Category: Articles

  • CHP Electricity Powers cars 22 Times Farther Than Ethanol

    July 27, 2009

    CHP Electricity Powers Cars 22 Times Farther Than Ethanol!



    Cheap fossil fuel has allowed us to waste the majority of our energy, filling the planet with pollution and waste heat. Our car engines are only 25% efficient and coal power plants are not much better. Corn ethanol is one of the worst wastes of biomass: An acre of corn produces about 330 gallons/year if you cook it using fossil fuel.



    Use the ethanol as a heat source and the net yield drops to 214 gallons/year.  Car gas mileage is 30% lower with ethanol. At 25 miles/gallon we can only drive 25 X 214 = 5350 miles per year on an acre of corn.


    If we take that same acre of corn and burn it to make electricity to charge an electric car, we will be able to drive the car 22 times as far!  About 117,096 miles per year!



     



    • The energy content of dry corn biomass is about 7000 Btu/lb or 4100 kWh/ton
    • With an 85% efficient CHP plant the net power out is .85 X 4100 = 3485 kWh/ton
    • An acre of corn yields about 8.4 dry tons/yr or 8.4 X 3485 = 29,274 kWh per year
    • The Tesla electric car goes 4 mi/kWh (EPA) 4 X 29,274  =  117,096 miles!      

    We don’t have very many 85% efficient Combined Heat and Power (CHP) biomass power plants in the U.S.  In fact, only 8% of our power plants are CHP plants. But Denmark has 53%, Holland 39% and Finland 38%. CHP plants are extremely efficient with many exceeding 90% efficiency! The secret of CHP is to locate the plant near where heat is needed.  The waste heat from electricity generation is then sold along with the electricity so the only real waste is the heat that escapes into the air or past the heat exchangers in the stack.


    CHP requires a different way of thinking. You must look first for places you can sell heat.  Electricity is easy to distribute but heat is harder so location and sizing of plants must follow the heat demand. Mammoth gigawatt-scale power plants cannot do CHP unless they are built adjacent to a mammoth cement plant, kiln or steel plant. Most mammoth plants today dump about 2/3rds of their power into a stream or ocean just to get rid of it. A horrible waste!


    High-rise buildings, hospitals, industrial parks, shopping centers, apartments, housing tracts and hotels are all excellent candidates for CHP power. Hot water, heat and cooling needs are generally comparable to electric power needs so 50% efficient electrical generators are a perfect fit: The wasted heat from the generator is simply used as heat. Fortunately, the needed technology is appearing just on schedule. Fuel cells can generate electricity with 50-60% efficiency from natural gas or syngas from biomass.  One of the reasons mammoth power plants were built in the past was that only very large turbines were efficient. The other reason was pollution control. Neither reason applies today, as gas and biomass burn clean, particularly in a fuel cell.


    Fortunately, we have a glut of natural gas from new shale bed discoveries. Gas is very convenient in cities, while biomass can generate carbon free power in more rural areas. Switching from coal power to CHP gas power has a massive impact on greenhouse gas emissions. Natural gas produces only 55% as much carbon as coal. CHP plants are three times as efficient (85% vs. 28%) so the resulting emissions are only .33X.55= 18% of a coal plant producing equivalent power! That’s a better improvement than the planned 40% CO2 output of Futuregen and we don’t have to wait decades for it to happen. With 3X better fuel economy, natural gas is way cheaper than coal and we won’t run out of natural gas for a long time.


    Giant power plants are custom designed and take 10 years to build. Smaller, modular CHP plants can be based on standard pre-approved designs with components built on mass-production lines like cars. The capital cost can be much lower than large plants. There are several mass-produced home-sized CHP units coming on the market now based on fuel cells. Honda already shipped 50,000 of their Ecowill units in Japan. These units are 85.5% efficient by using generator-wasted heat to make hot water.


