When I talked with Terry Tamminen a while back (I'll publish it some day, I promise!), he said something that got me thinking. As Schwarzenegger's top enviro advisor, he's been on the inside, making policy and being lobbied from all sides. He's also been a part of several environmental NGOs, doing the lobbying. So he's seen policy contests from both sides.
I asked him why green groups haven't been more effective on climate and energy issues. He said it's simple: when the business lobby goes after an issue, it speaks with a single voice. The chamber of commerce, the think tanks, and all the constituent industry groups agree on what they want. Then they lay it out to lawmakers.
Green groups, on the other hand, come in willy nilly, with a dozen different proposals, all stressing different things, frequently criticizing each other. It's all about biofuels. No, it's all about hybrids. No, it's all about carbon taxes. Etc.
Politicians want to balance competing demands. They instinctively want to find the middle. But without a clear picture of what the environmental "side" is, they don't know where the middle is.
So how can green groups unify their message on climate/energy? What kind of agenda could they all get behind? How could they present a unified end-goal to policymakers?
That's a complicated question, of course. But I'd like to offer up at least one take on such an agenda, for your perusal and feedback. Here goes:
- FACTS:
- We get energy from two basic sources: electricity (generated by coal, nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, etc.) and liquid fuels (oil, natural gas, and to a small extent, biofuels).
- It is much easier to find environmentally friendly, non-depleting sources of electricity than it is to find environmentally friendly, non-depleting liquid fuels.
Ergo ...
- GOALS:
- With a few minor exceptions, we should transition all uses of liquid fuel to electricity. This means fully electric cars and trucks, as well as electric space and water heating.
- We should transition all electricity generation to renewable sources: hydro, wind, solar, cogen.
- We should invest heavily in improving the resilience and intelligence of the electricity grid, to handle increased demand.
Reasonably simple, right? Fits on a notecard.
Of course it's grossly schematic. When it comes to implementation, the devil will be in the details. There will be plenty of legitimate differences about how fast to move toward these goals, what policy tools to use, whether and which bridge fuels to rely on in the interim, and so on.
But if everyone could agree that getting power primarily from renewable sources of electricity is the ultimate goal, it would give policymakers a concrete sense of just what environmentalists want. Lawmakers are unusually open to the environmental movement right now, unusually thoughtful about energy and climate issues. The time is ripe for a unified message.
So what do you think? Would you sign on?
Gore on the Daily Show: extended dance remix
Blowing up our clean energy future
Comments
View as Flat
Biodiversivist Posted 6:26 am
13 Dec 2006
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
sunflower Posted 7:04 am
13 Dec 2006
your method to this madness makes sense and I hope it stimulates thought and discussion. Grist does have influence.
I have a problem with facts and goals that lack time frames. And I do not think I would propose to legislators that we should throw what we have at the wall to see what sticks.
Preamble -- Coal is the enemy of the human race (need bumper stickers).
Cause -- Shut down coal with market displacement from new low-carbon energy. Total shut down of coal by 2030, and start immediately warning coal investors that coal will be zeroed-out (made cost prohibitive) before amortization of new coal power plants.
Opportunity -- New efficiency and new energy technologies will employ millions of Americans. New low-cost U.S. technologies will be exported globally and displace foreign coal expansion with the force of new energy economics.
Startup Strategy -- Tax carbon, fund extensive university research, create public works on new infrastructure.
(This is a more generalized, a more inclusive, a more random message that is more easily interpreted by a more broad spectrum of personal experiences, vested interests, and knowledge.)
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 8:07 am
13 Dec 2006
I am afraid a totally new regime for main-energy production must be implemented.
To date, human beings have taken the dumb easy option in exploiting the biological energy reserves of this planet.... which has of course resulted in the latest sting...we all must now pay the piper.
After all, Nature laid down that crap as waste, locked away from future generations for a reason!!!!
OK, from my research:- The only way forward, if there is to be a future, is for us to rely solely on the parameters of the planet, the inexhaustible effects of the daily rotation of this planet. In this way we DO NOT leave a footprint.
Wind energy is transient, and it has an environmental footprint, especially for birds.
The only other possibility (on a global scale) is the unrelenting motion of the sea. This is where the push should be concentrated.
OK?, BUT, if you do not implement an electricity storage system at the same time, then we all fall down, because many places have no access to the sea. The solution must be universal.
Chemical systems can store energy, the products produced can be stored and recycled without any footprint. We can even export such products.
To regain the electricity we stored we then pass the chemicals through a reactor (no not nuclear) and then we have electricity on demand anywhere...in a similar manner to the use of coal for energy generation, except coal/oil have problems once used. Coal and oil are exhaustible and are nasty natural systems at that. Gold for primitive human beings, LOL...yuck
An artificial system (inexhaustible and clean), where the reactants and products are in a never ending cycle, must be implemented, all driven by the rotation of the earth via the sea.
I propose common salt as the medium.
For vehicles, artificial chemical systems can also be implemented. Electric vehicles are great for city use, not really up to it for heavy haulage or distance travel,,,,, ships? aircraft?
Each stand alone device can be serviced within this vision. There are no problems at all, except of course, the world would need to completely turn around.
Money flowing in different (new) directions would most definitely upset many to say the least.
However, all existing infrastructure can remain in place... this is not a chuck and start again proposal.
Permalink
claxton6 Posted 9:16 am
13 Dec 2006
First, I think we need to get behind a method for picking winners. That is, I think it's a losing strategy to go in with the idea of saying this technology or that technology is the solution, or even this mix of technologies. Instead, I think we need to agree on the umbrella: something like, we want a marketplace-oriented strategy that reduces carbon emissions to such-and-such level. Anyone who can compete on an equal footing while fitting into the environmental component ought to be able to get in/ought not be excluded outright.
Second, content-wise, I think the idea of shifting to electricity is a faulty one for a lot of things. Better urban form can replace much liquid fuel use. Better use of passive (by which I mean non-PV) solar for space and water heating can reduce electricity and natural gas use. Neither of those two things show up in your hierarchy.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 9:30 am
13 Dec 2006
But remember, this isn't just about "what to do." It's about, "what to push for in front of policymakers." Different considerations apply. You need simplicity, for one thing -- a theme that even the most dense House member from Podunk can understand. But you do need some teeth, some substance. "Set a carbon level and let everyone compete" is nice in theory, but it gives legislators nothing to latch on to.
This is a theme I keep returning to: enviros need to think not just about the ideal set of solutions, but the road from here to there, with all the compromised politics and competing interests involved. "Ditch liquid fuels. Electrify." That's enough to go on -- enough to argue against the rush to biofuels and synfuels and oil shale -- but not too much to remember.
www.grist.org
Permalink
sunflower Posted 10:00 am
13 Dec 2006
Permalink
randino Posted 10:03 am
13 Dec 2006
Here in Ohio, I am on the board of the Buckeye Forest Council. We are constantly bumping heads with gas lines, storage wells, coal mines, electric transmission lines, etc, etc, that are real threats to our forests. We have a State House that is owned, lock, stock and barrell by the utilities. We are at the cutting edge of 19th century energy technology. And it all screws over the forests of Ohio.
