, or 293 billion KWh of energy. In 2000 the USA consumed about 98 quads, of which 35 quads or 36% were consumed in supplying 11 quads of electricity, and 26 quads or 27% powered transportation. Primary sources were:
KWh/MWh – Kilowatt hours and megawatt hours. Power is measured in watts. Energy is measured in watt hours. A watt hour is 1 watt of power applied for 1 hour. A KWh is one thousand watt hours. A MWh is one million watt hours. Scientists use joules to express energy, but KWh are more familiar and more useful here. (1 KWh = 3.6 million joules or 3.6 MJ)
Gb – Gigabarrels or billion barrels. Oil production, consumption and reserves are usually expressed in Gb. The world consumed nearly 28 Gb of oil in 2000, or about 76 million barrels of oil per day. We are now at 83 Mb/d or near 31 Gb/yr in 2004. The USA consumes about ¼ of that or 7+ Gb/year = 19+ million barrels/day.
- For calibration, ANWR reserves are estimated to be 10.4 Gb as the most likely number with only about 6 Gb considered recoverable. The 30 Gb quoted by Senator Murkowski in 2001 is a 5% probability figure.
- World oil production capacity in late 2004 is estimated as <85 million barrels/day, with the only slack capacity now available being for heavy/sour crude.
Tcf - Tera cubic feet or trillion cubic feet. The Europeans use Tcm or trillion cubic meters. One cubic meter is about 35 cubic feet. Annual natural gas production, consumption and resources are expressed in Tcf. Daily/weekly consumption is expressed in Bcf or billion cu. ft.
- One Tcf of natural gas provides about 299 billion KWh or 1.02 quads of primary energy when burned efficiently (one cubic foot = .299 KWh)
- USA proven reserves are a little more than 160 Tcf, and consumption has averaged very near 20 Tcf/year for the last decade. Discovery approximately equaled consumption during the 90s, but is now falling well short.
Bst - Billion short tons. Coal production is expressed in short tons. One short ton of top grade USA anthracite has the embedded energy of 4.4 barrels of oil. However, USA coal averages nearer 3.4 barrels. The 1998 USA production of 1.1 Bst of coal provided the primary energy equivalent of 3.75 Gb of oil.
Boe – Barrels of oil equivalent. In order to be able to grasp the relative amounts of primary energy from different sources, coal and natural gas are sometimes expressed in Boe. For the USA on average, 1 short ton of coal is equivalent to 3.4 barrels of oil. 5,600 cu ft. of NG = 1 barrel oil, or 1 Tcf = 180 Mb of oil.
Economists
Economists tend to base all their beliefs and assumptions on two underlying and usually unstated principles, both of which are demonstrably invalid. These are:
- Resources, or at least natural resource availability, will increase with price. For this to be true, the potential supply would have to be unlimited, at least over the time horizon considered. The corollary, that resource scarcity will drive up price, is true in the absence of substitution.
- If it could be done, it would already be being done. This assumption ignores the ignorance of what is possible, adoption time lags, priorities, conservative engineering practices and technology developments.
This first principle leads economists to ignore or assume away physical limits to supply and thus overestimate resource availability, in our case fossil fuels, especially oil and natural gas. It also assumes away practical limits on recovery rates, even if the plentiful resource exists.
The second principle leads to the conclusion that no energy economies or efficiencies are possible, because everything possible is in practice, and therefore the only way to reduce energy is to downsize the economy. When this assumption underpins an economic model, the model inevitably produces false conclusions.
Beware of any “expert” input from economists on the subject of energy, and check who sponsors their work.
Economics
When Vice President Cheney or Secretary Abraham downplay the demand side potential in the economy, they are acting out of ignorance of what is possible, and reacting uncritically to the inputs of economists (as described above).
In fact, retrofitting the national infrastructure, industrial, commercial and consumer, would create millions of jobs. Reducing dependence on imported oil would both improve the balance of payments and reduce the national security costs of ensuring the supply lines. Energy efficiencies can be realized at much lower costs per KWh than adding to supply, and usually more quickly also. The USA has been the victim of unlimited cheap energy and has therefore lacked incentive to address the demand side. Switzerland, lacking our blessing, has an energy intensity per unit of GDP less than 1/2 of ours and can not be considered economically deprived.
As it is we now face, during the next 30 years, irreversibly declining supplies and increasing costs of oil and gas. The resulting increase in energy costs will act like a tax, slowing economic growth. We can mitigate this problem by vigorously addressing development of alternatives (renewables), and--more effectively in the very short run--by emphasizing, not downplaying, demand side improvements.
Philosophy
Regrettably, we can not address the energy challenge without accepting the fact that some tradeoffs have to be made. For example, producing truly efficient cars (see www.hypercar.org) will negatively impact the steel and machine tool industries, while benefiting the chemical, plastics and electrical equipment industries.
Another issue that we do not have to address urgently now, but that is implicit in the whole discussion, is the limits to growth. For a very short period in human history (about 200 years) we have been able to develop a philosophy of unending economic growth, powered by limitless cheap energy. Even with a successful conversion to renewables, we will reach insurmountable limits to energy in less than 200 years, at present world growth rates. Other limitations will kick in before energy, e.g. food.
We probably have less than 100 years to shift to a philosophy of sustainability and progress without growth. Energy is a good starting point.
While addressing a present US challenge, we must not ignore the far future or the world.
References:
For easy conversions, go to: www.processassociates.com/process/convert/cf_eue.htm
Figures extrapolated from 1999 EIA Annual Energy Review.
For information on purchasing reprints of this article, contact Tim Tobeck ttobeck@energycentral.com. Copyright 2010 CyberTech, Inc.
This article totally sums up my filosofy on the subject of sustainable development and energy use. Congrat's.
The only obmission in your total picture is the choice we (the west) are making for our agriculture. Our three main crops are wheat, corn and soy. They all need enormous amount of fossil fuel energy to be grown, harvested and processed, since most of those three crops aren't eaten in their natural form. (see http://www.petroleumworld.com/SF090504.htm)
Even if we succeed in transforming our energy supply to a mix of nuke and renewables, combined with a hydrogen storage resource, we will 'screw' ourselves up by basically just relying on those three basic crop for our increasingly populous world.
Some basic figures :
- Every single calorie we eat is backed by at least a calorie of oil, more like ten.
- David Pimentel, an expert on food and energy at Cornell University, has estimated that if all of the world ate the way the United States eats, humanity would exhaust all known global fossil-fuel reserves in just over seven years. Pimentel has his detractors. Some have accused him of being off on other calculations by as much as 30 percent. Fine. Make it ten years.
