Gas or Electric- which is ‘greener’?
I understand that most electricity today is coal-produced and considerably more polluting (in terms of carbon emissions per unit of energy) than natural gas or LP. However, in building our new LEED house, the decision was made to go all-electric with appliances- the logic behind our decision was twofold. First, we purchase “wind credits” from our electric utility supplier to offset our usage and support renewable energy projects. Secondly, I feel that by having electric appliances already in the house, it is ready to accept clean energy from our own sources (I would like to install grid-tied solar at some point) and from the utility provider as they increase their renewable energy options.
Then I had a conversation with a rep from our utility provider regarding the wind credit program that changed things. Since they have already exceeded the federally-mandated requirements for renewable energy, our “wind credit” dollars are not actively going towards new projects (I guess the money is used to pay for the projects they have already completed). My logic of “get your friends to sign up for wind credits, so that more wind farms can be built” is apparantly a bunch of bunk!
With the concerns over global climate change only getting worse (if you believe it, as I do), I am torn about what to do today- if we install gas appliances, they will be cleaner today, but likely more polluting in the future if we shift to renewable energy. Alternately, if we promote electricity now, we are causing more carbon emissions today in hopes that it will be the right choice for the future. Realistically, you only get one chance to do the right thing- the houses we build today are the ones we are stuck dealing with for the next century or more, and it will be cost-prohibitive for most homeowners to be changing out their HVAC and appliances to save the planet in the future…), so what is the right choice today? If we promote gas to minimize the current carbon emissions, we’ll be chained to the pipeline forever. But if we choose electricity to be ready for “green” power in the future, we are doing more harm today.
Opinions?
Replies
"Greenness" of the energy source, in terms of which dumps more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, is a matter of where your local electricity comes from. If it is from hydroelectric, then that is less polluting. If it comes from a fossil-fuel based plant without local use of the turbine exhaust steam energy, then a high-efficiency propane or natural gas system for the house is less polluting.
Assuming your "LEED" house is fairly well insulated, then an obvious thing to think about is ground-source heat pump, easily available with a COP above 4.0, then that would be better than either electric resistance heating or a gas heating unit. Best would be the GSHP with input electricity from a local hydro plant - non-polluting/renewable electricity leveraged multiple times through the heat pump.
Now if you are talking only the appliances, then if you aren't cooking all day then I can't imagine the absolute difference makes a lot of difference. If the house is tight, then you have to ask yourself if the air exchange (presumably by HRV if in a heating climate) is low enough that going to a combustion type stove forces you to a greater amount of air exchange to avoid the inside pollution.
Edited 3/17/2009 2:17 pm ET by DickRussell
"Greenness" of the energy source, in terms of which dumps more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, is a matter of where your local electricity comes from. If it is from hydroelectric, then that is less polluting. If it comes from a fossil-fuel based plant without local use of the turbine exhaust steam energy, then a high-efficiency propane or natural gas system for the house is less polluting.
No, the electric power grid is a nation wide system, and should not be looked at piece-meal.
As far as hydroelectric being"green", back in 1994 there was a movement to remove one or more dams along the Columbia. Slade Gorton screamed and hollered, and made this an issue in his run against Ron Sims, that the idea went away.
No, the electric power grid is a nation wide system, and should not be looked at piece-me
Wrong!
Local electric power producers have their own local grids. They are interconnected in regional areas and power may be "wheeled" between local grids in order to meet demands within a region.
The concept of "wheeling" power is a mith of the deregulation advocates. What ever power that is produced on a local grid is mostly used on that grid. Excess power may be brokered and sold off system to anyone able to pay the price per KW that the market will bare. The wheeling of that excess power is not direct. It pushes through each adjoining grid at a cost to that grids power producer. They in reality are using the "sold" KW for their local power and sending what then become their excess on the the next local grid. This process continues until it reaches the the purchaser.
The east coast and midwest blackouts that occurred a few years back are a results of this great deregulation power wheeling scenario.
If we ever achieve the goal of interconnected smart grids, maybe your statement will be closer to reality, but we are a long way from that point.
Our LEED house is extremely tight and energy efficient, and I plan to heat it and our other buildings with a central hydronic boiler (some combination of wood, solar or GSHP, haven't decided yet). We have an HRV installed, as well as a small wood pellet stove as a backup heating source (which I like to use most of the time when I'm around).
My question is more a general concern/curiosity about what our nation is doing as a whole, and what is the best way to go from a global perspective.
I appreciate any discussion!Shawn
small wood pellet stove as a backup heating source (which I like to use most of the time when I'm around)
Don't you know how carcinogenic wood smoke is???..................Those poor kids in your neighborhood with asthma are going to suffer horribly just for you to feel good about being green .. do you feel good about that>>>>>>
all discussion welcomed, right?? EVERYTHING is a tradeoff??
(am in a rare mood tonight, just got off work, sitting in a hotel room in Paris)(not Paris IL <G>)
Junkhound,
Wow...
and I thought Paris was the "city of love".
