Date post: | 20-Jan-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | peter-oneill |
View: | 450 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Thinking About Energy Policy
Engineer Edition
November 18, 2009 1
Peter M. O’Neill
November 2009
Thinking About Energy Policy Peter M. O'Neill
Introduction
November 18, 2009 2
This is a really complicated issue Solution possibilities change as technology
changes Give you facts & tools to analyze these
opportunities as technology and knowledge evolve.
Put aside political passion for what technologically works
Intended to be synopsis of half-day seminar
Thinking About Energy Policy Peter M. O'Neill
Outline
Policy objectives Understanding the problem Some principals Source to load analysis Temporal matching of source to load Source diversity: temporal & geographic Conclusions Skipping economics because it’s a huge
topic by itself.
November 18, 2009 3Thinking About Energy Policy
Peter M. O'Neill
Popular Energy Policy Objectives
November 18, 2009 4Thinking About Energy Policy
Peter M. O'Neill
Objective: National energy independence
November 18, 2009 5
Stop or avoid importing oil, (or future gas, uranium, …): To not depend on unstable or evil countries Reduce trade imbalance
Thinking About Energy Policy Peter M. O'Neill
U.S. Oil Sources by Country
November 18, 2009 6Thinking About Energy Policy
Peter M. O'Neill
Although we are the third largest crude oil producer, most of the petroleum we use is imported. Western Hemisphere nations
provide about half of our imported petroleum.Net imports have generally increased
(58% in 2008) since 1985 while U.S. production fell and consumption grew.
CANADA 21%
SAUDI ARABIA 17%
MEXICO 13%
VENEZUELA 11%
NIGERIA 11%
IRAQ 7%
ANGOLA 6%
ALGERIA 3%
OTHER12%
U.S. Oil Imports
Objective: Reduce global warming
November 18, 2009 7
Reduce greenhouse gas emissions: To avoid effects at home. As moral imperative regarding rest of world
being world’s 2nd largest emitter of GHG.
Thinking About Energy Policy Peter M. O'Neill
GH Gas Concentration Trends
November 18, 2009 8
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007
Thinking About Energy Policy Peter M. O'Neill
Objective: Replace dwindling energy resources
November 18, 2009 9
Fossil fuel is finite by nature - “Peak oil” Extraction harms environment
Thinking About Energy Policy Peter M. O'Neill
Peak Oil
November 18, 2009 10Thinking About Energy Policy
Peter M. O'Neill
New oil fields harder to find, more expensive to produce.
World demand continues to increase.
Understanding the Problem
November 18, 2009 11Thinking About Energy Policy
Peter M. O'Neill
Why US & World At Critical Juncture
Explosions in per capita consumption: Consumer products Transportation/mobility Urbanization/housing – more urban than rural
Expansion of consumption to greater portion of world Every nation wants & is entitled to a good life.
Planetary scale effects No unsettled or “undiscovered” land – all humanity in contact. Natural resources in any location accessible to people in any
other location. But can’t maintain that other populations can’t use or aren’t
entitled to resources in their lands. Human activity affecting composition of atmosphere & water
Population explosion, 1950 → 2009: USA – 152 → 307 million World – 2.5 → 6.8 billion
November 18, 2009 12Thinking About Energy Policy
Peter M. O'Neill
U.S. Energy Consumption Trend
November 18, 2009 13
Moved Industry Oversea
sSerious Conserv
ation
Thinking About Energy Policy Peter M. O'Neill
U.S. Energy Flows – 2008
November 18, 2009 14
Quadrillion BTU
US Energy Info. Admin. – Annual Energy Review 2008
Thinking About Energy Policy Peter M. O'Neill
Electricity Sources
November 18, 2009 15Thinking About Energy Policy
Peter M. O'Neill
U.S. CO2 Sources - 2008
November 18, 2009 16
Coal37%
Primarily Electric
Gen.
Gas21%Heat
Oil42%
Primarily Transport
Thinking About Energy Policy Peter M. O'Neill
Some Principals
November 18, 2009 17Thinking About Energy Policy
Peter M. O'Neill
Capacity vs. Generation
November 18, 2009 18
Capacity – maximum power plant can deliver. Determines capital cost Capacity installation gets attention but wrong
measure of impact. Generation – energy plant can deliver
over long time. Determines: Revenue Consumption & pollution from fossil fuels Fuel & pollution reduction from renewable
sourcesThinking About Energy Policy
Peter M. O'Neill
Availability & Ramp Rate
November 18, 2009Thinking About Energy Policy
Peter M. O'Neill 19
Source Annual Availability Fraction
Ramp Rate (%/min)
Nuclear High Very slow
Coal High Slow 0.4 – 2.8
Gas Turbine High Fast 2.6 – 5.3
Hydro Moderate Fast
Wind Turbine 0.15 Fast
Solar PV (1,868 Sun-Hr)/(8,760 Hr/yr) = 0.21
Instantaneous
All MW of capacity do not produce equivalent generation, hence fuel or CO2 savings.