- Fertilisers derived from oil&gas are simply wasted away. The Mississippi River's heavily fertilized effluvia has created a dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico the size of New Jersey.
- About two thirds of U.S. grain corn is labeled "processed," meaning it is milled and otherwise refined for food or industrial uses. More than 45 percent of that becomes sugar, the grinding, milling, wetting, drying, and baking of a breakfast cereal requires about four calories of energy for every calorie of food energy it produces. A two-pound bag of breakfast cereal burns the energy of a half-gallon of gasoline in its making.
a b 9.11.04
- All together the food-processing industry in the United States uses about ten calories of fossil-fuel energy for every calorie of food energy it produces. That number does not include the fuel used in transporting the food from the factory to a store near you, or the fuel used by millions of people driving to thousands of super discount stores on the edge of town, where the land is cheap.
- Eating a carrot gives the diner all that carrot's energy, but feeding carrots to a chicken, then eating the chicken, reduces the energy by a factor of ten. The chicken wastes some energy, stores some as feathers, bones, and other inedibles, and uses most of it just to live long enough to be eaten. As a rough rule of thumb, that factor of ten applies to each level up the food chain, which is why some fish, such as tuna, can be a horror in all of this. Eighty percent of the grain the United States produces goes to livestock. It takes thirty-five calories of fossil fuel to make a calorie of beef this way; sixty-eight to make one calorie of pork. The same result could be achieved by just putting the animals in the field and letting them eat native prairie grass, avoiding fossil fuel consumption. Prairie's productivity is lost for grain, grain's productivity is lost in livestock, livestock's protein is lost to human fat-all federally subsidized for about $15 billion a year, two thirds of which goes directly to only two crops, corn and wheat.
LET'S HOPE THE REST OF THE WORLD DOESN'T TAKE OVER USA's FEEDING HABITS. However, when seeing the exploding numbers of fast food joints going up all over the world, I am very pessimistic.
a b 9.11.04
Remark : this was written on 9/11. My condoleances for the ones who suffered on that fatefull day. Let's hope your decision makers will learn from Iraq's missteps, and decide to implement Mr Duffin's proposals. That will be very hard, but the alternative route is a dead-end and thus even worse. Or do you all think the USA will be able to stay on top of things for the whole 21th century? Europe had it's turn and is now dying off, just as Japan. China and India are on their way up, and in thirty years will be as big in GDP as the USA, even when their population still will be far poorer per capita than the average john doe.
So what do you want : WW3 for oil & gas or everyone his own local energy resources?
Real fuel costs In U.S. Cents/kWh in some european countries, when externalities (full costs of environmental degradation) are included :
Of course nuke power seems cheap, but spent fuel storage costs aren’t included in the figures. Knowing that the UK has now (2004) around 53 000 cubic meter of spent nuke waste to store in very special conditions, that should change the total fuel cost/kWh picture significantly. Biomass has decreased with 20% in 10 years due to equipment efficiency increases and lower fuel cost, and that trend is seen as continuing for renewables like biomass, wind and PV.
Len Gould 9.11.04
Mr Duffin: A truely heroic and worthwhile effort. No quibbles, you're right on. One suggestion, you should give up on the old "common units" system. Things are so much easier once you start thinking in metric and it's really not difficult after the first six months.
Also for anyone interested, an error-free version of those figures in the comment above is availabe at the original source, the European ExternE project at http://www.externe.info, numbers at http://www.externe.info/figures.html ;
And BTW they clearly state that spent fuel management for its lifetime is entirely includes in the Nuclear figures which range from 0.25 for the UK to 0.7 Euro cents per kwhr. Though we all know that "spent" fuel needs to be re-processed and re-used, not either buried or permanently sequestered inaccessably in silicon carbide pellets as in a pebble bed reactor, meaning it should be assigned a negative externality cost not a positive. However, no problem.
a b 9.13.04
Mr Gould, concerning your statement : "And BTW they clearly state that spent fuel management for its lifetime is entirely includes in the Nuclear figures which range from 0.25 for the UK to 0.7 Euro cents per kwhr."
www.externe.info "The report also says that nuclear power involves relatively low external costs due to its low influence on global warming and its low probability of accidents in the EU power plants. Wind and hydro energy present the lowest external costs. The methodology used to calculate the external cost is called impact pathway methodology. This methodology sets out by measuring emissions (including applying uniform measuring methods to allow comparison), then the dispersion of pollutants in the environment and the subsequent increase in ambient concentrations is monitored. After that, impact on issues such as crop yield or health is evaluated. The methodology finishes with an assessment of the resulting cost. "
a b 9.13.04
Mr Gould, concerning your statement : "Though we all know that "spent" fuel needs to be re-processed and re-used, not either buried or permanently sequestered inaccessably in silicon carbide pellets as in a pebble bed reactor, meaning it should be assigned a negative externality cost not a positive. However, no problem. "
Please find hereunder the mess the British are finding themselves in follwoing exactly what you propose. It is very long winded, but offer a stunning view on how UN-economic the process is, and certainly shows that the wouldn't be able to compete head-on with renewable energy without governement subsidies.
http://www-tec.open.ac.uk/eeru/natta/renewonline/rol50/17.htm The US backed off reprocessing, and the Fast Breeder Reactor, many years ago, but there has been pressure to reconsider given the Bush decision to relook at the nuclear option. Separating out the plutonium from spent fuel is sometimes seen as one way to reduce the amount of high level (very radioactive) waste that needs to be stored- even though of course reprocessing does create a lot of extra low and intermediate level waste which also has to be stored. The UK and France are the only countries with major reprocessing operations. The UK’s reprocessing operation at Sellafield produces plutonium that is used to make Mixed Oxide Fuel for sale around the world- although it has proven to be hard to find markets as it is expensive and there is plenty of cheap uranium available. BNFL has indicated that it may abandon reprocessing by 2010. Certainly British Energy, the UK’s main nuclear plant operator, is not keen on paying the extra cost of reprocessing its spent fuel- it would prefer the cheaper option of dry storage of spent fuel rods, which is the approach adopted by most other countries. Whatever happens with regard to reprocessing in the UK, we will be faced with a legacy of high, low and intermediate waste- much of the later two types having been created by reprocessing. In addition, decomissioning old nuclear facilities will create more. Currently, the government is setting up a Nuclear Decommisioning Authority to deal with this problem- it will in effect take over much of BNFL’s responsibilities in this area, although in practice it seems that a revamped BNFL will actually do the work.