I was trying to start a meaningful discussion about the direction our country should be going with respect to energy use, not a contest of "my heat source is better than yours". Shawn
"Wow... and I thought Paris was the "city of love"."No, that would be Philth-adelphia.
and I thought Paris was the "city of love"."
No, that would be Philth-adelphia.
Isn't that the city of "brotherly" love?
NTTAWWThttp://www.quittintime.com/ View Image
I was trying to start a meaningful discussion about the direction our country should be going with respect to energy use, not a contest of "my heat source is better than yours".
Your asking a political question and expect what?
Global Warming and Carbon Footprints are politics, not science.
Joe H
'is a matter of where your local electricity comes from."That is not as easy a Q to answer as you might think.http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/17-04/gp_intro
If we promote gas to minimize the current carbon emissions, we'll be chained to the pipeline forever. But if we choose electricity to be ready for "green" power in the future, we are doing more harm today.
Opinions?
Since you asked, and since you are a 'true believer' in gw scam, then by all means install BOTH systems no matter the cost, then you can feel good no matter what.
Me, got a COP 5.6 GSHP, running off mostly hydro and overpriced WA state mandated wind (whoope doo). GSHP is most cost effective, as stated the gw part is worth zero to me, in fact, gw, if actual, is a GOOD thing for humanity in general but could be hell for the Dutch and Danes.
Hydroelectric, wind, solar, and nuclear, are four sources of "clean energy"
Some of the new coal fired plants are relatively clean as well. Plus in all likelyhood electricity is going to be under price pressure because of a variety of new sources available now and in the future..
Your house should last at least 50 plus years before it's greatly remodeled. So that is at a minimum how far ahead you need to look.
One final point.. the exhaust flue for gas equipment is a great waster of energy.. it sucks in warm heated air and releases it 24/7/365 that's like leaving your windows open an inch year around.
But, like McMark noted, the electric grid is interconnected on a national scale- you can't realistically say "i'd like my power to come from hydro, please". As you said, the houses built today will not be remodeled for decades, so...Shawn
While that's true, it's also true that no energy is really green so we can argue semantics until the cows come home..
Hydroelectric, wind, solar, and nuclear, are four sources of "clean energy"
You are right, those are the major "clean" energy sources. And almost everyone will tell you that they have some degree of environmental impact. And the impact of nuclear and hydroelectric is so huge, that none have come on line for years.
Some of the new coal fired plants are relatively clean as well.
Coal plants are dirty, new or old. But we need the electricity
Plus in all likelihood electricity is going to be under price pressure because of a variety of new sources available now and in the future..
I tend to disagree. Electrical production, like roads, has been quite Malthusian in its history. Any increase in it's production, has tended to be used in new ways. Computers are eating up what ever is saved by increases in efficiency.
And almost everyone will tell you that they have some degree of environmental impact. And the impact of nuclear and hydroelectric is so huge, that none have come on line for years.
Yep.
Texas has doubled the amount of wind generated power on ERCOT in the last three years.
It's now up to 5%.
Have not heard that the folks over in Abilene are seeing better rates for having all those windmills cranking over there.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
CapnMac.. not having significant price increases is amazing considering all of the consquences of companies like Enron who are manipulating things on a massive scale..
To a degree steady prices is a major victory!
To a degree steady prices is a major victory!
100% agreeing with you there.
If with the occasional raised questioning eyebrow about invested cost versus recieved gain.
But, ERCOT worked surprisingly well during Ike, if less well in Harris County versus other counties.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
How dependable has it been?
From what little I have read on wind power 5-10% may be the maximum amount we can use and retain grid reliabilty. Beyond that the normal generating facilities either ramp way down or shut down some generators completely. Then when the wind farms drop the out put there is no readily available backup.
Know anyhting more about it?
there is something called a weather man they have access to radar and all sorts of clever bits of equipment to tell them exactly what sort of wind is going to be coming.. doing so allows plenty of warning for cogeneration to ramp up or down.. faced with burning something that costs money or using "free" wind which would you use?
>>doing so allows plenty of warning for cogeneration to ramp up or down..
In the electric utility world the term cogeneration means that the power produced by such a facility is a secondary product of a primary production process or is a stand alone NG turbin generator facility.
By definition they are not primary power sources for local grids. The NG turbin facilities , specificaly, have been built as peak power producing units. And, yes they are quickly started and brought on line and are "cleaner" than coal fired units, but they are a significant magnitude more expensive to operate per KW produced. (IMO they are the single biggest reason that NG prices have skyrocketed over the past years.) They are generally limited in the number of hours they can operate by FERC regulations for off system sales and by local ecconomics within a region (they are a source of last resort for those seeking to buy power).
