YOU: Fix the US Energy Crisis

[russ_watters]

So the problem is bureaucratic, not technical.

Isn't it fun when politics dictates instead of common sense?

To me, the problem is economic. Any power plant's economics are partly driven by load factor and the problem of over-supply is basically the same as low load factor: you are paying for kWh you can't produce/sell. It is worse for non-fuel plants since they cost the same whether they are producing electricity or not.

 

[mheslep]

...

Energy storage projects fix this problem,

So far, there are no examples or energy storage projects with the required depth (multiple days at least) and scale (half a GW or more), not anywhere.

...though increasing the cost of electricity. However, it's going to be a technical necessity in the future. A nice, brief overview of different storage technologies that can be used in the grid is on wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_storage
I think as solar comes on board especially, we are going to see a lot of facilities dedicated entirely to energy storage come onboard.

Energy storage is not a necessity now (nuclear, fossil, hydro, geothermal), so storage need not be required in the future unless intermittent energy sources are chosen for some reason.

 

[jartsa]

Here's my solution to the energy storage problem:

1: Cold storerooms freeze themselves to extra cool temperature when there's extra electricity available. This saves some energy at other times.

2: Power plants freeze their cooling water when there's extra electricity available. This allows the plants to generate some more energy at other times.

 

[mfb]

How much does that cost, what is the efficiency, and how much electricity can be stored that way? How large is the tolerable temperature range in storerooms?

 

[jartsa]

How much does that cost, what is the efficiency, and how much electricity can be stored that way? How large is the tolerable temperature range in storerooms?

I have no idea about all these details

 

[mfb]

To be a solution all those things have to work.

The efficiency of freezing water is bad, and it is expensive. Storerooms don't need a large share of the overall electricity so they cannot store much.

 

[anorlunda]

All this talk about energy storage ignores the very sound, effective and simple technique of time shifting of load. To more closely balance peak and off-peak loads, you need only to shift some load from the peak time to off peak time. That accomplishes the same thing as generating at peak and storing energy at off peak.

My favorite example of this is mining; especially in the US west. Mining is a very big portion of the grid load; in some regions, 20% or more. It is often possible for the mine to do a year's worth of digging and crushing in only 3 months. Therefore, the days and hours of those big mining loads can be scheduled at almost any time year when the grid is best able to provide the energy at the least cost. Such scheduling flexibility has been used for many decades.

Now let me be provocative, and see what happens:

There is no engineering reason why many loads can't be time shifted to shave the peaks and fill the valleys in grid load. But there are social reasons. US residents are very unwilling to even consider adapting their life styles to conserve.

Before putting panels on the roof, how about first cutting housing space to 150 $ft^2$ per person? Instead of buying an EV, how about moving to within walking distance of work and stores, eliminating both personal vehicles and public transportation? Instead of heating and cooling, how about adopting a nomadic life style where the population migrates seasonally to follow moderate temperatures and availability of fresh water? Those are the kinds of radical choices facing future generations. Current generations say, "That's ridiculous."

There is no energy crisis, but rather an affluence crisis multiplied by a population crisis.

 

[mheslep]

How is that post different from, 'PF Guidelines Off, Sourceless Provocation On: All you current generation people (and there's far too many of you) need to use much less stuff, switch to hunter gatherer, and everything would be fine. Anyone that disagrees with me is in denial of a future outcome I know to be certain.' ?

 

[anorlunda]

How is that post different from, 'PF Guidelines Off, Sourceless Provocation On: All you current generation people (and there's far too many of you) need to use much less stuff, switch to hunter gatherer, and everything would be fine. Anyone that disagrees with me is in denial of a future outcome I know to be certain.' ?

I just reviewed the PF guidelines. I don't see a violation. There is no mainstream science in this thread. The whole topic is asking for speculation. But if you think my post #1337 violates PF guidelines, then you should report it.

But don't you agree that this whole so-called energy crisis is not an engineering problem, but rather a social problem?

 

[russ_watters]

Here's my solution to the energy storage problem:

1: Cold storerooms freeze themselves to extra cool temperature when there's extra electricity available. This saves some energy at other times.

2: Power plants freeze their cooling water when there's extra electricity available. This allows the plants to generate some more energy at other times.

How much does that cost, what is the efficiency, and how much electricity can be stored that way? How large is the tolerable temperature range in storerooms?

I have no idea about all these details

Energy storage through cooling is a potentially viable source of stored energy in some applications, but I've never heard of it being used as proposed here. I don't think it would be viable here because the cooling water isn't normally frozen (or even just made very cold) during the normal course of work and it isn't done via mechanical cooling anyway - not even with fans, as most large cooling towers are natural draft. So there is nothing to save.

Where it works is in large building or campus chiller plants where you have to do mechanical cooling (with a refrigerated chiller) either way. So if you can use off-peak power to make the "cold" (sometimes ice, sometimes just a gigantic tank of cold water) you can save money without saving energy.

 

[russ_watters]

All this talk about energy storage ignores the very sound, effective and simple technique of time shifting of load. To more closely balance peak and off-peak loads, you need only to shift some load from the peak time to off peak time. That accomplishes the same thing as generating at peak and storing energy at off peak.

Well, yes -- though in many cases they are actually the same thing just on the user side vs the utility side. Charging your Tesla at work during the day vs at home at night is both energy storage and load shifting. Same with ice storage (as is currently used).

My father has been working in energy cost consulting for a while and manipulating companies' load profiles is part of that. Some is just a bit of a game with no real-world impact (other than the money) such as shutting down a piece of equipment for a few minutes if you are reaching a new peak. But others have real-world impact, such as starting an induction furnace before 8:00 AM so that the morning warm-up uses off-peak power and charging forklift batteries at night.

There is no engineering reason why many loads can't be time shifted to shave the peaks and fill the valleys in grid load. But there are social reasons. US residents are very unwilling to even consider adapting their life styles to conserve.

Before putting panels on the roof, how about first cutting housing space to 150 $ft^2$ per person? Instead of buying an EV, how about moving to within walking distance of work and stores, eliminating both personal vehicles and public transportation? Instead of heating and cooling, how about adopting a nomadic life style where the population migrates seasonally to follow moderate temperatures and availability of fresh water? Those are the kinds of radical choices facing future generations. Current generations say, "That's ridiculous."

There is no energy crisis, but rather an affluence crisis multiplied by a population crisis.

Most of that is an ok political opinion, (and from a technical perspective would work), but it would be very difficult to square with how a free society is supposed to work. However, I don't think it is necessarily a realistic prediction that future generations will necessarily face such radical choices. Humans have, for practical purposes, limitless energy available, so it doesn't seem realistic to me that such choices will be necessary for the foreseeable future.

In either case, mhslep is right insofar as this isn't a place for that political/philosophical discussion. So let's let that go. Also, just to clarify:

There is no mainstream science in this thread. The whole topic is asking for speculation.

Speculation within the bounds of mainstream science. Moderators have in fact deleted a lot of out-of-the-mainstream speculation in this thread, such as perpetual motion machines.

But don't you agree that this whole so-called energy crisis is not an engineering problem, but rather a social problem?

Whether one agrees with that or not (I disagree), the premise of the thread - as per its location - is to tackle it from an engineering perspective. So let's drop that line of discussion.

 

[mheslep]

The Ice Bear has been around for some years now. Stores enough energy for typical Haldeman day heat load.
https://www.ice-energy.com/#icebear

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterde...while-optimizing-the-power-grid/#2412c79946d7

Demand shift schemes have been around for decades. The goto used to be a diesel genset attached to a commercial building to shave off utility http://www.stem.com/resources/learning/ These schemes work at the margin but they don't come close to moving the US peak load off of 5 to 7pm on a daily basis, much less seasonal demand peaks lasting months.

http://www.stem.com/resources/learning/

 

[jack action]

Before putting panels on the roof, how about first cutting housing space to 150 ft2ft2ft^2 per person? Instead of buying an EV, how about moving to within walking distance of work and stores, eliminating both personal vehicles and public transportation? Instead of heating and cooling, how about adopting a nomadic life style where the population migrates seasonally to follow moderate temperatures and availability of fresh water? Those are the kinds of radical choices facing future generations. Current generations say, "That's ridiculous."

But don't you agree that this whole so-called energy crisis is not an engineering problem, but rather a social problem?

I'm going to restrain myself from commenting as it appears it is not welcomed, but I «liked» your posts.

 

[anorlunda]

I'm going to restrain myself from commenting as it appears it is not welcome, but I «liked» your posts.

Thanks, but this is Russ's thread so we have to let him call the shots.

 

[billy_joule]

All this talk about energy storage ignores the very sound, effective and simple technique of time shifting of load. To more closely balance peak and off-peak loads, you need only to shift some load from the peak time to off peak time. That accomplishes the same thing as generating at peak and storing energy at off peak.

Now let me be provocative, and see what happens:

There is no engineering reason why many loads can't be time shifted to shave the peaks and fill the valleys in grid load. But there are social reasons. US residents are very unwilling to even consider adapting their life styles to conserve.

My residential power company charges the half hourly, wholesale spot price plus some mark up and fixed costs, so I'm at the whim of the price fluctuations of the market.
I check the spot price regularly and adjust my consumption to suit.

It's one way to incentivise load shifting to consumers.
(I hope this isn't straying too far from the intended discussion)

 

[OmCheeto]

Thanks, but this is Russ's thread so we have to let him call the shots.

hmmm... Let's see if I can get away with it.

There is no engineering reason why many loads can't be time shifted to shave the peaks and fill the valleys in grid load. But there are social reasons. US residents are very unwilling to even consider adapting their life styles to conserve.

Before putting panels on the roof, how about [1]first cutting housing space to 150 ft^2 per person? [2]Instead of buying an EV, how about moving to within walking distance of work and stores, eliminating both personal vehicles and public transportation? Instead of heating and cooling, how about adopting a nomadic life style where the population migrates seasonally to follow moderate temperatures and availability of fresh water? Those are the kinds of radical choices facing future generations. [3]Current generations say, "That's ridiculous."

There is no energy crisis, but rather an affluence crisis multiplied by a population crisis.

[bracketed numbering mine, for ease of reference]

The only thing I disagree with here is the "nomidic lifestyle". That might work for retired people, but few others than perhaps migrant farm workers.

Most of that is an ok political opinion, (and from a technical perspective would work), but it would be very difficult to square with how a free society is supposed to work. However, I don't think it is necessarily a realistic prediction that future generations will necessarily face such radical choices. Humans have, for practical purposes, limitless energy available, so it doesn't seem realistic to me that such choices will be necessary for the foreseeable future.

In either case, mhslep is right insofar as this isn't a place for that political/philosophical discussion. So let's let that go. Also, just to clarify:

Interestingly, a couple of things that anorlunda proposed are already happening.

[1] Personal housing in the 150 ft² range is already popping up around here. Though, current laws prohibit them in what many would see as ideal spots: In their parent's back yards!
Neighbor complains, city boots young couple out of their illegal tiny house
You made 'em. You deal with 'em!

[2] Cars... Though it may not be apparent, younger [I'm assuming urban] generations are already shedding them.
Like Millennials, More Older Americans Steering Away From Driving
For the sake of bandwidth, I re-digitized the graph they displayed:

I first became aware of this trend about a year ago, when one of my younger Facebook friends started a thread about "What people buy online".
I was surprised, and couldn't figure out why, some of them were buying laundry detergent.
It took me a few minutes, but then I realized, that purchasing things in bulk, to get the best price, would be quite problematic, if you didn't have some way convenient, aka car, to get them home.

[3] Current generations? I think it's the older generations that are having a problem adapting to the changes. Most of my under 35 carless friends will rent one, for road trips.

 

[anorlunda]

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/20160910_095031-1030x579.jpg

Yesterday, I was privileged to visit Mabry Mill on The Blue Ridge Parkway. The park service restored the mill so that water flows through the races and the overshot wheel still turns. Inside, one can see the mechanisms of the grist mill and saw mill applications. As I watched, I noticed that the speed of the wheel was highly uneven. It even stopped for a few seconds every once in a while.

Then it occurred to me that this was a marvelous example of an application of energy consumption well adapted to the means of energy production. At the end of the day, even if the wheel's power was intermittent, the grain got milled and the planks got sawed.

We recently discussed time shifting of loads, as an alternative to energy storage. But Mabry Mills can remind us that much more could be done to adapt the ways we consume energy to match the properties of the methods of energy production. Not all applications require the same voltages, capacities, reliability or continuity as the electric power system we grew up with.

If we want to continue advancing the percent of energy produced by wind and solar, we should apply more of our imaginations into thinking of energy consumption methods that best match the strengths of those means. That might be more productive than trying to force the wind and solar to duplicate the properties of fossil fuel production.

 

[jim hardy]

If we want to continue advancing the percent of energy produced by wind and solar, we should apply more of our imaginations into thinking of energy consumption methods that best match the strengths of those means. That might be more productive than trying to force the wind and solar to duplicate the properties of fossil fuel production.

We are conditioned for generations now to the instant gratification our "permissive cornucopia" economy makes possible.
Had Eisenhower built passenger railroads instead of interstates would we be a more patient and disciplined people, with timetable-based living habits ?

Hot water and refrigeration are the (edit see post1349) MY two biggest residential eaters of energy.
I could adapt easily to bathing at end of day when a solar water heater has built up inventory instead of a morning shower.
I grew up in Miami when only rich people had air conditioners. There were cowpastures between downtown and the airport. I daresay were it not for cheap electricity and airconditioning Florida would still be sparsely populated .

It's going to be a tough sell.

old jim

 

[mheslep]

...
Hot water and refrigeration are the two biggest residential eaters of energy.

Well maybe in FL? Space heat is #1 in the US Jim. Has been since we were in caves. Twenty years ago space heat was bigger than everything else combined in the home. Better insulation and more efficient furnaces have dropped it's share, but it's still largest.
http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/

 

[mheslep]

Then it occurred to me that this was a marvelous example of an application of energy consumption well adapted to the means of energy production. At the end of the day, even if the wheel's power was intermittent, the grain got milled and the planks got sawed.

Problem is, the operation is inevitably less efficient than one that runs continuously or at least on demand. That becomes a real problem if the 'mill' is a multi billion dollar plant somewhere and shutting it down costs, I dunno, $10K a minute. The penalty may not be just economic either but environmental, in that instead of demand being met by one 'mill' on a stream, along with transportation access, several mills with access are required. Then come the protesters reciting save-our-stream chants.

 

[jim hardy]

Well maybe in FL? Space heat is #1 in the US Jim.

Well you're right of course. I guess I'm South-Centric.
I heat with wood and cook with gas .

Sorry ! fixed it

old jim

 

[anorlunda]

The bizarre world of bitcoin ‘mining’ finds a new home in Tibet

From today's Washington Post. It is a fun-to-read story about people finding intelligent ways to consume energy. They took advantage of an existing underused facility, and advantage of the property of the Bitcoin mining app that it doesn't matter where the service is done. The hydro power available may also vary seasonally. That too is easily accommodated in the Bitcoin mining app.

Re #1350: When I say some apps can consume energy more intelligently, that does not imply all apps. Nor does saying "some can't" refute the point.

 

[Arqane]

My take on the issue: It's far more important what happens at the commercial/industrial level than the personal level. Personal choices are almost meaningless when it comes to energy as a whole, or the environmental aspects of it. I'd say the vast majority of people don't have either the time or the inclination to change anything about it. They will generally go with the easiest available, essentially what is given to them. Even the most devout people often won't completely offset their energy usage. I think the most common story from people who I hear of who are concerned about energy/the environment, is that they work very hard to always turn off the lights when they leave, and maybe even unplug their computers! Ultimately, that's just a pebble in the pond, and they're putting a lot a effort in for little reward.

Here's my quick, shameless plug: I'm developing zero-energy apartments. I won't push it anymore, if it does well, you can probably figure out what company it is. Not only do the people living there get their energy completely offset by renewable sources (yes, they are grid-tied so it's a mix... but it's net-positive), but the ROI is expected to be higher than standard apartments. Bam, now all of a sudden, there's a large amount of commercial interest, and many people are going to be 100% covered by doing nothing other than renting at a particular place.

Both politics and personal choices can shape demand. But ultimately these days, demand is shaped more by what is available to consumers than an idea of something that they may need. Some business plans and goods are cheaper due to easy supply, but as they say, there's more than one way to skin a cat. Ultimately, I'd say that our energy, and most everything else, is mostly determined by the planning that goes on in businesses. Hopefully they are using more mid-long term strategies, and utilizing good R&D. But a lot of them get myopic, and can barely see a quarter into the future. Although people are lazy in general, even a little work at the top of our corporate ladders goes a long way in making changes for many people.

 

[Arqane]

Yes, they're actually a bit net-positive, since the business model is better if you're never paying retail rates. I actually do have a system being planned for a larger scale complex that can remain off grid, but it needs that scale to make sense. Though, since you're generally not allowed to go off grid here, it may end up having to be connected even though it's not pulling anything from the grid.

 

[mheslep]

Not only do the people living there get their energy completely offset by renewable sources (yes, they are grid-tied so it's a mix... but it's net-positive),

Does the net-positive calculation rely on a Net-Metering scheme offered by the utility, allowing you to sell power to the utility at retail rates or higher? There's some indication that https://www.hawaiianelectric.com/clean-energy-hawaii/producing-clean-energy/net-energy-metering

Hawaiiian Electric ...
The Net Energy Metering (NEM) Program is Closed to New Applicants

 

[OmCheeto]

I can't say that I agree 100% with all of your comments, but I think we are on the same relative level.

...
Here's my quick, shameless plug: I'm developing zero-energy apartments. ...

Ha! I was just reading a thread about an hour ago: What physics knowledge would be required to build a house?

And one of several aspects/thoughts was; "zero net energy".

You aren't in cohorts with @Psinter , are you?

 

[Arqane]

Yes and no. I'm perfectly fine only getting the wholesale rate for extra production, but net-metering either by the month or year makes it simpler. Currently here in Florida, it is net-metered year by year, then the additional is sold off at the end of the year at the wholesale rate (~3c). But I'll be able with the new systems to recycle my energy at a value of ~6c, so if the cost is below that, I can just re-use my own energy instead.

 

[Arqane]

I can't say that I agree 100% with all of your comments, but I think we are on the same relative level.

You aren't in cohorts with @Psinter , are you?

Don't know Psinter, no :). The comments did definitely sound kind of harsh. They were meant to be the harsh reality, as I see it, anyway. But as an added example to it, most people don't know that about 10% of all the trash around Philadelphia is 'recycled' into energy. It's a great example of how businesses work in the background to such great effect, while most people are basically clueless about it. That's the kind of mindless thing that individuals need. And I totally put myself in that category, especially as a single dad. I don't have the time to be sorting recyclables, and going around checking if my daughter turned on 10 lights again. Instead, I'm planning ahead so the business can do it in the background.

 

[mheslep]

An energy price of 6¢/kWh is impressive.

Lazard has the LCOE for US residential rooftop solar at 18 to 30¢ un-subsidized, and 5 or 6¢ cheaper with the govt. subsidy (assumptions: 60% debt at 8% interest rate and 40% equity at 12% cost, 5 KW system at $4 to $5/W installed, 20 yr life, 20% to 25% CF ). Residential battery backup (li-ion) for PV is $1 to $1.6 (page 10). These are US averages, including the sunny SW and the NE; I imagine Florida solar LCOE, similarly calculated, is a bit cheaper but not much.

 

[Arqane]

I was using it as an equivalent cost. Retail is 12c, wholesale is basically 3c. But if I've got extra, then I can cycle it back through my system at ~50% efficiency, meaning I'm selling it back to myself for 6c instead of selling it at 3c. I can always sell wholesale if the wholesale price is more beneficial, but if not, then I never have to send it back. It's a waste, and would be better sold to my neighbors, but Florida law doesn't allow that.

 

[OmCheeto]

...
but Florida law doesn't allow that.

Sorry to turn this political, but, as Shakespeare once said; "Let's kill all the [unethical] lawyers". [ref]

ps. In my own defense, as a notalawyer, I would say that electing people who share our values, is one way to fix the energy crisis.

 

[Arqane]

On the flip side, I may not have started this project if it weren't for Florida's silly laws regarding solar. The main hang up here has been the fact that you cannot sell electricity by the kWh (usage), unless you are one of the designated utilities. Yes, it does add a safety factor, but it's slowed down many of the ways that solar has come on to market, especially PPAs, which are illegal here.

But, there are still some ways to build it, and I even double checked with the commission to make sure. Apart from buying it outright, you can lease whole systems, or tie the costs into rent (ultimately not charging for electric, and simply adjusting your rent for demand...). I actually started with the lease idea a few years ago, but ended up figuring the rental way was better for me personally. So they kind of unintentionally railroaded me into this, and it looks like it'll do very well.

 

[Psinter]

I was mentioned here. What is this thread even about? I'm lost. How can I join the conversation .

 

[anorlunda]

I was using it as an equivalent cost. Retail is 12c, wholesale is basically 3c. But if I've got extra, then I can cycle it back through my system at ~50% efficiency, meaning I'm selling it back to myself for 6c instead of selling it at 3c. I can always sell wholesale if the wholesale price is more beneficial, but if not, then I never have to send it back. It's a waste, and would be better sold to my neighbors, but Florida law doesn't allow that.

Whoa, are you sure that you know what you're talking about? To buy/sell on the wholesale market, you must qualify as a market participant. That includes many stringent requirements including bonding for credit risks. In my state, it also means connecting to the grid at transmission voltages (>75kV). That bar is too high for most businesses to qualify for, not to mention individuals.

What state are you talking about? Have you actually qualified to buy or sell wholesale electricity?

 

[OmCheeto]

I was mentioned here. What is this thread even about? I'm lost. How can I join the conversation .

Obviously, the gods of PF have picked you as a prophet, and sent you a message; "To build a house, think beyond just the sticks and rocks that will hold it together. Your job now, is to start a thread, entitled: "The house that PF built"."

It will be a house, connected to other houses.
And all of those houses, though in different places, with different needs, and not quite the same, will negate the requirement of non-renewable resources.

You can of course, decline the offer.