a b 9.13.04
It is interesting in this context that a government minister, Lord Davies of Oldham, told the Lords during passage of the Energy Bill through parliament that “We consider a great deal of the activity of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, particularly at Thorp and Sellafield Mox Plant, to be loss-making”. British Energy (BE), which was privatised in 1996, is also now struggling to survive despite government support, so things do not look good for the UK nuclear industry, and recriminations are now beginning to emerge. During hearings following on from a National Audit Office review which had concluded that BE had at least initially only been monitored with a ‘light touch’, members of the influential House of Commons Public Accounts Committee denounced BE for “deceiving” and “misleading” shareholders. They also accused DTI officials of “incredible incompetence” over their handling of BE’s collapse. And to round things off, Sir Robin Young, permanent secretary at the DTI, had conceded that “British Energy, ‘in the light of experience’ should not have privatised” (FT 12/2/04). Brian Wilson, until recently Labours Energy Minister, seemed to agree in an Observer article (Feb15), laying much of the blame for the mess on the Conservatives. But even they have, it seems, changed policy. Tory environment spokesman Caroline Spelman commented during the Environment debate (see Reviews) ‘until an adequate environmental solution is found to the problems of waste from nuclear energy, nuclear power is not an option that can enthusiastically be embraced. So far, such a solution has not been found.’ Phasing out BNFL Work is underway to decommission the Windscale Pile No. 1- the plant that suffered a fire in 1957. In response to a Parliamentary Question in Dec, Stephen Timms noted that ‘The Pile One reactor is considered by international experts to be one of the most challenging decommissioning tasks in the nuclear industry’. Timms reported that Phase One decommissioning involved clearing up and sealing the air and water ducts and was completed in 1999, at a cost of £14m. Phase Two involves removal of hazardous materials and treating and packaging the resultant wastes, and to date the costs had been approximately £30 m. He added that one of the key challenges was ‘limited knowledge of the extent of damage to the fire-affected core’. We wish the clean-up crews well. However, the fate of the rest of Sellafield is still far from clear. THORP, the nuclear fuel reprocessing plant at Sellafield, and the Sellafield MOX plutonium fuel plant were, rather oddly, both excluded from consideration in the governments recent strategy review of BNFL. The ostensible reason given by the Energy Minister, Stephen Timms, was that they would both pass to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority when it is established in 2005, so that it ‘was not appropriate for them to be considered as part of the review’. In a letter to the Guardian, (17/12/03), Dr David Lowry said that this was ‘akin to conducting a review of Transport for London, but excluding consideration of buses and underground trains’.
a b 9.13.04
Taking in Waste The UK does not allow the import of radioactive waste, but we do take in spent fuel for reprocessing-and that creates wastes as well as plutonium. Under the terms of some of the reprocessing contracts, if countries will accept the plutonium back in the form of MOX, then we will deal with the extra wastes. It’s called ‘intermediate level waste substitution’. Asked about the scale of this Energy Minister Stephen Timms commented: ‘The NAC International report estimates that the volume of overseas intermediate level radioactive waste (ILW) retained in the UK as a result of ILW substitution would be about 1.4% of the UK’s total ILW. This amounts to approximately 3,00m 3 . This would be partially offset by a reduction in high level waste that would otherwise be retained in the UK of about 50m 3 .’ This idea was not well received by everyone. Speaking during the House of Commons debate on the environment in Feb (see Reviews), Lib Dem MP Norman Baker criticised the latest Consultation paper on proposals for intermediate level radioactive waste substitution. ‘The thrust of that supposedly independent paper is that we should not necessarily return to the countries whence it came all the waste generated from reprocessing. Why? Presumably it is because that suggestion would enable prices to be cut and business in that doubtful area to be propped up. The fact is that we have more than 75,000 cu m of intermediate-level waste lying around in this country, with no clear idea or strategy on how to deal with it. Nirex has no solution. Its last suggestion was pulled and it has not come back with another proposal since, but it now seems to want more of the stuff. The projections already suggest that we will have 107,000 cu m of intermediate-level waste by 2010, and 143,000 cu m by 2030. It seems that we want more waste from other countries to add to that stockpile. However, the author of that report- NAC International- makes some of its money by carrying out work for BNFL. A parliamentary answer that I received yesterday confirmed both that that financial arrangement exists and that the DTI was aware of it before it commissioned NAC to write the report. That is simply not acceptable. That paper is discredited and the DTI should now withdraw it.’
a b 9.13.04
1 british pound equals 1.5 US dollar.
a b 9.13.04
So, do you want nuke's that provide relatively clean and cheap electricity but still generates waste streams whatever process is used, or do you prefer to focus on renewables first? Renewables that also provide even cheaper electricity than nuke plants, as shown above (nuke power in germany : 0.6US$cent/kWh, windpower= 0.05US$/kWh ; U.K. : Nuclear = 0.25 ; Wind = 0.15 ) , up until a real proper solution is found for all those nuke plant wastes that are stockpiling around?
Offshore windpower in europe has the potential to provide all required electricity needs for europe. I know that it is not possible to solely rely on windpower for stability of supply reasons, but the potential hasn't even be scratched in a decent way. And I don't even look at other alternatives, as solar water heating, geothermal CHP, hydro in all it's forms (dams, run-of-river, tidal and wave), biomass and PV panels for sun rich mediteranean countries.
Mr Duffin's proposal should be the energy plan for the whole planet.
a b 9.13.04
Mr Gould, concerning your statement : "Also for anyone interested, an error-free version of those figures in the comment above is availabe at the original source, the European ExternE project at http://www.externe.info, numbers at http://www.externe.info/figures.html ; "
After reviewing your link, I saw that my figures were indeed inaccurate but almost identical to the one you find under your post, excepted for nuclear in germany. Wind and hydro power is the CHEAPEST form of clean energy, ahead of nuclear by a factor of 0 to 4.
a.b. I only managed to read your last comment, and of course again found an error. The Externe report makes NO comment on which is the "cheapest" form of clean energy, only on how much must be "added" to the vendor's price in order to cover unpaid use of social commons. Adding 0.7 euro to nuclear's 4.5 euro price leaves it MUCH cheaper than adding even 0 to whatever price reliable wind gen might be.
Todd McKissick 9.13.04
Mr. Duffin You have my vote for Secretary of DOE. The entire DOE, congress and the senate should be required to read this article and write an essay on it.
(I would trade #3 with #5 though) Great Assessment. Todd McKissick
a b 9.13.04
Mr Gould, I am pretty sure you read all my comments, but choose to ignore what was anoying. No problem. We are both adults, and we both won't have any input on how things will evolve.
