Posted on 08/21/2003 9:10:55 AM PDT by show me state
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:40:35 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Following the major blackout on the East Coast last week, the demand for Distributed Generation -- using small, on-site power plants -- is heating up.
Distributed Generation is like having a small power plant on-site at a commercial or industrial property. While the property still is connected to the grid, it gets its heat and power from natural gas fired generators so it never has to lose power in a blackout.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Amazing! Three lies in one short sentence.
Sorry, wrong. The approach "is" more efficient than buying grid power---because it also utilizes the normally "waste" heat to provide on-site heating and cooling. I don't know enough about the pollution aspects to make a judgemnt (although I suspect that claim is also true).
Of course, the "less expensive" depends on the price of natural gas, which is more dependent on politics than economics.
Amazing! Three lies in one short sentence.
No, it's not a lie, exactly. The concept is called "co-generation", and it involves using the waste heat from the electrical generator for industrial heating. IF you need ALL of the waste heat, then it becomes much more efficient than simply generating electric power from the fuel and also producing heat by burning fuel.
This is demonstrably false.
--Boris
So demonstrate.
And because the electrical grid is the backup for the generated electricity, you still have to pay for that service, too.
Then of course, you have to hire power plant maintenance and operation staff, electricians, chemical techs, and people to file all the EPA emission reports.
When you start adding in the cost of all these "details", these politically correct schemes only make sense for the tax breaks.
Hey, if you're in LIPA territory, sure CHP or DG may make sense. But at a cost to operate around $0.06 per kWh plus the cap-ex, CHP and/or DG doesn't work in most areas of the country unless the bill is covered by the gas companies, etc.
Micro-turbines are far more reliable than any other type of generator (aside from fuel cells, that is), and just like any other power plant, such outages can be and are planned for. One hundred percent backup capacity is NOT required.
And because the electrical grid is the backup for the generated electricity, you still have to pay for that service, too."
Not completely true--you have to pay for AVAILABILITY OF SERVICE, but not for the power you no longer use. And in fact, in some states, any excess power you DON'T need is sold back to the utility to which you are hooked up. In such cases, a "distributed power" generation system will not only pay for the "availability of power" service, but can actually be a profit center during "off-peak" hours.
"Then of course, you have to hire power plant maintenance and operation staff, electricians, chemical techs, and people to file all the EPA emission reports."
Not at all--those are provided by the company supplying the equipment. You "did" check the link and realize that there is a LEASE option available??
Nice "hypothetical" disadvantages---fortunately none of which are true. Try again.
It's completely reliable...because you say so.
No extra hiring is required...because you say so.
I am wondering if you have any experience working around equipment like this, and any experience running a buisiness where electricity and heat are mandatory all the time.
Nice strawman comments. Try actually READING what I said.:
1) Of course SOME level of backup is required, but 100% backup capacity is not. Every facility that "I" know about has "designed in" overcapacity, and can be run at a lower power availability without shutting down.
2) No piece of equipment is 100% reliable (nor that is not what I said). Microturbines are simply far MORE reliable than any competing technology. Read up on the technology--you might actually learn a little something about why that's true.
3) The specific manpower capabilities you referred to are provided by the company supplying the microturbines. There probably would be an extra hire or two to do routine maintenance.
And yes, Virginia, I "do" have eperience working in industries where electricity and heat are mandatory all the time (and in fact at a major chemical manufacturer who generated all their own power on-site, so I "do" know about planned outages, and capacity factor design). Funny thing, they always had heat and electricity available when they needed it. It was called PLANNING AHEAD. The simple way to handle it is to look at the total load and buy three smaller units whose combined output matches the required load.
I mean, just how micro are these micro turbines?
I've evaluated the "lease option" proposals of a company similar to RealEnergy and they are no deal...IMO. The cost to operate outweighs most rate structures...
Research in this area is very heavy. I seem to recall that "some" units are available in the 10KW size range, but haven't read enough about them to give details. Perhaps not surprisingly, a MAJOR driver in that size range is the military, given their growing need for small, LIGHT, reliable, highly efficient sources of electrical power to drive all the new combat electronic and computer systems.
Which works out to every 4-5 years. I don't consider that an unreasonable major maintenance interval. Add to that the fact that the area is pretty new--I'm sure things will improve as ceramic technology gets better.
