# Massachusetts and Connecticut folks - consider installing your own power plant!



## tradergordo (Jul 24, 2007)

A powerplant for the home
By: Prachi Patel Predd  
PHOTO: Climate Energy  
Basement installation: The Freewatt system, made by Honda,in a Boston-area house.


When you flip on a light switch in an average American home, the light bulb probably uses electricity generated in a far-away power plant. But that is not the most efficient way to use fuels—two‑thirds of their energy is lost as waste heat at the plant and while traveling over power lines. 

What if the power plant were sitting in your home’s basement instead? Combined heat and power (CHP) systems can utilize up to 90 percent of a fossil fuel’s energy by simultaneously generating heat and electricity on-site, reducing energy consumption and slashing utility bills. Such systems already power hospitals, university campuses, and large petrochemical factories, and they are widely used for district heating in Denmark, the Netherlands, and other northern European countries. But only in the last few years has the technology evolved to the point that it can power and heat individual homes. Recently gaining popularity in Europe and Japan, micro-CHP, as it’s called, has now broken into the lucrative U.S. market. 

Climate Energy, a company in Medfield, Mass., is testing a 1.2‑kilowatt system in 25 U.S. homes and hopes to sell several hundred units this year. The company, a joint venture of ECR International, in Utica, N.Y., and Yankee Scientific, also in Medfield, is marketing a system developed by Honda Motor, Tokyo [see photo, “Basement Installation” Honda has sold 50 000 1‑kW units for single-family homes in Japan. SenerTec, a firm in Schweinfurt, Germany, markets a 5-kW system for apartment buildings in Europe. 

Micro-CHP systems typically consist of an internal combustion engine and a furnace. The engine drives a generator to produce electricity, and the heat created in the process goes to the furnace via a heat exchanger module. Micro-CHP equipment can run on a range of fuels, including coal and oil. The most popular systems, including Climate Energy’s, run on natural gas. 

Unlike solar panels, wind turbines, and fuel cells, CHP is, as Climate Energy CEO Eric Guyer says, “an approach that’s much more like the hybrid gasoline-electric automobile than an exotic automobile such as one running on fuel cells. It’s a good application of available technology—nothing extraordinarily new, no new science, no new way of converting energy.” 

The micro-CHP setup costs a few thousand dollars more than a traditional gas furnace. Whether it is worth the extra money depends on where you live. This is because it is driven by heat demand: in the winter the generator runs as much as possible without turning off, providing heat and about half of a typical home’s electricity. When you do not need heat, the power plant switches off and you buy all your electricity from the grid. And if you generate more electricity than you need—say, at night—you could sell it to the utility company. 

The Climate Energy system makes the most sense if you live in one of those states where it gets very cold in the winter and you pay a lot for electricity. In that case, it can pay for itself in two years and save you US $500 a year thereafter. Otherwise, the payback period could be up to 10 years. 
More than 35 U.S. states now require utilities to provide net metering, a simple way for customers to sell power to a utility using standard meters. But states decide what type of residual energy customers can pump into the grid, and so far, just 11 states allow net metering for CHP. 

The main market for micro-CHP in the United States would be homes that require more than 4000 heating hours per year, according to Peter Banwell of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, who is investigating residential CHP. Banwell says roughly 30 million U.S. homes are in that bracket. Guyer notes that Climate Energy’s system is especially attractive in states such as Massachusetts and Connecticut, where electricity can cost as much as 20 cents per kilowatthour and where local utilities are offering financial incentives for micro-CHP buyers. 

According to John Jimison, a former executive director of the U.S. Combined Heat and Power Association, in Bethesda, Md., micro-CHP growth might be slower in North America than in Europe and Japan because many of the same homes that require a lot of heating in winter also run electricity-hungry air conditioners in the summer. The drawback of trying to use CHP in such homes is that it makes no contribution to a consumer’s electricity bill during the summer, when usage is highest. 

On the other hand, Jimison argues, the U.S. market has much more potential than Europe or Japan in the long term because of the country’s copious power consumption, recent high fuel prices, and growing environmental awareness. 

Strong incentives from major utilities and the government would help spur residential CHP in the United States, Jimison says, but traditional utilities still see home power generation as a threat. Europe and Japan offer good examples of how financial incentives can boost micro-CHP sales. In Germany, micro-CHP users do not have to pay an eco-tax that is attached to the use of natural gas, and they are paid more than the wholesale price of electricity for what they deliver to the grid. Micro-CHP users in the United Kingdom get a big discount on the natural gas tax, paying just 5 percent rather than 17.5 percent. In Japan, where consumers cannot sell electricity back to utilities, the government gives subsidies toward micro-CHP, and gas utilities also give a discounted rate to encourage people to use it. Jon Slowe, a director in Glasgow of Delta Energy and Environment, a distributed energy research and consulting firm based in the UK and Belgium, says the Japanese subsidy is “in recognition of the carbon dioxide savings” obtainable from using CHP.

Government support for micro-CHP in the United States has been scant. The U.S. Department of Energy funded preliminary system-design research in 2004, including R&D done by one of Climate Energy’s parent companies, ECR International. But there have not been enough funds to support the research in subsequent years, says Douglas F. Gyorke, a program manager at the DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory. “It’s a novel technology that I wish we could’ve played around with a little more,” Gyorke says. 

[choped here...]


----------



## babalu87 (Jul 24, 2007)

LOL

Just try getting permitted for that , NIGHTMARES as far as permitting stories go. As much as Mass likes to paint themselves green they are part of the "system"


----------



## webbie (Jul 25, 2007)

I heard about similar appliances being developed by a Mass. firm...about 15+ years ago. 

This is a relatively simple idea whose time has come......the biggest problem has always been that an internal combustion engine has a low MTBF (cannot usually run the required number of hours)...... perhaps they have solved some of that problem.

No doubt centralized electricity generation is inefficient in some ways. The answer usually lies in many technologies.....

I think many states, including Ma., are now allowing interconnection to the electric meter. This is being done quite a bit with solar electric panels these days.


----------



## keyman512us (Jul 25, 2007)

babalu87 said:
			
		

> LOL
> 
> Just try getting permitted for that , NIGHTMARES as far as permitting stories go. As much as Mass likes to paint themselves green they are part of the "system"



...AMEN to that babalu It might have a chance in Conneticut and the surrounding New England states but Mass??? Given the "current political climate" in this state....you would be better off trying to find a downed UFO to keep in your backyard hooked up to a set of jumper cables.

..The 'BI folks' are already "making in-roads" in Mass... Now I know nobody cares about the "flak" OWB owners are taking, but expect to see legislation this spring to "ban them outright" in Mass... Stove owners can breathe a sigh of relief (for now)...but as with everything in this state...don't expect it to stop with OWB's... 

Word to the wise...


----------



## elkimmeg (Jul 25, 2007)

Unfortunately once the blue print is in place to ban any appliance producing smoke it is easy to port it over to others.

 Pretty soon Gph  becomes a political football


----------



## webbie (Jul 25, 2007)

Me thinks many people have not kept up with the various incentives and legislation in Ma. meant to "grease the skids" for renewables:

http://www.mass.gov/doer/programs/renew/renew.htm

Here is some info for interconnection:
http://www.mtpc.org/cleanenergy/howto/interconnection/index.htm

The improvements in electronics and R&D in the last 10 years have made interconnection easier and safer. However, those not wanting to do so can still use battery storage, although it is expensive and often not as efficient.

BTW, here is what the state found about biomass:
"The most significant finding of the report is that the current annual growth of new wood in the forests of Massachusetts exceeds the amount removed by almost two million tons. In addition, more than two million tons of woody residue are produced as waste by various industries in the state. In sum, there is significant potential for using biomass for energy production, as well as for bio-refining and other useful production."

Hmm, that's about 4 million tons total........quite a nice chunk of energy, although I doubt even 1/4 of it is currently being harvested and used.


----------



## begreen (Jul 25, 2007)

I don't see why installing/permitting would be that difficult. With the high efficiency that the unit works at, the exhaust gases should be relatively cool. It shouldn't have more regulation than other high efficiency heating devices as long as the exhaust system is vented properly and safety devices for overheating are in place. The grid-tie part has become more standardized. 

What is telling are the sizes. Domestic - 1kw, apartment sized - 5kw. In the US it would be RV sized, 1KW, small home sized - 5kw. 