Concerning your statement : "a.b. I only managed to read your last comment, and of course again found an error. The Externe report makes NO comment on which is the "cheapest" form of clean energy, only on how much must be "added" to the vendor's price in order to cover unpaid use of social commons. Adding 0.7 euro to nuclear's 4.5 euro price leaves it MUCH cheaper than adding even 0 to whatever price reliable wind gen might be. "
I would strongly advise you to go visit an optician, you clearly have trouble reading correctly. Wind and hydro clearly ARE the cheapest form of electricity.
Real fuel costs In U.S. Cents/kWh in some european countries, when externalities (full costs of environmental degradation) are included :
Of course nuke power seems cheap, but some renewables are even cheaper. Knowing that the UK has 75 000 cubic meter of spent nuke waste to store in very special conditions now, that this figure will ballon to 107 000 cu m by 2010 and 143,000 cu m by 2030, that should change the total fuel cost/kWh picture significantly. Source : http://www-tec.open.ac.uk/eeru/natta/renewonline/rol50/17.htm
And renewables get cheaper by the day, due to technology improvements and massmarket inplementation…….
Scott Greenbaum 9.13.04
Overall your comments are right on target.
You failed to include the educational componet of the Demand Side Project. Changing the culture of america will be difficult. Simple things including turning lights, computer, and cars off when not using will accomplish a greeat deal. These things can not be automated like setback themostats. To achieve your goal of 50% savings will require a small change in culture of instant gratification. This will require leadership from the top to achieve. The top has to outline the benifits and make the arguments for these changes in culture. i think americans have become to selfish to do this in the near future.
There is hope it took 50 years to teach people about cigerates.
Len Gould 9.13.04
a.b. I those are full costs of delivered energy, you can sign me up to purchase as much of that German wind energy at 0.02 euro /kwhr as you can deliver. I can simply re-sell it into the market at a killing.
Len Gould 9.13.04
course that's 0.02 euro CENTS / kwhr, per ExternE.
Brian Braginton-Smith 9.14.04
Really well stated, there is a desperate need to transition to a new course across the entire spectrum of infrastructure to better reflect the emerging realities of the 21st Century world. Our greatest problem today is that we try to achieve answers for today's reality with the same formula used thoughout the 20th Century. This mind set is now institutionalized, and it is all encomassing. In reviewing the comments on this article it provides an insight to the depth and magnitude of the issue. Albert Einstein once stated that you can never get a new result by applying the same formula. Our present circumstance as we breach the cusp of the 21st Century requires a phase change in philosophy to an underlying framework of sustainability or we as a race (starting with the next generation) will see a world wracked by shortages of energy,food, water and housing in ever worsening oscillations until the various resource supplies collapse. This is not just wranting from the doom and gloom soapbox, this is a simple analysis of the present trends based on demand from projected human population growth. If the 21st Century does not become the "Sustainable Century" soon it just may be too late. Institutional change does not happen over night and it requires concensus and unformtunately time. The artilce and the subsequent dialog illuminate the dire need for our nation and our world to shift our course to this new reality. My feeling watching the arguments regarding global warming and the actual date when we will run out of our natural resources in fossil fuels and water supplies are like watching people arguing over their seating position in the lifeboat while the vessel is sinking. The closer we get to the water the more academic the discussion becomes. In our case, sustainability is the only lifeboat left, and our feet seem to be getting wet.
a b 9.14.04
Mr Gould, concerning your statement : " If those are full costs of delivered energy, you can sign me up to purchase as much of that German wind energy at 0.02 euro /kwhr as you can deliver. I can simply re-sell it into the market at a killing. "
a) it is 0.02 US cent/kWh , not 0.02euro cent/kWh. 1 euro= 1.2 US dollar, for now.
b) 0.02 US cent/kWh is the price that the windturbine costs over 20 years (material+R&D+construction+maintenance+energy needed to built , install and mothball, discarding of used turbine materials), divided by the amount of electricity it produces during it's 20 years of activity. At a current average cost of $1million/ MW in installed capacity, giving an average 30% payload rate of electricity production ( meaning $1 million capex over 20 years for 0.3MWh produced per year for 20 years) , you probably come out at the given 0.02 US cents/kWh figure, depending on how windy the place is where your turbines are put up.
c) You are right that is is a very profitable bizzness for the ones who are selling the juice to the utilities. No wonder the germans built over 16 000 turbines in their own country in just 20 years, starting with garage built 50kW models in the early 1980's, after that the utilities were forced to buy all electricity supplied by windfarms at the cost of $60 cents/kWh, by a new bill issued by the German Government, who was fed up with fluctuating fossil fuel prices. No better carrot than such an approach to get everything in motion, I gue$$, and $mooth out everything that can harm their progre$$. No wonder the early turbines (50kW models) ballooned to the current 4500kW models. The bigger, the more profit, for almost the same footprint on farmland or wetland.
d) You can sign up, if you wish. My account is 11.11.11, WorldBank GmbH, geneva street, Zurich, Switserland. I only give dividents at the end of each year, if there is profit.
e) If you can't sign up, then purchase stock of windturbine manufacturers, or windfarm owners selling to utilities. The later are said to favor paying a part of the cash stream directly to unit owners, similar to corporations owning distribution pipes for natural gas and oil. The usual return on divident equals around 8% a year up to 12% a year, and there is also a potential that the share value of the units you purchased can go up (or down, when less production occurs).
a b 9.14.04
Not everything is hopeless, thought. Underneath example was funded by the Worldbank, and look at the potential return that the whole approach can bring, not only monetary, jobs but also sustainable development and hope for the future generations. A bit of optimism is always needed.
