The Energy Blog

Greenhouse gas emissions – Electric vs Gasoline cars.

Amidst all the scientific studies, academic research and political rhetoric, the debate continues on how much effect converting to electric cars – powered from our existing electrical grid – will have on the emissions of greenhouse gasses – CO2. With the proliferation of these studies, some tracing CO2 contributions all the way back to the first exhalation of breath from the dinosaurs, it can be hard for the average rocket scientist, let alone mere mortal, to come to a conclusion. Therefore, I have decided to shun the scientific calculator, eliminate the variables, and do a simple, empirical analysis of their direct impact.

First, the Coal burning Power Plants.

We are fortunate here in that someone, most likely math challenged, actually had the good sense to measure the CO2 output of power plants. It has been measured and confirmed many times since. Ends up the average Coal burning power plant emits 2.17 pounds of CO2 for every kilowatt-hour it produces. (EIA) Now, coal makes up only 48% of our electrical generation. Natural Gas produces 20% and it also emits CO2 (1.4 pounds per kWh). But, 30% comes from nuclear and renewable sources. So, taken together, our national electrical supply generates, on the high side, 1.51 pounds of CO2 per kWh.

Now for the Cars.

Basic Chemistry tells us that burning 1 gallon of gasoline emits 19.4 pounds of CO2. It also tells us, based on BTU content, there are 36 kWh of energy in that gallon of gas.

One place where all the research gets bogged down is trying to account for the varying efficiencies of our automotive contraptions. Automotive IC (Internal Combustion) engines are anywhere from 15 to 28% efficient in average driving. Well, for our worst case, empirical study, I am going to assume the most efficient – 28%. The most efficient means it is the most work we get for every globule of CO2 emitted. Indeed, the meaning is that 28% of the BTUs in that gallon of gas will get turned into useful, mechanical work. All the rest are wasted as heat. There are 124,000 BTU’s, give or take, in a gallon of gas, so at 28% efficiency 34,720 of them or 10.16 kWh, are actually used for something productive. Yet, we still created 19.4 pounds of CO2 burning that gasoline. A little math, and the emissions result for our car is 1.90 pounds of CO2 per kWh of work produced. Note that at the other end of the scale – at 15% efficiency - those numbers would be 5.4 kWh of useful work, and 3.59 pounds of CO2 per kWh.

Although this article is not about CO2 per mile (remember, simple), for the sake of reference, both the Chevy Volt, and my Chevy Malibu use approximately .240 kWh for each mile at a </i>steady<i> 60 Miles Per Hour. The Tesla Roadster claims to use .217. The Prius is about .220. Your dumptruck, I don't know. However, we do not need to factor in the relative mileage of different vehicles to determine the absolute CO2 emissions potential. Replacing a similar gasoline vehicle, with a similar electric vehicle will still result in similar energy needs.

The answer please!

The results show that burning gasoline in an ICE powered car creates anywhere from 21% to 58% more CO2 than getting the same amount of energy from our electric grid for the same size and shape car. And, that point is important.

The other way many of these studies tend to confuse the issue is trying to relate everything to mileage – like pounds per mile. That is truly putting oranges in an apple barrel. The matter of mileage is irrelevant when comparing similar size and shape vehicles where the only difference is the source of power. They will both use the same amount of energy, which here is expressed in Kilowatt-hours. Regardless of whether they are powered by electricity, gasoline, or soda pop. The difference lies in the source of the power.

Now granted, if you replace your dump truck with a compact car, you will be emitting less CO2, but that is true of either power source, because your small car uses less energy than a dump truck. The reverse would also be true, although good luck finding an electrically powered dump truck.

It should be clear by now that by replacing a gasoline powered ICE vehicle with an electric one, for the same amount of power at the wheels, we would reduce CO2 GHG emissions by anywhere from 21% to 58% - even with our existing electrical supply. And, in fact, those who have bothered to reduce some of the complex, often politically motivated and artistically spun, studies down to their basic conclusions have found exactly the same thing.

US Energy consumption.

---

---

I was trying to follow a lecture about energy needs the other day, and make sense of the speaker's numbers. I know most energy statistics, but his numbers were not adding up. I started wishing I had an energy "crib sheet" with simply the big numbers to help me understand. So, I made one. Here it is. This is the amount of energy the US used in October of 2009. I did not make any correlations between units or types, these are the raw figures. Here is this country's overall energy use:

U.S. Energy use for the month of October 2009.

Type of energy	Trillions of BTU's	Millions of Megawatt Hours	Amount
Electricity	1,200	351	Not Applicable
Natural Gas	1,800	527	1.8 Trillion Cubic Feet
Gasoline	1,364	399	11 Billion Gallons
Diesel Fuel	700	205	6.2 Billion Gallons
Totals	5,064	1,482

 (The amount column is the amount of the fossil fuel we used. Electricity is generated by various means. It is an energy carrier, not a fuel.)

Those are BIG numbers. To clarify the units, the totals equal:

5,064,000,000,000,000 BTUs. and 1,482,000,000,000 Kilowatt hours.

If that were YOUR electric bill for October, at ten cents per kWh, the amount due would be: $148,200,000,000.00! That is 148 Billion dollars. Your electric rate may vary.

According to the EIA, on a BTU Basis, the US uses 21% of the worlds energy. So, multiply those numbers by five and you know (roughly) how much the world uses.

One final note on electrical generation.

This country has slightly more than 1,000,000 megawatts (1,000 GigaWatts) of nameplate generation capacity installed. Of that total, about 550,000 megawatts is available at any one time. The rest is down for maintenance, repairs or other factors. There are 720 hours in a month. So we can actually generate about 396 Million Megawatt Hours each month.

Watts, joules & BTUs - What energy terms mean and why.

---

---

Watts, BTUs, joules – oh my. It is easy to get confused with all the different acronyms, and units, being bandied about. Well, In a spirit of pure public service, I am going to try to explain what the different energy terms mean. Hey, I said try…

Although this is not meant to be a first year physics text (there would be much more “between the lines”), before we can understand the units, we must somewhat understand the concepts of work, and force. And how the two are inter-related. We also have to understand what energy is.

Energy:

While energy can be an abstract concept, in our particular context energy means the potential (or ability) to do work. Work is what shifts energy from one system to another. Energy can exist in two general forms potential (stored) or kinetic (in motion). Gasoline contains potential energy. It is just “sitting there” taking up space. Once that energy is shifted to the mass of your car, by doing work – acceleration - the mass of your car then contains energy in the form of kinetic energy. It will contain exactly the amount of energy that was transferred to it.

“It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. — Richard Feynman”

• So, Energy is the ability to do work.

Work:

Now, work seems a simple concept, and it is, sort of. Work, in physics, is of course mechanical work, The moving of something over a distance. If you push your car up the driveway, it is obvious you have done work. Obviously! You have done that work by transferring your bodies’ potential energy into the mass of the car, accelerating the car up the driveway.

But, Interestingly, if you push and push, and the car does not move, according to the laws of physics, you have not done any work. Your energy was expended as waste heat and was not transferred to the car. Physics demands that something be moved for work to happen. Hence no work. Unfair, I know, but that’s the way it is.

You have, however, transferred energy from one system (you) to another (the air) via heat. Well, in thermodynamics, there is another, broader, definition of work. Work can also be defined as the transfer of energy from one system to another. Both definitions are important to the understanding of the terms below.