    What we need now are standard CHP generator designs in the 1-MW to 5-MW size that can run on natural gas or biomass. A biomass unit could be used on a farm to heat greenhouses, cold storage, fish ponds or brick production. Burning 2 MW of biomass would produce 1 MW of heat and 1 MW of electricity.  1 MW of electricity is 8,760,000 kilowatt-hours per year, worth about $876,000 per year. The heat is worth about 1/3 as much. Carbon credits and Renewable Energy Credits add to the income.


    To feed a 2-MW gasifier with corn, the farmer would need only about 68 acres of land.  Other, more prolific feedstocks like elephant grass could probably get by with only 23 acres. In Germany they have straw bale gasifiers that simply require the farmer to throw in a new bale periodically. The control microcomputer rings the farmer’s cell phone with a text message whenever a new bale is needed.


    This decentralized free enterprise approach could revolutionize our power structure in short order.  Denmark changed their utility laws in 1990 and within 10 years 45% of ownership of power generation had shifted to consumer owned and municipality-owned CHP plants (25%) and wind turbines (20%). Ironically, ten years is about the time it takes to build one giant nuclear or “clean coal” plant. Distributed power eliminates the need for massive expansion of our power grid to connect old-style monster power plants.  Distributed power also reduces power transmission losses since power is consumed near where it is generated.


    The U.S. is way behind in efficient power generation because our utilities laws encourage massive inefficient power plants. If we can change that legal environment we can unleash a revolution that will dramatically reduce pollution and global warming, create good jobs and reduce our heat and power costs. The problems are political, not technical!

  • Post-Carbon Australian Options for Railway Locomotives.

    Anyone interested in reading a detailed report compiled by W.Shawn Gray?


    It deals with problems we will encounter with the approaching Peak-Oil Crisis


    and other associated issues. It is very comprehensive and Shawn has tried to


    deal with them in a PDF Document of some 42 Pages.


    It is well worth downloading from his URL and website listed below.


    For the past nine months I have been investigating then writing a paper about “Post-Carbon Australian Options for Railway Locomotives”. The (ever updating) draft of the paper has been released on the net for public comment from my website at http://www.auzgnosis.com/pgs/auzloco.htm

  • Ethanol fuel

    Ethanol fuel is ethanol (ethyl alcohol), the same type of alcohol found in alcoholic beverages. It can be used as a fuel, mainly as a biofuel alternative to gasoline, and is widely used by flex-fuel light vehicles in Brazil, and as an oxygenate to gasoline in the United States. Together, both countries were responsible for 89 percent of the world’s ethanol fuel production in 2008.[1] Because it is easy to manufacture and process and can be made from very common crops such as sugar cane, potato, manioc and corn, in several countries ethanol fuel is increasingly being blended as gasohol or used as an oxygenate in gasoline. Bioethanol, unlike petroleum, is a renewable resource that can be produced from agricultural feedstocks.



     


    Anhydrous ethanol (ethanol with less than 1% water) can be blended with gasoline in varying quantities up to pure ethanol (E100), and most modern gasoline engines will operate well with mixtures of 10% ethanol (E10).[2] Most cars on the road today in the U.S. can run on blends of up to 10% ethanol,[3] and the use of 10% ethanol gasoline is mandated in some cities.


    Ethanol can be mass-produced by fermentation of sugar or by hydration of ethylene (ethene CH2=CH2) from petroleum and other sources. Current interest in ethanol mainly lies in bio-ethanol, produced from the starch or sugar in a wide variety of crops, but there has been considerable debate about how useful bio-ethanol will be in replacing fossil fuels in vehicles. Concerns relate to the large amount of arable land required for crops,[4] as well as the energy and pollution balance of the whole cycle of ethanol production.[5][6] Recent developments with cellulosic ethanol production and commercialization may allay some of these concerns.[7]


    According to the International Energy Agency, cellulosic ethanol could allow ethanol fuels to play a much bigger role in the future than previously thought.[8] Cellulosic ethanol offers promise as resistant cellulose fibers, a major and universal component in plant cells walls, can be used to generate ethanol.[9][10]

  • Water power

    Water power



    Energy in water (in the form of kinetic energy, temperature differences or salinity gradients) can be harnessed and used. Since water is about 800 times denser than air,[26][27] even a slow flowing stream of water, or moderate sea swell, can yield considerable amounts of energy.