Coal is the enemy of humanity. But we have to recognize that it is also a mainstay of rural communities that literally have nothing else to fall back on, and those communities who have representatives who will fight to the end to save the industry that simultaneously supports and screws their constituencies. They cannot expect us to continue with an industry that is so destructive. On the other hand, I think we owe those communities support to make the transition. I think of the deal that was negotiated with the Longshoremen's unions when the container revolution hit the docks. I think every coal miner should be given life time support in the form of pension, training, etc. Furthermore, every child of the miners should be guaranteed money for education, training, whatever to insure a prosperous future without coal. Finally some financiing device must be found to replace the fiscal resources coal provides for those communities impacted.
But I like where David's conversaiton is going.
randino
Randy Cunningham
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 10:16 am
13 Dec 2006
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
sunflower Posted 10:27 am
13 Dec 2006
Permalink
cumberland Posted 11:27 am
13 Dec 2006
The unified agenda is a good idea, but without a plan to limit energy use, it seems incomplete. Maybe this approach wouldn't have nearly enough impact, and I'm being too optimistic about future technologies, but it's worth a mention.
Permalink
claxton6 Posted 12:56 pm
13 Dec 2006
Maybe. I think it does have certain virtues in that regard. First of all, I think there's a lot of political power in "owning" the free market side of the argument. Second, you can readily tap into the spirit of both technological progress and entreprenurial thinking--"get all the crap out of the way and let good ole American ingenuity in." Third, it gives everyone a way in--from ethanol pushers to wind farmers to smart growth people.
Now, I don't think that "set a carbon level and let everyone compete" is adequate policy. But I think it's a good starting place, particularly if it involves stopping subsidies for bad things.
That said, equally important to getting a feel for talking out what a united environmental front could is ... how do you get all of the different environmental groups to buy in? It's great that you're starting this discussion here, but how do you get the conversation started, usefully, with all of the activist groups out there who are the ones actually lobbying and meeting with legislators?
Permalink
claxton6 Posted 12:57 pm
13 Dec 2006
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 3:22 pm
13 Dec 2006
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:32 pm
13 Dec 2006
I would add this in a future entry.
Take subsidies away from non-renewable energy sources and systems (like oil fueled ICE vehicles),and give it to consumers, in the form of tax credits, to invest in renewable sources and conservation (like plugin hybrid vehicles that use renewable electric power).
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Whiskerfish Posted 5:33 pm
13 Dec 2006
Granted, the question was 'how do we approach legislators', but you're missing the massive scope of bottom-up interventions the could change the whole dialogue, and give the top-downers more traction. A mate of mine calls it the 'nutcracker strategy'.
Just as hybrid cars (as flawed as many of them might be) have changed the thoughtscape of personal mobility (by demonstrating that 'crazy hippie futurist' ideas are not impractical by definition), one needs to think of similar interventions around household and industrial energy use.
This means think simple, think practical, and (as has been said earlier in this debate) think incremental 'middle steps'. You don't have to get 100% - you just have to make incremental 'big wins' that work.
Don't make the fatal error of pre-designing a complete path to 100% eco-friendly energy (which is what most of you seem to be doing). Social-ecological systems are so complex that you're going to get stuck in arguing over details, and by defining how people must act down to the last little thing you are going to ensure that the system fails and does not respond to innovation and changing circumstances. (Please all go and read and understand Scott's 'Seeing Like a State').
Rather push for simple things that can open people up to change, make access to these things really easy. It's usually an information gap, not a technology gap, that stops things happening.
Whiskerfish
Permalink
Whiskerfish Posted 5:44 pm
13 Dec 2006
At the moment all the solar water heater companies are in competiton. They're all trying to convince customers that their whizz-bang copper-coated solution is better than the next guy's glass tube thingmagummy, and in the end consumers walk off feeling confused and ripped-off (and, like many, many of my friends, ditching the solar water heater idea altogether). Often, all you need is a coiled black plastic pipe on your roof to save muchos energy.
Hence the book I'm currently working on...
You need to close the info gap between consumers and the technology, because all the purveyors of the technological solutions are muddying the waters, just like your guys' arguments are muddying the waters. You should decide on a key technology that is proven and can make a dent in the system without causing more ecological probelms than it solves (I think wind may be the one). Then push it. Hard.
Don't think about solving the whole goddamn problem yet. Once you prove that one thing works the landscape will open up to as-yet unimagined technologies. People adopt workable things surprisingly rapidly.
Your over-intellectualisation and tech-geekiness has given the gap to the purveyors of extremely eco-unfriendly alternative energy, like corn-based ethanol etc.
Work on your messages, folks. Keep the tech-heads in the labs and out of the press conferences.
Cheers
Whiskerfish
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 7:30 pm
13 Dec 2006
Good call if everything is going to be all right.
Fatal call if the unfolding and accelerating global climatic situation is terminal.
What evidence (yes I am a tech-head) do you rely on to basically think local and not global.
I know from little things big things grow, but the seeds of little things have been planted eons ago and nothing has sprouted but primitive applications.
The question that must be asked and answered even before any action can be taken is
What is causing the global climate change... is it an overpressure of carbon dioxide as generally accepted or is it an oil membrane on the sea?
If you propose a solution to the wrong cause, all the action in the world will only allow the real cause to continue to deteriorate. To identify the real cause you must look at the unfolding evidence,... sorry only a tech-head will understand the data.
From the data only one universal outstanding fact is being experienced world wide, and that is drought and its consequences. An overpressure of carbon dioxide will not cause this.
IMO, the global situation is a GLOBAL EMERGENCY with a very real possibility that the consequences will lead to the extinction of life on this planet, and I don't think we have time to play games with peas under nut shells.
LOL, this is your believe it or not messenger.
You better believe it!!!
Permalink
Whiskerfish Posted 7:45 pm
13 Dec 2006
What you've written is unclear and provides no reasonable basis for action in any direction for any normal member of the public.
Yes, it takes a tech-head to understand the minutiae of some of these issue. However, 99% of tech-heads are hopeless communicators, get stuck up on irrelevant details, and confuse the public. We need skilled interpreters - people who can understand the tech-heads but deliver their messages properly.
Tech-heads also generally understand nothing of the irrational complexities of social systems. 100% plans NEVER work out that way. Plans that do work are plans that make provision for reversability and people's unforseen ingenuity.
Stay in your lab, please!
Whiskerfish
Permalink
randino Posted 10:53 pm
13 Dec 2006
We should recognize the hustle that we are always on the receiving end in the environmental movement. Any time we do or suggest anything, anytime we try to protect some patch of land from the Great Appetite, corporadoes howl that we are putting a bunch of poor workers out of a job. Why, they sound practically socialist in how concerned they are for the working class. Meanwhile, for reasons having nothing to do with the environment, they will gleefully destroy the jobs of thousands, and get rewarded by Wall Street for their bottom line ruthlessness. Is there any concern shown for the workers at these moments? Don't make me laugh.
randino
Randy Cunningham
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:51 am
14 Dec 2006
It could be a great,economical, eco-friendly transitional energy source. Or another corpoRAT eco-disaster waiting to happen.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
sunflower Posted 3:05 am
14 Dec 2006
The investment community has been stimulated into a lather by the promise of more ethanol subsidy, a war with Iran, and now discussions of big outlays for Fischer-Tropsch (coal to oil). Fuel efficiency and carpools are not discussed (not manly, not Hummer friendly). Nor are there discussions on making existing homes heated with oil and gas more efficient, plus solar heat and pellet stoves.
Fuel investors should consider that an oil price collapse is in the offering from Saudi Arabia, and from demand destruction caused by an impending global recession.