So work is either the movement of a mass (stuff) over a distance in physics, or, the transfer of energy from one system to another in thermodynamics. The distinction is that in Physics we are dealing with the transfer of energy by mechanical means. In Thermodynamics, energy is transferred, not mechanically, but via heat.
At the risk of being overly simplistic, these are two of the four primary ways that energy is transferred. The other two are electromagnetic waves and gravity. Note there are many defined FORMS of energy – as I stated, energy as a concept is elusive – but it is transferred between systems mainly in these four ways.

But, back to work:

• Work is the movement of a mass over distance, or the transfer of energy from one system to another.

Force:

Force is the influence (or applied energy) that causes work to be performed. When a force acts to move an object, we say that work was done on the object by the force. That force can be electricity, and the object a motor shaft. The force can be chemical energy, and the object a piston or turbine. The force can be gravity, and the object a skydiver falling out of an airplane. Force when applied to a mass (thing) to cause a displacement over a period of time is causing work to be done. In physics, force is mass times acceleration. (F=ma).

• So, force is an influence that causes an object to speed up or slow down (i.e. accelerate or decelerate), or that causes work to be performed.

Power:

And, finally, there’s power. Power is a measurement of how fast that object is speeding up or slowing down, or how fast energy is being transferred between systems. In other words, how much work is being done?  As we all know, the more power we have, the faster the work is done.  Conversely, the faster a certain amount of work is done, the more power is required, and the more power has been used. Power equals work divided by time (P=W/T). Power is an aggregate of all the former terms. It is the measurement of the final result, so to speak, of using energy to apply a force to do work.

• So, if work is defined as moving (accelerating or decelerating)  something, then force is what causes it to happen. Energy is the push behind the force, and power measures how much work has been done.

But, you came here to learn about the units we measure this stuff with, right? Well, if you are still here, we are about done!

“For those who want some proof that physicists are human, the proof is in the idiocy of all the different units which they use for measuring energy. — Richard Feynman.”

We measure the quantity of energy (or force) with the units Kilowatt hour, BTU, or Joule. These are all measurements of “units of energy”.  Conversely, the same units can be used to measure how much energy a process has used. We used so many BTU’s of fuel, so many Kilowatt-hours of electricity, or so many Joules of energy. If energy were water, the equivalent unit would be the gallon.

There are 1055 Joules in a BTU, and there are 3414 BTU’s in a Kilowatt-Hour.

We measure the amount of work that is done with units of power. The Horsepower, the Watt, or the BTU per hour (BTU/Hr). In our water example, these would be equivalent to Gallons Per Hour.

A horsepower is a unit of power sufficient to raise 550 pounds One foot in 1 second. Equivalent to roughly 745.7 Watts, or 2,546.6 BTU/Hr.

There you go! So much background. Well, the concepts I briefly explained (and it was brief) before defining those terms, are extremely important to all fields of energy. They are the foundation principles. The above explanation only scratched the surface.

I will finish this up with a couple of examples.

First with water. The garden needs to be watered with a gallon of water every hour (big garden). This is the amount of energy (water) we need. SO we will be doing work at the rate of one gallon per hour. At the end of ten hours we will have used ten gallons (units) of our energy.

Now lets make the garden a 100-watt light bulb. We need 100 watts of energy every hour to light our room. So we will be doing work at the rate of 100 watts of electrical energy every hour. At the end of ten hours we will have consumed 1 Kilowatt hour (1 unit) of electrical energy.

Our Furnace needs 50,000 BTUs of energy every hour to keep our toes toasty. So we will be doing work at the rate of 50,000 BTUs per hour. At the end of ten hours, we will have consumed 500,000 BTU’s (units) of energy.

Our car needs two gallons of gas (248,000 BTUs) every hour to go a steady sixty MPH. So, we are doing work at the rate of 248,000 BTUs per hour. At the end of ten hours, we will have consumed 2,480,000 BTUs (units) of energy. Of course we ran out of gas 6 hours ago…

I am going to elaborate on that last example, lest you think this is all academic. Simple math tells us that car is getting 30 MPG on the highway. So, how much horsepower did we need from the engine? Well, if you have been attentive, you would realize you divide that 248,000 BTUs by the amount of BTUs in one horsepower and get 97 Horsepower. Right? Well, sort of, but wrong.  In the average gasoline internal combustion engined car, 75% of those BTUs were wasted, they did not make any horsepower. The went out the tailpipe, and kept your radiator warm. SO, the correct way to do it is to take 25% of those BTUs, 62,000 (which is what was actually used to make Power), and divide by 2,546.6.  Which gives us 24 Horsepower. And, that indeed, as a rule of thumb, is what the average 30 mpg car needs to go down the road at 60 MPH.

And, now you know.

Bloom Energy Server Revealed -

---

---

VM7MS3RMU35U

Well, the Bloom Box – Now called the Bloom energy server – was formally revealed on Wednesday. Most of the technical details are now on their website. So, naturally, after all my previous commentary, I must comment once more.

It is, indeed a Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC). It generates 100 Kilowatts of power. According to the specs it requires 661000 BTUs per hour from the natural gas input (apx 700 Cu Ft). That is 193 KWh worth of Natural Gas in, for 100 kWh out for an efficiency of 51.8 percent (Which is, indeed “greater than” 50% as quoted on the web site).

I assume this is the total efficiency of the unit (including inverter), and, as such, it is a modest increase over other Solid Oxide fuel cell efforts I have seen. Good for them.

It weighs Ten Tons! And, my head weighs as much as I bow it to apologize for a mis-statement in an earlier post. I stated that the device would still need a reformer to produce hydrogen for the fuel cell. For most fuel cells this is true. However, because of the high temperatures a SOFC works at, they can apparently do “self reformation” within the cell itself. A small “pre-reformer” is still necessary, but not all the complexity of a complete steam reformer. I was not aware of this, although apparently to the people who actually design these things, you know, scientists, it is common knowledge. Neither do I know how this process works – yet. But, I do apologize for the inaccuracy.

CO2 emissions are 773 pounds per MWh. A typical coal plant, according to the EIA, emits about 2000 pounds per MWh. So this emits about 1/3 the CO2 of a coal power plant. The same source quotes natural gas turbine plant CO2 emissions at 1300 pounds per MWH, so it is about half as much as those, although I am not sure I quite buy their CO2 emissions number. Since the carbon is not used in the process, I would think it would be closer to the natural gas turbine plant. Still, much less than coal, and I’m no chemist.

One problem with a SOFC is the extreme temperatures they operate at.- up to 1800 degrees F. At those temperatures reliability has been a problem with other designs. There is no mention of this on their web site. Bloom is offering a 10 year guarantee on the units. Time will tell how reliable they are.

So far, so good. But, then, there is a matter of cost. Oh, there is always a rub. No where on their web site can I find information on cost, so I went looking elsewhere. According to an article on Forbes (as well as a couple of others I found), the box costs approximately $700,000. ($7,000 per kW) There are reports that Bloom is hoping to get the cost down to about $2,500 per kW in about five years. That would put the cost of the box at $250,000. Now there are government rebates and subsidies. Especially in California, which is where all of the initial units have been installed. You can read the Forbes article below for info on that.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/25/fuel-cell-costs-technology-ecotech-bloom-energy.html

But, let us look at the economics of the Bloom Energy Server. Specifically as relates to a residence, as their stated goal is to use these to replace the electric grid to homes.