     





    One of 3 PELAMIS P-750 Ocean Wave Power engines in the harbor of Peniche, Portugal

    There are many forms of water energy:



    • Hydroelectric energy is a term usually reserved for large-scale hydroelectric dams. Examples are the Grand Coulee Dam in Washington State and the Akosombo Dam in Ghana.
    • Micro hydro systems are hydroelectric power installations that typically produce up to 100 kW of power. They are often used in water rich areas as a Remote Area Power Supply (RAPS). There are many of these installations around the world, including several delivering around 50 kW in the Solomon Islands.
    • Damless hydro systems derive kinetic energy from rivers and oceans without using a dam.
    • Ocean energy describes all the technologies to harness energy from the ocean and the sea:


      1. Tidal motion in the vertical direction — Tides come in, raise water levels in a basin, and tides roll out. Around low tide, the water in the basin is discharged through a turbine, exploiting the stored potential energy.
      2. Tidal motion in the horizontal direction — Or tidal stream power. Using tidal stream generators, like wind turbines but then in a tidal stream. Due to the high density of water, about eight-hundred times the density of air, tidal currents can have a lot of kinetic energy. Several commercial prototypes have been built, and more are in development.


      • Wave power uses the energy in waves. Wave power machines usually take the form of floating or neutrally buoyant structures which move relative to one another or to a fixed point. Wave power has now reached commercialization.

  • The Geysers (Geothermal Power)

    The Geysers


    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



    Jump to: navigation, search




    The West Ford Flat power plant is one of 21 power plants at The Geysers

    The Geysers, a geothermal power field located 72 miles (116 km) north of San Francisco, California, is the largest geothermal development in the world. It is currently outputting over 750 MW. The Geysers consists of 22 separate power plants that utilize steam from more than 350 producing wells. [1] The Calpine Corporation operates and owns 19 of the 22 facilities. The other three facilities are operated by the Northern California Power Agency and the Western GeoPower Corporation.






    [edit] Description

    The Geysers geothermal development spans an area of around 30 square miles (78 km²) in Sonoma and Lake counties in California, located in the Mayacamas Mountains. Power from The Geysers provides electricity to Sonoma, Lake, Mendocino, Marin, and Napa counties. It is estimated that the development meets 60 percent of the power demand for the coastal region between the Golden Gate Bridge and the Oregon state line.[1]

    Steam used at The Geysers is produced from a greywacke sandstone reservoir, that is capped by a heterogeneous mix of low permeability rocks and underlaid by a Felsite intrusion.[2] Gravity and seismic studies suggest that the source of heat for the steam reservoir is a large magma chamber over 4 miles (7 km) beneath the ground, and greater than 8 miles (14 km) in diameter. [3]

    Unlike most geothermal resources, the Geysers is a dry steam field, which means it mainly produces superheated steam. Because the power plant turbines require a vapor phase input, dry steam resources are generally preferable. Otherwise, a two-phase separator is required between the turbine and the geothermal wells to remove condensation that is produced with the steam.

    [edit] History

    The first recorded discovery of The Geysers was in 1847 during John Fremont‘s survey of the Sierra Mountains and the Great Basin by William Bell Elliot. Elliot called the area “The Geysers,” although the geothermal features he discovered were not technically geysers, but fumaroles. Soon after, in 1852, The Geysers was developed into a spa for The Geysers Resort Hotel, which attracted the likes of Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, and Mark Twain.[4]

    [edit] Future

    The Geysers electrical plant reached peak production in 1987, at that time serving 1.8 million people. Since then, the steam field has been in gradual decline as its underground water source decreases. Currently, the Geysers produce enough electricity for 1.1 million people.