LOWELL’s Raul Raudales, whose company Mesoamerican Development Institute creates renewable energy solutions for Mexico and Central America, is consumed by coffee. And with coffee being the second-most popular traded commodity after petroleum worldwide, he knew the industry was ripe for an overhaul. He drinks only a cup a day, but he has been eating, drinking and sleeping the beverage for the past 10 years. That's how long it has taken the Honduras native to develop a machine that could revolutionize the coffee industry. To go from tree to cup, coffee beans go through a rapid transformation. Before they are roasted, coffee berries must be dried. In most of the 120 coffee-producing regions of the world, this is done by burning diesel or firewood or lengthy human labor, these methods emit carbon dioxide, can cause global warming and are very costly for third world nations. Although there is an initial cost up front with the solar dryers he developped ($40,000 per unit), they run on nothing but sunlight. After being plucked from the tree and drying briefly in the sun, the berries go into an 18-foot-high aluminum dryer, which is heated overhead by solar thermal collectors. The coffee crop drops down into a chamber to dry on a tray for 24 hours. Once dry, berries come out the bottom and are ready to be roasted. The dryers are manufactured in Lowell and Chelmsford and sent to coffee cooperatives for assembly. Thus far the company has sold dryers to Costa Rican and Nicaraguan coffee farmers and Raudales has a pending agreement to sell 500 to Honduras. Starting next week the idea comes full circle : the institute will sell solar-dried beans, under the name Cafe Solar, at Market Baskets in Lowell, Chelmsford, Westford, Andover and Lawrence stores. Raudales hopes this dual business model will fuel the economy on both ends : "Connecting this system with a cup of coffee promotes US industry, activity in the Merrimack Valley and across the globe. It's good for the environment. It's not just another cup of coffee," Raudales said. "By simply drinking a cup of Cafe Solar in the USA, you are protecting the environment and slowing down greenhouse gases, while also helping US manufacturing industry to sell abroad. People are not aware what's used for fuel" Cafe Solar is also being brewed at UMass Lowell/Amherst and Bentley colleges, where students are studying Raudales' design in bio-diversity studies. "This completes the cycle. It took 10 years to give it back to us," Trubey said. "And two million dollars later," Raudales adds.Since Mesoamerican Development Institute is the only company using solar technology for coffee production, they are considered pioneers in the industry. But coffee insiders warn they have their work cut out for them. "I think it's a fabulous idea, a great invention. But it's going to be a big battle bringing something like that to market," said Mark Howell, president of Commonwealth Coffee Company, who roasts beans for Cafe Solar in Franklin. Cafe Solar coffee can also be purchased at www.mesoamerican.org http://64.4.34.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=543948e0ff6c29801cb252b47e399ad9&lat=1095067393&hm___action=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2elowellsun%2ecom%2fStories%2f0%2c1413%2c105%7e4746%7e2396656%2c00%2ehtml
James Boyden 9.14.04
Units that are used to express energy consumption and future needs drive me a bit crazy, especially "Quads". Even though I am a physicist and should be satisfied with metric units such as exajoules, to me they convey no feeling for real-world implications. I have been using a defined unit, the "PE" or "Plant Equivalent", which is a 1 Gigawatt power plant running 24/7 with 100% availability. When someone refers to needing "3,000 PE's of carbon-free energy" that's something I can visualize.
Jim Boyden
a b 9.15.04
According to the U.N., more than 2 billion people globally lack access to electricity, 1.1 billion do not have safe drinking water, and 2.4 billion still require adequate sanitation services. Dams provide much needed fresh water for domestic use, crop irrigation, as well as for the mitigation of floods, and hydropower for millions. by Peter Denton (features@wri.org), the managing editor of WRI Features, an international news features service on environment and development issues. For more information, contact: Peter DentonManaging Editor, WRI FeaturesWorld Resources Institute10 G. St., NEWashington, DC 20002features@wri.org Web site: http://newsroom.wri.org/wrifeatures.cfm
Len Gould 9.15.04
Jim: You're right on. I like your PE unit better than any other I've seen in that size range, though the name is possibly too specific to one industry and it fails the test of "multiples of 10". Your PE works out to 8.76*10^9 kwhr. How about the PE being defined as = 9 * 10^9 kwhr, just 2.74% larger?
Len Gould 9.15.04
a.b. re "b) 0.02 US cent/kWh is the price that the windturbine costs over 20 years (material+R&D+construction+maintenance+energy needed to built , install and mothball, discarding of used turbine materials), divided by the amount of electricity it produces during it's 20 years of activity. At a current average cost of $1million/ MW in installed capacity, giving an average 30% payload rate of electricity production ( meaning $1 million capex over 20 years for 0.3MWh produced per year for 20 years) , you probably come out at the given 0.02 US cents/kWh figure"
As everyone in this forum except apparently you already knows, there is NO WAY that a 1 MW wind turbine running 30% and costing US$1,000,000 can produce electricity at 0.02 US CENTS/kwhr. Using a (high) 15% interest rate on a 20 yr life of machine works out to 0.0822 DOLLARS/kwhr. Using a (low) 7.5% interest rate on a 20 yr life of machine works out to 0.032 DOLLARS/kwhr. Both figures are more than 100 times larger than the 0.02 US cents / kwhr which the ExternE states SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE MARKET PRICE SIMPLY TO COVER UNPAID EXTERNALITIES.
Start getting a FEW things right for once, or bug off.
Len Gould 9.15.04
Murray: An example of possibilities. I'm not saying we should count on it, but whatever system is devised should provide for such possibilities. http://www.amatechtel.com/news/wed/bq/Uus-methane.Rg2E_ESD.asp
"could represent a virtually inexhaustible source of energy for future generations, reported a team from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Carnegie Institution's Geophysical Laboratory, Harvard University, Argonne National Laboratory and Indiana University, South Bend."
All should also note that the figures I posted on wind generation above do not include retirement of capital, which takes the related figures up to - 7.5% interest - 0.0412 dollars/kwhr which is significantly more expensive than any other form of power generation except IGCC coal with CO2 sequestration. Even nat. gas is cheaper with current prices. Wind gen. manufacturers have a LONG way to go before they will be able to compete unsubsidized and may never make it.
a b 9.16.04
Mr Gould, concerning your statement : " Both figures are more than 100 times larger than the 0.02 US cents / kwhr which the ExternE states SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE MARKET PRICE SIMPLY TO COVER UNPAID EXTERNALITIES. Start getting a FEW things right for once, or bug off. "
After reviewing the link you provided me, I CAN'T find the statement "SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE MARKET PRICE SIMPLY TO COVER UNPAID EXTERNALITIES " anywhere.
Could you copy/paste the chapter where you did find it, along with the internet link, so that I can see where I went wrong ? Given that you previous posts also contained some errors due to bad reading, I certainly can have looked things over, but since you already have done the job twice, I prefer to rely on your due diligence.
So I am expecting an copy/paste+ internet link as answer, before bugging off, as you so poetically ask me to do.
a b 9.16.04
Mr Gould, after putting on my glasses, I have to concur with your statement that those external costs are to be added to the electricity prices asked. So you are right, and I am wrong.
http://www.externe.info/index.html “A major EU funded research study undertaken over the past 10 years has proven that the cost of producing electricity from coal or oil would double and the cost of electricity production from gas would increase by 30% if external costs such as damage to the environment and to health were taken into account. It is estimated that these costs amount up to 1-2 % of the EU's Gross Domestic Product (GDP), not including the cost of global warming. They have to be covered by society at large, since they are not included in the bills which electricity consumers pay.”
