The Energy Generation Megathread: Heated Exchanges

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Energy Generation Megathread: Heated Exchanges

Narbo: Feb 6, 2007; broomhead

Aureon posted:

Subsides are a solution in the micro, but change absolutely nothing in the macro.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but I see subsidies as an essential part of any DSM program. On a larger scale I think it's undeniable that massive subsidies for infrastructure have shaped the energy mix across the planet, including many places where as recently as the 70's oil was the primary source of electricity generation and massive subsidies enabled the switch to coal after the oil embargo.

# ¿ Sep 6, 2012 14:47

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 15:16

Narbo: Feb 6, 2007; broomhead

Yeti Fiasco posted:

I'm pretty sure I mentioned that efficiency is awesome, but not saving grace that will somehow make the world better.

Despite all these advancements in efficient electronics, the US energy production increases each year to fit demand because they're simply using more of it, even with all their super energy saving kitchen appliances.

No doubt that chart would be much higher if we still had horribly inefficient appliances, but it would still be the same shape.

If you want to actually do something constructive, you've got to figure out how to take that big red chunk sitting in the middle and get rid of it, being efficient takes a small bit away and that's good, but you can only be so efficient, after that you have to look at how to replace it, because we can't live without it, we're just too reliant on an energy rich society.

edit: also, all that saved energy is probably taken away from renewable, since renewable energy is so drat expensive and has to be bought at a subsidized rate.

You'll find that while electricity production increases fairly steadily in the US, per capita electricity use has started to reverse it's upward trend over the past few years. This is at least partly attributable to large scale demand-side management programs in places like California, Vermont and other north-eastern states.

It's a little strange for you to argue that it would be phenomenally easier to build carbon neutral nuclear energy than implement DSM programs when 1) DSM programs are without question the cheapest form of energy "production" and 2) they already exist on a large scale and generally have very good customer satisfaction and approval ratings.

# ¿ Sep 14, 2012 23:19

Narbo: Feb 6, 2007; broomhead

Yeti Fiasco posted:

edit: also, all that saved energy is probably taken away from renewable, since renewable energy is so drat expensive and has to be bought at a subsidized rate.

This is usually not the case. The secondary goal with most DSM programs is to delay the need to construct a new baseload plant, there's really very little about demand-smoothing that would prevent the business case for renewables like wind and solar from improving.

One situation where you could argue that implementing efficiency programs does negatively affect the adoption of renewables is when you have an unforeseen large removal of an anchor customer from the grid (like when a large factory that takes 10-15% of the load for a particular utility shuts down unexpectedly and leaves the utility scrambling to cover their fixed costs) but that's because public perception tends to question why we're paying to reduce electricity use when electricity use has just been massively reduced. That argument doesn't make any sense, as it's the utility customers who generally eat the loss in any situation but it still happens.

Narbo fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Sep 14, 2012

# ¿ Sep 14, 2012 23:26

Narbo: Feb 6, 2007; broomhead

Aureon posted:

Does it matter that much?
We're talking about cutting oil/gas/coal and replacing it, not dealing with future increases in power needs.

Even if efficiency drops the power consumption by 50%, we still need to produce the other 50%, don't we?

Only having to produce 50% as much energy sounds like a pretty good deal to me though there has to be an accompanying shift in the energy mix. Efficiency won't solve any energy problems alone but it's a fantastically cheap place to start.

# ¿ Sep 15, 2012 05:34

Narbo: Feb 6, 2007; broomhead

QuarkJets posted:

Can't we do both? I don't know why we're even discussing this, it's the Energy Generation thread. Of course improving efficiency is important, but removing fossil fuels from the energy generation mix is at least just as important, if not more important.

Well that's what I mean by an accompanying shift in the energy mix. Efficiency measures make it easier to accomplish the switch to a greater share of renewables because you don't need to produce as much as you would have. Like GulMadred said, we will eventually reach a point where further efficiencies at the national level will be uneconomical compared to new renewable generation, and we should be preparing for that eventuality. In the mean time, it is undisputed that not producing a kWh in the first place is by far the cheapest option.

Install Gentoo posted:

It seems to me that we should simply force the power companies to permanently shut down the fossil fuel plants first when efficiency lowers demand. Some form of incentives to keep the renewables up? Tax credit stuff if they shut down coal plants first?

If we're doing 3000 TWh of electricity production from fossil fuels now (like that chart from a bit ago said), and we can cut that down to 2000 TWh worth - well that's a shitload less pollution and stuff. And it's effectively the same benefit as replacing that 1000 TWh production with renewables and nuclear.

I can speak to how it works in some Canadian jurisdictions, though I don't know much about American federal regulations.

We have targets for renewable generation that ramp up over the next 15-20 years. So when they were put in place the generation mix by capacity might look something like 80% coal, 10% bunkerC, 5% NG, 3% hydro, and wind/biomass/tidal/solar making up the rest. By 2025, the share of renewables has to be 25% and that's going to take a big bite out of the share coming from coal and bunkerC because they're the oldest plants, NG is cheap, and there are new federal regulations around the amount of CO2 thermal generating stations are allowed to emit.

So the four factors of increasing efficiency, renewable targets (with the force of law), increasing age of existing thermal stations, and penalties for carbon emission are designed to push us away from fossil fuel generation

# ¿ Sep 15, 2012 15:17

Narbo: Feb 6, 2007; broomhead

lapse posted:

It seems to me that refrigerators are an extreme example, because they were so bad to begin with.

I have trouble thinking of any other super common appliance or device that was that inefficient.

Also, it seems like the really easy improvements are either done, or being pushed now through existing programs like energy star and CAFE.

So I guess the question would be, what program would you actually expand or create to force additional efficiency improvements?

A refrigerator, freezer, and room air conditioner are all the same cycle so you could say that they were all very inefficient to begin with (and still are). That said, a 40% improvement in COP over 30 years is still an impressive accomplishment.

It's not just about replacing a particular appliance one-for-one with a more efficient model. The more lucrative measures for households are in tightening up the building envelope and upgrading insulation especially in older housing stock. The graph of increased appliance efficiency doesn't consider the effect of switching from a house cooled by a room air conditioner and heated by oil or baseboards to a mini-split heat pump or geothermal system.

New programs should be (are) focused on new construction; making sure at least ducts are roughed in instead of the builder just dumping baseboards in, siting and orientation, and generally just making it easier for the new occupant to perform upgrades.

There's plenty of room for new commercial and industrial programs around HVAC, process improvements, lighting, etc. There is tremendous waste of energy in large commercial and institutional buildings in motors and lighting alone, controls and EMI systems are a huge growth area especially in hospitals and manufacturing.

# ¿ Sep 15, 2012 17:30

Narbo: Feb 6, 2007; broomhead

QuarkJets posted:

Pretty much; making an effort to upgrade your lightbulbs is middle class effort, the family trying to keep a roof of their heads won't be thinking about lightbulbs

Maybe there's an argument to be made that fighting poverty lets people who end up leaving poverty make better energy decisions, which in turn helps fight poverty (by slightly bringing down electricity costs)

Usually for low-income families the only way they have to control their energy costs are small measures like lightbulbs, anything else is definitely out of reach. Low-income families are more likely to be renting as well.

Lots of DSM programs recognize this problem and address it with income-eligible programs. For example, Efficiency Vermont has a weatherization program:

EVermont posted:

Eligible households include any whose incomes are at or below 60% of Vermont�s median income, based on household size. Weatherization agencies can also assess major appliances and replace inefficient models in households whose incomes are less than 80% of Vermont�s median income.

Where they'll send a few contractors to a home and perform all the weatherization and some minor insulation for free.

Manitoba Hydro goes a little further:

ManHydro posted:

Qualifying homeowners will receive:

free qualifying insulation upgrades;
a new high efficiency natural gas furnace for only $19/month for a fixed term*;
free in-home energy efficiency review and basic energy saving items.

An energy advisor will come to your home to review the energy efficiency of your home and explain how the program works. During the energy efficiency review, the advisor will provide you with free basic energy efficient items, such as low-flow showerheads and compact fluorescent lights.

Based on the results of the energy efficiency review, insulation can be added to the attic, basement, crawlspace and/or wall cavity (improving the insulation to Power Smart levels).

You can upgrade your standard natural gas furnace or boiler to a qualifying high efficiency ENERGY STAR natural gas furnace or boiler. Read about how you can save with energy efficient boilers.

So they'll provide the light bulbs, a hot water tank wrap, pipe insulation, faucet aerators, etc. for free for households under LICO criteria. Once you recognize that there are families that will simply be unable to participate in energy saving programs due to the cost, the only thing that makes sense is to provide the services for free.

# ¿ Sep 16, 2012 21:52

Narbo: Feb 6, 2007; broomhead

A discussion on electricity generation isn't complete without magnetostriction!

Wikipedia posted:

Internally, ferromagnetic materials have a structure that is divided into domains, each of which is a region of uniform magnetic polarization. When a magnetic field is applied, the boundaries between the domains shift and the domains rotate, both of these effects cause a change in the material's dimensions.

That buzzing hum that you hear when standing next to a transformer is actually the sound of the metals inside the field rapidly and minutely changing their dimensions. It turns out that the effect works in the reverse as well - when you stretch or compress or twist a piece of metal you can physically re-orient the internal magnetic domains, causing a magnetic field to generate around the metal, and a wire moving through this field will carry a current!

You wouldn't notice the effect with most metals, however there are a few alloys that are really good at magnetostriction. Terfenol-D is used as a super-precise actuator (by applying a field to change the dimensions of the metal, not the reverse), Metglas is seeing some research in MEMS, and Galfenol is under investigation for electricity generation potential.

Imagine being able to charge your phone simply by walking down the street in your magnetostrictive alloy-equipped EnerBoots(tm)!

# ¿ Sep 20, 2012 03:37

Narbo: Feb 6, 2007; broomhead

HRVs work very well with residential geothermal heat pump systems, so do solar thermal DHW systems, even in northern US states, even in Canada.

# ¿ Mar 26, 2013 21:33

Narbo: Feb 6, 2007; broomhead

karthun posted:

Its not heating or cooling nor hot or cold air, it is 55 degrees. 55 degrees is not warm enough to prevent hypothermia so you need to heat it to a reasonable temperature.

Instead of using 55 degree temps in the earth why not use the 68 degree temp air in your house?

What sort of heating system do you currently have, in addition to the HRV?

# ¿ Mar 26, 2013 21:41

Narbo: Feb 6, 2007; broomhead

karthun posted:

My apartment had a boiler, but the family cabin I spent too much time in has a 96% efficient gas furnace and an interior fireplace we use most of the time when we are up here. We have thought about getting a pellet stove but we have larger priorities for the cabin.

So in your system you have your furnace set at 72 degrees. It drops to 68 degrees and triggers the furnace. Furnace air intake sucks air in at 68 degrees and cools it down to 55 degrees in your "geothermal" system and then you heat that 55 degree air up until the thermostat reaches 72 degrees. So why don't you just heat the 68 degree air instead of cooling it with your geocooling system?

Right, so using that definition of efficiency your geothermal heat pump system would be between 250-375% efficient (using numbers for Canada), possibly up to 500% but that's more expensive. An HRV is nice if you have to ventilate a building so you don't lose too much heat when the inside air is exhausted, it doesn't replace a heating system, it can make your existing system run more efficiently though.

You could install a geothermal system at the cabin as the primary system and if it were sized properly it would maintain your thermostat setting of 72F for almost every day of the year. I think there was some confusion about 55 degrees F, that is the average GROUND temperature in your area. Heat at 55F is pulled out of the ground by the heat pump, concentrated, and delivered to your living space at 72F.

# ¿ Mar 26, 2013 22:14

Narbo: Feb 6, 2007; broomhead

karthun posted:

An air conditioner doesn't take 100 degree air from outside your house, it takes 76 degree air inside your house and cools it down 60 degrees.

An air conditioner works the same way, except backwards.

# ¿ Mar 26, 2013 22:21

Narbo: Feb 6, 2007; broomhead

karthun posted:

Some how I don't see that being a viable heating option during winter.

Redshirt is talking about a coil 10 feet below the ground. That will not heat my living space to 72 degrees, it will cool it to ground temp.

No, ground-sources heat pumps extract heat from the 65 degree air intake, inside the house, and use to to warm the 55 degree water. That would be great if I wanted water and air at 55ish degrees. Instead now I have to heat that air 20 degrees, from 55 to 75 instead of heating it from 65 to 75.

That is a picture of some sort of closed loop pond system which is very rare. Redshirt and I are talking about the same type of system. The coil can be laid anywhere from 6-20ft underground in a trench or likewise because the ground temperature at that depth is roughly stable at the mean annual air temperature for that location. It will in fact heat your home to 72F.

Have you ever touched the coils on the back of your refrigerator or the fins outside of the A/C?

# ¿ Mar 26, 2013 22:31

Narbo: Feb 6, 2007; broomhead

Deteriorata posted:

I don't know if you're trolling or deliberately dense or what.

A ground-source heat pump extracts heat from 55� water and uses that heat to warm the air in your house. It discharges water that is colder than 55� back into the ground. It is colder because it has had heat extracted from it. It is obviously not a spontaneous process, as heat spontaneously flows from hot to cold. Energy is required to overcome this, which is why a Carnot cycle is used to make it work.

He might be a little saucy but lots of people have a sort of vague understanding of how things like this work. Karthun you might want to look into a solar thermal setup for your cabin, cut back on water heating costs and tie it right into your HRV!

# ¿ Mar 26, 2013 22:51

Narbo: Feb 6, 2007; broomhead

Fine-able Offense posted:

I'm not entirely sure what you're banging on about here, but GSHPs are used in all kinds of cold-as-balls places. They're even field-testing systems in Alaska these days.

Edit: Also, hi thread, I'm new here, but I work as a government regulator of energy utilities. If you ever wanted to know why stupid decisions get made, I might have the answer!

If you're working for a utility regulator I'd like to know how the federal carbon emission standards are affecting applications to build new coal power plants!

# ¿ Mar 26, 2013 23:03

Narbo: Feb 6, 2007; broomhead

Fine-able Offense posted:

I should have said "...in Canada", sorry!

Though from what I hear through the NERC Mandatory Reliability Standards grapevine, the EPA is soft-walking and befuddling most coal applications they get. Or at least, that's what the angry voice on the conference call says, who knows if it's true or just a bunch of "THANKS OBAMA! "

I was asking about Canada though? I've been hearing that some of the requirements on catching fly ash etc. make previously viable (over NG) projects suddenly poo poo the bed.

# ¿ Mar 26, 2013 23:08

Narbo: Feb 6, 2007; broomhead

Schizotek posted:

Not to intrude on geothermal chat, but these systems don't seem terribly practical(possible) for urban areas. with high pop. density. Or for major industrial centers. Which leaves rural/suburban homes for those part which is less than ten percent of energy consumption in the U.S. So this is pretty much a way for rural areas to lower their energy bill a moderate amount, and not any serious solution to energy generation, correct?

Not necessarily, depending on the area you don't need a trench, you can drill a well instead. It's certainly a confounding factor and usually a retrofit of an existing urban house can't beat a mini-split heat pump.

# ¿ Mar 26, 2013 23:12

Narbo: Feb 6, 2007; broomhead

Fine-able Offense posted:

Ding ding ding.

The other issue at play is that the natural gas lobbysts are teaming up with the hydrogen guys to try and push their cooperative agenda, which means they get a lot of "green venture" funding and positive attention from regulators of all stripes. Right now gas and hydrogen are eating coal's lunch.

Oh, geez, coal is deader than Elvis in Canada (except for Alberta). Last I heard Ontario was even contemplating switching over to biomass for some of their planned closures.

Alberta's coal plants are probably going to stick around, but no new ones are likely to come online due to the regulatory environment. Actually, I'm happy that Alberta is choosing to continue with their stupid thermal plants, because B.C. buys their power at a discount overnight and then sells them back hydro power during the day at a huge markup.

I've even heard that some existing plants will have to speed up decommissioning due to otherwise requiring expensive equipment to continue operating. Does Alberta or BC have mandated proportions of renewable energy?

# ¿ Mar 26, 2013 23:22

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 15:16

Narbo: Feb 6, 2007; broomhead

Fine-able Offense posted:

B.C. is 93% hydroelectricity, so I don't know what you could possibly do with a mandate that isn't already being done because it's already profitable and awesome (see: selling power during the day at a huge profit).

Alberta, having a renewable mandate? Their sector is... uh, I'm trying to think of how to put this in terms of professional courtesy. Let's go with "rather deregulated".

Is there not a way to encourage wind development? I thought BC hydro was working on a bunch of wind fields, I guess I'm wondering how you guys evaluate a new proposal for a wind field whether it's utility or private, is it just based on ratepayer risk?

# ¿ Mar 26, 2013 23:38

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Energy Generation Megathread: Heated Exchanges