My only reference to the cost of natural gas and electricity is my own residential bills. To Produce 100 kWh of electricity, which at my rate of 8 cents per kWh would cost $8.00, the box requires 6.6 CCF (hundred cubic feet) of gas. That gas, at about $0.90 per CCF delivered would cost me $5.94. So for every 100 kWh of electricity, I would save $2.06. - Stay with me-  I currently average using about 1400 kWh per month. That means I would save $28.84 every month. Or  $346.08 per year getting my power from the Bloom Energy Server rather than staying with the grid. OK, not a lot, but still a savings. So, let’s rip out the grid connection. But wait, there’s more, I have to purchase this thing. And, therein lies a rub or two.

Certainly, I wouldn’t need this big of a unit. However, if I were to replace my electric service with a Bloom Energy server, it would have to supply my entire 200 amp home service. That is 44,000 watts worth. See, while I normally don’t use that much at once, there is the electric stove, water heater, air conditioner, power tools, and they might have to all be on at once. That is why we have the 200 amp service, and since we are replacing the electric grid entirely, we need to replace it’s entire capacity. So, 44 Kilowatts times even his target price of 2,500 per Kilowatt is an $110,000 investment.
I still have to pay for the fuel, so my savings stay the same - $346.08. So, that works out to a Payback (break-even) time of 317 years. Wait, did I do that right, yep. 317 years. For a box guaranteed for 10 years?

That is the rub with completely replacing the electric grid, especially to a home. See, I don’t normally use anywhere near 44,000 watts at once. But, sometimes I do, or at least come close. So, the capacity has to be there for those times. With the electric grid I do not have to purchase ALL that capacity, just what I need at the moment. My capital cost is spread out over all the users. With the Bloom Energy Server (or any other private power plant). I have to make that entire investment up front.

OK, that would be silly. So lets make one more calculation, one closer to reality. Lets stay connected to the grid for those high power times, and we will put in a more reasonably sized Bloom Energy Server to supply my average needs,  Like, say, 2500 watts. Now, the good thing is I can sell excess power back to the grid – store it there if you will -  so that 2500 watts running constantly should just about eliminate my electric bill. I might even make a little extra. Sell it back. But, I still have to pay for the gas, so my actual savings are still $346.08 per year (Minus whatever the electric company charges me just to stay connected). The box costs $6,250. At  $346.00 per year, that payback time is still 18 years. And, what about those days the stove and a/c are running? I may still have to purchase some electricity from the grid. Or, if I get a new Plug In Hybrid, or a hot tub. I will need to purchase the extra power from the grid. I am sure, with subsidies, and proper financing the numbers can work out a bit better, but it is still not a very viable proposition, and we do not know if the box will even last that long, or what maintenance costs are incurred,


Other than the economics, and despite the unwarranted hyperbole, I think Bloom may have a winner here. But are there enough customers? It will not work for a typical home or small business. It may not work for the average factory. It is only going to work, even then with modest savings,  in a place with a steady, continuous and predictable electrical load – like an office building, or a data center… Hmmm.

Previous posts on the bloom energy server:

Bloom energy possible progress or hyperbole or both

Bloom energy and the bloom box cbs 60 minutes coverage

Bloom Energy - Possible progress, or Hyperbole? Or Both?

---

---

Bloom Energy, and their magic “Bloom Box” appear to be all the buzz at the moment. While it may be true that they have achieved a method to reduce the cost of fuel cells, or increase their efficiency, what is being presented in the news is mostly a lot of spin. Much of it has come out of the Sunday Night (2/21/10) segment on CBS 60 Minutes. A segment that provided little actual information, and very shallow depth along with it’s spin.

I guess, I am calling Sham. At least the hyperbole surrounding the Bloom Box. The Bloom Box is a fuel cell. Technically, what it would appear to be is a  Solid oxide fuel cell, using a ceramic electrolyte.

Now, a fuel cell does not magically “create” electricity. Indeed, that is impossible. What it does is convert the chemical energy stored in a fuel into electrical energy. All of the reporting, and the 60 Minutes segment, would appear to be dismissing the need for a fuel as a trivial thing. It is glossed over, and barely mentioned.

In actual fact, all of the energy that comes out of this box, or any fuel cell, has to be supplied by the Fuel. And since no process is, or can be, perfect, that conversion comes at a loss.

But, before discussing that little triviality, lets back up, and look at some of the other spin.

The segment quotes the K.R. Sridhar, CEO of Bloom Energy, with the following: “The Bloom bakes sand which it then cuts it into squares that become a ceramic.”

Mr. Sridhar has just described, in suitable double-talk,  the process of creating ceramics from sand. Not exactly a new, or revolutionary process.

He then continues, “The ceramic squares are coated with green and black inks.”   These would be the anode and cathode, the same as in any conventional fuel cell. While his “secret ink” may be cheaper than current materials, the technology is not new. And, if this is indeed a SOFC, since the cell operates at extremely high temperatures, the traditional  rare and expensive materials are not necessary.

The segment makes a lot of hay about the 6” square that Mr. Sridhar holds up, proclaiming that little cube can power an entire American Home. What is conveniently glossed over is the rest of the equipment and piping in the actual, real Bloom  Box.

Now, about that fuel. The Bloom Box uses Natural Gas as the energy source. There is also mention that Biogas can be used. Both of these fuels are primarily Methane. But, methane cannot be used to supply a fuel cell. The methane has to first have the Hydrogen extracted from it. In most cases this is done with Steam Methane Reforming – quite likely what all that plumbing, and other stuff is in the real “Bloom Box” a methane reformer. The Hydrogen is what is used in the fuel cell to generate electricity. While there is the possibility that Bloom has created a fuel cell that directly uses the methane, I seriously doubt it, and, I believe, so would the principles of science. Another completely ignored fact is the reformation of methane leaves behind carbon, indeed, as much carbon as would be generated by burning the gas directly.

Finally, the 60 Minutes piece quotes one of the early adopters as saying the Bloom Box makes their electricity cheaper. Cheaper than what? Certainly a fuel cell can make electricity from natural gas much cheaper than burning it in a heat engine. Fuel cells are more efficient than heat engines. IF their natural gas supply is cheap enough, it may even be cheaper than grid power, but I doubt it. I’m suspecting these are replacing diesel generators at these places – just a guess? Since a Solid Oxide Fuel Cell operates at a very high temperature, and creates a lot of waste heat, it is possible they, or the Bloom Box itself, are making use of that extra energy as well.

So, what we likely have is a Fuel Cell, using natural gas as the fuel. The ironic thing is, if Bloom Energy has managed to find a way to make the fuel cell cheaper, that would be the significant achievement. Yet that is not even mentioned, instead relying on snake oil to make it look like a magic source of energy. 60 Minutes does not disappoint me often, but they have this time. I can only hope they haven’t sold out.

As to these replacing the power grid? Forgetting the need to supply all of them with natural gas, the increased need for infrastructure, and the tremendous multi-times increase in our need for natural gas (and resulting major price increases), I doubt the economics would ever support that. Our grid supply of electricity is in place, and already our most economical source of energy.

