It is worse than that. The shutdowns will be concentrated on the East Coast. Which means that they will lose a greater portion of their local supply than 20%. Electrical Power with the current grid can exchange power over 300 mile distances. So even if Florida has an excess of power it is not going to help New York. Illinois will not be helping New York either.That said, the EPA is issuing mercury regulations this summer that will shut down about 20% of the coal plants in the US since their operators don't have the capital to refit them with clean-coal technology. Those same operators certainly don't have the capital to refit them with polywell if they can't afford some scrubbers.
Special Interests and Energy
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
From Msimon's Blog:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-vine/76566/ ... l-shutdown
The thing that stands out from this is the old tired call for greater efficiency. As an engineer and somebody who has been watching these issues for over thirty years, I find these calls for greater efficiency by people who have never had to go without air conditioning more than a little hypocritical. They won't suffer the brownouts, because the power companies will concentrate the power reductions where the people are least likely to notice or complain. There is also a cost, in lives for that greater efficiency as the poor and elderly who can no longer afford to cool their homes. Then there is the problem of lost productivity due to mandated shutdowns. Along with companies that are forced to move out of my area because of unreliable power. Already the power in my office blips at least four or five times a day, setting off our UPS's. The new genetics lab they are building in our offices is installing backup power because of the unreliability. the fact is that all the low hanging efficiency fruit was taken a long time ago. Greater efficiency isn't a straight line function as Progressives like the writer of this article like to think. It's an asymptotic curve and most homes and businesses are well into the point of diminished return.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-vine/76566/ ... l-shutdown
The thing that stands out from this is the old tired call for greater efficiency. As an engineer and somebody who has been watching these issues for over thirty years, I find these calls for greater efficiency by people who have never had to go without air conditioning more than a little hypocritical. They won't suffer the brownouts, because the power companies will concentrate the power reductions where the people are least likely to notice or complain. There is also a cost, in lives for that greater efficiency as the poor and elderly who can no longer afford to cool their homes. Then there is the problem of lost productivity due to mandated shutdowns. Along with companies that are forced to move out of my area because of unreliable power. Already the power in my office blips at least four or five times a day, setting off our UPS's. The new genetics lab they are building in our offices is installing backup power because of the unreliability. the fact is that all the low hanging efficiency fruit was taken a long time ago. Greater efficiency isn't a straight line function as Progressives like the writer of this article like to think. It's an asymptotic curve and most homes and businesses are well into the point of diminished return.
Supposedly Edison's very first power plant had an efficiency over 50% due to cogeneration. I've read that current regulations don't give power companies any incentive to take advantage of cogeneration. Maybe a big enough carbon tax would do it.Jccarlton wrote:The thing that stands out from this is the old tired call for greater efficiency. As an engineer and somebody who has been watching these issues for over thirty years, I find these calls for greater efficiency by people who have never had to go without air conditioning more than a little hypocritical...
- Jim Van Zandt
Personally, I have little sympathy for folks who lose their AC in the middle of a hot day, unless they lose the pump that transfers the coolth from the ice block they made the prior night.
Making coolth in the middle of a hot day and during peak electricity demand time is just plain old STUPID! My condo is guilty. Most folks are. Comes down to getting what you subsidize, and most folks are subsidized to be STUPID!. Oh whell.
Making coolth in the middle of a hot day and during peak electricity demand time is just plain old STUPID! My condo is guilty. Most folks are. Comes down to getting what you subsidize, and most folks are subsidized to be STUPID!. Oh whell.
This is false. Cogeneration is a huge growth sector, but because of cost reasons, it is only feasible for industrial and institutional facilities that maintain their own power generation capacity or else have heat as the primary need of their operations (refineries, smelters, etc). I've been involved in cogeneration projects since 1991.jrvz wrote:Supposedly Edison's very first power plant had an efficiency over 50% due to cogeneration. I've read that current regulations don't give power companies any incentive to take advantage of cogeneration. Maybe a big enough carbon tax would do it.Jccarlton wrote:The thing that stands out from this is the old tired call for greater efficiency. As an engineer and somebody who has been watching these issues for over thirty years, I find these calls for greater efficiency by people who have never had to go without air conditioning more than a little hypocritical...