Here's a link to the German companies website. 
http://www.senertec.de/englisch/frames.php


----------



## KeithO (Aug 9, 2007)

Has anyone checked into the meaning of Net Metering ?  Most states that have net metering will not pay you a dime for excess power you put into the grid - nor the utility company.   Net metering is simply providing you credit when you deliver more power than you are consuming, and allowing those credits to be used when you have a higher demand.  At the end of every financial year the books are balanced, if you provided more than what you consumed, tough luck, the account balance is reset to zero and the next year is started.

There are 2 key points in this:  1) There is no way that you are even allowed credit to cover the line charges (the rental fee for the powerline).  Thus this is a fixed cost you have to pay forever. 2) You are never allowed to earn a dime to help amortize your investment.  You can reduce your monthly bill, but thats it.

This legislation didn't get to be this way by accident.  The utility companies lobbied government to prevent their stranglehold on energy being broken.   They have a largely captive market.

If the legislation were really fair, more people could move out to New Mexico and put some of their retirement funds into solar arrays and sell the electricity to the utility companies, thereby earning their pension. This would benefit the utilities by availability of "clean" power, the pensioners by providing income and consumers, by offering choices.

In my opinion, the present net metering setup is a racket and encourages more radical approaches by the fringes of society to go "off grid" altogether, something that utility companies know that 99% of consumers will never do since it is just not convenient and definitely not cheap.

Keith


----------



## begreen (Aug 9, 2007)

Good point Keith. It will vary from state to state and utility companies. The way I see the system working in WA state, one builds up credits in the summer with PV generated power and then spends them in the winter. If you have electric heat then it seems like a winning solution, but I agree, not guaranteed. We can do a lot better to increase the incentives if we were serious.


----------



## DiscoInferno (Aug 9, 2007)

KeithO said:
			
		

> There are 2 key points in this:  1) There is no way that you are even allowed credit to cover the line charges (the rental fee for the powerline).  Thus this is a fixed cost you have to pay forever. 2) You are never allowed to earn a dime to help amortize your investment.  You can reduce your monthly bill, but thats it.
> 
> This legislation didn't get to be this way by accident.  The utility companies lobbied government to prevent their stranglehold on energy being broken.   They have a largely captive market.



In their defense, somebody has to pay to install and maintain the current grid, and it saves you a ton of money in batteries to use the grid effectively as storage.  You could always provide your own storage and cancel power co. service.  I recently saw a small lighthouse that was converted into a summer residence that ran entirely off of a few panels with max instantaneous power of about 300W with battery storage.  You better bet they use CFL's!

Also, I suspect using the grid as a storage medium can only work as long as the proportion of power from household sources is relatively low.  So I don't think it was ever an option with the current infrastructure for everyone to generate their own power and store it on the grid, because household sources don't necessarily match demand and aren't controllable from a central office.

Now, in my case here in MI I paid several thousand $$ up front to have electric run to my house (500ft buried high voltage line and transformer near the house), and so I think it's a crock that I have to pay an $8 "account charge" every month whether I use electricity or not.  So I'm with you on that part of the beef.


----------



## tradergordo (Aug 9, 2007)

Using the grid for your renewable energy "storage" is a nice option, not having to use expensive batteries that must be replaced periodically is a big plus (although it also definitely has drawbacks, there is a big loss of efficiency in using the grid).   In Pennsylvania if the customer generates more electricity than is used, the utility pays the customer for the net kilowatt-hours produced at the *wholesale *power price.  So even though you do get a check, its still somewhat of a racket, in fact a system of credits would be worth more to a lot of people if they were at the retail rate instead of the wholesale rate.


----------



## Eric Johnson (Aug 9, 2007)

Also in their defense, you have to understand that it's a lot easier on the power company service people when they know how much electricity is flowing through the system, in which direction, and where. Makes it kind of tough (I'm guessing, though I really don't know) when everybody and his brother is pushing juice back into the system at unpredictable times and in unknown quantities.


----------



## tradergordo (Aug 9, 2007)

Eric Johnson said:
			
		

> Also in their defense, you have to understand that it's a lot easier on the power company service people when they know how much electricity is flowing through the system, in which direction, and where. Makes it kind of tough (I'm guessing, though I really don't know) when everybody and his brother is pushing juice back into the system at unpredictable times and in unknown quantities.



I doubt that is much of an issue, the new supply should be somewhat predictable just like demand is somewhat predictable (something the utilities have already been doing).   Really its not even divided that way, the renewables are just slightly reducing overall demand, so its just a matter of the utilities managing demand as usual.


----------



## wg_bent (Aug 9, 2007)

It sure would be incentive for people to conserve if they were responsible for the infrastructure to generate their own power.  If you have to spend the $$ for a 4kw generation system vs an 8kw system, the price diff will cause a lot of folks to purchase more efficient appliances or risk running out of power.  CF bulbs, use a line vs clothes dryer, not run AC vs a fan, etc...

I could see an interesting industry crop up.  Home generator service and sales.   How do the Coal versions work?  Little mini steam generators?  Great application for a sterling engine driving a generator!  That way the heat generator is independent from the power generation.  You could have a coal with propane backup or what ever combination was desirable.    Waste heat could heat DWH, pool or supply home heat easily and you could be at a very high overall efficiency.


----------



## DiscoInferno (Aug 9, 2007)

Warren said:
			
		

> It sure would be incentive for people to conserve if they were responsible for the infrastructure to generate their own power.  If you have to spend the $$ for a 4kw generation system vs an 8kw system, the price diff will cause a lot of folks to purchase more efficient appliances or risk running out of power.  CF bulbs, use a line vs clothes dryer, not run AC vs a fan, etc...



Certainly it might get me to finally upgrade my ancient A/C.  But I spent a year in DC in a house without A/C once, and that will not be repeated.  Many of us northern-raised folks need A/C to live in a lot of the rest of the country.  The good thing is, should solar ever become somewhat cheaper, that it is almost perfectly matched to A/C demand.  Considering that in the summer my electric bill often triples solely due to A/C, I could just hook solar directly to the compressor.


----------



## wg_bent (Aug 9, 2007)

DiscoInferno said:
			
		

> Warren said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That might make for some hot evenings trying to get to sleep.


----------



## DiscoInferno (Aug 9, 2007)

Warren said:
			
		

> DiscoInferno said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you were all solar with a poorly sealed/insulated house, then yes.  A well-sealed house, even in 95 degree direct sun, can keep inside temps in the 70's for a day; so overnight should be OK.  But I was thinking more along the lines of solar to the A/C as a supplement to your idea of a smaller generator system.  But this would only make sense if the solar was a lot cheaper than the full-time capacity it replaces.


----------



## webbie (Aug 9, 2007)

Keep in mind that there are many "storage" uses for excess juice in the grid. For instance, we have a power plant near here that pumps water to the top of a mountain overnight (with excess capacity) and then can generate on demand by letting it flow back downhill. Excess capacity can also be fed to our own houses in a number of ways, from charging our plug-in hybrids to even heating large "heat-sinks" which can then heat our houses overnight. 

Just as the internet works well as a distributed network - the power grid could do this also.


----------



## senorFrog (Aug 10, 2007)

I think the problem is retro-fitting an old house to be energy efficient.  If I could build from scratch this would be a nice model to follow...

http://www.solarhouse.com/index2.htm


----------



## tradergordo (Aug 10, 2007)

I checked out your link.  I would LOVE for solar to be a legit solution, but the numbers still don't make sense (I guess maybe they're getting better every year though which is good).  All that hype, major nationwide media attention, etc, for a $30,000 solar panel that results in $675 worth of annual electric savings, that's a silly 44 year pay off (and they have the nerve to call it "free").  The payoff time is actually infinite when you consider the compounding interest oportunity cost on that $30,000.  I don't see how that is practical for anyone (cost of electricity would have to be above 40 cents per kWh just to break even, this is why there are so few solar installations, unless you can sucker someone else into paying for the installation it just doesn't add up).  And what is the lifespan on these thigns?  THey must take a beating in a climate like Maine, how do they even keep the snow off them?  How long do the inverters last?  Their installation is only a few years old and they mention already having replaced the inverters - how much did that cost?

Although I am encouraged by the fact that they could generate so much power in a northern location like Maine.  One day this technology is probably, hopefully, going to make sense.



			
				senorFrog said:
			
		

> I think the problem is retro-fitting an old house to be energy efficient.  If I could build from scratch this would be a nice model to follow...
> 
> http://www.solarhouse.com/index2.htm


----------



## senorFrog (Aug 10, 2007)

Yeh, it looks like a real nice house in a great location.  It took some dollars for sure.  I think they mention somewhere that half for the panels are for heat, the other half for power, so maybe that helps with the payback period.  One thing is for certain, you're not building a place like that on a budget.


----------

