Energista - Hydrogen - Comments

Exactly

Noah Kunin — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:13:13 -0500

It was patently obvious that what he said wasn't true - that's the point though. Why would he make a joke out of a situation that didn't happen, at the expense of the President and his own product?

Maybe it's a function of Bush's approval rating...

Or maybe it was a joke?

nickmark — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:09:52 -0500

Some DG can work

Timothy DHT — Sun, 29 Oct 2006 17:03:48 -0600

Just a few comments:

Despite the costs of small local power, their are some real cost advantages to be realized in some situations; I've heard more Kenyans are hooking up to solar panels than to the electric grid - very different lifestyle, but it works for the poor.

I agree that in many cases for urban use local biomass co-gen is very limited (again supply at urban density is limited). However, other heating systems, solar thermal heat and particularly ground-source heating are very cost-effective - I heard the Green Institute in Minneapolis got 3 year paybacks on their ground-source heat system. Lots of houses are doing it too. Ground source is pretty much applicable anywhere.

David Morris from the Institute for Local Self-Reliance made an interesting point at the Humphrey Institute Conference: northeastern Illinois is getting better economics on its industrial scale turbines than MN, despite having worse wind - local Chicago demand.

Also in response to the comparison of a 500 kw to 100 MW: I'm sure a portion of that cost differential is due to the efficiency of the turbines themselves, rather than the scale of the project as a whole. Small turbines get really bad efficiency compared with large ones, but I'm not sure a single (or 5-10) large wind turbines (1.65-2 MW range) are significantly less efficient than 50-100 large wind turbines. I'm a Mac student, and we have a small (10kw) turbine which has probably a 25-year payback, but we're working on a Community-Based Energy Development Turbine (2MW) in western MN that would get maybe a 7-8 year payback (the entire project, our participation would actually be much faster) - electricity would be sold on the grid (C-BED gets a special pricing deal, but regular price is 3.3 cents). Does anyone have an idea if the scale in terms of the number of large turbines makes a difference? Farmers can definately locally own large-scale turbines selling to the grid (not net-metering, but still economical due to massive scale).

I think there is more

Joe — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 11:09:46 -0500

I think there is more opposition in Norway, if only because there is less agricultural land and more wild/scenic/cultural areas. However, there are still people here, albeit a very small percentage of the public, who are opposed to wind energy because it kills a few birds or interupts their view (I'm thinking of Cape Wind in particular...)

Public Resistance?

shadoweyes — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 17:02:53 -0500

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by public resistance to wind. It seems to me that more than 75% of the population fully supports wind and a few industry groups and astro-turf front groups are pretending the general public doesn't support it.

Hidden efficiency benefits

nobody — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:16:52 -0500

Though this applies only to a very small fraction of the population, it still deserves mentioning. When people commit to going completely "off-grid" and producing all of their energy on-site, I'm guessing the cost of purchasing enough capacity is balanced by committing also to cutting their gross consumption. Though the electricity from producing it from solar and wind sources is still not cheap, the cost is recouped much more quickly when less capacity is purchased in needed from the beginning. This can make it much more feasible, especially when paired with renewable energy grants as Minnesota once had (still?) for people wanting to install their own solar panels.

Again this applies to a very small committed group of people, but they're pretty inspiring when pressed on their energy consumption and production.

There is also the issue of the cost of extending transmission lines to new homes in rural areas. Sometimes it makes more sense to install solar panels and/or small-scale wind turbines instead of extending the grid which can be prohibitively expensive in itself. So therefore, in particular instances (maybe too particular) it would be much better for a family to produce their own power than to try and rely on the grid in any way.

On-site generation

Joe — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 16:17:02 -0500

One other thing I'd like to point out is that there is additional opportunity for distributed generation by industrial companies. Or more accurately, on-site generation. Rahr Malting has been trying for a long while (years) to obtain the necessary permitting to be able to burn its byproducts to generate electricity for its plant. No doubt there are other examples one could find around the state- maybe a lumber mill burning its waste wood (before District Energy can get its hands on it) or a poultry operation capturing the methane from turkey poop.

Streamlining the regulatory process (both with utilities and the state) could help encourage these sorts of projects. So could involving customers in the utility integrated resource planning process. Three Northwest utilities do a good job of this - Puget Sound Energy, PacificCorp and Idaho Power, as I recall. This process can also help identify high impact Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) projects which have the biggest bang for the buck.

Transmission losses/Small scale co-gen

Joe — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 15:37:57 -0500

I used to be more of a fan of DG after doing a term paper on it last fall. But I've come to recognize most of the points that zorak raises. One thing I would say is that there is still opportunity for small scale co-gen in homes and businesses. I remember reading that natural-gas fired Stirling engines (essentially external combustion engines) that generate heat and power are somewhat common in Europe. They're supposedly quiet and very efficient, though I'm not sure how they would compare to today's high efficiency (90%+) gas furnaces. Of course there are large market barriers and transaction costs to dissemination of this technology in the US as well.

Spreading out power generation can improve the reliability of the grid. It has limited ability to reduce transmission however, since most distributed generators will want backup from the grid. Enough transmission capacity has to be there to supply peak demand. The economics aren't there (from what I'm told) for most customers to completely go off the grid with their own backup generators, which are usually diesel fueled.

Transmission Losses

shadoweyes — Sun, 08 Oct 2006 09:36:54 -0500

Does this account for transmission losses? I could see where transmission losses would be more costly if occuring when power is produced via natural gas because you have to use more gas to put enough juice on the wire. But do you worry about transmission losses as much with wind? I would guess you must becuase you have to build more wind generation to compensate.

With power lines running 1 million a mile (if I remember correctly) I cannot imagine how DG does not have a tremendous advantage when it comes to needing new capacity from the transmission system. At least in startup costs I guess - are you arguing that over time, this advantage is nullified by the higher recurring cost compared to a larger product?

Finally, when it comes to wind, I think we need more DG and more centralized - the DG is more for the ancillary benefits of getting revenue into rural areas that need investment just as much for the fact that we need more electricity generation.

Given your interests in

James Aach — Mon, 21 Aug 2006 19:32:00 -0500

Given your interests in energy issues, you might find http://RadDecision.blogspot.com of value.