Since the EU-15's current GDP is around $ 10 000 Billion a year, and those external costs are 1-2% , the environmental bill equals to $100-200 billions a year.
Do you have recent verifiable prices for electricity for following fuels available somewhere ? : oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear $cents/kWh generated.
Together with the figures we found on the Externe websites, it should be very easy to see what the real cost of each fuel sort is, keeping external factors into account, anno 2004.
Windturbine power *cent/kWh isn't included in the list, since you've already made the calculations hereup.
a b 9.16.04
Hoardings to be lit up by solar power NEW DELHI SEPTEMBER 07, 2004 : The Delhi government has decided to make use of solar power compulsory for lighting up hoardings besides heating up water in buildings. "The Delhi government has agreed to pass an order on the lines of one passed by Andhra Pradesh government in August making use of solar energy mandatory," non-conventional energy minister Vilasrao Muttemwar said on Monday. The move forms part of the Centre's plan to provide electricity to 25,000 remote villages from renewable sources by 2007 and to all households by 2012. This is in addition to 10,000 MW capacity addition from renewable sources during the 10th and 11th Plan periods which corresponds to 10% additional power generating capacity to be achieved in the country. Renewable energy sources like wind turbines, biomass-driven generators and small hydro power contribute about 4.5% of the installed generation capacity of 5000 MW. Biogas and solar lighting has reached 3.5 million and one million households, respectively. As per the Andhra government order, all municipal commissioners and vice-chairmen of urban development bodies shall take immediate action for installation of solar water system on existing municipal and urban development buildings. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?msid=841589
a b 9.16.04
"All should also note that the figures I posted on wind generation above do not include retirement of capital, which takes the related figures up to - 7.5% interest - 0.0412 dollars/kwhr which is significantly more expensive than any other form of power generation except IGCC coal with CO2 sequestration. Even nat. gas is cheaper with current prices. Wind gen. manufacturers have a LONG way to go before they will be able to compete unsubsidized and may never make it. "
That may be right, but heating water using sun rays is still cheaper than using fossil or nuke power to achieve the same result, no?
a b 9.16.04
"All should also note that the figures I posted on wind generation above do not include retirement of capital, which takes the related figures up to - 7.5% interest - 0.0412 dollars/kwhr which is significantly more expensive than any other form of power generation except IGCC coal with CO2 sequestration. Even nat. gas is cheaper with current prices. Wind gen. manufacturers have a LONG way to go before they will be able to compete unsubsidized and may never make it. "
I beg to disagree, when reading underneath posted article. Where's the catch?
MAILBAG: Stop subsidizing wind energy -- and fossil-fuel energy, too GRAND FORKS - Leroy Sletten objects to subsidizing wind energy. He has a point. Many subsidies are counterproductive and subvert the natural marketplace, none more so than one of the mothers of all subsidies: coal. In fact, if we eliminated the subsidies to both coal and wind, we'd all be enjoying clean, healthy wind energy as our primary energy source because coal couldn't possibly compete in the fair market. Coal would be used only to back up wind energy when necessary. Now that would be progress! The fact is we subsidize wind 1.9 cents per person per year. We subsidize coal, oil, gas and nuclear power over $125 per person a year. That's 6,500 times more, and for our efforts we get more asthma, heart attacks, cancer, global warming and toxic nuclear waste lasting more than 10,000 years. So how does coal stay in business? Enormous campaign contributions, of course. Our own Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., is one of the greatest recipients of campaign contributions from coal, mining and electricity. In 1999-2000, coal gave almost $4 million in campaign contributions to Washington politicians. In return, Congress gave coal $5.8 billion of our money under HR 4. That's over $1,500 of our money for every $1 from coal! That's a rate of return of over 153,000 percent. Our state government gave another $10 million to a new coal power plant, even though studies by both Xcel Energy and Great River concluded wind energy is the least costly new form of energy production in the area. That subsidy will directly result in our air getting dirtier, people getting sicker and our already world-class greenhouse gas emissions increasing. Blair Henry, an attorney, is an adjunct professor of entrepreneurship at UND and a member of the U.S. National Assessment on the Consequences of Climate Change. Wind power can fight global warming EMERADO, N.D. - Some power companies don't want to use wind power, except as an understudy to lignite coal. Why? Because lignite is available and inexpensive.Being the broad-minded person that I am, I'd jump right on that lignite bandwagon, or as others have suggested, the nuclear bandwagon, except for a couple of things that disturb me. • First, lignite is a fossil fuel. All fossil fuels give off pollution when burned - and lignite is a leader in this area, a real polluter. A few coal-burning plants have reduced some of the gases, but none has a way to eliminate carbon dioxide. And carbon dioxide is believed by most scientific authorities to be causing or at least accelerating global warming. • Nuclear power plants bring to mind Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Nuclear plants may be safe and effective, but for some reason I get nervous whenever they're brought up. (I admit it, I'm a little timid around gamma rays and beta particles. And of course there's nuclear waste: what do we do with it?) • As for wind power being available only 30 percent of the time, that's when you consider only one site. With very rare exceptions, the wind always is blowing somewhere on the Great Plains. With a little management, the power companies should be able to switch to those wind farms where the wind is blowing. If there's just not enough wind anywhere, maybe they could use biomass or hydrogen generators. Hydrogen, you say: But where do we get the hydrogen? From pure, clean, pollution-free electrolysis, using wind-powered generators. In the real world, fossil fuels will be used for years to come. But wind power no longer is "pie in the sky." There are wind farms operating efficiently right now. And if we care about our environment, we'd better use as much non-fossil-fueled energy as we can. http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforksherald/news/opinion/9052395.htm
a b 9.17.04
Mr gould, concerning your previous post. I don't know what you did, but I can't read a thing of what you posted. I mean, for Gasthermal, the figure I see is SDNUM="4105;">0.49 and other chinese characters.
Can you just supply a internet link where I can peruse them? Thanks.
I think the forum mediator better should delete the previous posting, since it apparently screw the whole window screen up (window far larger, has to move the scrollbar underneath to be able to read it all.)
a b 9.17.04
“Murray: An example of possibilities. I'm not saying we should count on it, but whatever system is devised should provide for such possibilities. http://www.amatechtel.com/news/wed/bq/Uus-methane.Rg2E_ESD.asp "could represent a virtually inexhaustible source of energy for future generations, reported a team from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Carnegie Institution's Geophysical Laboratory, Harvard University, Argonne National Laboratory and Indiana University, South Bend." “
If you are keen to drill that deep to extract natural gas, you then as well can start looking at using geothermal energy. That will be far cheaper and far easier.