For many uses of fuel cells, reducing the tremendous cost of those cells would be a major step forward, and would bring them much closer to mainstream practicality. I Hope Bloom Energy has succeeded in some way on that front, and in doing so, will be prosperous, But, as to the Hyperbole surrounding this, and the implications of magic – I call sham.

Other posts on the Bloom Energy Server:

Bloom energy server revealed

Bloom energy and the bloom box cbs 60 minutes coverage

Vertical Axis Wind Turbines - A case study (Windspire)

---

---

VAWT – The good, the bad, and the Windspire Small Wind Turbine.

I came across this unit recently, and it caught my interest. It would appear that it solves a lot of problems related to small-scale wind power. It is aesthetically “pleasing”, easy to install, self contained, and claims to produce a significant amount of power. Unfortunately, like many of its peers, it does not live up to the promise. I still like the Windspire. I hope they resolve some of the problems. It is a neat concept, and a company that appears to want to make it a success. They have numerous installations already, and I wish them the best of luck. However, I am going to take the opportunity to point out some of the challenges that the Windpsire, and most other VAWT designs, encounter. This is not an indictment of the technology, nor of this particular example. It is, just that, an example to be used for education. I believe strongly in large scale wind power. I do not think small scale is ready for prime time. However, by addressing some of the below issues, it can possibly move closer to reality.

The Windspire  HAWT from Mariah Power.
 


Unfortunately, the Windspire website is devoid of much actual technical information – at least that I can find. Neither can I find much information from their installed base. However, I did find that the NREL (National Renewable Energy Lab) tested the Windspire, and produced some useable data. I want to point out, this data is preliminary, done with an early example. If you look at the report, Windspire answered the NREL findings, and described the ways they are addressing some of the findings. Where that process is right now, I do not know.


So, first, the Windspire description. A VAWT (Vertical Axis Wind Turbine) with a maximum output of 1.2 kilowatts. It is capable of direct connection to the grid, and making use of net metering. The reported minimum wind speed is 8 Mph (Defined as a class 3 area). Best I can tell, the purchase and installation is in the range of $6,000 to $10,000.  This price range puts it on a par with the cost of installed Small scale (residential) Solar PV (PhotoVoltaics), albeit before any of the tax credits or incentives Solar is eligible for. I do not know how those credits would apply to Wind.

Here are the NREL testing results: Be sure to read the response letter from Mariah Power in the first link. It is apparent they took the results seriously, and they were proactive in addressing them.

Overview: http://www.nrel.gov/wind/smallwind/pdfs/mariah_report.pdf
Performance: http://www.nrel.gov/wind/smallwind/pdfs/mariah_power_performance_test_report.pdf
Main Testing page: http://www.nrel.gov/wind/smallwind/independent_testing.html


Wind Speed.

Alas, a problem that seems endemic to all small wind turbines, be they Vertical or Horizontal Axis,  is the need for speed – wind speed. Do not believe output claims. The typical wind turbine, in the typical wind, will put out but a fraction of the amount of electricity it claims to. While the NREL results with this particular model are telling, the story they tell can be applied to most, if not all.

Below is the output data  for the Windspire from their web site. Note that it does not produce any usable power at less than 8 mph – it’s stated cut-in speed. At 12 mph it is still producing less than 100 watts (1/12 rated power). It reaches half it’s rated power output, 600 watts in a twenty MPH wind, and does not reach full specified output (1200 watts) until the wind is “howling” at 24 Mph.

http://www.mariahpower.com/testing.aspx

Now, as I said, this seems to be true of most wind turbines, and especially of the VAWT designs I have seen. They need a lot of wind to produce usable amounts of electricity. By perusing average wind speed charts, it can be seen that this high cut-in speed limits the viable areas to a fraction of the US, mostly in the western plains and coastal areas.  Operating at half it’s output rating (20 MPH average winds) it would need to be in a class 5 area on the below chart. As well, the wind is intermittent. This is the average wind speed. Another thing we have to take into consideration is the capacity factor – what percentage of capacity is actually produced. All power sources have a capacity factor. Below I have provided a link to an explanation as related to wind. For a wind turbine of either design, the capacity factor is about 30%. The machine will produce about 30% of what is the calculated maximum. For the above situation, 20mph average, the annual output would be 5,256KWh per year times 30%, or 1,576 kWh per year . About 13% of the average annual US household electricity usage. (Per EIA Data). That is not bad, if you live where the wind blows! At the average electric cost of 11 cents per kWh, that would save you $174.00 per year. That makes the break-even point (at $6000 installed cost) at about 32 years. Oops, didn’t mean to be negative!



Here is a chart of the average annual windspeeds throughout the US.

http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/pdfs/wind_maps/us_windmap.pdf

If you ever wondered, and you have a flagpole nearby, you can somewhat estimate the strength of the wind. Note that on the Beaufort scale used in the below link, you would need a level 3 wind (Flag flying almost straight out) before any of these small turbines would even start to produce usable power. And, at even half power, the  poor flag would be “stiff as a board”. What is YOUR flag doing?

http://www.redwitch.com/extras/flag_wind_speed.aspx


And, here is that explanation of capacity factor I promised.

http://www.ceere.org/rerl/about_wind/RERL_Fact_Sheet_2a_Capacity_Factor.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor


This link will take you to the specifications of a popular HAWT – The Skystream. It is twice the “size” of the Windspire. Most residential wind turbines are similar.

http://www.talcoelectronics.com/wind-manuals/skystream-specs.pdf

Here is a classroom project that contains power curves for several popular small wind turbines

http://www.kidwind.org/PDFs/LESSON_windpowercurves.pdf


Finally, here is a very interesting, albeit older, article about small wind turbine outputs. The author undertook to test a number of turbines with some revealing, if not unexpected, results.

http://www.wind-works.org/articles/PowerCurves.html




I also want to address Fatigue

A VAWT endures a lot of stress. The bad kind of stress. Repeating and reversing stress. Much more than a HAWT.  Many of the problems the Windspire encountered at NREL were due to poor stress management – in the turbine design, not necessarily in the creators.

 In a horizontal (propeller) turbine, the force of the wind is always from one direction, and pushes the blades in one direction. This stress is transferred via a thrust bearing directly into the tower structure. Propeller blades are a mature technology, and it is well understood how to make them withstand this type of stress. The direct, compressive nature of the force transfer to the support structure is also well understood, and  easy to implement. HAWT’s themselves do not often suffer failures from imposed wind loading.

In a VAWT, on the other hand, in every revolution of the blade structure the wind load reverses. First the blade is pushed one way, then the other. This creates fatigue. If you have ever bent a coat hanger back and forth until it snaps in half, you understand the process. This is not an easy thing to overcome. Some have tried – unsuccessfully – to address this with complex mechanical linkages. Complex and mechanical are not two words you want associated with something that is supposed to have a long lifetime. I want to touch briefly on the effects of these stresses, and the failure modes. While this is based on the NREL experience with the windspire, the principles apply to all.

As any structural engineer knows, you do not try to resist these forces, you absorb them by moving in a carefully defined way, and by spreading those forces out over as much of an area as you can. Trying to create a structure that will physically, with brute strength, resist these loads results in an incredibly massive structure. The bridge or building will collapse under it’s own weight, and the airplane would never get off the ground, let alone carry anything else. A wind turbine would be too heavy to move, and too massive to support (and cost even more of a fortune). It is much more practical, and in most cases necessary,  to go with the flow, than to fight against it.