Our resistance should focus on coal and drain the blood out of government fuel subsidies cooked with coal.
Permalink
wmeparker Posted 5:06 am
14 Dec 2006
This is where the Green Movement Unification Initiative meets the evil details. For those to whom the agribusiness approach to raising meat (Big Farms, Big Machinery, Big Pollutants)is a major argument against eating meat, causing the same problems to create bio fuels presents no real step forward. There is already a large backlash against wind technology because of the number of birds who are killed or maimed, even though hydroelectric dams have always displaced and killed wildlife.
I don't need to go all the way down the list here. Just like all unification movements, every sub-group is going to have to surrender, either wholly or partially, insistence on complete coherence to their chosen Party Line (for lack of a better term.) In order to do this, they will have to be able to see a clear path to achieving the goals in question by compromising.
So, having said this, I think, if the goals are accepted as written (with changes like the need for conservation, with which I agree) the next step is to isolate those actions that will globally do the most toward the goals. Articulation of these actions should be general, not specific for the purpose of discussion. The actions should be those best done by goverment, and not expect government to use techniques whith which it is not familiar.
I'm going to throw an idea out in this last paragraph. I think one of the overall goals is to de-centralize the power grid. More power generating points through renewables, of course. This serves two purposes; first, it scales down the impact of power generation, however it is done. Second, I think a great Homeland Security argument can be made for it, and money could come from those sources for the purpose. Already existing changes in power generation (natural gas, for example) have made it not only possible, but desirable for power companies.
Lastly, I think the idea of allowing any generating source to pollute, whether it has carbon points to do it or not, is not tolerable. Wherever the power is generated, zero particulate tolerance has to be part of deal.
Sorry to go on,
Bill
I live for those moments when I meet someone who shares the same Dominant Priority.
Permalink
Whiskerfish Posted 5:49 am
14 Dec 2006
As someone who has professionally studied birds and been a birder since forever, I am of course interested in this question.
However, all the reading I've done suggests that it's only a very small minority of wind turbines that are killers. In most big wind farms you'll find that only a couple of turbines that happen to be in particular places that soaring birds might use to ascend a ridge, for example, kill 95% of the birds killed in that wind farm. Remove them and the problems disappears, or nearly does. Bird strikes should not be a problem if turbines are carefully sited.
If anyone has any data to the contrary I'd be pleased to see it.
Whiskerfish
Permalink
engineerpoet Posted 7:34 am
14 Dec 2006
It is time to ditch talk of a future hydrogen economy, and start talking electron economy NOW.
Work the cold equations; some answers will make you feel warm.
Permalink
Engineer Posted 9:26 am
14 Dec 2006
Wind (at the BEST sites) has a capacity factor (the amount of time it puts out its actual nameplate rated output) of 30-33%. Which means there are times when it doesn't blow at all.
Solar is at 15-18% (both of those numbers are Washington State).
This means no matter how much 'renewable energy' you deploy, somewhere between 60 to 80% of the time, some other more reliable source of generation needs to be on line to keep lights (and refrigeration and computers and wide screen high definition TVs...) on.
Conservation is a must! One wide screen HD TV offsets the energy savings of over 130 CFL's! Renewables can contribute, but are not baseload generation, no matter how much people want them to be!
Permalink
sunflower Posted 11:03 am
14 Dec 2006
For those not in Seattle, we are about to go off grid from a Cat. 1 hurricane.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 12:48 pm
14 Dec 2006
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
engineerpoet Posted 2:59 pm
14 Dec 2006
Look at it this way. We have a limited supply of energy for some of our generators (natural gas supplies are falling, and rail transport for coal is maxed out or very close). Anything which allows the fossil generators to be turned down and conserve their fuel increases the system reliability.
Work the cold equations; some answers will make you feel warm.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 8:49 pm
14 Dec 2006
Increase energy efficiency
No change in energy sources can solve our energy problems, unless we also tackle the problem of efficiency. It's also more cost-effective. Satisfying lives require only a fraction of the energy we now use in industrialized countries.
Research and objective information
Energy technologies can be complicated. To make informed decisions, we need top-flight research, and a commitment to objective information, free of pressure from special-interest groups.
Alliances
There are many reasons for change: economic, national security, maintaining a healthy environment, etc. We seek common ground with others; we can't do it alone.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:32 pm
14 Dec 2006
Capacity factor and renewables:
30% capacity factor means that the source produces 30% of what a continuously operating generation source, like a fossil fueled generator, would produce if it had the same "nameplate" power rating as the 30% capacity factor source.
It does not mean that the 30% capacity source only produces power 30% of the time. By using distributed sources to power the grid, the variability of wind, wave, and solar power can be smoothed out. The wind might stop in one area, but keep blowing in another area.
By calculating exactly how many kwh are needed and how many are generated by various renewable sources, and using storage and renewable backup generation to fill in the gaps, 100% renewable energy can be achieved. Meanwhile existing generation capacity can be used to backup renewables.
For instance with a wind machine rated at 20kw with a 30% capacity factor, the actual output in kwh per year would be aproximately 56,000 kwh. 30% that of a 20kw 100% capacity factor source.
This does not mean you need to supply 70% of the power needed from other sources. It means that one needs to match actual kwh produce to what is needed.
That 56,000 kwh would supply 6 average homes with power, or 18 homes that reduced their power needs by 2/3rds with conservation,solar heat, and geothermal heat pump heating and cooling.
So around 1 in 10 homes, on average, that had a 20kw wind machine, or it's equivalent in solar and a 20kw solid oxide fuel cell/microturbine generator in a plugin vehicle could provide enough power for all of US.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 12:17 am
15 Dec 2006
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:43 am
15 Dec 2006
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Engineer Posted 1:36 am
15 Dec 2006
A little practical background on capacity factor. True, you can build three times the nameplate and THEORETICALLY achieve 100% renewable energy delivery, the problem is load following and matching renewable source output to actual loads.
I have the SCADA (Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition) hourly output data from the Nine Canyon wind project (near Kennewick, WA). November was the second best generation month since the project went into commercial operation, and had a CF of just over 52%.
The project has a nameplate capacity of 64 MW. Even during the second best month of generation with nearly double the typical CF, there were still 11 days of the month where the actual output was under 20 MW and 7 days where it was nominally 0 MW. What happens when the customer load is 64 MW and the project output is 20...or 0?
July of 2005 was one of the worst months, with a 16% CF. There were 23 days of less than 20 MW and 17 with little nominal output.
If we build the project up to 150 MW of nameplate to try and meet an overall 100% renewable energy delivery target, there will still be 0 MW for those 7 (or 17!) days. Then, when we get full wind and have 150 MW of output, if there is only 64 MW of load, 80+ MW gets 'dumped' and provides no useful benefit. Not to mention that we have spent significantly more money to still not be able to meet the load at certain times.
There is a significant difference between capacity and energy. Capacity is the instantaneous amount of energy required when the switch is flipped. Energy is a function of how long the device is on. Studies have been done of peak load events (winter and summer) over the last two years, as we have developed a lot of wind projects in that time. In all four peak load instances, wind projects all over the region (which addresses the 'spread them out and there will be wind somewhere' argument) were providing less than 5% of their rated output.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 enacted mandatory reliability standards with significant financial penalties for system outages. If it were your tushie on the line for those penalties how would you build the system?
