That entirely depends on the location. We are mostly hydro and for 4 months this summer our car was powered by the sun. Coal is down to 39% of US power.
We need an energy miracle
- Thread starter begreen
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil. -
Super Cedar firestarters 30% discount Use code Hearth2024 Click here
- Status
I suspect that even if we fueled the grid utility power plants with gasoline we'd probably still come out ahead using electric cars WRT overall system efficiency; and maybe pollution.
Power plants and the distribution grid are relatively efficient. Electric motors are too. Infernal combustion engines, and the fuel distribution network that supports them -- not so much.
The best thing about EVs is that they are basically multi-fuel vehicles. Generate the electricity however you like. Grid power is getting cleaner while advances in ICE technology are slow and engines pollute more with every mile.
EVs have their value as they potentially shift load to off peak hours. I work in the power industry and the reality is that the bigger the power plant the longer the bigger incentive for the owner to keep it running. Nuclear plants effectively run at one speed, full out, they can ramp their power rate but its generally days. Same with coal plants. Combined cycle gas plants can rapidly change their output in a matter of minutes. This sound great until the fact that ramping up the gas in gas line supplying the plant can 24 hours. The gas plants need to call the gas supplier 24 hours in advance so even if they have the capability to speed up or slow down, they practically can not due to limits on the gas supply. The underlying bedrock soils in most of New England make large underground gas storage unlikely so the only remaining alternatives for short term dispatchable power are oil fired gas turbines "peakers".
If the power system could be shifted to having a large portion of the demand capable of charging up off peak there are two benefits, while charging if there is a sudden demand for power on the grid, the chargers can be remotely paused until the short term demand goes away and if there is great demand, the batteries being charged can even be used to support the grid. There is much speculation that Tesla will be getting major subsidies from power utilities by selling this potential of batteries that they will be leasing. It should be transparent to the owner but it is quite valuable if Tesla can sell the rights to a utility for MWs of power that can be dropped off the grid rapidly and the potential of MWs that can be drawn from the batteries for grid support for short periods.
If the power system could be shifted to having a large portion of the demand capable of charging up off peak there are two benefits, while charging if there is a sudden demand for power on the grid, the chargers can be remotely paused until the short term demand goes away and if there is great demand, the batteries being charged can even be used to support the grid. There is much speculation that Tesla will be getting major subsidies from power utilities by selling this potential of batteries that they will be leasing. It should be transparent to the owner but it is quite valuable if Tesla can sell the rights to a utility for MWs of power that can be dropped off the grid rapidly and the potential of MWs that can be drawn from the batteries for grid support for short periods.
Already doing this in Germany they call it a swarm battery system
(broken link removed to http://www.sonnenbattery.com/sonnenbatterie/virtuelles-kraftwerk/)
The german experiments to date have been "throw money at it until it sticks", approach. Prior energy incentives have really hit their federal budget hard and I think that even the government and the consumer have avoided these battery projects as being too expensive even with a major subsidy.
Heck time it right in states with wind turbines and they will pay you to "buy" power http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-withers-in-u-s-as-wind-pummels-prices-energy
Definitely a case of federal tax policy having unintended consequences.
Definitely a case of federal tax policy having unintended consequences.
Dont think you can say that when they already have 8500 users and the technology has not been in the market very long.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015...any-idUSL8N13J3C620151125#FhXHejftUcyrKYwc.97
Lets agree to disagree on this one. Its easy to use someone else's money to deploy new technology at a loss, another thing to have a viable model that stands alone and actually makes am impact on the environment. I would expect that the EPA's Energy Star program, despite its "warts" has a far more greater effect than a complex battery approach.
A few high profile examples of using someone else's money
Bloom Energy http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/the-bloom-is-off-bloom-energy/.
Sunedison is trying to pull it off with solar, http://www.forbes.com/sites/antoine...-slide-when-financial-engineering-goes-wrong/
Dare I mention Solyndra?
A few high profile examples of using someone else's money
Bloom Energy http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/the-bloom-is-off-bloom-energy/.
Sunedison is trying to pull it off with solar, http://www.forbes.com/sites/antoine...-slide-when-financial-engineering-goes-wrong/
Dare I mention Solyndra?
In 2008 wind was bad because it would cause your electric bill to 'necessarily skyrocket'
In 2015 wind is now bad because it is displacing higher cost marginal production, reducing your electric bill.
You want an energy miracle?
I give you LFTRs. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors.
Let's count the ways it's a miracle energy source;
- Uses thorium, which is literally cheap as dirt.
- Improved inherent safety, far more stable than water cooled reactors.
- Unlike water cooled reactors, no high pressures involved, pressures are similar to home potable water pressures. Hence no TMI or Fukis.
- Due to the liquid fuel, +95% reduction in waste material, plus all waste is reduced to background in 300 years.
- Fail safe, if power is lost, a frozen salt plug melts and the reactor fuel drains into passively cooled chambers; no possibility of a "meltdown" since the fuel is already melted.