If you take that same coat hanger we mentioned above, put your hands at the very, outer, ends of the hanger, and try to break it, you will find the task much more difficult, if not impossible. The stress you are putting on the hanger is no longer concentrated, it is spread out over a large area – the span of the wire.

It would appear the designers of the Windspire forgot this principle. To their credit putting it in practice is a tough job. Their test article at the NREL met with a number of fatigue failures. Interestingly enough, the primary place that these failures were concentrated in was the welded joints.

Now, about, welding. The joints on a VAWT have to be strong, and light. A welded joint does not lend itself well to this. If you look at bridges, large buildings, and Airplanes, you will find they are bolted (or riveted) together. Indeed, all of those structures are designed by people who know a lot about stress and repetitive reversing fatigue– especially airplanes. They learned long ago that you bolt the joints together. Rather than concentrating the stress in one, weak, spot, a bolted joint distributes that stress equally over the entire area. In effect, a bolted joint “gives” a little.

In their answer to the NREL test, it would appear the Windspire folks have learned that lesson, finally. The replaced a number of the failed welded joints with bolted ones. Hopefully this will eradicate some of the problems. I hope they also learned you need more than one engineering discipline to design something like this… Airfoils, electrical, mechanical, AND structural.

The other major source of stress in a VAWT is literally at the bottom. All of the bending loads that are imposed on the rotor are transferred to the bearing at the bottom. A critical, single, point that needs to not only resist all of these forces, but needs to turn freely at the same time. This is one of the major obstacles to engineering a VAWT, and one that especially challenges homebuilders.

Here is an interesting “PowerPoint” presentation on Wind Turbine design from Cornell.

http://cfd.mae.cornell.edu/~caughey/WindPower_09/Presentations/Lyons.pdf


Electronics

Finally, I truly do not understand why the Windspire suffered so many electrical problems, mainly with the inverter. Inverters are a mature technology. Many millions are happily and quietly puttering along converting DC Power to AC.  My guess would be that either they need another electrical engineer on the team, or that they tried to cut corners by making the inverter components just sufficient to do the job – in theory. This is not good engineering or good marketing, practice, especially in something so critical to the success. The cost of properly over-sizing the electrical components is very small compared to the cost of the unit, but the failure of these components exacts a high cost in their reputation. Hopefully a re-design will put these issues to rest.


Well, from the length of this post, It would appear I have overstayed my welcome. These are but a few of the challenges facing wind turbines. I will address others (and perhaps the same ones) from time to time. Eventually we will get there. Perseverance, patience and a commitment to putting one foot in front of the other. For now, I will maintain my belief that our best path leads to Large-Scale Wind power, and small scale Solar. But, who knows. I wish Mariah Power the best of luck, I will be watching.

Smart Grid Benefits

---

---

It is my opinion that a key part of our conversion to renewable energy will be the improvement and enhancement of our national electrical grid. In it's current form, our grid is incapable of managing, or utilizing, a large amount of energy developed by wind, solar, or other alternative means. Currently the supply and demand of electricity has to be carefully balanced in a real time, second to second manner. Without the ability to control the outputs of these distributed generation sources, and without the ability to blend their output into existing sources, we will never be able to realize their full potential.

In my opinion, our future lies in distributed generation of electrical power from all types of renewable and environmentally sound sources - wind, solar, residential solar, hydro, biogas fuel cells, tidal, ocean thermal, and more. All can contribute electrical power to our national grid.

Our national electrical grid will then distribute the combined power from all these disparate sources to our homes, offices and factories. Electrical power can then be utilized in plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles for our transportation, electric buses, trains and monorails for urban transit,  and a thousand other things we use in daily life - even our lawn mowers.

Smart grid is the overall moniker applied to various changes to today's grid and it's technology to allow better energy management, control and measurement. Implementation of Smart Grid technologies, strategies and methodologies is an important early step in sustainable energy.

This paper is an excellent overview of both our existing electrical distribution, how smart grid will change it, and the effects that change will have. It is not light reading, but, once you get past the introduction, I think you will find it interesting and informative.

So, get a fresh cup of whatever, sit back, get comfortable and check it out... Don't forget the munchies.

http://energyenvironment.pnl.gov/news/pdf/PNNL-19112_Revision_1_Final.pdf

br>

Ten steps to a better energy future.

---

---

Last year this country used 4,110,259,000 Megawatt-hours of electricity.  23.2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and  7,117.5 Million Barrels of oil. All of this went to supply our never ending thirst for energy. We are an energy happy society. Seventy percent of that electricity was generated by fossil fuels – Coal and Natural Gas. Seventy Eight percent of the Oil we used went to move us, and our stuff, around – transportation. In fact, over 85 percent of ALL our energy came from non-renewable, finite, fossil fuels. Only 7% came from renewable or replaceable sources. The rest came from nuclear generated electrical power.

It is simple common sense that we cannot go on like this, even without the average annual 3.4% growth in energy consumption. Fossil fuels were created millions of years ago, after mass extinctions of animals and plants. Over those years, sediment built up over the dead matter, which rotted, and then, under mounting pressure from the built up layers of sediment, became the Oil & Gas we use today. So far, in just the last 100 years we have consumed well over half of the known or suspected Oil on this planet. We have consumed well over 1/3 of the known Natural Gas and Coal.  Much of what is left of all of these resources has to be recovered by ever more complex, challenging, expensive, and time-consuming methods than were used previously. At this rate we will be completely out of obtainable fossil fuels well within the next 100 years. And, to get any more, the earth will have to go through a mass extinction of life, and still wait a million or so years for it to “cook”.

Of course, eventually, we hope science will find a way to generate unlimited amounts of power. Eventually, someone will develop warp drive, and the associated matter-antimatter power plant. Shortly after that, we will meet Vulcans for the first time. Yet, in the lore of science fiction, even that  happens well past when we run out of our current fossil fuels. So, until that day, we need to make the best of what we have, and find other ways to power our society. The clock is ticking. Time is running out.

To be sure, I like my technology. And technology takes energy. I am not one who advocates we should do without. I believe that with reasonable conservation, new sources of energy, and a firm, unwavering commitment to putting those sources in place, we can continue to enjoy today’s technology, and whatever tomorrow will bring. Along the way, we will be saving those finite fossil resources to be used in ways that cannot be replaced – such as that ’66 GTO for Sunday drives.

So, Presented here is my roadmap to energy wealth. With 10 points, this is the path I believe we have to set upon to feed our need for energy, allow us to enjoy our technology, show respect for our planet and it’s environment, and provide for our future needs. In the vernacular,  to have our cake, and eat it too.


1 - We need to encourage green building practices and conservation where appropriate and effective.

We are not going to stop driving our cars. We are not going to stop running our Air Conditioners, furnaces, microwaves and lawn & garden equipment. Where we CAN make a difference is in places like making our homes more passively efficient. Installing insulation, plugging air leaks, putting in weather stripping. Building green. We can take advantage, where appropriate and economically sound, of newer appliances and lighting methods. Government can require increasing, but readily achievable, efficiency standards for our gadgets, toys, and tools. We can try to turn our lights off when not in use, without running around in the dark.

2 - We need to start integrating Plug-In Hybrids and Electric vehicles into our transportation system.