Would you rely on a V2G backup that is under someone elses control and may or may not actually be plugged in when the wind stops? If you have 3 consecutive days with no wind (yes, that happened, even in November), can you count on the V2G generation for the entire 3 days?
Do you pay the people who have theirs plugged in to provide backup when the wind is blowing and you don't need it?
Current market prices are in the $50/MWh range. What I've read about V2G systems is that the cost of energy production is in the range of $125/MWh. Are you going to spend $125 to generate power that the utility is going to reimburse you for at a rate of $50/MWh?
Renewables can (and do) reduce the amount of CO2 generated and can displace conventional generation. But short of successful wave energy or large scale geothermal projects (which have the potential for a baseload CF), a large portion of our generation is going to have to come from conventional fossil fuel (or nuclear) generating resources.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:38 am
15 Dec 2006
I propose we get the 64mw from vehicles plugged into the grid. And impoert it from other regions where the wind IS blowing, or offshore in your area where the waves and ocean current can contribute.
At 20kw for an economy car fuel cell backup generator it would take about 3000 cars plugged into the grid to equal that 64mw of capacity.
But I think that the whole 64mw would hardly ever need to come from backup, it could come from other renewable sources like solar and wind/wave power from a further distance.
Also build about 120% of the renewable capacity needed to fulfill the average power use. That way a much smaller percentage of backup would be needed. The surplus power could go to water desalinization, distillation, pollution remediation (running pumps and filters to trap contamination from Hanford for instance)refining or stored building heat or cooling capacity.
I am also talking about a radical new distributed renewable generation system, with vehicles plugged into the grid sharing storage and generation capacity. Computers would turn the vehicle battery/fuel cell systems on and off as the grid needs power.
The fuel cells would be powered mainly on biogas, with natural gas as the backup fuel. With cO2 emissions piped back into algae/solar collector systems.
Landfills, sewage plants, and farm manure collection points would have biogas digestors and use it in their trucks cars and equipment when it is parked and plugged into the grid, and export extra gas to other locations for other vehicles to plugin.
Individual farms could also have their own difestors and fuel cell vehicles. When these vehicles exceed their range on batteries, the fuel cell would run on liquid fuel to extend their range, with 5 times the efficiency of an iCE vehicle.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:16 am
15 Dec 2006
But get this, here is the real financial incentive. Instead of huge power plants and trillions in grid upgrade, use vehicles people have already purchased to backup renewables. You are using the very same capital equipment (generators)for the two biggest energy uses. transportation AND electric power.
Using a renewable fuel source for the fuel cells, biogas, with the cO2 sequestered.
You are right about a local utility needing to tap into remote wave or wind power. I think a utility ought to be able to own an offshore platform and have the right to import that energy at a reasonable cost. That's a real free market.
Those penalties seem onerous for renewables! Outrageous, I shall write my congressman and senators!
Thanks again for the real world industrial point of view.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
engineerpoet Posted 3:25 pm
15 Dec 2006
the problem is load following and matching renewable source output to actual loads.No one is arguing against that. No one is saying that 100% of demand - or even 50% - should or even could be met by non-dispatchable supplies such as wind. That's a given.
Despite that, there are huge things we are NOT doing which would make wind far easier to integrate. For instance, why should generation follow load wherever it goes? Why shouldn't some loads follow generation?
That's what V2G is for.
If we build the project up to 150 MW of nameplate to try and meet an overall 100% renewable energy delivery target, there will still be 0 MW for those 7 (or 17!) days. Then, when we get full wind and have 150 MW of output, if there is only 64 MW of load, 80+ MW gets 'dumped' and provides no useful benefit.Okay, let's take the 64 MW average as a given and assume it serves 64,000 homes @ 1 kW average each. Let's further assume that these are typical American homes hosting 2 vehicles apiece, and that 75% of these are PHEV's with 8 kWh of battery capacity apiece. That comes to 12 kWh of storage per home, or 768 MWh of storage. If those batteries were half-discharged when your wind surge hit, you could soak up an 80 MW excess for nearly 5 hours. That gives you plenty of time to ramp a mid-range plant output up or down to match, and avoids having to use peaking plants.
The wind output can't be scheduled, but it can be forecast. A V2G system can buffer the uncertainties in output and provide spinning reserve (both through output, and the ability to cut off charging instantly).
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 enacted mandatory reliability standards with significant financial penalties for system outages. If it were your tushie on the line for those penalties how would you build the system?I'd build it with a ton of V2G distributed across my network, because even a little would give me minutes or even longer to fix problems which would take down a conventional network in seconds. The only problem is that the government doesn't support this effort by promoting V2G. Yet.
Would you rely on a V2G backup that is under someone elses control and may or may not actually be plugged in when the wind stops?The aggregate behavior of tens of thousands of people is very predictable.
If you have 3 consecutive days with no wind (yes, that happened, even in November), can you count on the V2G generation for the entire 3 days?Count on it for what? Regulation? Of course. Sole supply? Don't be silly; it's a net load on average and wouldn't handle supply for more than a few hours at best. Spinning reserve? You betcha.
Do you pay the people who have theirs plugged in to provide backup when the wind is blowing and you don't need it?They can provide regulation and reactive power, to name two things. Are these worth nothing?
What I've read about V2G systems is that the cost of energy production is in the range of $125/MWh.A lot of peaking power costs well over $125/MWh; some costs twice that. If V2G can replace a pile of $200+/MWh peaking with $45/MWh renewables and $60/MWh mid-range plants, you'll be happy to pay only $125/MWH for it. And using V2G as spinning reserve means that you don't have to pay for generators which aren't actually making power; generation can run at its best setting and your "reserve" comes from DSM.
a large portion of our generation is going to have to come from conventional fossil fuel (or nuclear) generating resources.You mean it's going to have to come from something dispatchable. No argument there, but the options are not as limited as your list.
Work the cold equations; some answers will make you feel warm.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 4:15 pm
15 Dec 2006
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
1Eco Posted 5:08 pm
15 Dec 2006
And do you lobby for small scale green power, bio-diesel, or other alternatives?
Ecosystems empowerment for the rural poor.
Permalink
Engineer Posted 12:51 am
16 Dec 2006
>in grid upgrade, use vehicles people have
>already purchased to backup renewables.
>But I think that the whole 64mw would hardly
>ever need to come from backup, it could come
>from other renewable sources like solar and
>wind/wave power from a further distance.
Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of renewables and distributed generation, but a lot of the 'just do this and it will all be OK' ideas don't quite fit with real life electrical systems.
Distributed generation reduces the need for big centralized electrical generation facilities, however attempting 'grid-wide' use of V2G, solar, wind/wave, etc. as a source/reserve INCREASES the need for transmission lines as you are then trying to move more power from one area to another.
Which then creates problems with system protection. Receiving a system fault signal and tripping a relay with an Point A to Point B line is relatively simple. However, with a spiderweb of small generation sources feeding into the grid trying to move from Z-Q or M-P is several orders of magnitude more difficult.
And, while each generation source (rooftop solar, V2G, backyard biodigester...) may only be a couple of kW, dozens of those feeding into the distribution system will hit a substation somewhere and be aggregated into the 64 MW backup and stepped up to 115 kV, which is not trivial.
>You mean it's going to have to come from
>something dispatchable. No argument there,
>but the options are not as limited as your list.
Not forever, no. For the next 10 years, probably. I've seen data from the research project being conducted by Oregon State University for a pilot wave energy project off the Oregon coast. Good stuff and very probably will do great things. BUT, they are still playing with laboratory prototypes. Commercial scale projects are a long way off.