The west coast of the USA is one giant geothermal resource, if you are willing to go a few kilometer deep into the earth crust. You only have to build a plant housing a water injection system into the borehole going into the earthcrust, evaporating the injected water and returning it to the surface as superheated overpressurised steam, activating turbines that are motoring electrical generators. The exhaust steam then gets injected in a flash condensor to cool off, before being reinjected into the earthcrust for another cycle. If there is no river or aquifer water available, a pipe importing seawater could do the job. You basically get yourself a perpetuum mobile system able to supply 10,000’s MW’s for 4-5US cents/kWh, without any waste exhausts othe than steamwater, and no danger of terrorist attacks to be feared.
In California, 29 units were built in 1989, with an installed capacity of 2098MW, with an average well bore depth of 600meters. The total capacity in the USA is now about 2400MW generating about 16,000GWh/year for a capacity factor of 90%. The potential is far higher, but remains to be exploited.
a b 9.17.04
Hybrid Homes New building technologies and innovative add-ons are making nearly-zero-energy houses a real possibility By William Underhill and Malcolm Beith Newsweek Sept. 20 issue - Imagine a community for the deeply green. Walls half-a-meter thick keep temperatures comfortable year-round. Windows are triple-glazed. A wind-driven ventilation system feeds fresh air into each house—and grabs the heat from stale outgoing air. Outsize conservatories face south to trap the light and warmth of the sun. Most of the energy-saving technology isn't flashy, though solar panels do provide enough power to run the community's pool of electric cars. The architecture is modish and even the most modest apartment has its own garden. Of course, residents enjoy an organic-vegetable delivery service, too. This might sound like a limousine-liberal fantasy—the kind of high-tech oasis where the superrich can soothe their consciences deep in the woods. But it's actually an 84-home development, called BedZED, on the site of a disused sewage-treatment plant in an unfashionable patch of South London. Its residents aren't well-meaning ecozealots: many are tenants of a housing charity. But they are all at the forefront of a global trend toward reducing energy consumption in the home. In Europe and America, buildings guzzle around 40 percent of all energy—about 10 percent more than transport—and create the same proportion of carbon-dioxide emissions. As the world adjusts to life without cheap hydrocarbon fuels, improving energy efficiency across the board is going to be essential. BedZED and other initiatives show that trimming excess energy consumption needn't be difficult or even high tech—just a matter of intelligent design. "People are sick and tired of environmental campaigners' presenting doom-and-gloom scenarios without offering solutions," says BedZED architect Bill Dunster. The key is finding ways to maximize efficiency in the simplest ways possible: the "zed" in BedZED stands for "zero energy." Whatever little juice the London homes need after taking advantage of their built-in energy-savers comes from an on-site power plant, fueled by waste timber. Simple also means cheap; build 5,000 Zedhomes, says Dunster, and the economies of scale mean the cost is no more than that of constructing a normal home: the price of components tumbles as production numbers rise. It's no wonder such ideas are gaining admirers. Over the past two years, BedZED has attracted thousands of visitors from as far away as India and China. In the fall, Dunster's company, ZedFactory, begins work on two separate projects elsewhere in Britain. In the United States, zero-energy communities have been constructed from Elk Grove, California, to Loudoun County, Virginia, spurring interest among forward-thinking builders and homeowners alike. "Once people know about it, they want to live there," says David Meisegeier, an energy-efficiency specialist at Virginia-based ICF Consulting. "Who wouldn't?" The technologies could already be used much more widely. Things like triple-glazing windows to add extra insulation, tightening duct systems and using structural insulated panels for floors and walls are easy and cost-effective—and could cut the fuel consumption of the world's buildings by 20 percent by 2010. "You can accomplish a tremendous amount with the technologies that we have already," says Randall Bowie, a Swedish official working on energy efficiency for the European Commission in Brussels. Take today's domestic boilers, which are generally 30 percent more efficient than the previous generation—or new refrigerators in the U.S. market that use 75 percent less electricity than those from the 1970s. Even simple gadgets like programmable thermostats or light timers noticeably decrease energy use and costs. "This is about doing a lot of unglamorous stuff," says Andrew Warren of the European Alliance of Companies for Energy Efficiency in Buildings. Major momentum for these ho-hum changes has come from European governments worried by threats to energy supplies and the need to meet energy-reduction goals agreed to under the Kyoto accords. They've started to issue grants and tax breaks for energy-efficient builders, as well as stricter regulations. The standards set by national building codes are ratcheting up, and an EU directive that takes effect at the end of next year will require house builders, landlords or sellers to show an energy-efficiency label, setting out how —well a building performs. A similar EU decree on energy labeling for household appliances has boosted demand for the top-rated items. The U.S. government, too, has been doing its part. Through the Energy Star program, it has set tough regulations on everything from home construction to major appliances and consumer electronics. "Energy Star is transforming the market so that energy-efficient technologies become standard practice—and a moneymaker for companies, too," says Jennifer Thorne-Aman
a b 9.17.04
"Energy Star is transforming the market so that energy-efficient technologies become standard practice—and a moneymaker for companies, too," says Jennifer Thorne-Amann of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). Energy Star has also created brand recognition, prompting a flood of applications from companies. "Once you get one manufacturer onboard, everybody wants in," says Meisegeier. "And everyone wins because of the environmental impact." There's also comfort to be taken in the growing cooperation between government, scientists and the environmental lobby. At the government-funded Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, Steve Selkowitz's windows-and-building-technology team has made incredible progress with such innovations as dimmable windows that can minimize hot sunlight while preserving the view; the windows could save homeowners thousands of dollars a year in air-conditioning costs. And in Europe, lavish grants from Austria's provincial governments have spurred interest in so-called Passive Houses, which aim to expend only minimal energy and are forecast to account for a quarter of the country's new building by 2010. Even more gee-whiz developments are creeping onto the market. Solar power is becoming more affordable, as are tankless water heaters, composting toilets and biomass heating systems like corn stoves, which heat homes by burning corn instead of declining resources like wood. In India, Development Alternatives, a New Delhi-based nonprofit devoted to sustainable development, has helped supply mini power stations—fueled by weeds and agricultural wastes like rice husks—to villages across the country. Beneath thousands of new homes in Sweden, a system of fluid-filled pipes taps the warmth of the surrounding earth and feeds it back to heat pumps inside the houses. And more and more houses are being built with microgenerators—hyperefficient power plants that can sit in the basement. A new mini-CHP—a Combined Heat and Power plant that's no bigger than a dishwasher—can double as a water heater and a generator with minimum wastage. Heat energy from the hot water is recaptured to power lights and run household appliances. It's too early to know whether the public will embrace such measures fully. "From the marketing point of view, energy efficiency is still a very hard sell," says David Strong of Britain's Building Research Establishment. "Nobody makes television programs about insulating the loft, and people don't hold parties to show off their new boilers," adds the European Alliance's Warren. Although recent months have indeed seen some nasty price hikes, in real terms fuel prices have tumbled over recent decades. "Energy prices haven't quite reached a point where they hit the wallet," says ICF's Meisegeier. Still, as governments, scientists and builders continue to provide the "market push" toward energy efficiency, says Meisegeier, the "consumer pull" will be stimulated. There won't be any one device that solves all the energy-consumption problems of homeowners. But each new development will push us closer to what one might call the hybrid home, in which energy is conserved through a combination of improved appliances and building techniques. "The technologies will be able to support each other," says the ACEEE's Thorne-Amann. "Solar panels, appliances, heat-pump water heaters—the synergy will improve the whole building." And our whole future. With John Sparks in New York http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5963511/site/newsweek/
John K. Sutherland 9.19.04
a.b. Put on your glasses. I read your plea to Mr. Gould for more info on electricity pricing and I suggest you follow the links on the site that we are in.