Electricity is the most efficient, widely available, and most useable means we have to transport energy. It is also highly amenable to powering our vehicles. With the sole exception of batteries, electric vehicles are mature technology, easily manufactured, and work, drive, and perform virtually the same as current vehicles.

Electricity, from an engineering standpoint, is actually a simpler, more desirable and more flexible drive system than current internal combustion drivetrains. Except for those darn batteries. But, as a couple of manufacturers are already proving, the battery technology is already there to support a large part of our short trip, and commuting driving. The only difference to the owner is plugging it in at night – verses stopping at the gas station.

While we currently generate most of our electricity with fossil fuels, large electrical generating plants are far more efficient at using resources than a conventional internal combustion vehicle. While those plants produce pollutants and greenhouse gasses, it is much easier to control those at a relatively small amount of places, as opposed to a couple hundred million point sources. Electricity can be distributed with relatively little loss, and electric vehicles themselves are quite efficient at making use of the electricity. With all things considered, electric vehicles are still several times more efficient at using our fossil fuels than gasoline powered ones. Electric vehicles also remove the source of emissions away from crowded inner cities, contributing to a cleaner local environment in our cities.

But, more important, most alternative energy sources – wind, solar, hydro, wave & tidal, Biogas fuel cells, produce electricity as their end product. That makes them a natural for integrating into our larger electric grid. As all these distributed sources feed their, maybe small, portion of power to the grid, electric vehicles can use the amalgamated sum of their energy.  Eventually these alternative sources will start displacing our fossil power plants, moving us closer to the goal of total renewable energy, and less fossil fuels. Every time we convert energy to another form, we lose some of it, It is much more efficient to use the energy in the form it is created – electricity.

Of course, many people do not have one car for commuting, and another one for longer trips. Most vehicles have to support many uses, For that reason, Plug-In hybrids are a sound alternative.  With a plug-in, short trip driving is accomplished with electricity from our grid. When there is a need to drive further, old, reliable gasoline is still  there to provide the range. A win for practicality, energy, and the environment.

3 –  We need to encourage the conversion of fleet vehicles and long haul trucks to Compressed Natural Gas (CNG).

There are some places where electric vehicles or plug ins do not make sense right now, either for technical, or economic, reasons. Fleet vehicles – Busses, city trucks, taxi cabs, the list is long. These vehicles have to make many short stops, often with longer distances mixed in. These are conditions that will deplete a battery rapidly. However, these vehicles are normally fueled at centralized locations, where infrastructure can be put in place readily. These vehicles should be encouraged to use CNG – Compressed Natural Gas. Simularly, long haul and inter-city trucks make long trips, and need significant levels of power. This is also well outside the capacity of current battery technology. But, the fueling points for these are also contained to a relatively small number of places that could also easily support CNG refueling infrastructure. The technology for CNG fueled vehicles and trucks currently exists and is readily obtainable.

CNG is also a highly suitable bridge fuel for our other vehicles. Currently CNG is much cheaper than gasoline per Gallon Gasoline Equivalent (GGE), and it creates less pollution and greenhouse gasses than gasoline.  There are many CNG vehicles available already, and many more on the way. Fueling with CNG is also getting easier. There are currently as many CNG fueling stations in the US as there are E89 stations, and more are being put in every week. Unfortunately they are most concentrated in certain areas, but that will change as the market expands. You can also purchase a compressor station for your home, and use your own natural gas supply to refuel. There are currently some subsidies and tax credits in place for purchasing both the vehicle, and the fueling station. The conversion is a simple one for a manufacturer, and dual fuel vehicles are becoming common. CNG tanks do take up room in the vehicle, and their range is normally shorter than a comparable gasoline or diesel one. However, these are things that are easy to live with. Finally, a plug-in hybrid using CNG for it’s internal combustion engine would be the best of both worlds.

We must keep in mind though,  CNG is only a bridge to eventual electric when the battery technology is there or replaced by something else. Our current natural gas supply is getting smaller, and new supplies are more expensive to recover. This, along with increased demand, will certainly drive prices much higher. And, remember, it is still a finite, fossil fuel.

4 - We need to strengthen, expand, and upgrade our electric distribution infrastructure.

Of course, to power all these new electric vehicles, and in order to power our existing homes, buildings and industry, we need to get the electricity from all these generation sources to the end user. We also need to be able to combine the outputs of the many smaller distributed generators. That is the job of our electric grid.

Currently our nation's electric grid is frail, outdated, and in many places, overburdened. It also does not have the control capacity currently to accept large amounts of power from wind farms or other power producers, nor can it presently take advantage of a large amount of distributed generation. We need to expand, enlarge, and update the grid. Larger, more efficient conductors, better, more flexible switch and distribution yards, and many more ways to allow power to be fed into the grid from many more, smaller, sources of electricity. Supply and demand of the electric grid has to be managed in real time. The grid cannot store electricity – yet – we must make exactly as much electricity as we use, no more, no less. So, achieving the goal of distributed generation requires better and more flexible control systems.

This is the purpose behind Smart Grid. Putting in place more flexible and robust control mechanisms to allow this management. At the user end, Smart Metering will allow, not only better monitoring, but the ability to control individual distributed generation at our homes and offices (such as Solar PV), and allow for the accounting and  measuring of the energy produced or consumed. Smart metering will enable the economic benefits of distributed generation.

5 - We need to find ways to incentify large scale wind power projects, and make it easier for them to supply power to our national grid.

Wind power scales up nicely. Large wind turbines are very efficient, and can be sited where many of the objections to them - noise and aesthetics are two - are not as relevant. However they are an expensive initial investment, they require much maintenance, and the electric infrastructure has to be in place to deliver the power they produce. There are also many ecological concerns - bird strikes, and even concerns by Air Traffic Control with radar interference. While wind has the potential to be a formidable source of our electrical needs, we need to aggressively identify and resolve the issues facing it's adoption. This is a place where government, in the arenas of regulation, rights, licensing, and subsidies or tax abatements, can have a significant positive impact.


6 - We need to encourage and promote residential solar Photovoltaic power, and distributed generation.

Solar Photvoltaics, unlike wind, scale DOWN very well. A large solar installation is very expensive, uses a lot of land, and is complex. A small installation however, which can supply a significant percentage of a homes electrical needs is simple, reliable, and becoming much more cost effective every day. This kind of distributed generation removes much of the burden from our electrical grid, brings our homes closer to energy self-sufficiency, and is the ultimate in environmentally friendly. Again, government, via subsidies to homeowners, and regulatory oversight, can do much to get this technology in place.


7 - We need to rebuild our Railroads, and encourage more use.

Railroads are the second most energy efficient way we have to move goods - after Ships. They are four times more efficient than trucks for moving large amounts of material long distances. Although I truly do lament the effect it would have on our trucking industry, we need to move more of our long distance shipping to this old, stable, and efficient method.

8 –  Biogas

While Biogas is not sufficient in quantity to power our vehicles, it is already proven as an effective source for small, distributed, electrical generation. It also can serve well in third world countries for cooking, refrigeration, and some space heating. In combination with Large Scale Wind, and small-scale Solar PV, biogas from landfills or agricultural and livestock waste, can make a significant contribution to our overall supply of electricity.

9 – Small-scale electric generation – distributed generation.