It isn't feasible for a big power station to utilize the waste heat unless there is an industrial facility that has a need for it willing and able to locate next door. The idea of piping hot water or steam throughout an entire city is excessively capital intensive and building such an infrastructure was only feasible in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when the cost of power was much higher, adjusted for inflation, than it is today.
If you want to cogenerate at a major power plant like that, you need to plan to build essentially a major arcology project right next door, or else, as said previously, have a major industrial operator needing heat willing and able to locate next to the plant.
Institutions like universities and prisons, hospitals and industrial plants do in fact get significant financial incentives, when an area is in a power deficit, to invest in installing a cogeneration plant on site to provide both heat and power needs.
Have you calculated efficiencies? Depending on day to night temperature swings and the temperature you keep the house, using the ice block may use far more energy.KitemanSA wrote:Personally, I have little sympathy for folks who lose their AC in the middle of a hot day, unless they lose the pump that transfers the coolth from the ice block they made the prior night.
Where I live it is a good idea to ventilate overnight most summer nights to cool the house.
Maybe so, but the energy is available with little strain on the system nor risk of brown-out. Also, if you are that concerned, try using something like pentadecane for your phase change material. A number of the alkanes in that weight range have melting point temperatures in the 40-70 degree F range. And if you are REALLY into this stuff, line your walls with alkane impregnated gypsum board with the melting temperature selected to be ~72 degrees and use your vent to cool as much as possible at night then your AC to take the temp below 72.hanelyp wrote:Have you calculated efficiencies? Depending on day to night temperature swings and the temperature you keep the house, using the ice block may use far more energy.KitemanSA wrote:Personally, I have little sympathy for folks who lose their AC in the middle of a hot day, unless they lose the pump that transfers the coolth from the ice block they made the prior night.
But for most places where temperatures are a danger if the AC goes out, an ice block would almost surely be cheaper than driving the AC at the hottest time of day, except for the subsidized stupidity which was the original point of my message.
The reason for subsidized stupidity is capital costs. And a lack of forced planning.
If it was possible to force people to live in the most desirable way and to force industrialists to integrate their concerns with local power plants all this would be easier. The Soviet Union had all this worked out properly. Shame they weren't a going concern.
/sark
The real problem with such a set up is that the waste heat is a function of plant load. With the load varying over a roughly 2:1 range day/night what you gain in plant efficiency you lose in part or whole by having to design the thermal load for power swings of 2:1 over day night. Either you design the thermal load for minimum power plant load or you need auxiliary heat to cover day night operations (petrochemical plants say).
Systems design is hard. Too many objectives and things don't work so well or at all depending.
The "waste" complained about is how you get resiliency in a system.
If it was possible to force people to live in the most desirable way and to force industrialists to integrate their concerns with local power plants all this would be easier. The Soviet Union had all this worked out properly. Shame they weren't a going concern.
/sark
The real problem with such a set up is that the waste heat is a function of plant load. With the load varying over a roughly 2:1 range day/night what you gain in plant efficiency you lose in part or whole by having to design the thermal load for power swings of 2:1 over day night. Either you design the thermal load for minimum power plant load or you need auxiliary heat to cover day night operations (petrochemical plants say).
Systems design is hard. Too many objectives and things don't work so well or at all depending.
The "waste" complained about is how you get resiliency in a system.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Not sure of your point here. You SEEM to be saying I'm wrong by saying I'm right... which of course is a bit confusing.
The reason for subsidized stupidity is politics.
If the politicians (bureaucrats?) that control what the power companies can charge would LET them charge Time-of-Day rates to residential consumers, most residential buildings would tend (over time) toward more off-peak usage patterns. This would REDUCE the capital cost for the provider and would only increase capital cost for the consumer if it was beneficial. Such is my vision.