- Highly resistant to proliferation. In fact, this is the one reason that thorium reactors were dismissed 60-70 years ago: extremely difficult to make nuclear weapons from the fuel cycle.
- Much higher power efficiencies due to using molten salt vs water; i.e. higher temperatures.
Downsides:
- The last molten salt reactor to be operated in the world was shut down in 1969 at Oak Ridge, TN (the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment). Hence, we would have to virtually reinvent the technology, including probably the design, build and operation of a pilot or demonstration plant, adding to the development time of the technology.
- Virtually the entire nuclear power industry, and specifically in the US, is wedded to the water cooled, solid fuel nuclear power reactor business model.
More reading and videos:
(broken link removed)
http://www.wired.com/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/
I give you LFTRs. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors.
Let's count the ways it's a miracle energy source;
- Uses thorium, which is literally cheap as dirt.
- Improved inherent safety, far more stable than water cooled reactors.
- Unlike water cooled reactors, no high pressures involved, pressures are similar to home potable water pressures. Hence no TMI or Fukis.
- Due to the liquid fuel, +95% reduction in waste material, plus all waste is reduced to background in 300 years.
- Fail safe, if power is lost, a frozen salt plug melts and the reactor fuel drains into passively cooled chambers; no possibility of a "meltdown" since the fuel is already melted.
- Highly resistant to proliferation. In fact, this is the one reason that thorium reactors were dismissed 60-70 years ago: extremely difficult to make nuclear weapons from the fuel cycle.
- Much higher power efficiencies due to using molten salt vs water; i.e. higher temperatures.
Downsides:
- The last molten salt reactor to be operated in the world was shut down in 1969 at Oak Ridge, TN (the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment). Hence, we would have to virtually reinvent the technology, including probably the design, build and operation of a pilot or demonstration plant, adding to the development time of the technology.
- Virtually the entire nuclear power industry, and specifically in the US, is wedded to the water cooled, solid fuel nuclear power reactor business model.
More reading and videos:
(broken link removed)
http://www.wired.com/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/
The world only needs one nuclear reactor which has already been working for millions of years and will carry on working for millions of years. Its also sufficiently far away from us so that we can easily cope with the radiation and there is no subsequent clean up costs to account for.
Just like a perception that we need a miracle for this or that (energy, diabetes, obesity, gridlock, etc.), we already have the miracle but refuse to use it: us. Virtually every problem we face is of our own causing. The obstacle to the "miracle" is the lack of will to change behavior.
I couldnt agree more. When i ask my doctor if i could just change my diet instead of taking all those pills for heart disease ,he said yes but hes never seen anyone do that.They just do what they've always done and take the pills.
Theres another thread on this forum about wind power driving prices into negative territory. Seems our miracle is already here.
Negative energy pricing is not a miracle. It's an energy management challenge turned into an energy management nightmare by lawyers and politicians.
This has a high price that falls on the ratepayers.
Energy coming onto the grid has to be used or it will lead to a voltage increase that damages appliances. Meanwhile, the wind farm owners in Washington (most of which are large corporations) fought for and successfully got an absurd court ruling that doesn't allow the regional public transmission agency (BPA) to decline to buy electricity from them even when BPA is overloaded with generation from hydro dams on the Columbia River. The hydro dams are not allowed to curtail production except in genuine emergencies, because they have to maintain minimum flow rates for the endangered salmon (not to mention keep the dams from overtopping), but also are generally not allowed to use their spillways, because excess nitrogen churned into the water also can harm salmon.
As a result, BPA is forced to pay industrial users to run equipment they normally wouldn't run in order to use that excess power. This is the "negative rate." The "negative rate" is not money paid by the wind turbine owner to the utilities/BPA. The wind turbine owners
They continue to charge the same amount as usual. Us the final ratepayers end up paying three times when this happens:
1.) The contracted price for the hydro power
2.) The contracted price for the wind power (which, incidentally, is higher than the hydro price)
3.) The "negative rate" paid to the industrial scale users
Unfortunately, hydro production and wind production both peak in the spring in our region. But power demand is near its minimum then. Demand peaks in the winter, and hydro production is generally high all winter, but wind production is low because we frequently get high pressure zones settle on us that drive temperatures and energy demand up, but leave wind turbines idle.
AmbDrvr253
Minister of Fire
Necessity is the mother of invention. Jimmy Carter, necessarily due to the embargo, created a national energy policy designed to reduce oil use. With the lift of the embargo it went away. There will be no "miracle" until it is necessary. Human beings are creatures of habit (oil). Until that habit no longer exists there will be no change. There are many EXISTING replacements for oil, mostly carbon based, today. However all would require significant investments in infrastructure the US population will not fund as it is not "needed".
I had no idea.
I guess this demonstrates just how badly we need to come up with some energy storage solutions.