From small hydro, to tidal currents, there are many ways to generate electricity from natural phenomena. By promoting, and encouraging these small-scale systems, and not trying to make them the be all – end all of power, they can also make a significant contribution to our overall electricity supply. We need to encourage small scale innovation, and make it easier and economically possible for small companies, with a good idea, to put their creations in place, and connect them to our infrastructure. With appropriate modernization, our electric grid is an enormous resource. It has the potential of allowing the interconnection of a multitude of small scale power producers, all contributing their share to the national need for energy. Not only will this reduce our need for fossil fuel generation, but it can be the incubator for the creation, and proliferation of profitable and innovative small business. Combining residential and small commercial solar photo-voltaics, with the outputs of thousands of producers like “Bob’s tidal power”, we can switch this country from centralized fossil fuels to decentralized, reliable, and environmentally sound distributed power sources.



10 – Industry and manufacturing.

While there is much basic research into alternative energy going on in this country, the sad fact is much of the applied research, design, and especially manufacturing of alternative power systems is happening in other parts of the world. We need to find ways to bring both the technology, and the industry back home. This is again a place where local, state and federal government can rightfully encourage progress. By encouraging technology transfer from basic research to private industry. By providing financial backing to those industries to support and develop innovation. By economic and political incentives to re-purpose idled production assets, factories, and facilities into the production of the physical hardware we need to accomplish our energy goals. By making it easier and less expensive for companies to acquire and retain skilled workers, engineers and managers. By a vigorous, directed, and unrelenting push to rehabilitate our basic educational systems. By a purposeful, and high profile campaign to enhance science, technology, engineering and math education and interest in our schools. By encouraging Americans to once again embrace science and technology.



Finally, incorporating all ten of these steps, I would propose a project, and an investment, by this country and it’s citizens. A project on the scale of, and in the spirit of, Apollo and the moon landing in the sixties. We need to set forth an agenda, a time-line, and a goal. We need not have all the answers, we need not specify how we will accomplish it, but only what it is we will accomplish. We need to make it not only a national priority, but a national agenda, and a national passion. We have spent many billions propping up our financial systems. Whether that was necessary is not the subject of this dialog. However, moving forward, we need to dedicate the same level of resources, financially, politically, and spiritually, to achieving not only energy independence, but responsible, renewable, abundant energy. We CAN do it. We have the technology - now. We have the need – now. We only need the intestinal fortitude from our politicians, our government, our leaders, our industry, and our citizens, to make the commitment, and follow through.

So, there it is. My Ten steps to a better, cleaner, more vibrant and sustainable energy future. I am available for consulting work if the fee is right. Drop me a line!

No, really, I want your thoughts. Please comment!

US Electrical Supply & demand

---

---

Where does electricity come from ?

Electricity is not a source of energy. It is a transport mechanism, and way to move energy from one point to another. Along the way, the energy gets converted many times. Each time, there is a little energy lost. Electricity is generated by an energy source - Coal, wind, water power, nuclear reactions, etc. The energy derived from these sources is then converted to electricity by a power plant, or generation source. This may seem to be a trivial distinction, but it is very important in understanding how we use energy.

Let's take one example. A power generation station burns coal. That coal creates heat, which heats water into steam. The steam then turns a turbine which converts the heat into mechanical energy to turn a generator which converts that mechanical motion into electricity. The electricity travels across the distribution grid to your home, through the wires inside your home to your washing machine. Inside the washing machine a motor converts that electricity back into mechanical motion to wash your clothes.

It is also an important note that electricity cannot be stored by our national electric grid. Literally every time you turn that washing machine on, a generating plant - somewhere - starts making a little more electricity to make it run. An amazing thought - but one that is important to many of our discussions of alternative energy. It is the function of operations centers and their computer systems throughout the country to balance this supply and demand.

Not being able to store that electricity makes a significant impact on how we generate it. First impact is, we have just enough generation to meet the demand. It does not make economic sense to build a power plant to create electricity that is not needed! So, if we, as a country, start using a lot more electricity, someone will have to invest in building a power plant to meet that new need. For example, a widespread acceptance of plug-in hybrid cars would use more electricity. Someone will have to build more power plants to meet that need.

A large power plant is only efficient (makes a profit) if it is running at near it's capacity. This is true of Coal and nuclear plants, and somewhat true of hydroelectric (since they still have to be maintained). This gives rise to power companies supplying two kinds of generation capacity. Baseload is the average amount of electricity this country uses 24/7. This is the demand that large scale plants are built to supply. However, there comes a time most every day when our demand exceeds that. It is most often in the late afternoon, early evening. This additional demand is called Peak Load. Power companies maintain many, many, small power generators called "peaking plants". These plants can be quickly brought "on-line" to supply that excess energy. Most of these Peaking plants are run by gas turbines, similar to a jet engine. They supply around 1 - 3 megawatts of power each. Most of these turbines are powered by natural gas. The majority of the natural gas that is used for electricity generation in this country is used to run these "peaking plants".

Since we cannot store the electricity, control is very important. Power companies have to be able to not only increase the supply as demand goes up, but reduce that supply as demand goes down. They do this in real time. As the washing machine example above shows, it is an amazing process. The need for this control has a large impact on our ability to incorporate variable electricity sources such as wind power. We cannot just hook up large electrical supplies to our national grid. They must be controllable. Smart Grid technology is one way the power companies hope to allow better control, and the addition of many small power supplies to our grid - Distributed generation.

But, I digress. Let us first look at what supplies this country with electricity, and then where all that electricity goes.

This country has a total grid connected generation capacity of slightly more than 1,000,000 Megawatts (1,000 gigawatts). Additionally, many companies and factories generate their own power. To that end there are an additional 8,000 megawatts of privately owned generators that are not connected to the grid, and 12,000 megawatts of privately owned generators that are connected to the grid.

Here is a report on installed generation capacity:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat2p2.html

A note about the above. The generation capacity cited is from the EIA, and called "nameplate capacity". That is the maximum amount the particular generator CAN produce. However, breakdowns, planned maintenance and repairs, and other factors (such as a lack of fuel) reduce the amount of energy that is actually available. This is called Capacity Factor. Various technologies have different capacity factors. In 2008, For Coal that factor is 72%. For nuclear it is 91%. Combined cycle gas plants achieved 42%, while single cycle stood at 10%. All renewables together were at 37%. By my figures, the average across all types of generation plants is currently about 55%. This makes our total actual generation capacity at about 550,000 megawatts, or 4,818,000,000 megawatt-hours per year.

• In the US nearly half of our electricity is generated by Coal fired plants. (49%)
• Nuclear power plants supply about twenty percent of our electricity.
• Natural gas accounts for 21% of our generation - Much of this as a fuel for Peaking Plants.
• Hydroelectric plants comprise six percent of our capacity.
• Renewable energy sources - besides Hydroelectric - comprise 2.5 percent of our capacity.
• Contrary to some beliefs, very little petroleum is used for generating electricity - about 1.9%.
• Much of that petroleum is used in places where Diesel Generator plants are the only reasonable source of power.

In 2008, this country's electric plants generated a total of 4,110,259,000 Megawatt-hours of electricity. And, we used every last watt of it. This represented 86% of our total electrical generation capacity based on my calculation of average capacity factor. Another way of looking at it is we have a 14% safety margin.

Well, where did it all go?