    Techniques developed from Enhanced Geothermal Systems research will increase the production of the region in the future. By reinjecting greywater from the nearby city of Santa Rosa, existing wells will be recharged. This water will be naturally heated in the geothermal reservoir, and be captured by the existing power plants as steam. The project should increase electrical output by 85 MW, enough for about 85,000 homes.[5]

     

  • We’re living longer but even that is worrying us

    But
    what if it is a good thing? To start with, there is no sweet spot with
    life expectancy. The orthodoxy is: the higher, the better. In Zimbabwe
    a combination of HIV/AIDS, starvation, bad sanitation and the
    wellspring of these ills, poor governance, has cut life expectancy at
    birth to 40 years. In Japan, the country with the highest life
    expectancy, you can look to live to 82. Nowhere in any census or policy
    document will you see anyone saying: “Some kind of midpoint would be
    nice . . .  61?” This is for a number of reasons, the most obvious being
    that people tend not to want to die.

    The rise
    in the number of the old is a massive human success story: life
    expectancy increases because of better education, greater wealth, lower
    infant mortality, better healthcare, less disease, the reduction of
    armed conflict, and the development of technology and its application
    in pursuit of good. It is, frankly, insane to look at an ageing
    population and not rejoice. Why do we even have a concept of public
    health, of co-operation, of sharing knowledge, if not to extend life,
    wherever we find it?

    The problem, then, is not age as such
    but the proportion of the aged: not only will the old outnumber the
    young globally but, in 11 major nations, the population is ageing while
    numbers decline – an unprecedented combination. It will lead to a very
    substantially increased “older dependency ratio”, which is taken,
    inexorably, to be damaging to economies.

    Again, this
    presentation ignores benefits that are much more significant than any
    country’s gross domestic product. It is a consensus among
    environmentalists that a decline in human fertility will, if not solve
    the planet’s problems, at least give us some breathing space in which
    to solve them. The spectre of Malthus, the world’s most famous Guy Who
    Was Wrong, muddies the water unnecessarily. Yes, he was wrong; and yes,
    the neo-Malthusian Paul Ehrlich fell victim to overblown predictions of
    catastrophe in the 1960s.

    In The Population Bomb he
    wrote: “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s the
    world will undergo famines – hundreds of millions of people are going
    to starve to death.” That kind of drama did not transpire but he was
    not far off: 300 million people have died of hunger or related causes
    since 1967.

    But just because burgeoning fertility has not
    been the catastrophe some have claimed, it does not mean we should not
    take heart from its decline. And if fertility does fall, then of course
    this will tip the balance in favour of the old.

    Another
    difficulty with those “worrying” older dependency ratios is that they
    are all based on a traditional retirement age – which most of us know
    to be outdated. For Britain, the country’s National Association of
    Pension Funds points out that women’s eligibility for the state pension
    was reduced from 70 to 60 in 1940. The pre-war situation was the
    hardboiled if bizarre one that life expectancy as a woman was 64, and
    yet you did not qualify for state aid until six years later. For men it
    was moderately worse. Their life expectancy was 59 in 1941, and their
    eligibility for state pension was not brought down to 65 until 1948.
    The state has never expected to support people for 21 years before
    death; rather, for a year or two, or hopefully minus six.

    The
    counter-argument is that as life expectancy rises so do chronic and
    degenerative conditions, so that people just are not well enough to
    work in the five years before their death, as they were when life
    expectancy was lower.

    This is contested territory, though,
    and the spectre of decades of disability at the end of life is not
    borne out by the figures. Many prefer the “dynamic equilibrium”
    prediction, in which the factors extending life – a healthier
    lifestyle, faster detection of conditions, better treatment – also
    minimise disability; and, where there is ill health, it is compressed
    into a short period before death.

    Our ageing world, in
    other words, is brilliant news. This is what we have been working
    towards for as long as the concept of working towards anything has
    existed. The response so far makes me think that maybe there is just no
    pleasing a statistician.

    Zoe Williams is a columnist with The Guardian, in which this article first appeared.