Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Efficient Power Generation
Dick MunsonRecycled Energy Development
Midwest Media Project10 July 2007
Why Consider Alternatives?
• Average plant built with 1950’s technology
• Only 33% efficiency; burn three units of fuel to obtain one unit of electricity
Conventional Central Generation
Fuel
100%
33% delivered electricityPower Plant
T&D and Transformers
Pollution
67% Total Waste
Line Losses 9-20%
Why Consider Alternatives?
• Average plant built with 1950’s technology
• Only 33% efficiency; burn three “lumps” of fuel to obtain one “lump” of electricity
• Electric generators are largest polluters
• Unreliable supplies cost $150 billion/yr
• U.S. consumer loses power 214 min/yr; 70 min/yr in UK; 6 min/yr in Japan
Rising Prices Focus One’s Attention
• Fuel costs are 3-5 times above 1990 levels, and long-term contracts now below the spot market.
• Clean Air Interstate Regulations (CAIR) and Clean Air Mercury Regulations will add $550-850/kw for existing plants
• New coal plant costs $2,500/kw, up from $800/kw in the late 1990s
• Pending costs: transmission expansion, greenhouse-gas reductions (carbon credits of $20/ton would add 2 cents/kwh).
• Midwest’s electricity prices could double in 5-10 years.
U.S. Electric Industry Fuel-Conversion Efficiency
Combined Heat and Power (CHP)
Fuel
100%Steam
Electricity
Chilled Water
90%
10% Waste Heat, no T&D loss
Pollution
(At or near thermal users)
CHP Plants
US Electric Efficiency,1900-2005
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Year
% E
ffic
ien
cy
Primary Efficiency, Delivered Electricity Final Efficiency raw energy to useful work
Local Generation Plants we have built that recycle waste heat
Denmark Electric Efficiency
U.S. is an International Laggard in Capturing Heat and Power
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Denmar
k
Nether
lands
Finlan
d
Russia
Germ
any
Poland
Japa
n
China
Portugal
Canada
Mex
ico
WORLD US UK
Indon
esia
France
Brazil
India
Argentin
aDE
sh
are
as a
% o
f to
tal
po
wer
gen
erat
ion
Feasible Target of 30% CHP in US
Denmark Changed in Two Decades
Source: Danish Energy Center
Best New Generation: Recycle Industrial Energy
• Wasted energy streams in nineteen industries could generate 19% of US electricity
Source:USEPA 2004 Study
Recycled Energy in the US
Identified Opportunities
95,000 MW95,000 MWRecycled Energy
in Service
9,900 MW9,900 MW
Recycled Energy (At user sites)
Waste Energy
100%
10% Waste Heat
Steam Generator
65%
Steam
25% Electricity
Back-pressure Turbine
Generator
No Added Pollution
Industrial Energy Recycling 90 MW Recycled from Coke Production
Policy Options
• Remove policy barriers – interconnection standards, backup power rates, private wires.
• Recognize the value of Clean Distributed Generation’s Benefits – less T&D, reduced line losses, grid stability. Ontario Standard Offer, Subtitle E in House Energy bill.
• Induce Efficient Biofuel Production
Thank You
Dick Munson
Recycled Energy Development
www.recycled-energy.com