The startup equipment cost for a MT plus heat exchanger is about $70K. Install is another $20K. Maintenance is at least $40k over a five year period of time. Cost of Nat Gas will swing with Nymex unless you've locked in annually. So, the initial capex is $90K. Annual maint is $8K, cost of operations is cost of nat. gas...assume $6-7 for a decatherm.
What does all that get you? 60kW. Not enough to do more that take off the top of a peak for many customers. Sure, piggyback them together and get up to 1 MW or so. IT is, at this time, cost prohibitive in the large majority of the country. It's a great concept but financially, it doesn't work.
What we have continued to do is measure the initial capex against reasonable risk assumptions for a negative business impact and associated losses from a blackout.
In the case of the NYC blackout, even those with gensets and MT's experienced problems because of fuel delivery. Diesel and nat gas is pumped with electricity and most of the fueling stations have no backup power.
Stick with the Honda. :)
Some, not a lot, comparatively speaking. If there is widespread adopotion of home-based generators using NG or hydrogen, there will be lives lost because of gas explosions (there are now, in fact), transportation accidents, etc. Compare the number of people killed in gas explosions to those killed by accidents involving electrical transmission (touching wires by accident, for example). Point is, there are risks associated with any technology. If you play, you pay, one way or the other.
It must work for some folks, or they wouldn't be selling.
The reason the grid exists is because of economies of scale. It simply is not possible to build a "small" electric power plant with the same efficiency as that of a big one. Big ones can use topping, bottoming, intercooling, and many stages in their turbines. Little ones cannot--and remain both little and cost-effective.
Basic physics.
--Boris
You have just disqualified yourself to conduct a discussion of energy policy with adults.
Amory Lovins is an ignoramus. He is a socialist. He is a Luddite. For starters.
--Boris
Which is all true, but as usual, you side-step the real issue, which is TOTAL CYCLE EFFICIENCY, and not simply the generation of electric power.
By using the waste heat to provide space heating (and other things requiring low-quality thermal energy), microturbines can capture up to 100% of the fuel energy.
I don't care WHAT "topping, bottoming, intercooling and many stages" central power stations use--since they are located remotely from users, they will NEVER attain that level of efficiency.
Just ONCE, try comparing apples to apples, will ya.
Even if it costs you--and everyone else--more.
You remind me of those gullible people who sign up to pay more to buy "clean" electricity (generated by wind or hydro). As if the power could be separated out and routed to your house...only "clean" power for me!
Electricity being a fungible commodity, this is a wonderful scam--persuade fools and dupes to pay extra for nothing.
--Boris
Then you wouldn't make a fool of yourself online.
The big companies also pay off Jesse Jackson who has perfected the art of the shake-down. Lovins provides a (misguided) way for them to point and claim they support "clean" energy.
I stand by everything I said. Go read up in Access to Energy and get back to us--with a healthy serving of crow under your belt.
--Boris
I have been studying this subject since 1971, so there.
My methods of generation of choice include:
(1) Nuclear power;
(2) Methane clathrates (far term);
(3) The vast deposits of coal and shale oil available in this country;
(4) The even vaster deposits of oil in Canada;
(5) ANWR;
(6) More exploration.
We could reduce our need for energy if ignorant gits with unpronouncable nicks decided to emmigrate to the third world, where their 'energy burden' (and lifespan) is much reduced. I'll buy you a ticket.
"Live light on the land," and scratch for grubs outside your mud hut. Forego the benefits of modern technology, such as PCs, automobiles, medical technology, television and radio, air travel, etc.
I will buy you a one-way ticket to the third-world nation of your choice (first class) if you agree to emigrate there and never return. I am completely serious. Name the country, the date, and the airline. Contact me by freepmail and your ticket will be delivered.
--Boris
Right now, there is no price advantage, but there IS an efficiency advantage. As mass production price advantages kick in and fuel prices continue to rise, breakeven will be reached and passed (a typical automobile is FAR more complex than a microturbine, yet costs much less--why?? Mass production).
Let's face it, most people are lazy. Most don't even change their own spark plugs in the car, would most maintain a power plant?
Microturbines require very little maintenance (the biggest is changing an air filter). Those that can do their own maintenance will do so, the rest will have someone come in and do a service call--just as is necessary with gas central heating systems today. How many people do you know who maintain their own central heating/AC systems??
These are downsides that I would bet bring the reliability of these little power generators down to the same level as a national grid with central power stations with more personal hassle."