As far as "allowing plenty of time" to start a coal fired unit and bring it on line, just how long do you think that takes? How reliable is the predictive weather forecasting and how accurate is it? It can take from one to three days to start a coal fired unit, depending a large number of mechanical factors. You could of course leave one lopping along at minimum fire and the generator just barely putting out any power, but the cost per KW generated in that situation would be outrageous. You still have a pretty big carbon foot print in that scenario and the customer pays a lot for maintaining a backup power source. My quess would be that both the carbon emissions and cost would far outweigh the "free" energy produce by wind turbins, but I've not looked into the actual numbers.
Keep in mind that I am a "bottom feeder" in the utility industry. I'm not high eneough in the food chain to be privey any substantial knowledge of operational cost. What I know comes from trade journals and bulletins that are likely a little biased :)
In the electric utility world the term cogeneration means that the power produced by such a facility is a secondary product of a primary production process or is a stand alone NG turbine generator facility.
The first half of your statement is correct, but the second half is completely wrong. By definition, co-generation is production of electricity by using the waste energy of another process. It could use steam to turn a turbine, after which the steam goes through wood drying kilns. Or a steam utility, which supplies heat to downtown buildings, could turn a turbine. A stand alone NG is not a cogeneration unless the energy (normally steam) is used in other ways.
Co-generation really started about 1974, when a series of power and energy crises hit the US. The NW went through a drought which affected the hydroelectric sources, there was an oil embargo, and California was close to reaching a point where its electrical usage was going to outstrip its electrical production. Similar problems were forecast for other regions of the country.
The country jumped headlong into a new phase a power generation construction. Washington built WPPS, Utah Power and Light built the Hunter and Huntington plants, with the express purpose of wheeling a large portion of that power to California. Coal plants were built in Bullfrog, Page, etc etc. Another quick way to get power into the grid was to build turbines at places which needed steam for other uses - co-generation. To facilitate this, laws were passed which gave companies large tax credits, and forced the grid to buy power from these smaller industrial producers at favorable rates.
My family was involved in cogeneration before cogeneration was. Anything where the excess energy is not used in other processes is not cogeneration
You are correct about co-generation. Gas Turbins are peak power producers.
The wheeling of power which you pointed out is within a couple of adjoining regions, not across a "national grid" as Frenchy was alluding too.
In the case of the west coast plants and wheeling, it didn't work very well after deregulation did it?
Seems I remember a period of rolling brown outs and such occurring there not to many years ago.
The wheeling of power which you pointed out is within a couple of adjoining regions, not across a "national grid" as Frenchy was alluding too.
Most people in the control room of power plants prefer to think of the system as a national grid. It is true that Washington does not wheel power to Florida, and Quebec wheels to California. What happens is that Washington wheels to Idaho, ID to CO, KS to GA, SC to Florida. Is a set of dominos interconnected? How about a chain? You're playing a game with semantics when you say there is not a national grid. It is a system of large regional players, where everything acts in unison.
>>Most people in the control room of power plants prefer to think of the system as a national grid
I don't know how many control rooms you have been in, but let me assure power plant control room are just that. They do not interconect with any "national grid." They control the power plants output and operation.
A load dispatch center may or maynot be located at a power plant. That is where loads and forcast decisions are made. Contractual obligations with other utilityies companies are a part of that operation. It is all strictly compartmentalized now, and there is very strict control of information in a dispatch center.
Outside of the load dispatch center and power generation facilities set the power brokers in another limited access and informationaly secure environment. They can use general capacity and production figures from the dispatch centers and the generating plants to make what ever deals they can, but can do not have specific knowledge of either operation. Such knowledge would give them an unfair advantage in the power brokerage market, so it is prohibited by FERC. Those are the people that think in terms of a national grid. It is thier market.
Most everyone is aware of the interconnection of local grids and how they support one another. Most do not know how fragil they have become. The idea of a national grid is great, but at this point, the infrastructure is not there to support it. So what we have is a patch work of local and regional grids that blanket the country. They all touch at thier edges, but don't count on them to keep you warm.
That was my reason for asking CaptnMac about the reliabilty of wind power.
I realize that the control room is not the power distribution center. Thank you And I realize that the operators are not the power wheelers. Again, thank you.
People tend to think of the grid as an entity larger than it is, because a series of grids makes a ?...... Grid ! So it can be parsed and parsed and parsed again.
I'm sorry if you got across the nation from my post.. I did not mean to say that.. I realize the transmission losses involved..
quote:
"In the case of the west coast plants and wheeling, it didn't work very well after deregulation did it?Seems I remember a period of rolling brown outs and such occurring there not to many years ago. "Caused more by scamming than any problem with the transmission grid.jose c.
--
"Though I don't think" added Deep Thought "that you're going to like it."
>>Caused more by scamming than any problem with the transmission grid
Seems I remember some of that. It was part of the great deregulation experiment wasn't it? Power generation facilities set up as separate companies selling to local distribution networks? It didn't make sense to me then so it probably made someone a trunk full of money.
