Howdy Y'all,

Again, I'm pretty sure aspects of this have been discussed in places threads before but I'd like to centralize some comments into one thread. If the Volt and other plug in vehicles become the wave of the future within the next 5 or 10 years how well will the existing grid infrastructure hold up? How much investment into the grid is required by transmission companies if say 10% of the households adopt plug in technology? What about 20%? I know that much of the charging would likely be done during the evening hours and overnight (which is currently considered off peak and low useage) but if significant numbers of plug ins are charging over night how much extra demand will that be?

Is there currently enough capacity or could the electrification of the automobile seriously affect the grid? I'm concerned that instead of oil shortages and lines at the pumps we'll have rolling blackout's and power outages if the electrification of the automobile takes place.

Will the electric companies be able to keep up supply if demand increases due to an influx of electric vehicles or will they always be playing catch up and only meeting minimal standards?

I know there are some smart people out here and some very opinionated people here so I'd like to hear some comments on any of these questions.

As a board member of an electric coop I'll chime in on this subject.

You bring up a real valid point. One that is of some concern. The answer(s) are not easy and will vary from region to region. But in general the electric generation and transmission infrastructure of the United States is currently almost at it's limits during peak times. 20 years ago there was a huge investment in new generation and transmission. Since electricity deregulation duting the Clinton administration there has been very little investment in either generation or transmission. The industry knows that over the next 15 to 20 years there will be a 20 to 40 percent increase in capacity needed just to meet current projected demands. That's without plug-ins added to the equation.

Even with these problems, coops see plug-in's as a good idea and a good fit for the system. Currently demand peaks in the middle of the day and falls off dramatically at night. This means that they have to have generation sufficient to meet peak demand and that same generation goes unused or underutilized during the night. If plug-in's can charge primarily at night, that wouild help to smooth the curve, make better use of the generators at night, and bring in more cash flow to the utilities.

This is especially the case in parts of the nation where coal and nuclear are the prime fuel used to spin the generators because those source can take hours to bring on-line. In parts of the country where hydro is used, there is somewhat less of a positive benefit, except for the increased cash flow to the utility.

There have been numerous studies showing that the grid could take up to 70% conversion to plug-in electric cars. That being said I don't think we should be thinking that way at all.

If we do successfully convert a good percentage of our fleet over to electric and by doing so eliminate our need for foreign oil can you see how much capital is available for infrastructure improvements? We are sending out almost $500 billion a year now. That's a lot solar panels, wind generators, pumped storage hydro plants, power lines. Agreed?

We as Americans have got to come to the conclusion that we need to seriously re-work our energy infrastructure. No band-aid is going to solve the problem. We need to create a national plan and get to work. It's not all doom and gloom. It will be decades of innovation, infrastructure building, hard labor, head scratching, in-fighting, cursing, etc. However, it needs to be done in a big way. If we all face it we can move forward. Pull that band-aid, let out a scream and let's move forward. I'm confident that not only can we do it but there are millions of people just champing at the bit waiting to get working on the Apollo Smart Grid project. Who dares to say we are unable to do it?

The electrification of this country, and the rest of the world by using renewable sources of energy just has so much common sense. Now that "cheap" fossil fuels are on their way out, this is simply the next logical step for humans to take.

As soon as Nanosolar ramps up production, and stops selling their entire stock overseas, I am ready to put panels on my roof!

As far as the original question, I think that the current grid will be OK for quite a some time, as long as people are charging at night as pennor1 said above.

Blah on renewable. Renewables will not provide base load and are not germane to the grid handling the increased load. They are going to be much more expensive and more difficult to produce energy than nearly every other currently used energy source on the planet.

You will see a few nuclear plants/expansions coming online from 2015-2020 (more expansions of current facilities than new plants). Unfortunately the environmentalists have absolutely killed the most abundant source of energy we have that would last us hundreds of years. It costs around 4 billion to build a coal plant. It costs around 25 billion to build a nuclear plant. But now instead of building coal plants, power companies are being forced to build natural gas plants. I shouldnt have to tell you how expensive and volatile natural gas has been. Coal has increased in recent years, but not to the degree of NG.

Most electric cars are going to be charged off peak hours. We wont have a problem handling off peak charging. There is plenty of spare capacity. However, many people start charging when they go to work, it 'could' present a problem at hour current level (10% shy of peak capacity), but I really dont think that is going to happen.

CarZin, If you think nuclear power is a great alternative choice and wish to hold this position please watch the following YouTube video. It's the best overall analysis of the real world conditions of nuclear energy infrastructure I have ever seen. If you are wondering why there are not many new nuclear projects moving forward you might have to blame Amory Lovins:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JkrvSaL7-w


Your other comment that renewables cannot provide base power is off base (pun intended). They are incorrect comments used by alternative energy distractors to keep them off the market. It's not working and the projects are moving forward. As they prove themselves worthy and cost effective (not hard with the volatile global oil situation) you will see and hear more about them. In fact, there's now a signed project in Hawaii to convert 70 percent of the entire state's energy use (Currently oil is used to provide 95% of Hawaii's energy use) to alternative forms of energy by 2030. Hawaii may become the alternative energy research and development hub of the entire world. It has just about every form of alternative energy and will be a great place to test out new systems. It's like a Skinnerian energy box.

If renewable energy systems could not provide base load then using 70 percent of that type of energy source would be impossible. Right? Are you claiming it's impossible or financially devastating to do so? I claim that if they do not move forward with this plan Hawaii will become a huge financial burden to America. As the price of oil goes up a few things will happen. Firstly, travel to the state will go down drastically because plane flights will cost too much (good bye tourism revenues) and secondly, the high cost of doing any business in Hawaii will increase at a much higher rate than the rest of America (remember that Hawaii uses oil to provide around 95% of it's energy).

Folks, alternatives are currently providing base load and the percentage will continue to grow until we have complete renewable energy use. I can't predict the exact time frame but it's inevitable. How? Many renewable systems are simple, well proven (we already have significant amounts - not yet in terms of percentages because the US uses an embarrassing amount of energy), environmentally safe, and very efficient. What are these miracle systems? Solar, wind, hydro, and every other renewable connected to pumped storage hydro and other electrical and mechanical storage systems. What is pumped storage hydro?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity

Many other electrical storage systems exist and are being aggressively researched and developed. In short, we can go renewable today and we can go at full speed. Besides, a mix of renewable, alternative technologies is a good idea. Some will have advantages over others and some even compliment each other. Solar and Wind energy is a good example. The sun provides the most energy during the day and wind is strongest at night (when your EVs are being charged). Simple, renewable, practical (www.nanosolar.com - check out their blog on municipal solar plants - brilliant) and cost effective. These systems will allow the US to be completely energy independent. We have more than enough renewable resources. You don't even have to wonder what if. It's happening today. The more the public knows about these technologies the more they will wonder why we are not moving faster. That's a good thing to wonder about and to then go ask your political leaders about.

1) Price of oil has little to do with U.S. power costs. We fuel less than 5% of all U.S. power consumption by oil. Most is still industrial. if Hawaii is using oil, then at the current price of oil, they could do just about anything and save money. its isolated, and not the norm. Over 75% of U.S. power comes from nuclear and coal.

2) Renewables RARELY provide base load energy. The only real exceptions I can think to this is geothermal in iceland, and hydro plants. base load power must be ALWAYS be available. Excluding hydro, there is NO renewable power in the U.S. that is base load. The wind mills and solar we have reduce the amount of base load power is needed. It does not add to the base. I dont live in fantasy land. I dont want my power grid designed 'hoping' we'll be able to store offline renewable energy for reuse later. That technology is a long way from arriving. Put simply, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to use renewables as base today, if we could magically replace every plant overnight.

3) If we are 20% renewable by 2020 (I believe this is the current plan), then I will be amazed. The presentations I have spent hours listening to trying to explain how renewables, like wind, will reduce costs are full of bad assumptions. I HAVE seen renewable proponents try to say power will get cheaper with renewables because there will be less demand on NATURAL GAS (another major source of US energy), but this is not the same as oil. I think their arguments are generally garbage. Bottom line, renewables cost a lot for the power they put out.

4) Nuclear power is here to stay and grow. There is only one place in the world that builds nuclear cores (Japan Steel Works). They currently can make around 26 cores a year. In the last few years, the demand for cores has skyrocketed. They are DOUBLING their plants capacity within 2 years to deal with the orders. U.S. regulations are making nuclear plant construction less risky (one approval at the beginning for design and operation). Nuclear is safe, has been proven safe, and universities are starting to revive their engineering programs due to this demand.

CarZin, If you think nuclear power is a great alternative choice and wish to hold this position please watch the following YouTube video. It's the best overall analysis of the real world conditions of nuclear energy infrastructure I have ever seen. If you are wondering why there are not many new nuclear projects moving forward you might have to blame Amory Lovins:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JkrvSaL7-w



I will have to side with CarZin on this issue. Nuclear is the future. No one denies renewables will play a role in the overall energy picture, but not to the extent that some would hope.

I don't know who Amory Lovins is, or what his agenda is, but he clearly offers no solutions. People with real solutions get out and offer power for sale for less than the conventional plants. I don't know of any renewable power, other than existing hydro, that is less expensive than coal-fired power.

Here is a gentlemen with more history than Mr. Love-Inn, Dr. Patrick Moore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist)

He was one of the original members of Greenpeace, but has since parted company with the group because of their unrealistic approach to solving global warming. I heard him speak last November, and he is intelligent, articulate, and genuine. He realizes that global energy consumption will not decrease, it will increase. This is because third world nations will increase their standard of living over the next few decades (sort of what's happening in China and India), and increased energy consumption will result. Therefore, we need not only to replace the fossil fuels that are now being used, but also provide more energy for emerging nations.

The only practical answer to this is nuclear energy, and Dr. Moore has come to this realization.

Obviously, I am willing to see the renewable advocates prove their worth. But one executive from a major US Utility recently indicated that his windmills operate at only a 17% capacity factor (versus 90+% for most nuclear plants). In addition, the wind power can't be dispatched (its not always available). Sure pumped storage and other electrical storage technologies can help, but what happens on that third cloudy day when there is no wind? You think nuclear is expensive? Wait till you build 6 times the required wind capacity (to account for the 17% capacity factor), add the 3 or 4 day storage systems, and let's not forget about all the transmission lines to get power from all the scattered windmills to the load centers (cities).

It becomes obvious to most people in the power industry that nuclear is the long term answer.

CarZin and BillR, I take your challenge and feel this debate is a worthy effort. Let's get to work. Shall we agree to keep the focus on one topic at a time so we don't bounce all over the place? If so I start with the biggest glaring misconception:

1) Who said that solar or wind cannot provide base load?

Is not the grid always on? We have over 11 GW of wind (said to now be comparable to coal in terms of cost) over .5 GW of solar (growing quickly). This is the equivalent of around 11 nuclear power plants or coal plants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_use_in_the_United_States

The United states has over 22 GW of pumped storage hydro connected to the grid and you can check the following link to see just how much of this electrical storage is out there in the world. Amazing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped_storage

When we talk about the intermittent nature of alternative sources of energy we must also talk about the steady nature of nuclear. Nuclear power plants are not just turned up or turned down to meet the demands of the grid. They pump out an almost constant stream of energy from when they are ramped up to when they are powered down. If you ever seen a curve of the daily energy demands of a country you will see it’s not as flat as the energy curve nuclear power plants emit. What do they do? They either dump it into the ground or use the extra energy to fill up our country’s electrical storage capacity. Pumped storage hydro is a major player in that game.

People think we don't already have large amounts of electrical storage on the grid. We do. It's not fantasy land. It's reality. With this in mind and due to the fact that solar technology is now almost 3 times cheaper than it was only a year ago (www.nanosolar.com) why can't we add new capacity to our grid in the form of alternative energy sources with corresponding stored energy systems?

If the sun did not shine an average known amount around the world the earth would quickly freeze and just about everything would die. We know these values and can add just the right amount pumped storage hydro and other forms of electrical storage to make sure there’s enough even when big storms come. How long can lake Mead supply energy to the grid before the lake runs out? I plan on doing that calculation in the near future. Believe me, it’s a long time and I‘m not just talking days. Some dams take over 10 years to fill up! Please calculate how much potential energy can be stored in water and just how efficient the system is (PE = weight of water times the change in height http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy). Oh and powerline efficiency losses? Less that 10 percent going from one side or our country to the other (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission). Incredible! Besides, we can always keep our old fossil fuel systems on-the-ready for emergency situations. Use renewables most of the time and in times of emergency fire up our coal, gas, and oil reserves.

A new nuclear or coal power plant takes well over 10 years to get up and running. A solar farm can be operational in 12 months and you can easily add capacity. A nuclear plant cannot generate one kWh before it’s complete. Imagine hundreds of new-technology solar manufacturing plants pumping out rolls and rolls of solar panels (yes - rolls - the new technology uses roll-to-roll non-clean room technology and costs only $1 a watt and will continue to drop as technology matures).

I'm am in no way suggesting we turn off our non-renewable power plants overnight. I am suggesting we add new capacity with renewable power plants and to make the renewable transition in a timetable that is reasonable and that gets us to the inevitable situation - pure renewable. Please give me a good argument as to why we cannot do this. I take the challenge to prove that not only can we do it, we already have started.

Texas,

There is so much here, I don't know where to begin, but let me start simply by saying solar and wind cannot provide baseload because THEY ARE NOT RELIABLE!

On that hot, humid spell in the summer when the power system is taxed to provide capacity, there is typically very little wind. Even with pumped hydro storage, by the 3rd of 4th day, your storage runs out (and we're talking horrendous amounts of storage). So by definition, solar and wind cannot provide base power because you cannot depend upon it when you need it.

Notice from your link on pumped storage, that the overall efficiency of the system is 70 to 85%. Therefore, let's use an average of 78% efficiency. This means your renewable sources will need to generate 28% more energy to compensate for these losses in the storage system (I think there have been many discussions on the forum regarding conversion of energy from one form to another, and here it is electricity to potential energy and back to electricity).

Also, your link to US energy consumption includes a table of electricity production. Note that wind and solar represent only about 1.1% of the total capacity, and provide only about 0.8% of the energy. Since hydroelectric opportunities are mostly gone (some states are petitioning to remove dams to restore rivers to their natural state), wind and solar must increase by a factor of 125 from today's levels just to meet the current needs. But Wait!

With the low capacity factor and poor reliability of wind and solar, we now must provide enough storage to get us through 3 days with no energy input. And we know that due to storage inefficiency, we must generate another 28% for all storage electricity to get the required amount in return (and remember, not just capacity for a 4 hour burst at peak, but enough for a 3 day run). This would equate to an increase in existing pumped storage of about 6 MW to 1000 MW (to meet peak demands).

Also, don't forget that the electricification of the automobile is inevitable. If in the future, 200 million vehicles charge overnight (for 8 hours) and need 8 kWh for their batteries (a 40 mile range for a small vehicle like the Volt), then an additional 200 GW of capacity is needed for nighttime. Since solar won't be working during these hours, perhaps we need to invent lunar power (great when there is a full moon). If that doesn't work, we need even more capacity than today as our energy usage shifts from petroleum to electricity. Time again to increase all the capacities of the renewables and storage systems.

I'm not saying none of this can be accomplished, because we do receive enough energy from the sun every day to provide our energy requirements, its just a matter of cost. If Americans are willing to go from an average of 10 cents per kWh to over $1 per kWh, than this can probably happen (not to mention all the land area that will be taken by windmills, solar projects, pumped storage sites, etc.)

I don't know where you get this idea of pumping electricity into the ground, but I'd like to see your references on that bulls**t. Nuke plants operate balls to the wall 24/7 because fluctuations in operation, or shutdowns, compromise their core life expectancy (i.e. they need to refuel more often when they don't operate at continous full load). The fuel cost for electricity from nuclear power is only about 0.5 cents per kWh.

After nuclear, typically other plants like coal will provide the remainder of the base load (the load that is always in use, or the minimum load on a system, typically seen about 3 am). Typically, coal plants operate at a reduced output during the evening hours. Then, coal plants are ramped up to full load, and natural gas fired plants, hydro, and other plants are dispatched, as they can start and stop to meet the power demands as they change throughout the day.

Note that from your references, nuke plants only account for 9.82% of the US capacity, yet they provide 19.4% of the electrical energy.

Due to the competitive nature of electricity production (deregulation) the predictions are for renewables to produce about 10% of the electrical energy requirements in the future. If in fact companies can reduce the cost of solar/wind, increase its efficiency, increase its capacity, etc., it may provide more. However, the economics will be the key factor as we go further to de-regulate electricity and make its generation more competitive.

I would argue that solar is more dependable than nuclear. Nuclear cores are brought down all the time because of problems and they can be out of commission for long periods of time. We know that the sun will shine with enough certainty that storage systems can be built to ensure base load capability. Again, if the sun did not shine as we predict, the earth would freeze.

Oh, I offered a video before about the financial reasons nuclear power no longer make sense. Now check out the other non-financial reasons. This is extremely factual and scared the heck out of me! After you watched both videos (the one I posted before) and still think nuclear is a good idea then you are either a nuclear scientist or crazy. lol. Why would you want to deal with all when the cost effective alternatives are here and proven. Regardless, no new reactors are likely to be approved anyway so the point is mute. Enjoy the great talk by Gordon Edwards!

http://www.youtube.com/user/RainbowBridgeTV

Regardless, no new reactors are likely to be approved anyway so the point is mute. Enjoy the great talk by Gordon Edwards!

http://www.youtube.com/user/RainbowBridgeTV

I have to disagree on this one point that you just made. Please read the Reuters new item below:
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN3143208820080331

California's grid system operator has released a report (http://www.caiso.com/1ca5/1ca5a7a026270.pdf) on the impact of renewable resources on California's grid. They discuss the cyclical nature of wind and solar, baseload impacts, dead summer days, etc. Very technical, very specific - this may help Texas and pennor1 in their dialog.

I have to disagree on this one point that you just made. Please read the Reuters new item below:
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN3143208820080331

Maybe I sould have said no new nuclear plants. Regardless, I'll stand by my statement that:

"no new reactors are likely to be approved "


Remember, they have just applied. The approval process will take, as they stated, three to four years. If they are approved, which I doubt will happen, it will take nearly 10 years for the first kWh to be produced. Unlike adding a solar farm (able to start producing in around 12 months) the nuclear build-out is a long process. So, we are now talking around 2021 when the decision to trip that switch is made. I'm guessing they will never be switched on. They will however be fully paid for... By us!

Also, I'm wondering what extra incentives they were referring to. They already have the entire cost of the build-out paid for by taxpayer dollars (see first link I provided). Hummm, $13 Billion... That's a lot of extremely clean and safe solar panels. I'm not even including the yearly cost reductions that the solar technology will provide. For the life of me I just don't understand why (after learning all about both technologies - starting with the two links I provided but doing much more until you have both sides of the story) people think nuclear fission is a good path to take. If we ever get the clean running fusion reactors working then great. That will bring in a new age. I think we should be doing what the Germans are doing - slowly shutting down their reactors. Sure it's hard when the reactors are already built and paid for with taxpayer money but the long-term benefits are clear.

Not sure why Texas thinks the nuclear industry is always shutting down, etc. Last year the capacity factor for the nuclear industry was 91.8%. Which renewable comes even close?

[URL="http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/worldstatistics/"][/URL

Also on this site, you will find a list of many new applications for nuclear projects both here in the US and worldwide. I'd be interested to know why these nuclear projects won't be approved, because they are being approved in many other countries.

To meet the Kyoto protocol, many countries will likely turn to nuclear for an increasing percentage of their power. For instance, France currently generates 78% of its electricity from nuclear.

Interesting thread.

As a real example, PG&E built the Helms pumped-storage facility in the southern Sierra range specifically to provide off-peak load to their Diablo Canyon nuke plant near San Luis Obispo.

Transmission line bottlenecks unfortunately only allowed 2/3 of Helms pump/turbine generators to be used.

Buried in the Cal ISO grid report I linked to earlier, it reports that California is now building a new HV transmission line to link the wind farms on the Tehachipi ridge to the Helms project and take advantage of the unused storage capacity.

One thing about nuclear, regardless of whether we build new plants or not - we need to re-think US nuclear fueling policy. I don't think we have many breeder reactors and I have heard we are currently using old Russian warhead materials to re-fuel our plants. We may just hit "Peak Uranium", too.

it reports that California is now building a new HV transmission line to link the wind farms on the Tehachipi ridge to the Helms project and take advantage of the unused storage capacity.


Alas, the solution to all of the world's energy problems is right in front of us. Hello world! I know I know, too simple for interested parties. <sigh>

BIllR wrote, "I don't know who Amory Lovins is, or what his agenda is, but he clearly offers no solutions."

And then BillR wrote, "Here is a gentlemen with more history than Mr. Love-Inn,..."

You don't know who he is or what he's about and you take a slap at him, anyway. Classy.

I think all the main points have been touched on..

1.) Most of the plug-ins should be taking place at night time.
The grid is no where near capacity during these hours.
Also - if you get home from work at 4pm - and the grid is still being taxed - you can simply set your timer to start charging at say - midnight?

2.) Free electricity from the sun. Solar technology is here. It's free. If a significant portion of the motoring public saw fit to drive electric vehicles - and invest in a small backyard / rooftop unit - they could drive a vehicle with virtually no foot print. And it wouldn't cost you that much money.


As with all the benefits I mention - I will counter with the cons..

1.) The electric / utility companies will cry wolf. They will be shouting they they can't maintain this and that and they will need new, expensive, flux-capacitors :P

What does this mean to you? You can be sure your electric bill will be much higher. They WILL find a reason to charge you more for what you used to get cheaper. I can also picture the government introducing some sort of new "electric tax" to compensate for the loss in their gas tax.

2.) Solar energy. There will be resistance in being able to feed back into the grid. This would mean a loss of revenue to company - which means somehow or another, YOU will pay for it.

:)

Of course we will be paying taxes. It's harder to change the way the government works than it will be to electrify all the world's cars and autos, cure cancer and achieve Middle East peace! I don't think anyone here believes the government is going to give up that. No way.

Death and taxes...

However, I would much rather be taxed on energy generated right here in America by infrastructure that was built by American hands, controlled by greedy Americans, and overpriced by tyrannical Americans. As long as the money stays in America our trade balance remains in check and all those rich Americans will probably spend most of their cash on McHouses and such creating more infrastructure and jobs. Let's all bask in the wealth of the few lucky Americans. Would you rather watch the few lucky Saudi Arabians enjoying their palaces? What good is that for us? Not much unless they decide, out the goodness of their hearts, to buy our products.

Although I will most likely be paying a hefty amount for electricity when I go on a long trip at home I will be filling my batteries as others have mentioned in this forum... With my already-paid-for solar panels. "Here comes the sun..."

If solar or other renewable becomes so inexpensive then there will be more utility poduced renewabled power. They are always cost advantaged over home installation. If grid power becomes too unreasonable that would be because there are so much home based renewable energy production. This will only happen when renewables are very affordable, so the option of going off-grid would temper the utilities pricing. All of the plug-in activity will bring battery pricing way down thus bringing off-grid pricing down with it. Of course there are apartments and codos but they would have local generating options too. The government will need it's taxes but hopefully $18B/yr less by that time by not subsidizing fossil fuel production.

BIllR wrote, "I don't know who Amory Lovins is, or what his agenda is, but he clearly offers no solutions."

And then BillR wrote, "Here is a gentlemen with more history than Mr. Love-Inn,..."

You don't know who he is or what he's about and you take a slap at him, anyway. Classy.

Before I made my response, I did watch the video link provided by Texas. Mr. Lovins provided testimony on electrical power generation, renewables, nuclear power, etc.

To me, obviously a man who offers talk in lieu of real solutions. This country doesn't need lectures, it needs solutions.

Let me provide a prime example. Colorado is one of the more environmentally conscious states (home to Mr. Lovins Rocky Mountain Institute). A few years ago Xcel Energy proposed adding a new 750 MW coal plant at its existing Comanche Power Station. A coal plant will emit 2.25 times more CO2 per MWh than a state-of-the-art natural gas plant, so this plant was opposed by all of the major environmental organizations.

So where was Amory Lovins? If he can produce power from renewables or "Microsystems?" at competitive prices, why didn't he come forward with VIABLE baseload alternatives? And viable means with proven, reliable technology and with financial investors who will support the project. I'm sure the Colorado Public Utilities Commission would certainly have entertained an attractive alternative.

But alas, this 750 MW coal plant is now under construction. This is what I mean when I say Amory Lovins offers no solutions.

Note, I can't be bothered to spend hours of my time looking at his websites and reading his books. If he can do better than the status quo, and make power economically, there are dozens of Venture Capital firms that would be eager to work with him. But nobody is looking to finance a lot of talk.

Before I made my response, I did watch the video link provided by Texas. Mr. Lovins provided testimony on electrical power generation, renewables, nuclear power, etc.
To me, obviously a man who offers talk in lieu of real solutions. This country doesn't need lectures, it needs solutions.

I know you don't have time to research things deeper but it’s funny how people who take such a strong stance on something doesn’t feel they need to look deeply at both sides of the issue. You then expect us respect their opinion. Why should we? You didn’t even look into it at all? Anyway, you don't have the time but maybe others that do want to know what this institute does (other than writing 49 books that are used by decision makers all over the world or starting a company - Fiberforge - to implement their SOLUTION to the automobile problem - too heavy) do have some time. Anyway, fascinating information on many topics. If you listen to this guy you will appreciate the institutes’ contributions. Don't take my word for it, research it. It’s not only important information but very entertaining:

http://www.rmi.org/ - Their web site.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imfHBcqzLfI - Fiberforge - carbon fiber cars!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kw82Dl6mnwA - What do they do? Plenty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMTCNOlozTA - Winning the oil endgame. Step-by-step SOLUTIONS to our oil problems.


Heck, there’s too much to list. Just search Google and YouTube. After you watch the videos that are out there please come back and tell us what you think. Useful or useless?



Let me provide a prime example. Colorado is one of the more environmentally conscious states (home to Mr. Lovins Rocky Mountain Institute). A few years ago Xcel Energy proposed adding a new 750 MW coal plant at its existing Comanche Power Station. A coal plant will emit 2.25 times more CO2 per MWh than a state-of-the-art natural gas plant, so this plant was opposed by all of the major environmental organizations.

So where was Amory Lovins? If he can produce power from renewables or "Microsystems?" at competitive prices, why didn't he come forward with VIABLE baseload alternatives? And viable means with proven, reliable technology and with financial investors who will support the project. I'm sure the Colorado Public Utilities Commission would certainly have entertained an attractive alternative.

But alas, this 750 MW coal plant is now under construction. This is what I mean when I say Amory Lovins offers no solutions.

Are you kidding me? This guy is supposed to be personally responsible for every problem in the world? How do you judge yourself? What have you done lately? I think he’s working on much bigger problems than one lousy 750 MW coal plant (one that will be much cleaner than 90 percent of our existing plants - it's new - and one that uses a fuel source that is mined on our soil and not imported). My God, your reason for dismissing his contributions are shameful.



Note, I can't be bothered to spend hours of my time looking at his websites and reading his books. If he can do better than the status quo, and make power economically, there are dozens of Venture Capital firms that would be eager to work with him. But nobody is looking to finance a lot of talk.

First of all, I'm not surprised you don't have the time to research things that you don't want to believe in. Your other posts make it painfully obvious. Secondly, most great products and services available start from a twinkle in someone’s eye. We need people that can see the big picture just as much as we need people (or robots) that can assemble parts. Some people are great at tightening bolts and some are good at frolicking around in the mountains of Colorado walking barefoot in the grass and dreaming up new ideas. When Amory Lovins speaks I listen carefully. I might not agree with everything because I have other facts or make different assumptions but to just dismiss his words as bull****? Unbelievable.

Texas,

This thread started with the question "Will the grid handle demand?"

See Lyle's latest post "Electric Cars and Utility Companies", (which I believe you have already commented to). The concensus seems to be, the grid can handle the added load for a large number of electric cars, if they are charged during off-peak periods (I think you indicated yourself up to 70% conversion by numerous studies).

From here you started to tell us that wind and solar with pumped hydro storage was the answer to the grid's problems.

Myself and others asserted that nuclear power would be a major player in the future, and your responses included

"When we talk about the intermittent nature of alternative sources of energy we must also talk about the steady nature of nuclear. Nuclear power plants are not just turned up or turned down to meet the demands of the grid. They pump out an almost constant stream of energy from when they are ramped up to when they are powered down. If you ever seen a curve of the daily energy demands of a country you will see it’s not as flat as the energy curve nuclear power plants emit. What do they do? They either dump it into the ground or use the extra energy to fill up our country’s electrical storage capacity. Pumped storage hydro is a major player in that game."

We're still not sure where the "dump it into the ground" idea comes from, but we're willing to listen.

Although the nuclear plants in the US operated at greater than 91% capacity factor in 2007, (full power for 8760 hours per year equals 100%), you state the following:

"I would argue that solar is more dependable than nuclear. Nuclear cores are brought down all the time because of problems and they can be out of commission for long periods of time."

Then the next statement, without any good support information, is as follows:

"no new reactors are likely to be approved "

Again, the Public Service Commission of Florida denied Florida Power & Lights application for new coal plants based in part on uncertainty for CO2 taxes. It did, however, recently approve the company's plan to install new nuclear power plants instead.

I understand your desire for a US grid that is based totally upon renewable power sources. And I am not here to discourage renewables. I do, however, like to approach these issues with a practical and realistic approach.

Utilities will tell you or anyone that they like diversification. They don't want all nuclear, all coal, all hydro, or otherwise. If rail workers go on strike, coal might not get to their coal plants. If there is a drought, hydro power is limited. If Mount St. Helens erupts, the solar panels may be out until the dust clears. It is their philosophy not to put all their eggs in one basket.

With that said, I believe you will see more nuclear, clean coal (with CO2 sequestration), and renewables added to the grid in coming years. Natural gas plants are popular today, mainly because conventional coal plants are having their permits denied (just as in FL), and the Utilities need to add capacity now to meet demand.

Amory Lovins may have great ideas. I won't argue that fact. However, GM also has great ideas with the Volt. However, those ideas are of no use to most of us until they are converted into the hardware that we can buy, namely, an E-REV automobile. If GM was to abandon the Volt, would you still view them with the same regard as Amory, because they had great ideas?

Since this thread has gotten somewhat distorted, I don't intend to submit any more comments. The important test will be the test of time. Maybe the grid will be powered exclusively by renewables, or maybe nuclear will increase from supplying ~20% of our electrical energy to over 50%. But my bets are on more new nuclear plants and new clean coal plants for baseload generation, and renewables and natural gas combined cycle for intermediate load.

Without subsidies or lower costs, I don't envison home installed solar or wind power making a large market penetration.

Texas,

This thread started with the question "Will the grid handle demand?"

See Lyle's latest post "Electric Cars and Utility Companies", (which I believe you have already commented to). The concensus seems to be, the grid can handle the added load for a large number of electric cars, if they are charged during off-peak periods (I think you indicated yourself up to 70% conversion by numerous studies).

From here you started to tell us that wind and solar with pumped hydro storage was the answer to the grid's problems.

Myself and others asserted that nuclear power would be a major player in the future, and your responses included

"When we talk about the intermittent nature of alternative sources of energy we must also talk about the steady nature of nuclear. Nuclear power plants are not just turned up or turned down to meet the demands of the grid. They pump out an almost constant stream of energy from when they are ramped up to when they are powered down. If you ever seen a curve of the daily energy demands of a country you will see it’s not as flat as the energy curve nuclear power plants emit. What do they do? They either dump it into the ground or use the extra energy to fill up our country’s electrical storage capacity. Pumped storage hydro is a major player in that game."

We're still not sure where the "dump it into the ground" idea comes from, but we're willing to listen.

Although the nuclear plants in the US operated at greater than 91% capacity factor in 2007, (full power for 8760 hours per year equals 100%), you state the following:

"I would argue that solar is more dependable than nuclear. Nuclear cores are brought down all the time because of problems and they can be out of commission for long periods of time."

Then the next statement, without any good support information, is as follows:

"no new reactors are likely to be approved "

Again, the Public Service Commission of Florida denied Florida Power & Lights application for new coal plants based in part on uncertainty for CO2 taxes. It did, however, recently approve the company's plan to install new nuclear power plants instead.

I understand your desire for a US grid that is based totally upon renewable power sources. And I am not here to discourage renewables. I do, however, like to approach these issues with a practical and realistic approach.

Utilities will tell you or anyone that they like diversification. They don't want all nuclear, all coal, all hydro, or otherwise. If rail workers go on strike, coal might not get to their coal plants. If there is a drought, hydro power is limited. If Mount St. Helens erupts, the solar panels may be out until the dust clears. It is their philosophy not to put all their eggs in one basket.

With that said, I believe you will see more nuclear, clean coal (with CO2 sequestration), and renewables added to the grid in coming years. Natural gas plants are popular today, mainly because conventional coal plants are having their permits denied (just as in FL), and the Utilities need to add capacity now to meet demand.

Amory Lovins may have great ideas. I won't argue that fact. However, GM also has great ideas with the Volt. However, those ideas are of no use to most of us until they are converted into the hardware that we can buy, namely, an E-REV automobile. If GM was to abandon the Volt, would you still view them with the same regard as Amory, because they had great ideas?

Since this thread has gotten somewhat distorted, I don't intend to submit any more comments. The important test will be the test of time. Maybe the grid will be powered exclusively by renewables, or maybe nuclear will increase from supplying ~20% of our electrical energy to over 50%. But my bets are on more new nuclear plants and new clean coal plants for baseload generation, and renewables and natural gas combined cycle for intermediate load.

Without subsidies or lower costs, I don't envison home installed solar or wind power making a large market penetration.


Nice job collecting all of my statements in a vane attempt to show me contradicting myself. Although, I often do that very thing in this case I did not. If you insert the following... Nuclear reactors do produce an almost constant stream of energy - when they are running! I didn't make this up, If you watch the links I provided Amory said the same thing. Here’s a great example that proves me right an proves you wrong. Japan had an earthquake recently and it damaged one of their nuclear reactors. Yeah, scary though (not for you I'm sure - you watched the link I provided and still think nuclear is the way to go - you are one tough dude!). The point is that the reactor was down for an extended amount of time (no meltdown thankfully). Let me contrast that with the sun. Even if you have a bad dust storm covering the US for a few days the sun will return very soon. If it didn't come back and give us close to our predicted models the temperature of the earth would decrease and we would be in a much more serious situation. If we had a dust storm covering the US so severe that it lasted longer than the planned pumped storage hydro capacity, then we would be probably peeling burnt flesh from our bones because China and Russia just showered us with hydrogen bombs! BOOM!

Seriously, if you watch the videos that I provided links to, Amory will give you the following factoids (they are very good with finding the facts).

1) US taxpayers pay the entire cost of a new nuclear power plant - $13 Billion.

2) Other industrialized countries have 1/6 th to 1/2 of their power from micro power systems. The US has... 4%.

3) In 2006 world nuclear added less than PV solar added.

4) In 2006 world nuclear added 1/10 what wind power added!

5) In 2006 world nuclear added 30-40X less than micro power added.

Just watch the video! Nuclear is just about dead all over the world when compared to other forms of energy. Why? Because it’s financially risky, dangerous and becoming more expensive every year because of the Uranium costs, etc. Private companies will not finance it and the nuclear plant produces waste that can be used against us should it get in the wrong hands, etc.

Ok, about my energy dumping comment, I cannot find the reference to this so I withdrawal this as an argument and will not use it again until I have located the link. However, I’m talking about how Nuclear plants as well as other thermal plants take time to get up to speed and adjust their output to power demand. For example, do you disagree that if the entire grid was supplied with nuclear reactors and there was no pumped storage (we have a lot just for this purpose - need more for solar and wind but it's proven and environmentally safe and it will last for 100s of years) then there would be serious dumping of excess energy at night? Why? Because you can't adjust the output quickly enough. With that said if we are going with solar and wind we will have lots of pumped storage hydro as well as other forms of electrical storage - quick-charge stations for EVs for example.

Yes. If GM makes a great attempt with the Volt and fails I will still regard them well. Of course I cannot produce numbers on how Amory influences peoples decisions but he is very often cited and was asked to speak to congress on the nuclear topic. Nobody asked us to do that. GM even talked about doing a carbon fiber body but the cost is still too high (which is why Amory helped found Fiberforge - stay tuned). Anyway, the man is worth listening to. They have a good team of extremely intelligent people thinking of ways to improve the problems of the world. They have influenced me, I know that.

Regarding the Florida reactor. It's not a new power plant, it’s just an additional two reactors. Probably to replace what has been running for 35 years. It won't be turned on, if ever, until 2018 and even if it’s never turned on US taxpayers will have paid for the entire cost. Maybe we can take a piece of it for a paper weight. Second though I don't want that crap anywhere near me. I'm surprised that you do!

When Florida Power & Light described how they are going to be so environmentally clean when compared to a new generation coal plant I almost spit out my coffee. If you watched the second video link I provided you would agree that what the nuclear reactor puts out cannot be considered, by any stretch of the imagination, to be environmental friendly! I would rather have a hundred old-technology coal plants than one new nuclear plant. The CO2 can be absorbed but there is no getting rid of that spent fuel (very radioactive - will kill a person in a few moments for many centuries to come). Again folks, please watch the video - just the facts.

like you I’m going to stop posting on this subject. For one thing no new nuclear plants will be operational in the US for a minimum of 10 years and by then solar and other forms of energy will be developed to a point that the reactors will probably never be turned on. However, if the country starts going crazy and pushes a new nuclear policy then I'm going to continue posting. Besides, this is one topic that ruffles my feathers because it’s just so stupid and dangerous. It's like making the decision to start smoking as an adult knowing what we now know about the problems associated with smoking. Anyway, thanks for the debate and I truly hope that your dream does not come true. Do you really hope my dream does not come true (assuming it works as advertised)?

Oh, I was just doing research today and ran across a video that talks about how the US grid wastes energy (dumps) when demand is low because there is no place to put it (after our storage systems are full).

Professor Andy Frank, Director of the UC Davis Hybrid Vehicle Research Center:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQs09R2plhQ


If you go about half-way though the video he talks about it. Thus, that is my reference so I feel, unless we can get other references refuting that, I can continue to talk about how our current grid dumps energy at times of low demand when our electrical storage systems are full. It makes sense because thermal power plants (steam powered by coal, nuclear, etc.) can not be adjusted as quickly as demand changes.

Heck! I guess I picked a good reference. Turns out Nova is calling him the inventor of the plug-in hybrid. He has been perfecting the technology for 20 years! Thanks Dr. Frank!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np1llu5yEBE

Texas,

You continue to demonstrate your naivete when it comes to the grid.

Power plants operate similar to your car's engine, press on the gas pedal, you get more power, let up, you get less. Most power plants are designed to be most efficient at or near full load. At lower load (less fuel input) their efficiency is reduced (similar to an ICE). So energy is wasted, per se, because the coal and natural gas plants are at reduced load (however, many natural gas plants shutdown at night).

At 3 am for example, on a seasonal day (not during a hot and humid spell with daytime highs of 99 F) peak units will be shutdown, and many natural gas plants will be shutdown. The nukes will run full power through the evening, while the coal/NG plants will be at reduced load. Electricity is not "dumped", its just that we need to consume more coal/NG per MWh due to inefficiency.

I don't know where you get the idea that plant load cannot be adjusted quickly, but fossil plants can adjust load much faster than the grid changes load (5% per minute). Again, the nukes operate at base load and have less capacity than the minimum system load (3 am or so).

Perhaps you should ask CharlieP for his input. He works for a Utility or related company, and has a great deal of insight, based on some of his recent posts.

See this link, comment #46

http://gm-volt.com/2008/05/03/electric-cars-and-utility-companies/

BillR -

Both you and Texas are correct. Some fossil-fuel power plants can ramp at 5%/minute or more. This would include peaking-specific gas turbines and many combined-cycle gas turbine/steam systems. But a whole lot of the installed fossil-fuel power plant base, including most coal plants, are not set up for rapid ramping We're talking about 1%/minute or less. They really want to run loaded 24/7.

I found an interesting article in Power Magazine's archives about retrofitting an old natural gas power plant to improve both heat rate and ramping characteristics.
report (http://www.powermag.com/powerweb/archive_article.asp?a=22-CS_PLE&y=2007&m=june)

Even with the faster ramping rates, though, grid analysts have concluded that as variable output renewable sources like solar and wind go beyond 20% of the grid capacity, significant new energy storage systems will be required to keep the grid balanced. See my earlier post #13 for a link to the study done on the California grid.

One more thing - The California study does discuss in detail the issue of "exporting" (dumping) power at pennies on the dollar due to over-generation. It is becoming a problem in parts of Europe that have high percentages of unpredictable wind generation.

BillR -
Even with the faster ramping rates, though, grid analysts have concluded that as variable output renewable sources like solar and wind go beyond 20% of the grid capacity, significant new energy storage systems will be required to keep the grid balanced. See my earlier post #13 for a link to the study done on the California grid.

The 20% ceiling you mentioned in your post is real. Here in the Pacific Northwest the Bonniville Power Administartion (BPA) is already coming close to the limits on the amount of wind power they can integrate into their hydro system. Wind farms have been sprouting up in the Northwest like weeds after a spring rain. They have mostly been depending on BPA to itegrate them into the grid using hydro resources to backup the wind farms when the wind stops blowing. Soon BPA will have to stop accepting new wind into the grid because, as you stated, after about the 20% level is reached, it destabilizes the grid and you risk brown-outs.

Yes, we definitely need more pumped storage hydro infrastructure. I would like to know the activity level on this. Are people hot for this? Projected growth rates? etc. I think that once we have a good design for our future smart grid we can start to plan out these new infrastructure build-outs. It will take several years of hard work and great budgets to design a good plan towards are renewable future. However, since getting our country off of foreign oil is job one we just might have some time to do this right, if we are smart enough to get going on it. Probably not.

Hopefully and fortuitously, there should be used but capable battery capacity from the first 300,000 40mile plug-ins starting to become available in 2007. With any luck this should grow to about 3GWh/year around 2020 and continue growing thereafter. How much will be needed to bridge from 2013 to 2020?

Here is how I observe the situation (Sorry about repetition). I think the only practical answer to today’s grid problem is the household UPS which uses A123 type Li-ion cells.
- Legally and technically power plants must maintain the frequency of the AC energy they generate at 60Hz within a very narrow range.
- The frequency (and the voltage) is determined by the rotational speed of the generator rotor.
- Changes in the amount of load make the rotor heavier or lighter to rotate, but you do not want the rotational speed to change.
- The only way to maintain the rotor speed constant under varying load is to control the water flow or steam pressure.
- But response time of these control methods is slow… minutes at best, causing the frequency to drift beyond the specified range, which is not acceptable.
- Output of nuke plants is practically impossible to change, thence they cover the baseload.
- Therefore, the power plants want the load as constant as possible.
- Momentary changes of load can be absorbed by the inertia of the rotors. But if the load gets lighter, for example, beyond the period that the rotors can absorb, the only way to slow down the rotor is increase the load even if it means dumping the excess electricity into the ground. This is something the utility industry does not want you to know because the industry keeps telling the consumers “Save”, “Save”, “Save”.
- On their part they are trying to reduce the amount of this waste by storing the excess energy in flywheels, which are designed to drive generators to return the energy back to the grid when called for (Beacon Flywheels: http://www.beaconpower.com/), albeit for a short period.
- The flywheel system as well as the pump-up hydro system waste energy every time they change the form of energy.
- To make the load as flat as possible we have to shave the peak and fill the valley with the shavings.
- For the purpose of peak shaving, high-capacity batteries or capacitors must be used so that they can be charged during the off-peak hours and use the stored energy during the peak hours.
- Rather than having huge battery/capacitor and rotary generator housings at power plants or transfer stations, it is much easier for individual households to have their own storage system (UPS) of, say, 16kWh or so, which should keep you off-grid 4 to 8 hours during the peak period of the day.
- It is easier and faster (and possibly cheaper overall) to make the UPSs than building controversial power plants (nuke or otherwise).
- Making and installation of several millions of the UPS mean new local businesses and employment opportunities, at the same time reducing the cost of batteries for the automotive industry.

P.S. Utility companies really want consumers use as much energy as possible until demand reaches the maximum capacity because the energy is what they sell as product. But politically they must say “Save”, “Save”, “Save” even when the demand is much lower than the max capacity.
P.P.S. The major source of the problem of the grid is because the electricity is AC. Thomas Edison was against AC transmission and Nikola Tesla was against DC. Now the industry is looking at DC transmission seriously. I guess Thomas Edison was right. It is ironic that there is a company called Tesla that is promoting DC powered automobiles and there is a utility company called Con Edison that is the source of AC power in NY.

G35X, Hey why you busting on Tesla? lol. They do use an AC drive motor however. AC motor controller as well. Tesla lives!

http://www.teslamotors.com/blog4/?p=61

Ok, I can see where you are coming from by wanting batteries to cover the grid loads. I have talked about that for a long time as well. However, the amount of energy I'm talking about will not be able to be covered using existing battery technology. Think of a large lake - like Lake Mead - filled with lithium-ion batteries. Wow! That's a lot of batteries.

Pumped storage hydro is well proven, efficient, inexpensive (compared to batteries), and can provide amazing amounts of storage capacity. It's also one of the fastest methods to ramping up power to satisfy energy demands. It can be brought up to speed in only a few minutes. don't worry, there are other instantaneous electrical storage systems like you mentioned (batteries, caps, flywheels, etc.) that can handle very fast changes in grid demand.

I'm talking the meat and potatoes of electrical storage. If you think pumped storage is a pipe dream (pun intended) check out Toshiba:

http://www3.toshiba.co.jp/power/english/hydro/products/pump/index.htm


These are some of the most advanced pumped storage hydro turbines in the world. They can do all kinds of things with very good efficiencies. You basically build two ponds at different heights and put these turbines in-between. These can be build just about anywhere and in any size. Again, proven technology used throughout the world already.

If you do a quick cost comparison between lithium-ion and water you will soon discover that batteries are not practical yet for massive energy storage. I talking backing up a hundred (and more), 1GW power plants for weeks. That's a lot of batteries and a whole lot of water. Maybe batteries will be able to fulfill that capacity in the future but not yet. I have been doing cost analysis for pumped storage hydro to allow massive amount of solar and wind to be connected to our grid. It is possible to have a completely renewable US grid using these technologies. Yeah, it will take several decades of hard work and massive amounts of capital to achieve. However, as global oil heads down the depletion path and global concerns over CO2 emissions go up the high-alert path it's nice to know that we do have a great option. A perfect option in my book. Don't forget that pumped storage hydro plants will last for hundreds of years with no chemicals, no emissions, etc. Again, proven all over the world.

Part of my interstate plan is to have a lot of battery storage at each of the over 600 quick-charge power stations that allow the connected solar power plants to become base load. However, Pumped storage hydro will be needed for the really long delays and massive power production. Just look at the costs.

The problem with pumped storage is not technical - it's political.

Embracing pumped storage would require a paradigm shift for most mainstream environmentalists who have veto power over any new major civil construction project. Of course, a lot things required to match 21st century energy and environmental realities will require paradigm shifts for everyone.

It involves flooding valleys, hollowing out underground caverns, building dams or levees, etc. And that would be two reservoirs for one pumped storage system. As an example, despite our desperate need for more water storage capacity here in California, we haven't built a major new reservoir in decades. We're have huge battles even discussing the possibility of raising the height of an existing one, Shasta Lake, buy 6 feet.

Texas, my ideal home powering system is the combination of high-efficiency solar panels and high-capacity battery storage system, free from the shackles of the grid. We are almost there! Even if the system costs 100,000 dollars it represents less than 10% of the average price of houses in my neighborhood. And the cost should come down as we make more of the system.

In the meantime, let’s take California ISO, for example, its peak demand these days is somewhere around 30GW while the bottom of the valley is about 22GW. Since the demand changes quasi-symmetrical fashion, if we can shave about 4GW from the peak and fill the valley with the shavings we are talking about 26GW of flat demand. To store 4GW of power in 8 off-peak hours, or 32GWh of energy, you need 4 million Li-ion cell USP’s of 8KWh “usable” energy capacity (or 16KWh nominal). Realistically 2 million 32KWh nominal (two A123 Volt packs) storage systems make more sense. This certainly should save the Californians from the misery of brown/black outs.

As for the pump-up hydro system, yes, it is useful and practical. But it is still an energy loser entropy wise. Where does the energy to drive the pumps come from? If the system is an overall energy loser why don’t they stop operating the source of the energy to save fuel? The answer is they cannot stop operating the source and the energy to drive the pumps is wasted totally otherwise. So, it is the "much" lesser of two evils.

P.S. I looked at the California ISO demand forecast today and noticed a second peak at around 8-9PM. Why? Do Californians make love with AC at full blast with all the lights on?

A great feature article (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3934#more) on grid-related issues in an uncertain energy future.

Most energy storage systems have cumulative losses that eat up 20-25% of the original energy. It's just the nature of the beast.

LI battery-stored energy and pumped hydro stored energy is about the same efficiency.

Pumped hydro - current round-trip efficiency is about 78%.

Current LI battery round-trip efficiency is about 81%. (Charger = 95%, battery = 90%, inverter = 95%).

Another factor - Utility pumped storage equipment works at primary voltages. Subtract the additional 3% losses (twice) from the 12 kV/240 V pole-mount secondary utility transformer to get power to the parked car. This makes pumped storage slightly more efficient.

When it comes to storage efficiency, flywheel storage is king. I've heard quotes of over 90% round-trip efficiency.

Hey hvacman, thanks for that link to the article about the grid. This is the kind of stuff that I am worried about. Weaknesses in the grid resulting from years of sitting around and not upgrading it to handle further demand. I see that potential increased load from plug in vehicles could hinder the grid to the point that utilities companies will have to upgrade fast to keep ahead of demand which could cost hundreds of millions dollars and send electricity rates sky rocketing. It's happening in the hydrocarbon market right now and I can see it happening to electricity and utility companies.

Current LI battery round-trip efficiency is about 81%. (Charger = 95%, battery = 90%, inverter = 95%).

HVACMAN,

Don't you have to count the battery twice, unless you were figuring one way was 95%? I believe standard LiCo is about 90% and A123 is 95% but I think they are 92-93% efficient. Altairnano is a little better, which helps for their faster recharge times.

I'm looking forward to retiring my first plug-in battery pack to grid tied home storage capacity.

A great feature article (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3934#more) on grid-related issues in an uncertain energy future.


hvacman, thanks for the great link. What a friggen mess we got ourselves into... Again. Here's the author's final paragraph. Read this and let it roll around in your head:

"If we cannot get the electrical grid upgraded, it seems like we will need to downgrade our expectations for applications such as electrified rail and plug-in electric hybrid cars. These will work much less well if there are frequent electric outages in much of the country. We may also need to downgrade our expectation for newer renewables because of the intermittent nature of their output, and the inability of local grids to handle this type of input. Efforts at higher efficiency may also be hindered, if we are unable to make the grid "smart"."


Here's how I see it going down:

1) There will be no drastic change until major problems are seen. Much more than the major North Eastern blackout or the problems in California. These problems are coming, no doubt in my mind.

2) After major problems, Americans will finally stand up and demand a real solution.

3) There will be a decision to nationalize the grid. This will be needed at the very least to allow new high voltage transmission lines to be built-out faster than the 10 year process it takes now. Additionally, there will need to be some major infrastructure projects that will need to be fast-tracked. Pumped storage hydro, high voltage backbones, massive solar and wind farms, etc. There is no way that these can be done in any reasonable time-frame without a federal mandate. No way. Every utility is pointing at the other as to who is going to pay for the infrastructure while the environmentalists are waving their hands and saying no way. It's grid lock in New York City during rush hour.

4) A massive project to re-design the grid will be commissioned. This will bring together a large pool of talented people and the project will be put on a fast-track timeline. We will have no choice.

5) A New Deal like project will be started. This will lead to an amazing time for the US. New jobs, massive activity, technical advancement in energy technology, etc. I hope I get to see and be part of this. it will be extremely expensive. Other nonessential projects will be put on hold. Again, we will have no choice.

6) After things start to gel and all the fail-safe regulations and standards have been figured out the system can start to be privatized once again. Energy will become the new currency of the world. This will improve the efficiency of operation but not destroy the National backbone of the system. Obviously we can't let this degrade to the situation we have now.

7) Private and public institutions will both be sources and sinks of energy and there will be standards for payments and credits. It will not be perfect but the system will be one of the best in the world and will be on a path towards complete renewability. We will also not be importing energy from foreign markets (it will be ruled too detrimental to national security). However, the vast amounts of new, green technologies we developed will be used throughout the world and will more than pay for the cost of the system. In retrospect it will seem like an obvious infrastructure investment.

This is how I see it happening but wouldn't be nice if we didn't have to go though all that pain first? If we decide to get moving immediately on a national plan towards sustainability we might be able to make this happen without experiencing a major economic crisis.

The development project that A123 is working on for USABC is targeting a minimum LI charge/discharge round-trip efficiency of 90% by 2010.
Link (http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/05/usabc-finalizes.html#more)

For your a daily dose of energy depression, log on to theoildrum.com every day. I've been following them a few months now and digging into their archives, after doing a column on the Peak Oil theory. The TOD group has a bunch of very bright petroleum engineers, scientists, geologists, economists, members of APL, etc. discussing oil and our energy future. Their numbers add up, their forecasts from several years ago are uncanningly accurate. They've made a believer out of this crusty old engineering Peak Oil skeptic.

Nonetheless, I have room for optimism. It usually takes a 2x4 across our heads, but when we've received that blow, the US knows how to take on impossible missions like no others in the world. Nobody has mastered Can Do like us. And our only hope will be if we develop that sense of "mission", much like we had when we decided to go to the moon in less than 10 years, despite the fact we couldn't get an unmanned rocket 100 feet off the ground without it exploding.

There is so much more at stake to the GM Volt project than just GM's future or the future of electric-powered vehicles. We're not exactly sure why the decided to be the one, but GM is the first US corporation to step out of the box in any energy-related endevour with a sense of urgent "mission" in the 21st century sense.

We need inexpensive, functional, and efficient white LED lights, and we need them NOW. Step up, GE. We need off-the-shelf 30 EER heat pumps NOW. Step up, Carrier. We need a more fully electrified railroad system NOW. Step up, Santa Fe.

If GM is successful in their mission, it will become infectious. If they fail, it could stifle the very attitude we need to beat this energy tsunami bearing down on us.

Why do you think the whole world has lit up about this Volt project? Because we sense it in our heart. GM has drawn a line in the sand, or at least we want to believe they have. And I think, even if the GM execs didn't think of it that way before, after seeing the public's reaction, they realize it now. They are on-board and they know that failure is not an option.

Texas,

You were asking about more information on energy storage, see this link to the Electricity Storage Association:

http://electricitystorage.org/index.html

And this link, which on the right hand side of the page has a link to an upcoming conference on energy storage in San Diego on July 14-16 (Title: Power Storage Projects and Enabling Technologies Summit):

http://www.powermarketers.com/index.shtml

BillR, Thanks for the links. I have looked at the first link you gave me a while ago but was wondering why the latest publish article was in 2004. Most are for 2001 and 2002. Is this site dead and buried? Not sure. I think that people looked into this before when renewables looked like they were going to take off. Unfortunately, oil was far too cheap and the world mindset was not quite ready for the transition to renewables. Hopefully things are different this time. My oh my are we going to need a lot of electrical storage. Once we come to that realization then I don't think it's all that bad.

We don't have a perfect solution to oil. Not even a dirty and dangerous one like nuclear is going to save the day. I do feel that the pumped storage hydro solution combined with solar, wind and other renewables is the way to go. That combined with plug-in hybrids, BEVs and massive amounts of batteries and other renewables tossed in when they make sense. Are people going to accept it? I don't know. I have always loved the look of dams but understand the lakes can disrupt existing ecologies. Normal hydroelectric dams are far different than pumped storage hydro because they do not cause that kind of situation. However, they will be huge and plentiful if we decide to put substantial amounts of renewables to work. Even it we didn't change our current grid, adding some more electrical storage would help to stabilize what we have now. Thus, we can get going today and adjust as technology presents itself. If the perfect battery or biofuel comes out in 10 years then great. Non of the work the US does up until then will be wasted.

I've seen a few people mention solar, but I haven't seen anyone mention CSP (Concentrated Solar Power).
I ran across the technology a few weeks ago. Apparently it's been in use since the 70's. It's simple, reliable, and cheap. It stores heat, so they can continue to produce power at night.

Solar panels that convert photons directly to electricity are good for mobile applications, but CSP seems like a much better technology for supplementing the grid.

Check out the --> wikipedia link <-- about Nevada Solar One. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Solar_One)

No one cried about the grid being able to handle oh like 200 million computers running off the grid when they finally made it to every household recently. Most people leave them running 24 hours a day and use them maybe 4 hours a day. Thats just one small example of BS.
The grid will be fine with BEV's and PHEV's. Just unplug a few unnecessary items around the house if you are that worried about it or actually care.

I don't think we can build electric cars fast enough to cause problems to the grid anytime soon. Look at how many existing cars there are now vs the number sold every year. When you figure the ramp up and/or changelver to Volt type of cars for those of us who do have the opportunity to plug them in (what are apartment dwellers going to do) it would take a very long time for electric grid to have problems sine there is so much overcapacity at night when these things are gong to be recharged.

can you tell me more about heat pumps (http://www.bernardinosairconditioning.com)? :eek: