Comments wyrick has made

  • Very interesting comments so far. My take: Baseload power plants provide reliability, but more importantly they provide reliability at a relatively cheap price per MWh by having high utilization factors. Sure we can utilize a large enough basket of renewable energy to supply more of the so called baseload demand, but at what cost? I see two general scenarios to accomplish this: 1) Utilize smart grid and demand management technology unproven at such a large scale to better match demand to supply. During the transition and most likely afterward, we will have to accept brownouts in less than critical applications, such as our homes. The inevitable increase in energy costs with less reliability will be a hard pill to swallow. 2) Utilize the current strategy of peaker generation (gas, cogen, batteries, etc) to cover the variability in generation and demand. Now lets use some numbers above and perform a thought experiment here: -Assume a utility is mostly transmission isolated and has a peak demand of 1000MW. Also assume they have a basket of renewables with a capacity of 1000MW (on the best of days the utility is 100% renewable, YAY). -As stated above for wind, this basket of renewables is large enough that 333MW is nearly always available for use around the clock even on the worst of days. In order to maintain the reliability we are use to, we have to cover the difference on the worst of days. That is 667MW of dispatchable generating capacity. The maximum utilization of the entire portfolio would be 60%; not the best of investments in my opinion. The added environmental and economic costs of the excess capacity needed to maintain reliability would be relatively enormous. Additionally, the MWh cost from the dispatchable generation could be orders of magnitude more expensive as they are for current peaking plants. Imagine waking up tomorrow to find out that your electricity will cost 50 times what you expect.On Do we need nuclear and coal plants for baseload power? posted 2 weeks, 6 days ago 164 Responses
  • The quoted cost of $24 billion is not the best estimate given that the author uses $8 per 1,000 cubic feet. The state of the economy and significant increases natural gas finds have kept future delivery prices at the $5-$6 range (in the US at least - see http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/ngw/ngupdate.asp). Even $15-$18 billion is no small number. Regardless, it is a wasted resource that is damaging our environment. The natural gas system in the US leaked about 400 Billion cubic feet in 2008 down almost 20% from 2000. My understanding is that most of the leakage happens at the distribution system (ie your local utility). Here in Chicago, we have nearly 2,000 miles of aged leaking gas mains; some as old as the 1850's. Fortunately for the utility, the amount of leaked gas is estimated and accounted for based on gas brought into the system and amount passing through meters. Unfortunately for everyone else, this cost is recouped in the rate base and is not seen as lost revenue. The Illinois Commerce Commission has thus far been unwilling to provide rate relief to accelerate the retirement of the aging infrastructure beyond the current plan of ~50 miles per year.On Methane leakage runs up a $50 billion bill posted 1 month ago 6 Responses
  • The key word here is "busbar" meaning that it ignores transmission, distribution, and in the case of wind intermittent mitigation technologies. With transmission costs in the $1-$4 million/mile there is significant hurdles to deployment of these mega turbines at remote sites. In Texas wind power is ~10% of generating capacity and ~5% of total power generation. On a couple of occasions over the past couple years there have been rolling brownouts that affected mainly industrial customers. As RPS require even more renewables, more problems will arise that will cost money to deal with.On SolarCity makes electric cars an even smarter investment posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago 19 Responses
  • In my previous post I should have made couple of points: -I take issue with the author's use of EV's as justification (economic or otherwise) for an expensive purchase that is just as much a feather in the hat as an environmentally minded action . -Widespread use of EV's is one the best options we have today address energy used in transportation. Unfortunately, it doesn't do much regarding the other ~70% of the energy consumed in the country.On SolarCity makes electric cars an even smarter investment posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago 19 Responses
  • While I support these efforts and believe they have their place, the article as written is misleading at best. Besides being the domain of the very wealthy, the economics hear gloss over some important basics: capital. Ignoring that, sure it cost pennies to run the car and only comparing those pennies to a gallon of gasoline looks great. The problem is that it required a huge upfront capital commitment. Think of cost premium, finance charges, resource consumption involved in making this happen. Now nearly double that number because of the large subsidies that are underwriting the project. We can't keep running the money presses to make it happen. There are many, many far more cost effective and environmentally sound actions that we can take today, with existing technology that does more to address climate change: Efficiency, combined heat and power, mass transit, did I mention efficiency? $20k extra to remove the tailpipe impact of one car seems like a horrible deal to me.On SolarCity makes electric cars an even smarter investment posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago 19 Responses

  • Have you had an energy audit completed by a RESNET certified rater? Have you considered much cheaper and easier to install storm windows? I doubt your new windows, even vinyl ones, would pay for themselves within the next 20 years in energy savings alone. Windows are a small part of your total wall, floor and ceiling area exposed to the outside conditions and they are likely 30% or less of your total heating load. Storm windows are a great alternative to replacement windows. They are cheaper and easier to install. Interior storms provide the best air sealing and are cheapest. Unfortunately, they usually are not operable (no sash to lift up and down, must be taken down). Exterior storms provide good insulation, protect existing windows, and are operable while left in place. Due to moisture, the frames are vented and some air bypasses the whole window. Please get a complete audit done before buying new windows. Think of it as a few hundred dollars of insurance against a potentially unwise investment.

    On Should I suck it up and buy vinyl windows? posted 2 months, 3 weeks ago 30 Responses

  •  

     

    On Should I suck it up and buy vinyl windows? posted 2 months, 3 weeks ago 30 Responses

  • Have you had an energy audit completed by a RESNET certified rater?  Have you considered much cheaper and easier to install storm windows?  I doubt your new windows, even vinyl ones, would pay for themselves within the next 20 years in energy savings alone.  Windows are a small part of your total wall, floor and ceiling area exposed to the outside conditions and they are likely 30% or less of your total heating load.  Storm windows are a great alternative to replacement windows.  They are cheaper and easier to install.  Interior storms provide the best air sealing and are cheapest.  Unfortunately, they usually are not operable (no sash to lift up and down, must be taken down).  Exterior storms provide good insulation, protect existing windows, and are operable while left in place.  Due to moisture, the frames are vented and some air bypasses the whole window.  Please get a complete audit done before buying new windows.  Think of it as a few hundred dollars of insurance against a potentially unwise investment.

    On Should I suck it up and buy vinyl windows? posted 2 months, 3 weeks ago 30 Responses

  • Have you had an energy audit completed by a RESNET certified rater?  Have you considered much cheaper and easier to install storm windows?  I doubt your new windows, even vinyl ones, would pay for themselves within the next 20 years in energy savings alone.  Windows are a small part of your total wall, floor and ceiling area exposed to the outside conditions and they are likely 30% or less of your total heating load.  Storm windows are a great alternative to replacement windows.  They are cheaper and easier to install.  Interior storms provide the best air sealing and are cheapest.  Unfortunately, they usually are not operable (no sash to lift up and down, must be taken down).  Exterior storms provide good insulation, protect existing windows, and are operable while left in place.  Due to moisture, the frames are vented and some air bypasses the whole window.  Please get a complete audit done before buying new windows.  Think of it as a few hundred dollars of insurance against a potentially unwise investment.

    On Should I suck it up and buy vinyl windows? posted 2 months, 3 weeks ago 30 Responses

  • What about existing buildings

    How are we supposed to reduce energy consumption so significantly without updating the existing building stock?  
    Energy used by buildings accounts for more than any other individual sector and the average lifespan of a building far outlives cars, power plants, PV arrays, and most people (I live in a 109 year old house in Chicago).  If every new construction starting tomorrow are net-zero, it will be very long time before we turnover the housing stock.
    We need a large program that identifies efficient improvements in buildings (energy audits) and then utilize a rolling financial fund that makes low to zero interest loans to implement the guaranteed savings measures.  The result would be safe loans with the cost savings from efficiency improvements would more than pay for the loan payment (ie. net positive cash flow from day one for the owner).  
    On A strategy for a no-nuclear, low-carbon, highly efficient, sustainable energy future posted 2 years, 1 month ago 3 Responses

  • Tankless the way to go

    The efficiency and safety (sealed combustion) of tankless systems almost always beat out a tank setup.  
    "It takes roughly 5 to 15 minutes for a standard electric water heater to get up to temperature to shower or wash dishes."
    Seriously doubt it.  To heat 40 gallons of water by 50F in 15 minutes with 100% efficiency would require  more than 19kW of power.  Most tank heaters have 2 4.4kW heaters.  
    My friend has a solar thermal system assisted by a Rinnai to provide and hot water and supplement his forced air heat system because the Rinnai has a better efficiency than his older furnace.  I would recommend with a solar + Viessmann Vitodens boiler setup to provide hot water and heat with one piece of equipment at 95+ efficiency.On On-demand water heaters rock posted 2 years, 2 months ago 15 Responses

  • Missing the Point

    I'm not going to argue against the fact that the current state of biofuel production in this country gives us marginal environmental gains at best.  As a biofuels advocate myself I am fully honest that it is NOT a solution to our problems in any respect.
    The hardest part of changing to renewable fuels is not technology, but mindsets of the public at large. Technology and research will keep advancing even in the extremely complex topic of life cycle GHG emission analysis.  The use of any alternative to petroleum at this point is as much about changing status quo as it is the new technology.  

    The elephant in every room regarding energy use is efficiency.  It's not the most glamorous solution but it is the cheapest, cleanest, and most immediately available option we have. On New study claims ethanol and biodiesel may actually boost GHG emissions posted 2 years, 2 months ago 28 Responses

  • No Free Lunch

    Geothermal technologies are wonderful and not utilized as much as they should should be. But there are many instances, especially in existing residential applications, where it is not the best choice.
    Enough can't be said for demand-side efficiency improvements.  After all, not using energy in the first place is the best option. To that end, the cost of a ground source heat pump system would certainly pay for a great deal of efficiency improvements to the house with more than enough money left over for a top of the line boiler while having a more comfortable home.  
    We know that 40% of Chuck's power comes from coal, leading to a 20% GHG reduction vs gas alone (40%*2x CO2 for coal) and the fact that total centralized generation and transmission losses are about 50% (ie. 2 kW produced= 1 kW delivered).  Given that, the heat pump's GHG impact becomes much larger than first thought, albeit still 20% better than just burning gas.  The point is that every situation is different and you can spend less money and have the same or better end result with a less glamorous solution.  
    My personal recommendation would be to insulate and air seal my your first and then buy a Viessmann Vitodens boiler to replace the boiler and hot water heater if there is one. On Umbra on replacing a boiler posted 2 years, 3 months ago 7 Responses

  • Much more than just the product

    Insulation type is only part of the story.  The proper installation of any insulation is very important especially when it comes to batt insulation.  Bad installation and air leakage can render your insulation virtually worthless.  Air leakage and bypasses must be addressed in conjunction with upgrading your insulation.  Remember that most air filters are made out of fiberglass and easily allow air to pass through.  If you decide to get an energy audit, make sure they are RESNET (Residential Energy Services Network) Certified.  You can find all certified providers at http://www.resnet.us/directory/raters.aspx .

    Michael  Wyrick
    Informed Energy Decisions, LLC
     On Umbra on insulation posted 2 years, 10 months ago 4 Responses

  • Address

    Forgot to include the address:

    Hermann Hall
    3241 South Federal Street
    Chicago, Illinois  60616On Conference bleg posted 3 years, 7 months ago 8 Responses

  • Shaping the Energy Transition

    Illinois Institute of Technology's Thought Leader seminar during Interprofessional Projects day.

    Presented by:
    Lord Ronald Oxburgh, KBE
    Member, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology

    "Over the next 50 years we have a massive challenge--an increasingly energy-hungry world, the prospect of steadily increasing prices for oil and gas, and a climate that is being destabilized by greenhouse gas emissions. It is hard to know where we shall be finding our energy in 50 years time, but between now and then we have daunting challenges that are technical, social, and political."

    http://www.iit.edu/business/seminars/2006/oxburgh/On Conference bleg posted 3 years, 7 months ago 8 Responses