Regarding solar as a backup, remember the CF on solar is 15-18% and peaks at +/- 11 AM to 1 PM depending on your latitude and season. Great for net metering and reducing your personal energy consumption, offsetting an A/C peak, but as a 'reserve' level backup, not terribly useable.
>And do you lobby for small scale green power,
>bio-diesel, or other alternatives?
Yes I do. My utility was an 'early adopter' for the Nine Canyon wind project. IE, we committed to it long before there was any discussion of mandates, renewable portfolio standards, etc. We marketed the output through a voluntary green power program for our customers even though we were exempt from the state requirement to do so.
That project was developed in three phases and we are one of only two utilities to participate in all three phases. We have also signed an 'Expression of Interest' in another wind project which is in its preliminary stages.
We have adopted net metering specifications so customers who wish to construct distributed generation have a financial incentive to do so and have a standardized interconnection setup to try and minimize complications for them.
Washington state recently adopted a 'feed-in' law offering tax incentives to utilities which voluntarily make payments to customers who install distributed generation. We are voluntarily particpating and have actually had to wait for the state to finish its rule making to work with our net metering customers to make payment to them.
We have been offering energy conservation programs since the early 1980's and have participated in (and in some cases initiated) pilot programs to expand the available programs and technologies.
Personally, I am a member of a couple of regional technical advisory boards dealing with conservation and renewable energy. I have been involved with and/or supervising the energy conservation and renewable activities at my utility since the late 80's.
One of our family cars is a Prius and what I would ideally like to see is a diesel-electric hybrid running on bio-diesel. I checked into the PHEV expanded battery system, but that is an additional $9,500 on top of the $27K we paid and so far is only available to fleet operations.
And voids the warranty.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:30 am
16 Dec 2006
"...a diesel plug-in hybrid running on home grown algae-based biodiesel (not soy) would be an engineer's wet dream.
How would you verify the source of your biodiesel, or would you care where it came from or what it is made of?
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/8/1/131539/4661...
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/9/22/10351/7623...
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/8/3/102751/8401...
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/2/9/12518/67227...
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Engineer Posted 8:32 am
16 Dec 2006
Until you provided that, my answer to 'would you care where it came from' would have been 'huh?'
Interesting. So, now we will be invading third world countries for their soybean supplies to ensure our biodiesel supply? :-)
Permalink
engineerpoet Posted 8:39 am
16 Dec 2006
It's true that remote wind farms need more transmission lines. Given our recent history of outages from grid overloads, it appears likely that we needed them anyway.
a spiderweb of small generation sources feeding into the grid trying to move from Z-Q or M-P is several orders of magnitude more difficult.Even you should realize that the example is faulty. AC grids move power from wherever phase is leading to wherever phase is lagging. If some of your spiderweb of sources go from local deficit to local surplus, the phase will advance and power will start flowing the other way through the lines.
This is one place where V2G comes in. If this backflow was a problem, you could boost charging rates on the local vehicles to keep power flowing in the desired direction.
dozens of those feeding into the distribution system will hit a substation somewhere and be aggregated into the 64 MW backup and stepped up to 115 kV, which is not trivial.I'm sorry, I know the math. It is trivial, as trivial as going the other direction.
[Solar is] Great for net metering and reducing your personal energy consumption, offsetting an A/C peak, but as a 'reserve' level backup, not terribly useable.If it's charging an 8 kWh battery in my car and I can back-feed my house from the car, it's extremely useful. If the power went out and the PV still worked, I could keep the fridge and some lights going indefinitely so long as that battery was fully charged every day.
Let's go back to those 64K hypothetical homes and the 96K hypothetical PHEV's. If they consume 200 Wh/mile and commute 30 miles/day each, that's 6 kWh/vehicle/day or 576 MWH/day total (24 MW average).
But guess what? As grid manager with control of the V2G system, you can charge those vehicles any time you want (as long as they're plugged in). You could have them soak up the 10 AM-2 PM solar peak and taper off just in time for the A/C load's peak. You could schedule them to charge just as the front blows in at night. Or if everything else was dead, you could sum up the total energy required, crank your cheapest plants to their most-efficient power settings, and run the exact demand curve which minimizes your costs. You could even have the charge rate of the fleet follow your plant production ramp rates to the kilowatt.
And let's not forget the capability you'd have of using V2G load or supply to frequency-shift an island to re-sync it with the grid. You could handle major line outages seamlessly that way.
All in all, I think you're looking at phenomena and choosing to see them as problems instead of opportunities.
Work the cold equations; some answers will make you feel warm.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 6:22 pm
16 Dec 2006
That won't work.
Try a system that is 5 times the efficiency and runs on biogas from waste or liquid fuel for driving. When in V2G mode the emissions can be sent into an algae/solar system, that produces biodisel without fuel farming on roofspace.
I wanna see bio-willy doing a public service anouncement all about algae/solar collector biodiesel running in plugin/fuel cell vehicles.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Engineer Posted 9:45 am
21 Dec 2006
It's my job! Or, rather, during my career in the industry, I've found it's a good idea to have others look at your idea and see if they can spot any flaws BEFORE the project is implemented.
Having BTDT for 30+ years in the industry, I'm attempting to make sure all the potential problems have been discussed before we spend a few billion dollars and find out it doesn't work quite the way we thought. I've found over the years having someone play 'Devil's Advocate' is useful in that process.
All in all, I think you're looking at phenomena and choosing to see them as problems instead of opportunities.
Well, I will admit I haven't done a lot of research on V2G, but based on your comments here, I did a quick Google search and found a presentation by Willett Kempton, a professor at Delaware University in September 2006, so fairly recent, to the California Air Resource Board regarding the implementation of V2G by Sacramento Munincipal Utility District.
A few applicable quotes from his Powerpoint are:
Uncertain ability of the electrical distribution system to manage bi-directional
flow of power (what % of a feeder's load can be back fed through transformers?)
SMUD: 570,000 households; 3,300 MW peak load; Proposed 200 MW + wind
Assume 1/2 of households have V2G-capable cars, of which 1/2 are available when needed, each with 1/2 storage
assumption that 100% of wind capacity needed for regulation, but for less than 1/2 hour. V2G could fill in for 250 MW of wind for 8 hours
Given SMUD diurnal cycle of wind/load and 30 miles average drive, this would eliminate significant electric-range--so PHEV may not be suited for diurnal wind storage.
I would say that sounds a lot closer to some of my statements than some of yours...
142,500 vehicles to back up 250 MW for 8 hours? Are that many vehicles actually going to stay plugged in for that long? What about the 72 hour periods of no wind I mentioned?
There may be problems with the back flow on the distribution system? Gee, that sounds familiar! I believe you referred to my concern as trivial?
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 9:56 am
21 Dec 2006
There are thousands of ideas about energy being floated now, and I'm sure that less than 1% will turn out to be viable. It would be very easy to waste a lot of resources on dead-end technology.
It's important to start small, get the kinks worked out, before going big-time. Oh, and let's not let industry pressures and subsidies push us in the wrong direction (pace Jason).
Enthusiasm is important, but so is reality.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
ffletcher Posted 10:30 am
21 Dec 2006
The trouble is nothing is perfect and even those things that might be characterized as a fault can in the proper application be fine.