First, some perspective. (EIA Facts and figures: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/esr/table5.html)

• There are 123,949,916 residential electricity users in the US. The average residential consumer uses 949 kilowatthours (KWh) of electricity a month. (Your mileage may vary). That electricity costs an average of 10.65 cents per KWh.
• There are 17,377,219 commercial customers who each use an average of 6,408 KWh per month at an average 9.65 cents per KWh.
• Finally, there are 793,767 industrial customers in the US. They each use an average of 107,907 KWh a month at an average cost of 6.39 cents per KWh.

I have decided to just list a few common users of electricity, and what percentage they use. Some of thes figures are from 2008, some from 2007. In no particular order:

• About 215,000,000 megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity were used for lighting by the residential sector. This was equal to 5% of total U.S. electricity consumption.
• 311,000,000 megawatt-hours were consumed for lighting of commercial buildings. That is 7.5% of the total.
• Residential customers bought 1,379,307 megawatt-hours of electricity - 33%
• Commercial customers bought 1,352,453 megawatt-hours. - another 33%
• Industrial users bought 982,150 megawatt-hours - 23%
• Transportation consumed 7,652 megawatt-hours - .1%
• The rest was produced on site, unaccounted for, or otherwise not bought or sold. - 11%

The EIA Electric Power Summary for 2008. - Good reading!

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sum.html

Finally, an Interesting factoid:

Appliances account for 64.7% of electricity consumption in the average American household in 2001. Refrigerators consumed the most electricity (14%), followed by lighting (9%).

Here is a report, a little old, about where electricity goes in your home from the EIA:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/enduse2001/enduse2001.html

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 - Text of bill

---

---

<

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 was a far reaching, and sweeping revision of many of our energy standards. From revising cafe (corporate average fuel economy) standards, to making many of our existing incandescent light bulbs outlawed by 2012, it has significant impact for all of us. The act creates new efficiency standards for appliances, commercial machinery, and the aforementioned lighting equipment. It sets new (still low) requirements for renewable fuel usage, and it repeals a couple of Oil and Gas subsidies...  It may also order lunch.

It is a document well worth reading if you have any interest in our energy future.

For those who may have an evening without plans (preferably a cold one with you curled up next to a warm fire), here are links to the actual bill, and a summary of the bill.

The actual document is a long and winding road. I would suggest reading the summary first, so you have some idea of what you are reading in the actual bill.

So, here is the summary: http://energy.senate.gov/public/_files/RL342941.pdf

and here is the actual bill. At 304 pages, not quite the health bill, but...

 http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h6enr.txt.pdf

Finally, you know, I fully understand why we cannot just "edit" or change an existing piece of legislation. It was voted in with the original language. We can only vote new legislation to "amend" what the older ones say. That is why new bills say "replace section 6b with the text 'because we want to' ". However, in this day and age, can't we come up with a better method of modifying them? In order to read ONE piece of legislation, you have to have on hand (and possibly read) all the other ones that are being effected. This is annoying. This is rampant in our state legislature. I also suspect it is why many citizens - and, I'm sure, many legislators, do not read or understand the stuff they are voting on. An alternative would be just ONE topic, subject, paradigm per act... Nah.

Incandescent Light Bulbs - new lease on life?

---

---

With the passing of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, many thought that incandescent light bulbs were going to disappear, because they could not meet the new efficiency standards. While it is true that many styles of lamps have already gone away, this article I came across appears to give the incandescent lamp some hope for the future.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/business/energy-environment/06bulbs.html

See, manufacturers can often make more efficient products if they set their minds to it. Unfortunately economics says they continue to produce what they always have, and what they have an investment in. That is, until something happens to make their old standby products obsolete.

Make no mistake. If you are a manufacturer, and you have a huge investment in factories to produce a product, changing those factories to manufacture a new product can be expensive, time consuming, and a bit daunting. We cannot blame a business for wanting to stay viable, and make a profit on their investments. This is one area where reasonable, and responsible, legislation is not only proper, but can force change in a positive direction.

Wiki article on Incandescent light bulbs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb

This is a link to the ENTIRE Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Good luck trying to read it:

 http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h6enr.txt.pdf

Since the act is, as usual, highly indecipherable, a summary of it's provisions is handy.

And, here it is: http://energy.senate.gov/public/_files/RL342941.pdf

TVA Announces Wind Energy Contracts.

---

---

The Tennessee Valley Authority announced on Jan 14 that it had signed contracts to purchase up to 815 megawatts of wind generation. Two of the contracts with Invenergy Wind affiliates are for a total of 350 megawatts from wind farm projects at the White Oak Energy Center in McLean County, Ill., and the Bishop Hill Energy Center in Henry County, Ill., both beginning in January 2012.

A third contract with CPV Renewable Energy Co. will provide up to 165 megawatts of wind energy from the Cimarron project in Gray County, Kan., beginning as early as January 2012.

Finally, A fourth contract, with Iberdrola Renewables Inc., will deliver up to 300 megawatts from the Streator Cayuga Ridge project in Illinois, starting in mid-2010.

You can read the entire press release here: http://www.tva.gov/news/releases/janmar10/contracts_wind.htm

---

A little more about the Tennessee Valley Authority.

The TVA was established in 1933 during Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. It was created by the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933. (http://www.tva.com/abouttva/pdf/TVA_Act.pdf ). It's mission, as described in the act is:

To improve the navigability and to provide for the flood control of the Tennessee River; to provide for reforestation and the proper use of marginal lands in the Tennessee Valley; to provide for the agricultural and industrial development of said valley; to provide for the national defense by the creation of a corporation for the operation of Government properties at and near Muscle Shoals in the State of Alabama, and for other purposes.

You can read more about their history here: http://www.tva.com/abouttva/history.htm

According to the TVA 2009 annual report, the TVA has 27,000 megawatts of baseload generation capacity, and 7,000 megawatts of peaking and backup capacity. Ignoring the peaking plants (all gas turbines), 51% percent of their capacity comes from coal (14,000 megawatts).

The rest (49%) already come from "non-carbon emitting sources". Nuclear accounts for 25% (7,000 megawatts), and hydroelectric for 22% (6,000 megawatts). 2% is from "other" and includes wind, solar, methane, etc.

You can read their 2009 Annual report at: http://investor.shareholder.com/tva/sec.cfm
(Select "10-K annual report Nov 25,2009" The above info is on pages 12-14, but the entire report is good reading, and a good look inside a major power producer.)

While on the subject of the TVA, there is a mis-conception is that TVA is "subsidized". Indeed, many people, when they hear "government company" make the assumption "MY TAX DOLLARS!". But, like the Post Office and others, that is not always true. The TVA act requires that their rates cover all costs of operations. They sell debt securities to finance projects. Note also, they are a wholesaler, who sells power to distributors, who then sell it to customers.

Nowhere in their annual report cited above, are there any government subsidies. The below is from that report:

" Initially, all TVA operations were funded by federal appropriations. Direct appropriations for the TVA power program ended in 1959, and appropriations for TVA’s stewardship, economic development, and multipurpose activities ended in 1999. Since 1999, TVA has funded all of its operations almost entirely from the sale of electricity and power system financings. TVA’s power system financings consist primarily of the sale of debt securities. TVA is owned by the United States and is not authorized to issue equity securities."

They are exempt from Federal Taxation. They do have to pay "tax equivalents" to county and state.