TomCasten’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  An acceptable path to climate change mitigation will emerge once all parties to the discussion - Our President, other world leaders, all the pundits - recognize that efficiency is the key that allows profitable carbon reduction. Non-fossil energy services are far from cost effective, and burying the carbon from inefficient power plants is a brain dead approach. Society can save money and lower CO2 by rewarding increased efficiency of generation of heat and power and increased appliance efficiency. No other path to cleaner energy pays the dividends available from doubling efficiency. Happily, there is plenty of room for improvement. In 1900, the U.S. converted 3% of all fuel's potential fuel to useful energy services, wasting 97%. A century later, we convert 12% of input energy potential to useful energy services, still wasting 88%. See Robert U. Ayres work for confirmation. Proven technology could easily double the useful energy services from each unit of energy, cutting input energy (fuel) and CO2 in half while supplying the same energy services. Our electricity system, which accounts for 40% of US CO2, delivers only one third of the work potential of the fuel it burns, and has not improved since 1960. When this third of the fuel's potential arrives at users, various appliances then waste another 35% to 94% in converting the electricity to useful energy services including heat, light, chilling, and refrigeration. Incandescent lighting, for example, delivers 2% of the potential energy in the fuel. By contrast, florescent bulbs fed by modern combined heat and power plants deliver 10% of the potential energy in the fuel, a 5 to 1 improvement with proven technology. We can double the overall conversion efficiency of fuel to useful energy with proven technology, by simply replacing our aging electricity-only generation fleet with distributed generation near thermal users that recycles the otherwise wasted heat. The challenge for the G 20 is to ignore the hype offered by technology and fuel peddlers in support of subsidies to their products and instead remove barriers to efficiency and encouraging rewards to improved efficiency. Reward fossil efficiency of energy services and let unleash markets to raise the bar. The G-20 nations have two choices: 1) dump more taxpayer funds down various rat holes to subsidize someone's favorite technology, which developing countries will not emulate, or 2) modernize governance to reward and dramatically improve efficiency. The later path will stimulate vastly better generation and appliances, which will then enable lower cost energy services for the developing world. The growing efficiency in the developed world will force manufacturers everywhere to follow suit in order to remain competitive. Tom CastenOn Obama's climate speech to the U.N. posted 2 months ago 6 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Steve: The logic of ending fossil fuel subsidies is profound, albiet against the universal desire of all people to obtain lower priced energy services, which underpin standard of living. Uphill fight for sure. However, the post did not mention the biggest subsidy of all, which is not charging those who burn coal for the health and environmental impacts. A Harvard Professor found a cost of $60 per megawatt hour of health and environmental costs associated with coal fired electricity. These were not global warming costs, but premature death, emergency room visits, pulmonary disease and damage to forests and buildings. The Ontario Medical Association did a study, endorsed by the Ministry for Energy, that found the cost in Ontario to be $120 per MWh of coal fired electricty. Big difference was Ontario put a higher value on the premature loss of life. Compare this to the average retail price of all electricity in the U.S. of $100 per MWh or ten cents per kilowatt-hour. Compare this to the lifetime subsidies given to various forms of clean energy generation: Solar $54/MWh, Wind $10/MWh, Biomass $5.00 per MWh, Recycled waste energy $1.34/MWh. We subsidize dirty energy much more than clean energy. Duh! Tom Casten

  On Obama to propose ending fossil fuel subsidies in Pittsburgh? posted 2 months ago 3 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Super-grid fantasies

  Energy is wasted in copious amounts because thermal energy will not travel economically. Period. End of story.

  Add a fantasy superconducting grid with no losses (vs.actual 7.5% average and 25% on peak losses) and it does nothing to utilize the 66% wasted byproduct heat at remote electricity generation plants (fossil, nuc or biomass) and does nothing to capture energy from industrial exhaust or flare gasses.

  But if we built generation at factories ...

  Tom CastenOn Proposed renewable-energy bill is better than nothing posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 26 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Clarifying clean energy definitions

  Some definitions of the shortened graph titles in my post will help:

  Recycled Energy: Indusrial waste energy converted into electricity without further heat recovery

  Recycled Energy CHP: As above, but instead of a condensing steam turbine that vents 75% of the exhaust energy, the thermal energy replaces boiler fuel.  This approach has negative incremental fuel.

  CHP: Conventional fossil-fueled combined heat and power, using a prime mover like a turbine or engine to produce electricity, and then recovering the exhaust for thermal energy.

  These options all recycle otherwise wasted energy streams.  The first two use byproduct heat from industrial processes while the third uses byproduct heat from electrticity generation

  Biomass Electricity Only: Typical 20 to 40 MW biomass plant that condenses steam, achieves about 30% efficiency of fuel to power

  Biomass CHP: Biomass, usually waste wood, that combines production of electricity first and then displaces boiler fuel with the low-grade thermal energy, and achieves 65% to 80% fuel to useful output efficiency.

  Tom Casten
  On Proposed renewable-energy bill is better than nothing posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 26 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Carol Browner on Carbon Caps

  Or maybe Carol Browner is closer to economic truth than the card-carrying economic advisors.  What if apparently cheap but high carbon coal-fired power costs more than clean energy?  What if we add to the apparent price of coal power  the costs of premature deaths, pulmonary and other diseases, damage to forests and buildings and failed fly ash impoundments?  In our calculations, replacing coal with local generation that recycles waste energy provides clean energy that reduces total costs, before counting climate change costs.

  Tom Casten

  Tom Casten, Chair, Recycled Energy Development LLC

  On Browner included on Obama economic team discussions posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 4 Responses