Skeptics make bad managers and even worst leaders. No one would want to be married to one. Few would want to be friends with one
It can be tempered with humuor, but in the end the bitter sting of finding fault comes out. It is especially easy to find fault when there is little or no data to support a position. A skeptic can really tear into one of those.
Remember IBM said only 7 copy machines would ever be sold.
Permalink
Engineer Posted 11:17 am
21 Dec 2006
I would venture a guess that there is very little infrastructure out there that was not designed, overseen and verified when complete by an engineer (or group of engineers).
Skeptics make bad managers and even worst leaders. No one would want to be married to one.
Just FYI, I am a department manager and leader and have gotten high praise at both from those paying me to do so and those working for me...
I've been married to the same person for 30+ years. Heck, my kids even liked me when they were teenagers!
in the end the bitter sting of finding fault comes out. It is especially easy to find fault when there is little or no data to support a position. A skeptic can really tear into one of those.
And you think that's a BAD thing???
When someone is proposing a major change in something as critical as the national electical grid, and spending a significant amount of money to do so, do you really think it should be pursued when there is "little or no supporting data"?
I don't even know how to respond to that...
Maybe I need to try and fit my resume in my signature block...I may be a Skeptic, and ask uncomfortable questions, but I've been the head energy conservation person at my utility for over 16 years, on several Technical Advisory Groups for conservation and renewable energy and in my current position as Power Supply Manager, overseen our involvement with five different wind projects.
I think I've 'managed' to do my share in terms of actual energy savings and renewable energy in the ground and delivered to the grid.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:32 pm
21 Dec 2006
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
ffletcher Posted 2:50 pm
21 Dec 2006
About 5% of the general population are skeptics. I have not seen data on what percent of engineers are skeptics, but I don't think it is as high as "most"" (meaning 50% or more) engineers, but I think it is higher than 5%.
We use professional coaches to help develop our best managers. They use these types. They point out that it is unhealthy to believe that simply finding fault with ideas is not as great of an aid as the skeptic might think. Simiarily, the enthusiast can be an unrealistic optimist who believes everything can work and deserves a try.
There is a computerized writing tool for authors of fiction called Dramatica that also uses these nine personality types in order to develop believeable characters. If an author develops a character that gets too far from these norms and outcomes the characters do not seem believeable.
The point of this is that the role of Devil's Advocate can be over played, especially early on in the Product Cycle when the product is ill defined and data on it is immature. I think that it is too early to bring out the devil and let him have his way with the V2G concept. It may still have a role or some kind, it is too soon to tell, I am thinking that its role might be better with regards to outage management.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 3:46 pm
21 Dec 2006
The Northwest is still recovering from the worse power outage in our history. Every day I heard more and more new gasoline home generators roaring into the cold nights. Our solar/firewood home was so efficient that we were hardly felt the missing power. My neighbors were not so lucky. The gas stations had lines of angry men filling 5 gallon containers for generators. It was scary.
A better response would be to use batteries and an inverter to power entertainment, communications, heating controls, and refrigeration. A good selling point for electric vehicles would be home power during outages. If air conditioning is also powered from batteries then I wonder how much power would also be available for the grid and for driving, and how much enthusiasm to share power during hard times.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 4:43 pm
21 Dec 2006
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:03 am
22 Dec 2006
Meanwhile a trillion will be spent on this latest oil war. and 10s of trillions will be spent cleaning up after increased storms due to global climate change. Don't wait TOO long engineer. and 100s of billions will be spent on the status quo power systems that got us into these troubles.
Considering we have known about the problems with the status quo energy saystems since the 70s, maybe the mindset you are using is a bit too careful? What if the nation would have aproached WW2 war production in this same plodding manner?
I don't think it is care in planning that is the main factor slowing us down, I think it is intentionally finding faults that are not there with renewable distributed power generation and storage. Protection of the status quo monopoly energy game by people who go through a system of education and employment that filters out creativity on purpose.
Serve the powers that be or change your career. That is where most of the critique is coming from now. The same source for global climate change denial.
Wake up and either help or get out of the way. We don't have time to coddle you all along.
A billion dollar battery order here and a billion dollar solar panel order there and a billion dollar fuel cell order here, and eventually it could add up to a real solution.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:11 am
22 Dec 2006
That reverse flow problem is not a problem for solar and wind, why would it be difficult to solve for v2G?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2006/12/22...
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Engineer Posted 2:33 am
22 Dec 2006
Considering we have known about the problems with the status quo energy saystems since the 70s, maybe the mindset you are using is a bit too careful?
Status quo power systems? I work in the Pacific NW (almost 60 out of 72 hours at one point during this latest storm!) where we are over 80% hydro power. We have the only landfill gas electrical generation system in the US and (although with all the new construction this might have changed) both the largest privately funded and publicly funded wind farms in the US.
We began our conservation efforts in the early 80's...as an intentional effort to avoid the construction of new generating facilities. Just exactly how set do you think our mind is on the status quo?
intentionally finding faults that are not there with renewable distributed power generation
If you refer back to the sections I picked out of the presentation to the CARB it appears the faults ARE there. That doesn't mean they can't be fixed and turn this into a workable system, but for crying out loud, what do 'alternative' folks have against facts?
Why does it seem to be that the people who say they advocate for a free and open exchange of ideas scream the loudest if anyone has an idea different than theirs?
Are engineers 'captured by the system with their creativity breed out of them'? Or, maybe, just maybe, do they understand how it works...and therefore what it takes to KEEP it working?
Wake up and either help or get out of the way. We don't have time to coddle you all along.
LOL... Coddle ME along? Get out of YOUR way?
I increased the actual kilowatt hours saved by our conservation programs almost 300% within a year of taking over 16 years ago. We are not a very large utility, but have averaged a little over two million kWh per year of energy savings each year for the last ten years.
I've participated in the planning process for five actual wind projects, two of which are on line now, one of which is nearing completion, another just completed it's bond sale and will start construction shortly. I attend another planning meeting for the fifth one next month.
What are YOUR actual accomplishments in energy savings and renewables?
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!
Permalink
sunflower Posted 2:47 am
22 Dec 2006
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 2:52 am
22 Dec 2006
Just for the record: I appreciate you being here, your expertise, and your willingness to point out the problems that need to be overcome in V2G systems (and other renewable systems). Not to mention the tangible results you're generating in your work.
I think some folks here are shadow-boxing, trying to make you into a symbol for something you're obviously not.
I'm pretty sure we all agree that:
The energy status quo is badly in need of change.
Huge, expensive ideas for new energy systems should be thoroughly vetted before they are implemented.
We can all keep both those ideas in our head at the same time, right?
www.grist.org
Permalink
Engineer Posted 2:59 am
22 Dec 2006
And just exactly when did I say anything about nuclear power???
Or, for that matter sticking with the status quo? All I did was point out some potential problems with an idea that was presented...which apparently violates some unwritten part of the FAQ.
reverse flow problem is not a problem for solar and wind, why would it be difficult to solve for v2G?
For small scale, net metering type projects, there is no reverse flow to speak of. The output slows down the utility meter, or in some cases, for short periods of time, may run it backwards, but will not feed back significantly over the distribution system. Most residential systems are less than 2 kW.
The proposed V2G concept is to use lots of 2 to 8 kW hybrid vehicle batteries to serve as a reserve for intermittant renewable resources for up to several hours. It may not be a concern on an individual service line or transformer.