The reason for subsidized stupidity is politics.
If the politicians (bureaucrats?) that control what the power companies can charge would LET them charge Time-of-Day rates to residential consumers, most residential buildings would tend (over time) toward more off-peak usage patterns. This would REDUCE the capital cost for the provider and would only increase capital cost for the consumer if it was beneficial. Such is my vision.
To do that the utility must constantly send out price signals and the loads must be interruptable or delayable. Interrupts and delays cost money. Which of course the consumer will absorb. And the communications infrastructure. And the additional cost of appliances. And the havoc caused if the design causes grid crashes from unforseen or malicious events.KitemanSA wrote:Not sure of your point here. You SEEM to be saying I'm wrong by saying I'm right... which of course is a bit confusing.
The reason for subsidized stupidity is politics.
If the politicians (bureaucrats?) that control what the power companies can charge would LET them charge Time-of-Day rates to residential consumers, most residential buildings would tend (over time) toward more off-peak usage patterns. This would REDUCE the capital cost for the provider and would only increase capital cost for the consumer if it was beneficial. Such is my vision.
Will the savings be profitable? And for whom?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Nope. All it needs is a clock. Meters built these days have the hardware already. They just can't be used that way.MSimon wrote:To do that the utility must constantly send out price signals and the loads must be interruptable or delayable. Interrupts and delays cost money. Which of course the consumer will absorb. And the communications infrastructure. And the additional cost of appliances. And the havoc caused if the design causes grid crashes from unforseen or malicious events.
Will the savings be profitable? And for whom?
What you seem to think I support is what others call "smart grid". I don't, except to the degree that the power companies choose to use/develop it on their own. Most folks seem to want the gov'mint to mandate it. I share what I think are your objections to that bit of political chicanery.
By the by, here in VA we have both a Time-of-Use AND a "Power Level" charge for most larger users. If you use 24kWhr in 1 minute, you pay more than using it evenly over 24 hours. We pay not only for energy but power too.
It's not that the stupid is subsidized - it is that until recently the technology wasn't really up to billing home customers based on time of usage. Now, of course, they could easily store time of usage data and collect it electronically.KitemanSA wrote:Personally, I have little sympathy for folks who lose their AC in the middle of a hot day, unless they lose the pump that transfers the coolth from the ice block they made the prior night.
Making coolth in the middle of a hot day and during peak electricity demand time is just plain old STUPID! My condo is guilty. Most folks are. Comes down to getting what you subsidize, and most folks are subsidized to be STUPID!.
Wandering Kernel of Happiness
Actually no:jrvz wrote:Supposedly Edison's very first power plant had an efficiency over 50% due to cogeneration. I've read that current regulations don't give power companies any incentive to take advantage of cogeneration. Maybe a big enough carbon tax would do it.Jccarlton wrote:The thing that stands out from this is the old tired call for greater efficiency. As an engineer and somebody who has been watching these issues for over thirty years, I find these calls for greater efficiency by people who have never had to go without air conditioning more than a little hypocritical...
The Pearl st power station used single stage stationary piston steam engines with saturated steam.:
http://www.ieeeghn.org/wiki/index.php/P ... et_Station
While my vintage power plant and steam books are currently in deep storage, looking at the pictures in the IEEE page I linked to, I doubt that the thermal efficiency of the Pearl St Station was over 25%, based on it's single stage engines(they weren't even compounded!!) and probable boiler pressures of under 300 psi. As for using the excess steam to heat buildings, a practice that still exists in New York City, that is evidence of inefficiency, not efficiency. A modern steam plant low pressure turbine exhausts right at the saturated vapor line, or as close as you can get. This has been the practice since at least 1907 that I know of. That means that the exhaust pressure is below atmospheric and at as low a temperature as possible without causing liquid steam to start forming inside the turbine. That means that any waste steam doesn't have enough enthalpy(internal energy) to be used for steam heating or much of anything. The steam that Con Edison delivers to buildings in NYC is made for that purpose:
http://www.coned.com/history/steam.asp
That's because it's cheaper for Con Edison to make the steam than it is to bleed off the steam that the low pressure turbine in Con Edison power plants could be used to generate electricity.