What I'm talking about with wheeling of power is that our local and regional grids were not designed with that in mind. There are limits to how much power can be pushed across most systems. When demand in a local area is high and they must wheel additional power across their grid they face the very real possibility of overloads developing. At that point the grid starts to self protect by tripping out circuits and then a cascade event can take place. Most systems have some automatic switching and redundancy in the major transmission and distribution networks. This is achieved by not loading any circuit beyond a predetermined point. That way the excess capacity of a circuit can be used to reroute power to another circuit in the event of a failure. When that safety margin is loaded up by the need to wheel power the whole network is balancing on a razors edge.
For the businessman looking at marketing and making money the concept of wheeling power is a money maker. They are the guys preaching deregulation and running most of the power companies now, not the old school of engineers that designed and managed them. Those same MBA are the looking at the wind and solar power sources as another opportunity. They talk about reliability as a given because we have this ability to wheel power from any point in the country to another, and IMO it is pure hogwash.
It may be possible one day but only if those same MBAs are willing to invest their profits in upgrading the infrastructure.
Hose A,
The Kalifornia energy "crisis" was not caused by scamming. Three factors contributed to the extreme price gouging that took place. Poor situational ethics (even by Kali's standards) played a role, but no scams.
1) Environmentally concientious caring souls chose to force the closure of two of the largest and most productive commercial nuclear power plants in the western US. This created a significantly greater deficit in regional baseline capacity than already existed. The power production capability of all power producers in and around California was unable to meet maximum demand with the nukes up and running and had been falling farther behind every year
2) Deregulation, implemented by politicians without any practical knowledge of the cost structure of regulated utilities, allowed power producers to cut loose the high cost "peakers". In a regulated environment, a power company is granted a monopoly with strings attached including price control by a utility board and the requirement to maintain "sufficient reserve capacity to meet high demand loads". To keep and maintain very old and/or inefficient gas engine or gas turbine- based peakers, or old steam electric stations was a great financial burden, but required to be maintained in a the regulated enviroment.
3) Supply and demand in an unregulated environment. The law of the jungle took over, as was seemingly the intent of the citizens and the legilators of California. Simply a matter of those with the power options, something akin to "energy futures", selling to the highest bidder. No scams. but no safety net and only free market forces in control.
A crafty, very knowledgeable and punitive individual might have been able to plan this event to produce more pain than was experienced, maybe.
Hi, Tim.Where do you get your information - talk radio? The items you quote, some of which are partial truths and some of which are distortions only provided an opportunity. But the real shortages WERE caused by scammers. The deregulation plan the state put in place gave an opportunity to write a license to steal, and the traders did. I can provide detailed written and on line references if you so desire, but I feel that you are more interested in bashing California than learning from the mistakes that happened out here as an object lesson in how to create a not so free market and put the people under the feet of the unscrupulous.jose c.
--
"Though I don't think" added Deep Thought "that you're going to like it."
Jose,
The items I alluded to (I quoted nothing) are based soley in fact. I was very involved in the development of deregulation laws in the State of Illinois. At the time I worked for the largest private utiility in the state. We studied the situation in California very closely. My information came from the State of California, local regulators, the Federal Government, EPRI and the NRC, primarily, as well as the files made public by the principal power producers and the Independent Power Distributor involved in the situation. This included primarily Pacific Gas & Electric. There were others, but its early and I don't recall them all. I personally reviewed 1000's of documents related to the very specific details of the regulations, the loop holes and testimony of many key individuals involved.
The facts are not fresh in my memory as it is over a decade past, but they are a matter of record and not speculation or half-truths. Your statements belie some anger and personal feelings. While your experiences are obviously very real to you, the simple dispassionate facts indicate otherwise. Unscroupulous? Certainly. Illegal? No. As I recall, beyond some public blustering by politicians, no charges were ever files because none were appropriate.
Real shortages are just that: shortages: i.e insufficient capacity to meet demand. They were caused by short sightedness of the utilities, greater than expected population growth, California's restrictive regulations and local polital pressures. Shortages in power producing capacity were not scams. I am not interested in bashing California. I am relating observations of the facts of what occurred. Blame is not bashing, and it is deserved. We absolutely learned from the mistakes, as our deregulation went off without any of the problems experienced in California.