Energy Source vs. Carrier
November 18, 2009 20
Source Energy provided by nature either as we use it or
from storage in geologic time. Sun – order of increasing time lag:
Solar radiation Wind Biomass: wood, ethanol Fossil fuels: petroleum, gas, coal
Nuclear material Carrier
Medium for transporting energy from primary source to end use or for short term storage.
Electricity Synthetic fuels: hydrogen, syngas
Thinking About Energy Policy Peter M. O'Neill
Mass Energy Densities
November 18, 2009 21Thinking About Energy Policy
Peter M. O'Neill
Gasoline
Diesel oil
Ethanol
Coal (bituminous)
Natural Gas (250bar)
Hydrogern (700bar)
Water spec. heat
Water fusion heat
Molten salt spec. heat
Molten salt fusion heat
Lead-Acid battery
NiMH battery
Li Ion battery
Ultracapacitor
1E-03 1E-02 1E-01 1E+00 1E+01 1E+02 1E+03
46.40
46.20
30.00
24.00
53.60
143.00
0.00
0.33
0.00
0.08
0.18
0.25
0.58
0.01
Energy Density (MJ/Kg)
Electrical
Thermal
Chemical
Log scale!
Energy Burden
November 18, 2009Thinking About Energy Policy
Peter M. O'Neill 22
Takes energy to extract, refine, transport energy from primary source.Energy burden – ratio of energy consumed in the above to energy delivered.
Burden
Burden
Petroleum – early
0.01 Tar Sand 0.33
Petroleum – now
0.07 Oil Shale (Kerogen) 0.25
Natural Gas 0.10 Biodiesel 0.33
Coal 0.10 Ethanol from Corn 1.00
Hydro 0.10 H2 by cracking CH4 0.67
Nuclear 0.25 H2 by electrolysis 0.28
Wind 0.05 Compressed Natural Gas 0.18
Solar PV 0.10 Coal carbon capture & sequestration
Embodied Energy
Material Embodied Energy (MJ/kg)
Aluminum 285
Plastic from petroleum
90
Glass 27
Iron 23
Cement 7
Gasoline 46
November 18, 2009Thinking About Energy Policy
Peter M. O'Neill 23
Takes energy to build generation & transportation facilities.
Leads to concept of energy payback time for generating facility.
Generator Payback Time (Years)
Photovoltaic – MC Si 3.5
Photovoltaic – TF 2.5
Power Area Density
November 18, 2009 24Thinking About Energy Policy
Peter M. O'Neill
The problem with biofuels: Sun annual average flux, latitude 40º – 232 W/m2
Photosynthesis in switchgrass – 0.27 W/m2 , 0.12% efficiency. Photovoltaic at 15.5% - 36 W/m2 , 133x better Concentrating solar thermal @ 40% - 93 W/m2
Coal mine or oil field many times higher Fossil fuels store 10’s of millions of years of solar energy
collected by inefficient photosynthesis. No way fossil fuel can last many centuries at current use
rates. Would be great to capture & store sun’s energy
through photochemical reaction that is much more efficient than natural photosynthesis. Bio-engineered algae? Photolytic reactor?
CO2 Emission Rates
November 18, 2009Thinking About Energy Policy
Peter M. O'Neill 25
Determined by ratio of carbon to hydrogen in the molecules.
Coal - bi-tuminous
Gasoline Natual gas0
102030405060708090
10088.1
67.1
50.3
Em
issio
n R
ate
(g
/MJ)
The Cycle – Source to Load Analysis
November 18, 2009 26Thinking About Energy Policy
Peter M. O'Neill
Internal Combustion Car – Motivations
November 18, 2009Thinking About Energy Policy
Peter M. O'Neill 27
All High energy density fuel for long range. Fast fueling. Simple technology. Low capital cost.
Gasoline & Diesel Easy handling. Traditional availability.
Natural gas Lower emissions. New US sources – shale & coal beds.