In West Texas, the wind providers can pay grid customers 1 cent/kWh for electricity they put onto the grid, and then collect the 2.2 cent/kWh tax credit, netting 1.2 cents/kWh profit. So, because of the PTC, the wind operators can clear a profit at a (small) negative price, while other producers cannot...so those other producers curtail first.
Adding wind power to a grid has been shown to consistently lower average energy costs to customers.
Adding wind power to a grid has been shown to consistently lower average energy costs to customers.
That's not a miracle. That's a subsidy that expands the viable range of operating conditions.
Up here, our electricity prices are going up faster than inflation even though it should be pretty well insulated from inflation by the fact that the overwhelming majority of our generating capacity is paid off.
* Edit *
I wanted to add, the scenario you're describing in Texas is a lot better than what I'm familiar with up here, so most of my rather abrupt criticisms above probably don't apply down there.
Lowering the price when your marginal cost allows it (since the fuel is free) to competitively find a market when demand is low is different than judicially compelling a market when demand is genuinely exceeded by preexisting supply. What you describe actually lowers costs. Our situation raises them.
Furthermore, with Texas currently getting over half their electricity from natural gas and most of the rest from coal, there is never an over-supply from higher priority sources. Wind complements their existing generation capacity far better.
If I'm not mistaken, the seasonal wind supply is also better matched to the seasonal demand than up here.
Last edited:
sportbikerider78
Minister of Fire
I think what is often over looked by many is obvious to me, simply because of my profession. When your average Joe thinks of power needs, they like of home power. What you are forgetting is industry and commercial power needs. At my plastic injection manufacturing facility, every day we use $3,000 in natural gas, $12,000 in electricity (at a very cheap 4.5cents/kw). We operate around the clock 24/7. This is only one facility on a 3 mile road of other manufacturing facilities..many being 5-10x our size.
Cheap power is what keeps us a 1st world country, because it allows us to be productive and to actually create wealth through manufacturing. If we over subsidize and over regulate we will quickly raise the price of power (or burden the taxpayer) and price ourselves out of power. After that, manufacturing leaves the country and everyone pulls out the violin and screams "corporate greed".
Fun fact. The vast majority of power is used by electric motors. Both commercial and residential.
Cheap power is what keeps us a 1st world country, because it allows us to be productive and to actually create wealth through manufacturing. If we over subsidize and over regulate we will quickly raise the price of power (or burden the taxpayer) and price ourselves out of power. After that, manufacturing leaves the country and everyone pulls out the violin and screams "corporate greed".
Fun fact. The vast majority of power is used by electric motors. Both commercial and residential.
Adding wind power to a grid has been shown to consistently lower average energy costs to customers.
That is not the case in New England. Wind turbines are being built despite little or no demand for their power unless a state passes a renewable portfolio standard, even then for every MW of wind turbine that displaces a conventional generation plant an oil fired simple cycle peaker with similar MW capacity is built as wind is not dispatchable. Add in storage and the equation changes but the wind turbine folks want someone else like the ratepayer to pay for it.
That is not the case in New England. Wind turbines are being built despite little or no demand for their power unless a state passes a renewable portfolio standard, even then for every MW of wind turbine that displaces a conventional generation plant an oil fired simple cycle peaker with similar MW capacity is built as wind is not dispatchable. Add in storage and the equation changes but the wind turbine folks want someone else like the ratepayer to pay for it.
And yet my understanding is that motor controllers that can significantly increase motor efficiencies are way underutilized-- probably because power is so cheap (e.g. 4.5cents/kw).
Last edited:
With all due respect, NE is a mess in terms of its energy policy. There is negligible onshore wind power development compared to many other regions of the country, and the offshore situation is an even bigger mess, which has set back the entire industry nationwide for prob a decade. In a period when most of the country is enjoying the benefits of cheap nat gas, NE is running periodic shortages related to transmission, that bring up the average cost/risk considerably. I don't follow RE policy up there that closely, but it seems that your regulators and policy makers have been willing to sign very unfavorable (i.e. costly) incentives and rate contracts for RE, having a mindset that 'it has to cost', which is out of the 2005 playbook. In other parts of the country the incentives are much less generous, and yet somehow people manage to make money hand over fist at wind and solar.
Edit: Also, the whole 'Adding a MW of peaker for every MW of RE' is a canard. The fossil grid needs a lot of peakers because of pre-existing demand surges with time of day, hot weather, etc. It is clear that up until a certain penetration (at least 5% RE power) little to no additional peakers are required. AFAIK, no NE state is anywhere near that level of RE penetration, so I doubt that any peakers have been added for that purpose. Even running randomly, RE often cuts into the peaker plant operation, and that is the major source of the cost savings by RE on customer bills. For producers that make most of their profit on peakers, it looks like a cost, and they try to block RE whenever possible.
Last edited:
sportbikerider78
Minister of Fire
Depends on the application and size. Typically, large motors deserve a control and that will have a good payback.
Some need to run full bore all the time.
- Status
Similar threads