Cogeneration is being misused like a bunch of other words by Progressives with no real knowledge of engineering as some sort of magic. The reality is most engineers in most industries are not in the business of throwing stuff out or wasting energy. Cogeneration has been around a long time before progressive started to use the word as magic. On the other hand there has to be a calculation of return on investment. Spending a million to get 5KW is stupid. Spending a million to get 5MW is money in your pocket.
But that wasn't the kind of efficiency that I was talking about. The people in this article were talking about greater efficiency in people homes and businesses. This is where the Progressives are stuck on stupid.:http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 ... stupi.html
The fact is that for the last 30 years or so, since the late '70's most people have pursued home improvements to save energy with great vigor, pushed on by Gov't ads and the simple desire to improve ones lifestyle and save money. Reinsulating the house makes sense. Using a well as a heatsink makes sense if you have the well in the first place. Putting double pane glass or storm windows keeps the drafts out. So most of this kind of stuff, the low hanging fruit of energy efficiency was done a long time ago.
Consider the push to get rid of incandescent light bulbs. Lately every day, on the radio the ad council has been running ads about the dangers of old lead paint in houses. Yet the same Gov't running those ads is mandating that we replace safe incandescent light bulbs with light bulbs containing Mercury, which the EPA is vigorously attacking in coal emissions. All to save the 5KW or so that is saved in electricity. Is that really worth importing into our houses thin walled glass tubes filled with the substance that the same EPA says is so dangerous that in order to reduce possible exposure, all the coal and cement plants in the Northeast need to be shut down? CFLs and other flourescent bulbs make sense for some applications, especially things like bathroom ceilings or hall lights where you don't want to change the bulbs very often. Or any light needs to stay on all the time. But a floor or table lamp in a carpeted living room? Does the Gov't really want to responsible for what happens when CFL breaks in a carpeted room. As nearly as I can tell we would be better in Mercury exposure if we kept using the old power plants and kept using incandescent bulb, but I'm just a trained engineer and not a graduate from some fancy school of Gov't in an Ivy Covered Snob Factory, inducted into our ruling class.
Yes, they COULD, but in many places they are not PERMITTED to, yes they CAN but they MAY not. And because of this, the government is forcing the electric utilities to subsidize high power usage at peak power times because the AC users are NOT charged for the true cost of the power they use during those times. Without the subsidy, it would be stupid to use that power at that time, hence subsidized stupidity.WizWom wrote:It's not that the stupid is subsidized - it is that until recently the technology wasn't really up to billing home customers based on time of usage. Now, of course, they could easily store time of usage data and collect it electronically.
Viola!
I believe he was commenting on the "Combined Heat & Power" efficiency. 25% for the power, and the remaining 75% transmitted to the local customers for heating purposes at what, 60% efficiency? 25+.6*75=70% efficiency. Not bad.Jccarlton wrote:Actually no:jrvz wrote:Supposedly Edison's very first power plant had an efficiency over 50% due to cogeneration. I've read that current regulations don't give power companies any incentive to take advantage of cogeneration. Maybe a big enough carbon tax would do it.Jccarlton wrote:The thing that stands out from this is the old tired call for greater efficiency. As an engineer and somebody who has been watching these issues for over thirty years, I find these calls for greater efficiency by people who have never had to go without air conditioning more than a little hypocritical...
The Pearl st power station used single stage stationary piston steam engines with saturated steam.:
http://www.ieeeghn.org/wiki/index.php/P ... et_Station
While my vintage power plant and steam books are currently in deep storage, looking at the pictures in the IEEE page I linked to, I doubt that the thermal efficiency of the Pearl St Station was over 25%, based on it's single stage engines(they weren't even compounded!!) and probable boiler pressures of under 300 psi.
Of course in combined cycle terms, a modern plant might get the same efficiency if the heat end of the system was thru a heat pump.