There is a 'More' box on the left column. Click on 'Research', then click on 'White papers'.
In the section 'Environmental' and 'more' (at the bottom of the most recent papers in the environmental section), there is a sampling of some of the white papers that I have earlier posted on this site. The one I refer you to, is the one entitled 'A brief overview of energy uses in society.' At the end of that document is a section dealing with electricity costs as determined by the Utility Data Institute, for the entire U.S.
It might do you too much harm to read others of the documents I have posted in the same location, but if you are feeling particularly reckless, go right ahead.
Murray Duffin 9.24.04
I have been off line for some days so please excuse the delayed reply. First thanks for the positive comments and the urls. Replying in sequence:
a.b.9/11 - I agree about agriculture, but neither fertilizer nor petroleum were the topic being discussed. As noted by others nuke storage costs are very low, and not a barrier.
Len Gould 9/11 - Metric units are ok but I used the units commonly used and understood in the USA, (my target audience) for familiarity and to avoid burdening the audience with conversions.
9/13 a. b. Nuclear reprocessing will come. See the advanced fast reactor. I have submitted a paper on nuclear to EnergyPulse.
T. McKissick 9/13- I accept the nomination and would work without salary if I had presidential backing.
S. Greenbaum 9/13 - I agree that education is a major issue. The level of ignorance even among energy people is stunning.
B. Braginton-Smith (pull up 2 chairs and sit down) 9/14 - Change will come when crisis forces it, but there are encouraging developments all over the world. China will be a major force for change because they do not have the luxury to repeat our mistakes. There is an old expression "Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come". We nust all work to make the time come sooner for good energy ideas. When crisis strikes the response time can be amazing. After 7 Dec. '41 America completely retooled in 6 months.
J. Byden 9/14 - Your 1PE =.0298976, say .03 quads. That's not hard is it? Quads is a commonly used unit, even for oil gas and coal, which would not be so easy for 1PE.
L. Gould 9/15 - I don't buy the deep methane theory, and I don't think we can readily drill holes that deep, and if we could there are many more economic alternatives.
J. K. Sutherland 9/19 - Interesting paper but I have a couple of criticisms. First energy is not measured in watts or MW. Second you are way off on wind. I have also submitted a wind paper to EnergyPulse. Third you are not really studying the issue of depleting resources. Being wrong in the past does not subtend being wrong now and is a plain dumb argument. Babies get it wrong and fail to walk over and over again. If your argument had any relevance they would never walk. Visit the ODAC web site and read with an open mind. It is exactly your kind of wrong headed complacence that leads to crises. See my paper on Natural Gas just published by EnergyPulse.
Thanks again to all for your inputs. Murray
Steve Sturgill 9.24.04
Murry, I just read your paper (and all the comments that followed). The only thing worth mentioning that jumped out at me was your assertion that there is enough harnessable wind energy to meet the country's total energy needs. You'll have to convince me of that; I think an optimisitic maximum figure might be 20 percent of today's total energy needs. No matter, all in all I am in agreement with you, but I have a comment.
Nowhere in your paper or in the discussion that followed did you or the other contributors mention what I think is a critical need, which is to comprehensively study the net or embedded energy question of any potential alternative. You came close in your comments about economists, but I'd feel better if I thought you had good reason to know that the infrastructure you envision for harnessing all the nation's energy from wind was actually viable, which it would not be if it failed, in the aggregate/infrastructural sense, to produce substantial positive net energy.
My sense is that any solution worth going for has to produce substantial positive net energy, that the question is far from trivial, that money proxies will produce invalid analyses, that small positive net energies are probably not worthy of national attention, and that if we don't watch out we run the risk of building batteries charged with today's cheap energy, not energy sources for the future.
It seems clear, through the noise and spin, that nuclear's net energy question has been studied comprehensively, and that nuclear provides substantial positive net energy. Can the same be said of wind, solar, wave and other popular renewable options? It may turn out that way in this case or that, or it may not, but my sense is that the question is not studied comprehensively. I think proponents of various options stand behind superficial or self-serving figures and marketing materials (natural enough I suppose). I think serious examination of the question should be done before resources are allocated. For example, corn methanol seems to have been comprehensively studied, but its minor positive net energy would cause me to reject any subsidy of that endeavor.
You seem to have done your homework. What's your take on the importance (criticality, in my present view) of fully understanding the net energy (not money) balance of the various alternatives?
Great paper. I look forward to reading your other contributions.
Murray Duffin 9.27.04
Steve - EnergyPulse allows max. 3000 words per article, so one has to be selective. I have submitted a paper on wind that I hope they will accept, and it should convince you. Yes every solution must have a net positive energy yield. However most skeptics on net energy want to believe there is a net energy problem for every solution, and therefore refuse to believe the energy yield analyses that show positive results. Wind has a net energy yield of 30x to 80 x depending on whose analysis you use. My analysis is in the middle at about 50x, based on an assumed 30 year lifetime for a turbine and a 30% duty cycle. The Danish wind energy page has the optimistic yield, but they know more about wind energy than the rest of us. Murray
Steve Sturgill 9.28.04
Thanks for your response Murray.
I really, REALLY want to believe that wind, in the infrastructural sense, can power our growing population on its own, and that all of the other popular green renewables can do it, too. I'm cose to being one of those net energy skeptics your refer to, but I always stand for correction.
I look forward to reading your piece. If it's not accepted by this forum I'd still like to read it. If not published here, I hope you post it somewhere and let us know where it is.
