« The US Natural Gas Supply | Main | Smart Grid Benefits »

January 29, 2010

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Craig

To implement item #6, you only need to change ONE law. Require energy companies to pay residential solar energy producers full retail value for the excess energy they produce. People would install 2 or 3 times the capacity they actually need, and have their system paid off FAST, and areas like Southern California would become net energy exporters.

The Energy Blog

Your intent is valid, and I agree. Any legislation which would provide renewable energy providers, large or small, a profit incentive would help vastly. And since small electric suppliers could not provide the infrastructure to distribute their product, it, by definition, has to be via the grid.

However, that is not technically possible at this time. Our electric grid can only absorb a small amount of additional, uncontrolled, energy into it. The grid has to be very carefully balanced between supply and demand. Electricity cannot be stored on the grid. Whatever is produced has to be used, and vice versa. A significant amount of energy dumped on it would result in a loss of control, and a shutdown of the system. The amount it can "absorb" is known as the penetration factor and is on the order of 3-5% of total capacity. This is one of the issues Smart Grid technology addresses - allowing many small distributed generation sources to be controlled, and integrated into it.

Until that day, legislation is in place to limit the amount of energy our electric grids are required to accept from small providers. This is to protect the infrastructure.

Electric providers want distributed generation to reduce their need for expensive peaking plants, and the need to purchase overpriced electricity from other providers during high usage times. This is why they are committed to smart grid technologies.

renewable sources

This is an enlightening post! Together we can save the earth and totally avoid global warming. With this in mind, we are going to increase the lifespan of our generations. The future generation will be able to breathe fresher air and live life to the fullest because the earth is greener.

scottsdale periodontist

Number 1 to 5 are important to follow it accurately. These are the true methods.

Anas

Gasoline Cars:Gasoline powered eignnes = 35% efficiency (25% in the 1970s)Refinery production of gasoline = 70 % efficiency (guessing)Overall = 25% efficiency (roughly)Electric Cars:Electric Motors = 90% efficiency (considering the need to do different torques and speeds.)Loss in Battery due to being parked = 90% efficiency (highly variable depending on how much you want to spend to buy and maintain your batteries.)Loss in charging = 95% efficiency (highly variable)loss in grid = 75% efficiency (depends on where you live)Power Station Generator = 95% efficiencyPower Station Turbine = 95% efficiencyPower Station Boiler = 80% efficiencyPower Station Leaks, degassification, and Blowdown = 95% efficiencyHandling coal (as opposed to refining gasoline) = 95% efficiencyEfficiency = (0.95^5)(0.9^2)(0.7)(0.8) = 35% roughlyGoing from 25% to 35% is a 40% savings that could easily be wiped out by some of my assumptions on the type and quality of batteries used, the location on the grid, and the technology being used at the power plant.However, unless you believe:1) Man Made CO2 is the primary source of CO2 in the atmosphere.2) CO2 is the primary cause of Global Warming.3) Global Warming is occuring.4) Global Warming would be a bad thing.this would hardly be a reasonable design consideration. All of the 4 beliefs above are highly controversial. There really are better justifications for electric cars than this nonsense.

Hakime

Campaign for America's FutureYear: 2005-2006Issue: Energy IssuesAddress:1025 Connecticut Avenue NWSuite 205Washington, DC 20036 Over 100 Prominent Americans, citizen asicvtits and policy experts concerned about our country and our planet joined together to launch and build the Campaign for America's Future. We are challenging the big money corporate agenda by encouraging Americans to speak up to discuss and debate a new vision of an economy and a future that works for all of us.2005-2006 Representative Paul supported the interests of the Campaign for America's Future 0 percent in 2005-2006 on energy legislation.2005-2006 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Campaign for America's Future 100 percent in 2005-2006 on energy legislation.2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Campaign for America's Future 100 percent in 2005-2006 on energy legislation.2006 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Wind Energy Association 100 percent in 2006.2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the American Wind Energy Association 100 percent in 2006.2001 Representative Paul supported the interests of the American Coalition for Ethanol 0 percent in 2001.2002 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Coalition for Ethanol 0 percent in 2002.2002 Edwards supported the interests of the American Coalition for Ethanol 100 percent in 2002.Funny how people hate knowing the facts. 8:)So here is some more from Open Secrets on financial support:Financial backers:2008 PRESIDENTIAL RACEContributions from Selected IndustriesDisplay: Oil GasRudolph W. Giuliani (R)$ 545,058Mitt Romney (R)$ 309,933John McCain (R)$ 189,935

The comments to this entry are closed.