Oh, PLEASE. How much unreliabilty is involved with having a propane truck drop by a few times a year and refill the tank (as they do for me now, to maintain my BACKUP GAS HEAT, since here in the Puget Sound area, GRID-SUPPLIED electricity is quite unreliable in winter due to failure of the electrical utilites to properly maintain their transmission lines by trimming the damned trees or putting the lines underground)?? Pipelines are another question--to absolutely assure reliability, they would need complete backup power (100% reliable) for their pumping stations--which is NOT exactly rocket science.
Major pipelines do blowup, pumping stations do blow up. A pipeline outage with everybody making their own electricity from natural gas would be much more serious than the blackout that just occurred. It could be weeks before full service is restored depending on what failed, if there are spares, or if a new installation is required. The cost of installing more high capacity long haul pipelines would cause the cost of natural gas to rise even more than it already has.
With regard to efficiency, I agree that a micro turbine would be more efficient than a coal plant. But cost to produce and deliver the power is the bottom line. The micro turbine would have the advantage of no delivery cost, but fuel will eat your lunch.
And propane or LNG delivery can be interrupted too. If there is no supply at the tank farm, the truck can't deliver it. I agree it could be rare, but then again, major blackouts are rare too.
To sum it up, I'm not against a microturbine, I'd even like to have one myself. But as the answer to our nation's energy cost and relibility, I think it will end up costing more to operate than what we already have and will not be any more reliable on the whole.
You're right, giving people a choice is just awful...Tear down those "hydro" dams starting with the Hoover and replace them with pollution belching coal burners...
As if the power could be separated out and routed to your house...only "clean" power for me!
In other words if say 50% of electricity consumers exercised a choice to use "clean" power it would have no impact?...Or maybe we should not allow "clean" power to be developed or marketed..
Has logic always been a problem for you?
I think we have a machine that can produce perpetual motion!! This is not possible, we might be able to approach 100%, but we can never get there. As a matter of fact, the closer you get to perfection, the more difficult it gets to get the next 1%. The costs and complexity begin to skyrocket. The cost for the received benefit becomes too much. This applies to all energy efficiencies, not just microturbines.
If you include the efficiency of getting the fuel gas from the well head to the pipeline to the microturbine BEFORE you begin making the electricity, Distributed Generation DOES NOT avoid the transmission waste, it merely moves it's location in the chain of events. You really do need to include that in the analysis if you are looking at this as a national energy policy.
As I have said before, it is the cost to the homeowner, business, and economy that counts, NOT the efficiency that matters.Do not believe that natural gas will remain cheap or get cheaper. Pipelines are expensive to install and maintain, and we do not have enough of them. There is also the problem with the dimishing well output going on even though well drilling has increased. We could end up having to import LNG and be held hostage to foreign exporters again. COAL AND NUCLEAR IS THE ANSWER that we have right now, not years down the road. Some of these other exotic fuel sources are also something to be explored, like methane from the ocean floor.
ARRGHHH!!! You just proved yourself to be an nitwit. What we are talking about is capturing the waste heat AS HEAT--NOT ELECTRICITY, by using it for space heating. That can and does capture 100% of the energy in the fuel for human use (at least during the heating season of the year). Now, admittedly, if you want to use PART of that waste heat IN SUMMER to run an air conditioner (desorption type), THEN there IS some wasteage and added complexity--but you STILL capture far more of the fuel energy than the best combined-cycle central power station can possibly do.
Hydro is fine, except that all the useful sources are already fully exploited. And the scam is persuading the logically-challenged that the DW&P can send only "primo" water-derived power right to their house for only 25% more per kW.
"In other words if say 50% of electricity consumers exercised a choice to use "clean" power it would have no impact?...Or maybe we should not allow "clean" power to be developed or marketed.."
Better read up on your Adam Smith. 50% of the consumers are unlikely to be fools...defined as those who make uneconomic and non-optimal decisions regarding commodities--like power--they consume. A small minority--at -3sigma on the bell curve--will line up to pay more for--as I said--nothing at all.
As for logic, I got "A"s in both logic and economics, as well as Engineering. You?
--Boris
I'll avoid the name calling part. But even the waste heat use, either for hot water or air conditioner, is not 100% efficient since there is always a heat loss due to less than perfect insulation, and friction losses in the pipes the fluids are pumped though. The use of a pump to pump the coolant or move the hot water is an efficiency loss by itself. I was only trying to point out that there is nothing that is 100% efficient. I'm not trying to say the process is not efficient.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.