It may not be a concern on the overall system and actually may work fine. However, I do think there is a need to do some analysis, as depending on where the vehicles are actually located on a utilities system, when large numbers of them might be in close proximity, as they aggregate into MW quantities, there can be issues with the capacity of the system to accomodate that load.
If you look at the utility lines in your area, you will see they are fairly large close to the substations, where they carry their maximum load and get smaller and smaller as you get further out. If a large number of vehicles happened to be located near the end of a smaller line and all fed back into it at once, it could exceed the ampacity of the line. At best a blown fuse, at worst, melting the line.
The system protection scheme is also based on the flow from the substation to the end of the line. If there are significant flows in a reverse direction, fuse sizes may have to be adjusted, which could affect the ability to clear a system fault when flows are in the 'normal' direction.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!
Permalink
sunflower Posted 3:07 am
22 Dec 2006
What is the construction cost and energy production of wind systems?
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 3:20 am
22 Dec 2006
We talk about extravagant investments, loaded with subsidies ... a new Apollo program! A WW2-magnitude effort!
It's as if we were running a business, subsidized by a whopping big trust fund... and now the trust fund is beginning to run out.
I agree that developing new sources of energy is not as wasteful as other things we are doing -- such as the Iraq War. Nonetheless, pouring our resources into dead-end investments like a corn-ethanol infrastructure is a poor model for the future.
As energy becomes scarcer and more expensive, we need to adopt unaccustomed virtues, such as prudence and foresight. Even at their best, renewable sources of energy don't have a high energy return. We will not have the margin for error that there is when oil flowed freely from the Texas oilfields, or when the U.S. dominated the oil-rich Middle East.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:26 am
22 Dec 2006
I had no idea how radical your career has been compared to most utility industry engineers. You have to admit that reverse flow objection is kind of silly though.
It is true, I'm an amatuer in the energy field. But of course that alone does not negate my arguments.
I still say that energy policy reform is being delayed by propaganda. We call them "deniers" now.
The only real objection to renewables is the variability problem that needs storage and generation capacity of 100% to backup renewables. This makes renewables uneconomical if conventional power plants are used as backup. The cost would be too high to have all those nuclear and fossil plants idling so they can replace wind power when the wind stops.
V2G can provide the necessary storage and generation capacity without conventional power plants. Overcoming reverse flow and other objections is a minor problem compared to the problems created by our present energy systems.
And with V2G, consumers invest billions in the solution, saving utilities those billi0ons. No doubt more billions will be needed to integrate V2G, but it will save 10s of trillions, the US economy, and the human friedly climate of spaceship earth
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:44 am
22 Dec 2006
14% efficient oil powered ICE vehicles will not cut it anymore. Neither will fuel farming.
So that is a reason for urgency, not complacency.
"We talk about extravagant investments, loaded with subsidies ... a new Apollo program! A WW2-magnitude effort!"
Not really, I am talking about removing subsidsies for nuclear and fossil fuel mega-multi-national corporations and putting half the savings into tax credits for consumers who invest in renewables. Using the other half to pay down the deficit.
And billion dollar battery, solar panel, fuel cell orders to get mass production going. Gates or Branson could do that or the US government could do it.
Being careful is fine, but continuing endless debate over the same ground while the planet burns is not an option either. Some middle path has to be found. That is what we are doing here.
Exposing the boondoggle of fuel farming, for instance, and working through the possibilities of radical new promising technologies like V2G.
Making choices can be difficult, but it still needs to be done. Into the vacuum of doubt created by professional propagandist deniers comes heavily subsidized programs like corn or cellulose to ethanol. Gates and branson are mainly investing in fuel farming now, they bought into the lobbyist propaganda.
I know grassroots politics seems ridiculous compared to lobbyists. It's all we have to work with though. The public has to become informed enough to back the right solutions.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:50 am
22 Dec 2006
Engineer do you have current figures for the wind systems you manage? What is the bottomline. What is the cost per actual kwh of wind power that your part of the grid uses? What is the cost per watt of generating capacity, adjusted for the variability/capacity factor problems.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
ffletcher Posted 4:41 am
22 Dec 2006
Mr. Engineer, I can tell from your posts that like me you have been in the utility business for over 35 years. You know of many of the changes we have made on the grid over that time. For example the Pacific Intertie, series compensated transmission lines, static var generators, phase shifting transformers, and loop flow management.
Incorporating DC transmission into the grid was no small feat. Many had serious questions regarding it and we established very severe reserve requirements associated with it. In April 1987 you may remember the oscillation that occurred while testing IPP when the Southern Transmission System upset the WSCC grid. Series compensated transmission lines took out the Navajo Generating Plant twice by twisting off its rotor from sub synchronous resonance. Static Var Generation controls three time resulted in multiple generation trips because of the complex machine transmission interaction associated with sub cycle var switching. You are no doubt how many years we spent discussing the problems with phasing shifting transformers and mandatory line load relief procedures only to find their implementation problems to be administrative. The same can be said for dynamic schedules between balancing areas.
Point is that there are in place methods and defined paths for such reviews and developments that are very complete. From my experience that analysis is professional and balanced.
We are facing more technological change in over a shorter period of time than we have ever seen. These are exciting times. We have to develop ideas. It is too easy to kill what might be a good idea early on. We should avoid that.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:17 am
22 Dec 2006
Say a local grid has 120% of the capacity it needs at the peak from wind, water, and solar, with a 100% backup capacity from some other source like fuel cells operating on biogas/natural gas with V2G.
A county landfill, municipal sewer plant, and farms providing the biogas for most of that backup power. With natural gas on hand in case of a shortage.
If that local system was stable and could serve as a possible source of power to export to the rest of the grid, could systems that would isolate the local grid protect it's integrity from problems elsewhere on the grid?
If this is indeed possible it gives an economic model that would lend itself to grassroots politics. That twisted off rotor incident makes me think that renewable local grids are the way to go. Expecting the power plants to adjust to renewables is just not realistic.
It's going to have to be the other way around. Stable renewable local grids adjusting their supply/demand iregularities to fit the already operating system. With regulation that makes energy and revenue sharing possible.
Let progressive communities solve their local energy problems first, then let it grow organically to take over the grid as one by one power plants are shut down.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
ffletcher Posted 5:18 am
22 Dec 2006
We are developing our own sites as well, but the cost of system interconnecting the towers and the associated VAR compensation required is a significant cost as well as the substation cost to connect to a 230kV line.
Permalink
Engineer Posted 5:56 am
22 Dec 2006
The first phase of the Nine Canyon project was 48 MW with a construction cost of $70M. The second phase was 15.6 MW at an additional cost of $21M. Estimated annual output of those phases combined is 175,000 MWh annually.
The pricing model for these projects isn't a flat per MWh cost. They were constructed by Energy Northwest, a Joint Operating Agency (JOA) of which we are a member. Due to the financing agencies concern about reliability, output, etc., we were required to sign a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) obligating us to a percentage share of the annual operating budget in return for a percentage share of the annual project output. We are obligated to pay the operating budget even if the facility cannot generate any energy!
We then have to pay for transmission costs to have the power delivered to our system and costs for losses, plus ancillary service charges for storage and shaping the variable output into full MW blocks for transmission scheduling.
Currently the shaping is done through the BPA hydro system, which is an ideal system to compensate for wind! Unfortunately, there are increasing restraints on river operations to maintain specific flows for salmon, so BPA has declared a moratorium on providing any additional shaping services for wind.
Taking the last two years output divided by the last two years costs comes out to just over $60/MWh. Which probably looks great to most of you, but our wholesale cost for power out of the Columbia River system is just over $30/MWh, so we are paying approximately double our current wholesale cost for our wind energy.
The in progress projects are estimated at $65-75/MWh. The still in planning stages project may wind up as high as $85/MWh. Several factors in that...general construction costs are up, steel prices are up and with more and more states implementing Renewable Portfolio Standards, competition for wind turbines is up.
Incentives are interesting. Private developers can get the Production Tax Credit (PTC) which is locked in for 10 years at $18/MWh if the PTC is in effect for the tax year in which the project is completed.
On the public side, we are eligible for the Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI), which is equivalent in amount ($18/MWh), but subject to annual funding by Congress. To date, we have received about 60% of our REPI eligibility. With the changes made to REPI under EPACT 2005, estimates are we will receive about 50% of our eligible funding for the balance of the project, which will increase the actual cost somewhat.
So, the intial projects were about $1.5M/MW, which will increase to about $2.5M/MW for the more recent ones. Conventional generation is in the $1.5M/MW range.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!
Permalink
Backcut Posted 6:29 am
22 Dec 2006
The goal of reducing and eventually eliminating the need for imported oil, as well as reducing or eliminating the highly polluting sources of energy seems to be a reach-able one. Seeing the complexity of all this, I'm very happy that there's quality people out there working towards those goals, rather than "milking" technologies for all they're worth.
Scenic pics at http://lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 6:53 am
22 Dec 2006
The structure of the wind and water power deals is illuminating. Could a fish ladder that actually works help the environmental restriction situation? Don't even know if that exists.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Engineer Posted 7:34 am
22 Dec 2006
Fish issues on the Columbia River have generated enough reports to denude most of Washington's forests and probably create a good share of the environmental concerns about habitat! ;-)
Most of the current fish enhancement work is increasing juvenile fish survival heading downstream; modified turbine runner design (which has a side benefit of increasing power output slightly), bypass systems to try and keep as many fish as possible out of the turbines, etc. Increased flow rates are also part of that.
BTW, most people tend to think of the turbine blades as a giant Cuisinart, but the runners are typically 4-5' apart and the juvenile salmon are about finger sized.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!
Permalink
sunflower Posted 7:38 am
22 Dec 2006
Concentrator pv has similar economics, though far less developed and therefore more speculative.
Assuming $100/m2 (square meter net aperture) concentrator and $10/cm2 pv cells (41% efficient), at 500 suns $200 for pv per m2 concentrator, 33% system efficiency in climate at 6.5 kWh/m2 sunlight daily average.
Collector cost may be $300/m2 with peak performance at 280 W/m2 and annual performance 800 kWh/m2. Land coverage with no shading is 800 m2/acre.
At $60/MWh that is $48/m2/year or 16% ROI, so some room to be wrong and some incentive to do better.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:31 pm
22 Dec 2006
Early on, our esteemed South African correspondent Whiskerfish asked about studies on bird death caused by wind turbines. On that subject, it seems there can be no better source than Paul Kerlinger. He is referred to by Grist's Amanda Griscom Little a few years ago:
http://www.grist.org/news/powers/2002/12/19/griscom-windmill/
Earlier this year, when the Cape Wind project was under discussion in Gristmill -- the private plan to locate a complex of wind turbines just south of Cape Cod, in the vicinity of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket, some of the priciest real estate in North America -- , his name came up.
Kerlinger is an ornithologist, who has done important population studies of birds in New York harbor, and in southernmost New Jersey, at the very important migration path over Cape May Point. He has specialized recently in studying the mortality of birds (and bats) in connexion with wind turbines.
Bird-lover that he is, Kerlinger is entirely opposed to the idea that wind turbines are cuisinarts for birds in the air. To be sure, there are some fatalities. But he points out that the effects of pollution from the use of fossil fuels are far more deadly for birds. And, if we are going to abolish any kind of structure because it kills birds, then we ought to abolish all tall buildings with glass windows, by far the leading occasion of bird deaths.
To Biodiv, who has misgivings about personality-type theory: You are right to be sceptical. It is possible to explain anything with such theories (see further on), so scepticism is strongly encouraged.
The subject of the "nine personality types" which FFletcher raised is a fascinating one. But I have misgivings about the way he uses it, apparently in a manipulative way, as a management tool. Nor do I understand Sunflower's wish to incorporate it into his business model. Needless to say, I have never been either a businessman or a team player; recognizing that, I acknowledge my ignorance, and withhold judgment.
Presumably what FFletcher is talking about is related to the personality theory popular in the 1980s and early 1990s, e.g. among Catholics involved in spiritual counseling, known as the Enneagram. The word means "a ninefold drawing," and refers to a design more or less like this: a circle, with points indicated along the circumference, each 40 degrees apart from its two neighbors, so that there is a total of nine; the points are connected in two overlapping systems of symmetrical (but not polygonal) straight lines.
Each point represents a different personality type. It is not impossible that the types have been named with the names that FFletcher gives to the nine personality types, but somehow I suspect the Catholics use a different vocabulary.
It is necessary to remember that the nine personality types are not confining categories, capable of housing all the billions of human beings. In the Enneagram, each point is connected to four other points: to two, by the circle's circumference; and to two others, by the internal system of straight lines. That allows the interpreter a great deal of wiggle room.
E.g., when I attended an Introductory Enneagram lecture in Billings, MT, in the early 1990s, the lecturer described the personality types to us, then asked us to identify ourselves, and to share any misgivings we might have. I recall I thought I was a "4," and yet I also identified with "5." (The points are numbered, not named; "1" is more or less at one o'clock, and the others follow clockwise from there. I have no idea at this point what "4" and "5" mean.) The lecturer said I was an excellent example of the "wing" phenomenon: you can belong to one type, but have a strong "wing" on either side of you.
Right; and everything is everything.
Astrology is no more credible. I am a pathetic example of an Aries; but the astrologers will insist that the "natal chart" needs to be examined, to determine all sorts of powerful and conflicting influences.
Actually, I must admit I rather trust Western astrology (Chinese astrology strikes me as totally off the wall, but I retain an open mind) as a vague guide to personalities. I have no interest whatsoever in horoscopes, mind you; but inasmuch as "sun signs" may shed light on personalities, that is utterly fascinating.
E.g., our own David Roberts, born on September 8, the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, or thereabouts; anyway, the stellar backdrop of the Sun, if one could see it, on the day of his birth, included the constellation Virgo.
So, what are Virgos like? Many clever people over the centuries have actually considered that sort of question with a great deal of interest and effort, and have come up with a typical Virgo personality that matches what we know of the otherwise Seattle-mist-shrouded David: the values are purity, honesty, truth and justice; the manner is energetic, intelligent, verbal and nervous, i.e. awkward and klutzy. Wow!, fits David to a T!
(There is a Mr. Spock connexion too, but we need not pursue that digression right now.)
(Though it would be cool if David turned out to be a Canadian Jew, in the same company with Leonard Nimoy, and William Shatner, and -- in a terrificly grander cultural category, one of the greatest English-language artists of all time -- Leonard Cohen.)
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:36 am
23 Dec 2006
Where else do engineers actually take the time to put up with us idealists long enough to have a dialogue? No where!
Thanks again Grist!!
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink