Thinking about energy policy nov2009

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


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


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


U.S. Oil Sources by Country


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.


GH Gas Concentration Trends

November 18, 2009 8

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007


Objective: Replace dwindling energy resources

November 18, 2009 9

Fossil fuel is finite by nature - “Peak oil” Extraction harms environment


Peak Oil


Peter M. O'Neill

New oil fields harder to find, more expensive to produce.

World demand continues to increase.

Understanding the Problem


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


Peter M. O'Neill

U.S. Energy Consumption Trend

November 18, 2009 13

Moved Industry Oversea

sSerious Conserv

ation


U.S. Energy Flows – 2008


Quadrillion BTU

US Energy Info. Admin. – Annual Energy Review 2008


Electricity Sources


Peter M. O'Neill

U.S. CO2 Sources - 2008


Coal37%

Primarily Electric

Gen.

Gas21%Heat

Oil42%

Primarily Transport


Some Principals


Peter M. O'Neill

Capacity vs. Generation


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


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


Mass Energy Densities


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


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


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


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


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


Peter M. O'Neill

Internal Combustion Car – Motivations


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


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.


Hybrid Gasoline/Electric Car – Motivations


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


Peter M. O'Neill 39

It’s About Time – Temporal Matching of Source to Load


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


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


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.


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


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


47

Storage for Temporal Load Offset


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


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?


Peter M. O'Neill 50

Can Individuals Afford Clean Energy?


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


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


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


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


Documents

Thinking about energy policy nov2009