Sorry if I came off that way. As for me, I studied power generation and distribution in college and worked for a municipal utility in Florida for a couple of years, including some memorable "oopsies" caused by distribution network issues. And I am a big proponent and have a very through understanding of power generation by means of nuclear.A lot of what I heard at the time from my parents (who live on the east coast and are avid consumers of talk radio) was a parroting of "those California wackos, won't let any power plants get built" etc sort of c**p. Which was not the real reason the ISO out here broke in 2000-2001. It was market manipulation by the trading desks that caused the worst of the spikes in pricing and artificial congestion schemes that got the spot market pricing bid up to levels that hurt a lot of power users - both businesses and individuals.For those who weren't around, some of the worst of the supply problems happened during periods of low electric demand when the weather was moderate and the needs were driven by natural gas for heating and not demand for electric power. But the problem was not supply directly, although there was plant gaming going on by the deregulated providers due to a lack of performance standards. The worst was the trading desks. The best summary of what happened there is contained in a report written by McCullough research in Oregon after the tapes of the trading process were released under court order. Schemes were derived with a whole series of names which were designed to make it appear that the system was overloaded when it wasn't, all up and down the west coast. One of my "favorite" quotes from the tapes:"At a time when streets in Northern California were lit only by head lights, factories shut down and families were trapped in elevators, Enron Energy traders laughed: "Just cut 'em off. They're so f----d. They should just bring back f-----g horses and carriages, f-----g lamps, f-----g kerosene lamps.""The report is on line and can be found, for those wanting to look further, at: http://www.mresearch.com/pdfs/19.pdfNot to say we didn't make mistakes, but comments such as "two productive nuclear power plants shut down" I hear as shorthand for "those environmental wackos" talk, when the truth is that San Onofre Unit 1 was a very early nuke plant (I have a brochure I got at the visitor center in the mid 60's) that was not economical to bring up to federal, NOT California standards, and while I don't personally understand the ins and outs of shutting down Rancho Seco, it was of a similar design to Three Mile Island (which was a very high performance B&W design that was very brittle and unstable if improperly handled, as it was on the day they partially melted down unit 2) and had been giving SMUD fits with it's reliability. Talking about nukes does not add to a full discussion of what we did wrong with deregulation.i don't know if this has any further place in discussions here on Breaktime, but I will state that if the politicians in your state ever come forward with a deregulation scheme, make sure that it avoids the mistakes we made in California that produced a market that was capable of being manipulated so grossly.jose c.
--
"Though I don't think" added Deep Thought "that you're going to like it."
Two issues. Deregulation and the Nukes.
The failure of deregulation in CA, first try, was composed of many parts. My focus was on electric utilitiesDeregulation removed the requirement that the utilities maintain their "backups", that consisted of "peakers" and contracts to power brojkers for the shortfall. (A graph showing the cost per megawatt of all the power plants in a power generators system as the units are staged on, from the most efficient to least efficient is a very telling graphic if you can find one) Contracts were typically written the season before peak demand (July) with regional power suppliers and/or their agents. In the regulated environment, these contracts were lucrative to the suppliers and costs were covered by the utility-board-regulated consumer rates to the power company. The removal of this safety was a key failure of the CA deregulation plan. With backup power production and negotiated contracts for extra, the shortfall would never have existed, supply would have mostly matched demand and Enron and other price guogers would have been sent packing. The independent power distibution managers/companies were inexperienced and/or incompetent and certainly not up to the task of managing the power supply distribution on the scale required in SoCal. This was politically based. Significant systematic failures in the distribution system were, more or less, self induced. After the distibution "pipeline" failed, the demand spiked and advantage was taken by unscroupluous companies. However, you can't blame the Grizzly for eating the salmon, can you.
"And I am a big proponent and have a very through understanding of power generation by means of nuclear." I would be interested to discuss that further. I spent over a decade as nuclear power plant design engineer, system engineer, and consultant (ever been inside a commercial reactor?) During that time I was at a PWR during a steam generator replacement and power upgrades taking two units from 1150 MW to 1275 MW each.
As far as the CA nukes go, Rancho Seco was a 900 MW PWR, brought online in 1975. It was closed by public referendum in 1989. It would be inservice today barring some serious failure. This was a purely political decision by the citizens of California and is a significant reason that many feel no sympathy for their power issues. The impact on the power grid was significant, to northern California only.
San Onofre-1 was a 450 MW PWR brought online in 1968 and would have operated until last year under normal a normal operating license, without an extension.
Three Mile Island (TMI) , by the way, is very similar in design and operation of many of the current operating plants in the country. It is neither "brittle" nor particularly unstable. It is a very safe and effective design, as almost all PWR designs are. The accident that occured at unit 2 was primarily due to operator error coupled with a few equipment failures. One of the PORVs stuck open following a unit trip. Operators were unable to correctly interpret the control room instrumentation and took incorrect actions that dumped large amount of primary water from the system and partially uncovered the core.