Electric Car – Motivations
November 18, 2009 28
No emissions during use. Conversion efficiency
Internal combustion engine – 25% Electric motor – 82%, 3.3x better
Use electric storage to capture braking energy – Regenerative braking – Wheel to tank path.
Create mobility from stationary primary energy source.
Thinking About Energy Policy Peter M. O'Neill
Hybrid Gasoline/Electric Car – Motivations
November 18, 2009Thinking About Energy Policy
Peter M. O'Neill 29
“Combustion” Hybrid All energy comes from gasoline. Use electric storage to optimize ICE operation. Regenerative braking.
“Plug” Hybrid Operate as, & with advantages of, electric car
for short trips. Extend range with ICE.
Hydrogen Fuel Cell Car – Motivations
November 18, 2009 30Thinking About Energy Policy
Peter M. O'Neill
No emissions during use. Conversion efficiency
Internal combustion engine – 25% Fuel cell (60%) × Electric motor (82%) – 49%
Can make hydrogen from any primary energy source.
Representative Cars
November 18, 2009Thinking About Energy Policy
Peter M. O'Neill 31
Vehicle Make Model Weight (lb)
Gasoline Honda Civic DX 2,692
Natural Gas Honda Civic GX 2,910
Hybrid gasoline/electric
Toyota Prius 3,042
Hydrogen Fuel Cell Honda Clarity 3,582
Plug Hybrid electric mode (20 mi/charge)
Toyota Plug Prius
NA
Electric (100 mi/charge)
Nissan Leaf NA
Similar size cars.
Attraction of Transport Fuels – Tank to Wheel Analysis
November 18, 2009Thinking About Energy Policy
Peter M. O'Neill 32
Gasoline
Natur
al g
as
Hybrid
gas
oline/
elec
tric
HFC fr
om G
CC
Plug
hyb
rid e
lect
ric m
ode
Elec
tric
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Energy (MJ/km)
Gasoline
Natur
al g
as
Hybrid
gas
oline/
elec
tric
HFC fr
om G
CC
Plug
hyb
rid e
lect
ric m
ode
Elec
tric
0
40
80
120
160
200
CO2 (g/km)
Distance travelled from energy stored onboard.
Full Story – Well to Wheel Analysis
November 18, 2009Thinking About Energy Policy
Peter M. O'Neill 33
Gasoline
Natur
al g
as
Hybrid
gas
oline/
elec
tric
HFC fr
om G
CC
Plug
hyb
rid e
lect
ric C
oal
Plug
hyb
rid e
lect
ric G
CC
Elec
tric fro
m C
oal
Elec
tric fro
m G
CC0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0
Well to Wheel Energy (MJ/km)
Gasoline
Natur
al g
as
Hybrid
gas
oline/
elec
tric
HFC fr
om G
CC
Plug
hyb
rid e
lect
ric C
oal
Plug
hyb
rid e
lect
ric G
CC
Elec
tric fro
m C
oal
Elec
tric fro
m G
CC0
50
100
150
200
250
Well to Wheel CO2 (g/km)
Quite different!
Distance travelled from primary energy source.
Tank to Wheel / Well to Wheel
November 18, 2009Thinking About Energy Policy
Peter M. O'Neill 34
Gasoline
Natur
al g
as
Hybrid
gas
oline/
elec
tric
HFC fr
om G
CC
Plug
hyb
rid e
lect
ric C
oal
Plug
hyb
rid e
lect
ric G
CC
Elec
tric fro
m C
oal
Elec
tric fro
m G
CC0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Energy (MJ/km)
Tank to Wheel
Well to Wheel
Gasoline
Natur
al g
as
Hybrid
gas
oline/
elec
tric
HFC fr
om G
CC
Plug
hyb
rid e
lect
ric C
oal
Plug
hyb
rid e
lect
ric G
CC
Elec
tric fro
m C
oal
Elec
tric fro
m G
CC0
50
100
150
200
250
CO2 (gm/km)
Tank to Wheel
Well to Wheel
Gasoline & Hybrid Analyses
November 18, 2009Thinking About Energy Policy
Peter M. O'Neill 35
Component Unit Gasoline Hybrid
Well to tank Ratio 0.93
Energy density MJ/L 34.2
CO2 emission rate g/MJ 67.1
Tank to wheel L/km 0.081 0.047
Tank to wheel energy
MJ/km 34.2×0.081=2.77
34.2×0.047=1.61
Well to wheel energy
MJ/km 2.77/0.93=2.97
1.61/0.93=1.72
Tank to wheel CO2 g/km 67.1×2.77=186
67.1×1.61=108
Well to wheel CO2 g/km 67.1×2.97=199
67.1×1.72=116
Electrical Generation to VehicleComponent Units Coal
Steam Turbine
Gas Turbin
e
Gas Combined Cycle
Mine or well to burner Ratio 0.91 0.91 0.91
Combustion to electricity
Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.60
Electrical transmission
Ratio 0.91
Battery charge/discharge cycle
Ratio 0.90
Source to user energy (Net efficiency)
Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.45
CO2 emission rate g/MJ 88.1 50.3 50.3
Source to user CO2 g/MJ 296 169 113
November 18, 2009Thinking About Energy Policy
Peter M. O'Neill 36
Renewable sources don’t directly emit net GHG so much better charging source.
Electric Car Analysis
Component Units Plug Prius
Nissan Leaf
Tank to wheel energy MJ/km 0.54 0.54
Well to wheel values
Energy: Coal steam MJ/km 1.81 1.80
Gas turbine MJ/km 1.81 1.80
Gas combined cycle MJ/km 1.21 1.20
CO2: Coal steam g/km 160 159
Gas turbine g/km 91 91
Gas combined cycle
g/km 61 60
November 18, 2009Thinking About Energy Policy
Peter M. O'Neill 37
Can manufacturer’s reported 5.3x MJ/km vs. 3.3x motor efficiency of electric to ICE be due entirely to regenerative braking?
Hydrogen Fuel Cell Car Analysis
Component Units Value
Well to GCC to electrolyzer Ratio 0.91×0.60×0.91=0.50
H2 by electrolysis Ratio 0.78
H2 transport & compression Ratio 0.85
Well to tank Ratio 0.50×0.78×0.85=0.33
Tank to wheel MJ/km 1.48
Well to wheel energy MJ/km 1.48/0.33=4.50
Well to wheel CO2 g/km 50.3×4.50=226
November 18, 2009Thinking About Energy Policy
Peter M. O'Neill 38
Conclusions on Car Fuels
Combustion/electric hybrid advances all 3 objectives.
Hydrogen fuel cell present energy efficiency & CO2 emission worse than gasoline ICE. Only helps independence if cheap, plentiful
stationary source available like nuclear was supposed to be.
Must improve H2 generation, storage, transport.
Electric can advance all 3 objectives. In exchange for cost & limited range. Better way to use NG for transport than CNG. Will make sense with more renewable generation.
November 18, 2009Thinking About Energy Policy
Peter M. O'Neill 39
It’s About Time – Temporal Matching of Source to Load
November 18, 2009 40Thinking About Energy Policy
Peter M. O'Neill
Electricity Load Duration Curve
Short duration demand peaks set system size.
Demand response can reduce system size & same energy.November 18, 2009
Thinking About Energy Policy Peter M. O'Neill 41
EPRI – “The Green Grid”
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 12 24 36 48Hour
Lo
ad
(G
W)
Normal Load Net Load with PV PV Output
Spring Day
Min baseLoad op.
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 12 24 36 48Hour
Lo
ad
(G
W)
Normal Load Net Load with PV PV Output
Summer Day
How Well Could PhotovoltaicsMatch Loads in Texas?
Simulated 16 GW of PV generating 11% of load at 9 sites spread uniformly around Texas and compared generation with load
Surplus
Abilene
Austin
Canyon
Corpus ChristiDel Rio
Edinburg
El Paso
Laredo
Overton
Courtesy of Walter Short, NREL
42
How Well Could PhotovoltaicsMatch Loads in Texas? (2)
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
% System Energy from PV
PV
Ca
pa
cit
y (
GW
)
35%
20%
0%
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
% System Energy from PV
PV
Ele
ctr
icit
y R
ela
tiv
e C
os
t
Marginal Cost
Average Cost
Courtesy of Walter Short, NREL
43
Solar Generation Match to Load
1st year of operation of my PV system
Rating: 2.1 kW Energy produced:
3,327 kWh Energy
consumed: 5,493 kWh
Read meters weekly
November 18, 2009Thinking About Energy Policy
Peter M. O'Neill 44
09
-Se
p-0
8
29
-Oct
-08
18
-De
c-0
8
06
-Fe
b-0
9
28
-Ma
r-0
9
17
-Ma
y-0
9
06
-Ju
l-0
9
25
-Au
g-0
9
14
-Oct
-09
03
-De
c-0
9
0
5
10
15
20
25Daily Averages Over In-
tervalSolar GenerationTotal Consumption
DateEn
erg
y (
kW
h/d
ay)
Stochastic Modeling of Source & Load
Computation: Assume instantaneous
match = net match over interval, i.e. some storage.
Determine surplus or deficit at each weekly interval.
Sum intervals over year. Net = TotalPVGen/TotalLoad Load Met =
1-TotalDeficit/TotalLoad Observations:
Sized to use all I produce Make large surpluses to
avoid deficit Would be more dramatic
with hourly data.
November 18, 2009Thinking About Energy Policy
Peter M. O'Neill 45
0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.90.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
PV Load Match
Net
Load Met
Size Multiplier (Cost)
Fra
cti
on
of
Lo
ad
Source Diversity
November 18, 2009 46Thinking About Energy Policy
Peter M. O'Neill
Spatial & temporal diversity Wind blows different places at different times Sun can power evening loads to east Clouds are spotty Place sources closer to loads, reducing
transmission loss Consequences
Must connect renewable sources to grid Must build a lot more transmission Transmission will become more expensive
because it will only be used intermittently More difficult to maintain grid stability
How Well Could Wind GenerationMatch Loads in the West?Results from Optimizing Wind and PV Sites to
Match Loads in the WECC
80% Wind & PVOnly Wind & PV
SurplusWind
ShortfallIn generation
Courtesy of Walter Short, NREL
47
Storage for Temporal Load Offset
November 18, 2009 48Thinking About Energy Policy
Peter M. O'Neill
Ice Energy, Inc. ice storage air conditioning.
Solves root cause of peak load problem. Thermal efficiency through non-cycling design &
off peak consumption. Stores energy off-peak, dispatching it on-peak Predictable and measurable
Combined Heat & Power Where does waste energy in
electrical generation go? Low temperature heat.
What use is low temperature heat? Space, water, process heating.
Solution Generate electricity in building that
needs heating. But heat not always needed when
electricity is.
Freewatt® reciprocating engine Electricity: 1.2 kW, 26% Heat: 3.46 kW, 74% Close to my 23%/77% Elect./Heat
Microturbine >75% efficient
November 18, 2009Thinking About Energy Policy
Peter M. O'Neill 49
Honda/ECR Freewatt Micro Combined Heat & Power example
residential installation
Demand Management Electric utility model has been to vary generation to
meet the load. Load has changed
Higher peak to average with AC More is optional or deferrable: laundry, dishes, computer
print & backup, landscape lights Renewable sources not as dispatchable or
schedulable. Control & communication technology now enable
better matching of intermittent loads to intermittent sources Smart Grid.
Significant distributed storage possible: Domestic hot water Ice for air conditioning PHEV – do I want to donate my expensive battery cycles?
November 18, 2009Thinking About Energy Policy
Peter M. O'Neill 50
Can Individuals Afford Clean Energy?
November 18, 2009 51
Gasoline10%
Electricity9%
Natural Gas11%
Water6%
Sewer & Drainage
8%Trash2%
Cable TV14%Internet
5%
Phone & DSL18%
Phone, mobile19%
My Energy & Other Utilities Take my utility expenses
2 people, 2 cars, 2 cell phones Efficient house Live close to activities Count all electric as purchased
from utility (ignore PV) Energy only 30% Discretionary > 32%
A lot didn’t exist 20 years ago but has great use
Could make room for substantial energy cost increase Wouldn’t get more use for it Would use less
Thinking About Energy Policy Peter M. O'Neill
1949
1954
1959
1964
1969
1974
1979
1984
1989
1994
1999
2004
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
0
20,000,000
40,000,000
60,000,000
80,000,000
100,000,000
120,000,000
140,000,000
Renewable
Nuclear
Fossil
Population Growth
November 18, 2009 52
1949
1955
1961
1967
1973
1979
1985
1991
1997
2003
050
100150200250300350400
MBtu/Capita-Year
2008
2015
2021
2027
2033
2039
2045
0
100,000,000
200,000,000
300,000,000
400,000,000
500,000,000
Mean Population Es-timate
310
80% Reduction from today
Due to population growth
Thinking About Energy Policy Peter M. O'Neill
Meeting the Objectives Independence
Replace oil for transport with gas, electric not from oil. Global Warming
Replace coal for electric generation with nuclear, wind, solar.
Replace oil for transport with gas, electric after replacing coal generation.
Resource Depletion Nuclear electric with advanced breeder fuel cycle. Wind & solar electric. Electric transport. Solar & electric geo-backed heat pump for space &
process heat. All
Domestic renewablesNovember 18, 2009 53
Thinking About Energy Policy Peter M. O'Neill