A couple of points, then I'm going to drop this.re: deregulation and your Grizzly analogy. So you're saying that gaming the system to the point of fraud is OK as long as it falls within the parameters of the system design. How's your retirement portfolio these days?I never said the deregulation scheme was either smart or logical - I tried to use it as an object lesson. And you still don't explain how you can create an apparent power shortage with your described conditions in the period of the year when California has the lowest electrical power demand.re nukes: I have never worked in a commercial nuke plant. I spent a shift in the control room at Port St Lucie as a learning exercise. My first exposure to nuclear reactors was in the reactor room of a Navy missile sub. Second was in college, where I was studying to go to work for Offshore Power Systems, building and commissioning nuclear plants, concurrent with my part time work in oil fired plants in the production performance department of the Jacksonville Electric Authority. After TMI, I gave up on the industry on the advice of my uncle (an ex Army nuclear engineer working for Westinghouse Nuclear at the time) and went into aerospace. I did go back to nukes for a while, but from the perspective of planning how to use them but quit that position after more than a few nightmares. So I am a little rusty on insider information on the commercial side of the industry as my detailed exposure and training was back in the Three Mile Island/"The China Syndrome" days.re: your calling out PWR plants as a benchmark. Anybody who spent any tiem in the industry knows not all PWR nuclear plants are the same, just like a Chevette is not like a Corvette even though both are gasoline powered cars with small passenger compartments. GE, Combustion Engineering, Westinghouse, and B&W all built different versions of a basic PWR reactor. There were differences in output of the plant, with (IIRC) the CE and B&W designs able to get more KW out of a given volume of fuel than the GE and Westinghouse designs. Before TMI, the B&W plants WERE brittle: not tolerant of mistakes at the margins or of human error. A simple error with a valve and bad displays took down that plant. After TMI, San Onofre One was not economical to retrofit to the upgraded standards from the DOE regulators due to the low plant output relative to the costs and remaining life. Discussions of license duration not withstanding nor relevant to the economics that SC Edison faced. Units Two and Three continue to chug away to this day.I still don't understand the shutdown of Rancho Seco, a B&W plant, but I do remember reading that it was considered to be unreliable and was off line a lot.The biggest problem the industry had at the time was that the competition , the newness of the technology, and the limited market let utilities define the plant feature sets, so there was limited commonality downstream of the nuclear end of the system. That was one thing we were going to change at OPS, and get to a state like the Navy or the French where standardized designs allow common training and standards across a larger number of plants, not just the ones at a single site. That's what I am seeing in the current generation of plant proposals, which is going to be a long term good for the industry.I think I and the Breaktime audience may well be done with our dueling qualifications pi**ing contest at this point.jose c.
--
"Though I don't think" added Deep Thought "that you're going to like it."
"I and the Breaktime audience may well be done with our dueling qualifications pi**ing contest at this point"
No contest here. This was like discussing technical details with Frenchy. Thanks for the entertainment.
Ya did it agian Tim.
Thanks, I still learned something, in between navigating the duddles.
"Duddles"? WTH?
Did what again? Lose my fine sense of decorum in calling BS? Sorry, I need to work on that.
Should have been puddles.
You had me goggling reactor types.
>>Lose my fine sense of decorum in calling BS? Sorry, I need to work on that.
You are generally a little more patient, but I understand. I didn't know you did design work on power plants. I've only done a little work in the belly of the beasts. Enough to know that generalizations about them can really stir up some passion about them. (kind of like the "national grid" comment pulled my chain)
The company that I went to work for out of college was owned by CE at the time, then by ABB (Asea Brown Boveri bought Combustion Engineering). Out of the Ft. Worth office, all of the Entergy plants were our customers. I spent the first 8 years of my engineering life as a "nuclear road whoore". I did sysytem and component designs at a dozen different plants; some operating some under construction. Ended up at the Byron plant in IL as a consultant, rolled over direct and bought some real estate. Been in the area ever since, but after sveral two-outage years, the power upgrades, the steam generator replacements and the ComEd deregulation project, I was burnt out, and decided to design HVAC systems for a living.
Less stress, less radiation and less money, but I haven't been in a bright yellow jumpsuit with rubber shoes in over a decade!
Tim opined:"No contest here. This was like discussing technical details with Frenchy. Thanks for the entertainment."Glad to make your day a little brighter %^)(God, did I really just type that? Don't bother answering)jose c.
--
"Though I don't think" added Deep Thought "that you're going to like it."
Jose,
I did enjoy going through the (my) past on this one. Sorry for the sharpshooting.
Not at all. The CA power screw up is massive and still costs us money, torqued me off at the time, torqued me off fuller when some of the court data was released, and torques me off to this day.And there are a lot of BS artists out there, especially when it comes to nuclear power. One time I read a link from the NEI blog to a guy who had a lot of gun raving and other stuff, but had posted a positive about expanded use of nukes so they linked to him. If real knowledge is power, the guy was a night light.jose c.
--
"Though I don't think" added Deep Thought "that you're going to like it."
"If real knowledge is power, the guy was a night light."
This belongs in the quotable quotes, hall of fame!
You are right!
ROF
Where's REZ
When you are speaking about the million, hundred of millions of dollars involved you get pretty accurite weathermen to do your forecasting. Forecasting is part of the daily operating life of every powerplant. they know who much energy they consume hour by hour minute by minute.. they know for example that there will be a big surge in power used following the superbowl as everyone gets up and starts cooking etc.. they know when temps reach X how many airconditioners will be operating and during the day they know when this plant and that plant are operating how much to generate.
As you mentioned NG power plants can come up very quickly, coal fired might take days.. hydroelectric opens the gateway and spins the generators pretty quickly and nuclear can go rather quickly from a soft load to a heavier load.. (matter of exposing the rods more)
I used to sell a lot of equipment to power plants and they needed to inform me about details required (plus I'm naturally a courious person) Now granted much of my information is nearly 20 years old but still it's a bit of a guildline..
I recognized I misused the term cogeneration however I could not find a better word for the process whereby load is shared among powerplants and shifted back and forth according to the various aspects of the power generational capablity and costs of operating each plant..
That is the whole point.. no single source of power is going to provide all of our electrical needs.. IF we get 5% solar and 3% from wind that is still better than building new coal fired plants.. if the next day those numbers drop to 1/2 % wind and 1% solar so be it!
Nothing is perfect, it's all a compromise..
How dependable has it been?
Don't know, ERCOT is actually not allowed to specify plant reliability for security reasons. They may have some general numbers on their web site, but, I've not looked recently.
The Power EEs I know tell me that the wind turbines are generally reliable, but that weather is not. So, with weather inside the operations envelope, the reliability is good, but weather means the reliablity is lower than other kinds of powerplants.
IIRC, a coal or oil powerplant is near 100% reliable, runs as long as you supply fuel, and do all of your required steam plant maintenance.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
There have been 2 incidents that I know of caused by sudden changes in wind.One in Texas, about a year ago, they had a sudden drop in wind and had to declare a stage 2 emergency and had shed 1,100 mw of demand by dropping interruptable customers. Also the frequency dropped, but I don't know now much or how long.http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2749522920080228"ERCOT said the grid's frequency dropped suddenly when wind production fell from more than 1,700 megawatts, before the event, to 300 MW when the emergency was declared."And they where an incident in the MW, I think last summer or fall, when wind suddenly increased.They had to quickly reduce power from hydro and did it bypassing the turbines which dumped lots of water that caused fish kills..
William the Geezer, the sequel to Billy the Kid - Shoe
had shed 1,100 mw of demand by dropping interruptable customers. Also the frequency dropped, but I don't know now much or how long.
I remember that day--CS Utilities is apparently an interruptable customer, as we got to stand around a work wondering when the power would come on again. Took about 80 minutes to get sorted out. Ironically, I was working on a drawing for a new parking lot for the TMPA admin building in Carlos--where they had plenty of power.
Not as much fun as when, back in 2003, ERCOT had an icon in the system map mislabled and it dropped the power to the entire county for about six hours--there was an eye-opening experience.
When the power goes off, how do you know how much fuel you had half-filled your tank with? Not that you could put money in the point-of-sale register--so if you leave, is it a "drive off" (video cam won't be snapping your plates as you drive away). Worst part was traffic intersections with no lights.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Coal can be amazingly clean.. it really depends.. for example there is technology available where the carbon elements in the exhaust stack can be captured compressed and redirected to extracting oil from previously "dead" oil fields.. once redirected it remains captured underground permanently.
As for cost electricity is extremely complex in it's pricing often having almsot nothing to do with the cost of generation.. However the market does have force and a surplus of unused energy is wasteful to the company producing it.. Over time the pressure for steady price increases will be greater in finite enrgy sources like gas and oil than in much renewable sources like electricity..
Coal can be amazingly clean.. it really depends.. for example there is technology available where the carbon elements in the exhaust stack can be captured compressed and redirected to extracting oil from previously "dead" oil fields.. once redirected it remains captured underground permanently.
That technology is a long ways from being ready to deal with the huge amounts of CO*2 produced by the major thermal plants in the world. And the parasitic power needs to capture and compress the gas will be substantial, necessitating even more power production
As for cost electricity is extremely complex in it's pricing often having almost nothing to do with the cost of generation.. However the market does have force and a surplus of unused energy is wasteful to the company producing it.. Over time the pressure for steady price increases will be greater in finite energy sources like gas and oil than in much renewable sources like electricity..
I think that the continued and greater demand for electricity will always drive the price of juice up. As cars in metropolitan areas go electric, the electric consumption of that city will increase greatly
The fact that it exists should be encouragement to accept the reality that we are the Sudi Arabia of coal and the fact that there is ways to run plants cleaner is encouragement.. No, not all coal fired plants are clean but there are ways to make it much cleaner than it is and then it's purely a matter of economics.
Politicians can with the will of the people do a great deal to change the economics.
As to your last sentence.. Well we are in agreement.. But like all equations you need to consider everything.. the other portion of the equation is what's happening with the price of finite energy like oil and gas?
It's generally headed north much faster as supplies become shorter.. so relatively speaking electricity shall become cheaper relative to oil and gas..
Dunno know about the CO2 recapture thingie. They tried an experiment out west in Kansas usin the CO2 recaptured from an ethanol plant to inject into oil fields. Last I heard didn't produce worthwhile amounts of oil.....course 200 bucks a barrel might make it cost effective.
I'm sorry I don't know enough of the details to tell you why it didn't work.. Interesting solution though.. instead of putting it up in the air where it adds to global warming they put it underground where it came from in the first place!
Dunno know about the CO2 recapture thingie. They tried an experiment out west in Kansas usin the CO2 recaptured from an ethanol plant to inject into oil fields. Last I heard didn't produce worthwhile amounts of oil.....course 200 bucks a barrel might make it cost effective.
That is a different application. In the instance you are speaking of, they are attempting to push oil to other portions of the reservoir using high pressure CO*2. It is then a part of the oil production stream, and its use is a function of its cost, its relative merit, and the price of oil
What Frenchy was referring to was using air gas technology to scrub the CO*2 out of the flue gas, and store it in an abandoned oil field. Frenchy's capture is used regardless of the price of oil, and could be used in any geologic reservoir, oil, gas, or water.
Apples and oranges
Edited 3/19/2009 3:31 pm ET by McMark
I haven't read the other replies, but I can tell you that around here they build some homes with dual options. For example, the stove will have both an 220 plug and gas stub, so homeowner can make the choice. This is a much higher up front cost because you need more power at the box and higher capacity gas line to the house. But then you can make choices down the road - you won't be locked into anything. As appliances age, you can replace with the best alternative at the time of replacement.
If we promote gas to minimize the current carbon emissions, we'll be chained to the pipeline forever
Well, nothing is forever. Since there is really no telling what the energy scene will really look like in a 20 - 30 years, I don't think you have much choice but to focus on your current reality, and go as efficient as possible. I assume you can't be off the grid with solar (you're in MN) and geothermal is not an option for your site.
For "appliances" I assume you really mean heating/cooling. As any HVAC system is likely not to have a service life as long as the house will last anyway, (will you get 20 years out of ahot water heater?) if you are building the house right I wouldn't worry about a forever commitment. I would argue for simply building in a much adaptability as possible - the technology will always improve, and the systems in a house will inevitiably get changed out over the life of the house. Build the house to last forever, eventhough the systems will be changed out. Building a house that won't need to be torn done, or torn apart, as time goes on is in itself an environmental goal.
As you will already have electricity coming into the house, adding gas lines now (I assume you're not talking propane) would at least give the flexibility to adapt to whatever changes come in the energy market. In 15 years, will you have a clean electric choice? Maybe. But build for now, with room to adapt. In eight years of its life, for heating my house was coal, then oil, now gas. We'll see what's next.
A good rule for use is to never heat anything with electricity. No matter how it is created, the efficiency is never any greater than 30-35% (and often less) and the balance is in loss, which is heat, which is dumped into the environment.
An argument can be made that waste process heat from pv is less damaging than nuclear or coal or oil, but the fact is that heating with electricity, while 99% efficient at the stove or heater, is 30-35% efficient at its production source and you'd be better off burning the oil, gas or, yes, coal, at the point of use than using it to make electrons miles away.
Strictly speaking then, non-renewables should be used for space and appliance fuels and electricity saved for what it does best (electric motors or computers, say) or not so best (lighting).
This was all known back in the 70's and has been magically lost in the free-wheeling duration, which has also forgotten the unchangeable and unavoidable rules of thermodynamics. This constant loss of cultural memory and history, and the constant need to re-invent the wheel is one reason we never get off the ground with any meaningful changes in this country.
Edited 3/26/2009 12:45 am ET by DB1
No matter how it is created, the efficiency is never any greater than 30-35% (and often less) and the balance is in loss, which is heat, which is dumped into the environment.
I hear this argument against electricity often, so have always wondered what the actual efficiency of gas would be after you factor in the energy used to extract, refine and transport it to the consumer (as well as the efficiency loss in the appliance being used, which is always much lower than electricity)...
Anybody have any numbers?Shawn
30-35% efficient at its production source
Some of the newest plants with bottoming and topping cycles report over 50% HHV conversion efficiency to power at the generator output.
e.g. Comparative studies of advanced MHD topping power generation systemsKayukawa, N.Energy Conversion Engineering Conference and Exhibit, 2000. (IECEC) 35th Intersociety
Even a 30% coal plant combined with a COP 5.6 GSHP at home (my GSH does run at 5.6) will give you heat more efficent overall than burning at home.
Conservation is greener ... reduce your load. I know, you are already doing that.
Power follows the same laws of thermo. Use electric for 'small jobs' that can't be done w/ other energy sources. Use other sources for the remaining. Keep house size to a minimum (i.e. reduce load). Grid connected PV is good for those small loads and really bad [choice] for big loads (e.g. heating). One exception would be ground source heat pumps (GSHP). In the land of 10,000 lakes, you ought to be able to drop a coil in the nearest pond at next to no cost (well, not quite, but a handy pond will reduce the cost a lot). GSHP is a good option for your climate if other conditions are right.
Use a fuel cell for power ... if you want high tech, but 'clean' energy. That's probably a bit out there, but there are utilities that have dabbled in the last 15 years in house sized fuel cells (no, I don't mean the size of houses; sized FOR houses).
High efficiency boiler using e.g. wood pellets ... which I think is still an excellent, clean burning fuel source that can use renewable resources. Whatever you do ... the laws of thermo will follow and they affect everything ... including the economics of your options.