Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

Oak brain, have you been living under a rock? The auto companies have made it clear that electric cars will not require massive increases in electrical supplies. Further, such cars will meet the needs of the vast majority of people, and will be purchased.

Where did you get that little factoid? The total energy we use for vehicle transportation is of the same order of magnitude (actually a bit greater) as the total electrical energy available to our transmission grid. Plug in hybrids would require very significant increases in both our electrical generation capacity and that of our transmission network.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Plug in hybrids would require very significant increases in both our electrical generation capacity and that of our transmission network.

it is worse than you say.....the grid has been massively underfunded since the start of deregulation, it needs to be rebuilt whether we do electric cars or not. Add electric cars and move rail to electric as we should will add to the price tag.

Quote:

In 1940, 10% of energy consumption in America was used to produce electricity. In 1970, that fraction was 25%. Today it is 40%, showing electricity's growing importance as a source of energy supply. Electricity has the unique ability to convey both energy and information, thus yielding an increasing array of products, services, and applications in factories, offices, homes, campuses, complexes, and communities.

The economic significance of electricity is staggering. It is one of the largest and most capital-intensive sectors of the economy. Total asset value is estimated to exceed $800 billion, with approximately 60% invested in power plants, 30% in distribution facilities, and 10% in transmission facilities
.
.
.
America operates about 157,000 miles of high voltage (>230kV) electric transmission lines. While electricity demand increased by about 25% since 1990, construction of transmission facilities decreased about 30%. In fact, annual investment in new transmission facilities has declined over the last 25 years. The result is grid congestion, which can mean higher electricity costs because customers cannot get access to lower-cost electricity supplies, and because of higher line losses.

http://www.energetics.com/gridworks/grid.html

Quote:

The new report “Transforming America’s Power Industry: The Investment Challenge 2010-2030” [Full Report / Exec Summary] estimates that the U.S. utility industry will have to invest between $1.5 and $2.0 trillion between 2010 and 2030 to maintain current levels of reliable energy service for customers throughout the country.

http://www.theenergyroadmap.com/futureblogger/show/1257

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Even ignoring the ridiculous strawmen you included in your post, I am not the one suggesting that it is a reasonable proposal that I should have to get a permit in order to visit a relative in the neighboring state. That's just one of the totalitarianistic proposals on that list that you thought were such a great idea and reasonable. Please think that through more carefully and realize what you are advocating there.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

And the fact is, that if it is the government that invests in upgrading and expanding our energy grid, a minimum of one third and up to two thirds or more of the money allocated will almost certainly be swallowed up in the bureaucracy to manage it and/or will be siphoned off legally or illegally by those taking opportunity to tap into it.

But if the government gets out of our way and provides incentive for the private sector and local authorities to get it done, it will get done and we are far more likely to get full value for our dollars expended.

That's what is so frustrating and scary for me every time the government imposes more unnecessary mandates and regulations on private industry with little more to base the necessity of those on than that they sound good and/or are politically correct.

(NOTICE TO THE NUMBNUTS: No need to chime in here that Foxfyre wants to dismantle all environmental regulations . That is NOT what I said. Do try to keep up please.)

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

the grids are privately run, and have been privately run into the ground. If something does not work you do something else....this is survival 101. Your theories have been discredited, a new day has dawned. We tried hostility to government and to public sector control, it got us a ruined economy and the public paying the tab for the repair job, now standing at $4 trillion and growing rapidly. If the public is going to pay the bills then the public is going to be in control and the public is going to take the gains when there are gains. This business of privatizing profits but nationalizing losses was the last straw. You clearly have no understanding of the anger that is ramping up towards your kind. There will be vengeance for what has been done to America.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

the grids are privately run, and have been privately run into the ground. If something does not work you do something else....this is survival 101. Your theories have been discredited, a new day has dawned. We tried hostility to government and to public sector control, it got us a ruined economy and the public paying the tab for the repair job, now standing at $4 trillion and growing rapidly. If the public is going to pay the bills then the public is going to be in control and the public is going to take the gains when there are gains. This business of privatizing profits but nationalizing losses was the last straw. You clearly have no understanding of the anger that is ramping up towards your kind. There will be vengeance for what has been done to America.

What's the difference between "nationalizing the losses" of a bank or those of an employee who loses his/her job through federally funded unemployment compensation?

The fact is that NIMBYs, primarily working through environmental laws and the ill-advised actions of states like California have prevented the construction of numerous sorely needed power stations and transmission lines. Moreover the interminable and largely unpredictable permitting process for new plant construction has enormously raised the cost of capital for them.

If you truly believe the Federal government can do a better job then I suggest you read up on the long and rather ugly history of the Federal government's now twenty year old project for the design and construction od a nuclear waste repository.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

The fact is that NIMBYs, primarily working through environmental laws and the ill-advised actions of states like California have prevented the construction of numerous sorely needed power stations and transmission lines. Moreover the interminable and largely unpredictable permitting process for new plant construction has enormously raised the cost of capital for them.

environmental law has greatly increased the cost of projects, but this is a problem that is far bigger than this industry alone. Environmental law needs reform, we can no longer afford the costs that it imposes in both time and money. However, the lack of investment in transmission is more related to an unwillingness of the current owners to capitalize the system than it is to excessive cost. Even if the cost was more reasonable their would still be no line of volunteers to pay the bills.

1 Reply

AAGT HAS INCREASED ABOUT 1°K or 1.8 °F over the last 100 years. If that were to happen over the next 100 years, we'd all be toast ... wouldn't we ???

CAD = CO2 Atmospheric Density HAS INCREASED ABOUT 130 Parts Per Million over the last 100 years. If that were to happen over the next 100 years, we'd all be choked by plants gourging us with their oxygen output ... wouldn't we ???

But of course, ALL OF THAT WOULD BE A BLESSING, because it would make us all equal and thereby reduce our being consumed by envy any longer ... Wouldn't it ???

Updates of the following are in blue. MAL = Modern American Liberal.

George Orwell in NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR, Part III, Chapter IV, wrote:

MALer says, Anything could be true. The so-called laws of Nature were nonsense. The law of gravity was nonsense. MALer said, 'I could float off this floor like a soap bubble' ... MALer says, 'If he THINKS he floats off the floor, and if I simultaneously THINK I see him do it, then the thing happens.' Suddenly, like a lump of submerged wreckage breaking the surface of water, the thought burst into his mind: 'It doesn't really happen. We imagine it. It is hallucination.' He pushed the thought under instantly. The fallacy was obvious. It presupposed that somewhere or other, outside oneself, there was a 'real' world where 'real' things happened. But how could there be such a world? What knowledge have we of anything, save through our own minds? All happenings are in the mind. Whatever happens in all minds, truly happens.

He had no difficulty in disposing of the fallacy, and he was in no danger of succumbing to it. He realized, nevertheless, that it ought never to have occurred to him. The mind should develop a blind spot whenever a dangerous thought presented itself. The process should be automatic, instinctive. CRIMESTOP, they called it in Newspeak.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

environmental law has greatly increased the cost of projects, but this is a problem that is far bigger than this industry alone. Environmental law needs reform, we can no longer afford the costs that it imposes in both time and money. However, the lack of investment in transmission is more related to an unwillingness of the current owners to capitalize the system than it is to excessive cost. Even if the cost was more reasonable their would still be no line of volunteers to pay the bills.

Given that our existing transmission grid and power generating plants were all constructed with private capital, I don't know what might be your factual basis for this remarkable assertion.

The simple fact is that about the only new plant construction we have seen in the last 15 years is for gas turbine plants that can be easily started and shut down to meet peak power demands. Environmental law favors these plants because of their better ability to meet SOX & NOX emission standards compared to coal fired plants. However they are generally less efficient than coal fired plants thermodynamically, releasing more CO2 per unit of power output. More significantly, they wastefully consume natural; gas which could better be utilized powering vehicles and thereby reducing petroleum imports.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

However they are generally less efficient than coal fired plants thermodynamically, releasing more CO2 per unit of power output.

Could you provide a source for that statement?
The figures I see show the opposite.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2report.html#table_1
Coal is 2.095 lbs per kwh
Gas is 1.321 lbs per kwh

Other sources seem to agree.

Quote:

When burned, coal releases between 200 and 230 pounds of CO2 per MMBtu (One Million British Thermal Units, or 10 Decatherms). Compare this to natural gas, which releases 116 pounds of CO2 per MMBtu, or gasoline at 155 pounds of CO2 per MMBtu. For your reference, every 3,412 Btu represent one kWh of delivered electricity.

http://www.triplepundit.com/pages/askpablo-coal-fired-power-plants.php

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Given that our existing transmission grid and power generating plants were all constructed with private capital, I don't know what might be your factual basis for this remarkable assertion.

our electricity infrastructure was largely constructed back in the day when everything was run as a regulated monopoly, and we had a fabulous system then, though we spent a bit more on it than the owners of the companies liked. Now we have a free market, where critical stuff like the transmission system has been allowed to decay, and capacity has not kept pace with the need. Private companies can run the grid just fine, when the government holds their toes to the fire and forbids them from fleecing their customers. Instead of deregulating the electricity system we should have regulated the oil industry, as their picking of our pockets has long been an outrage. Let's admit that we made a mistake, and re regulate the industry. If the current owners want to walk away then fine, I am good with nationalizing the industry too. We are already quickly moving to nationalize the banks, after they spectacularly failed to do their jobs, lets add electric companies to the list.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

Oak brain, have you been living under a rock? The auto companies have made it clear that electric cars will not require massive increases in electrical supplies. Further, such cars will meet the needs of the vast majority of people, and will be purchased.

Oak brain? Where did you get that brilliant way to address someone? So the auto companies have made it clear that electric cars will not require massive increases in electrical supplies? When did they do that, and under what assumptions, that they would probably only sell a relatively small number of cars, that wouldn't affect oil demand that much anyway? Or was it if every car and truck were converted to electric batteries? If so, I would question that assurance, Advocate. Try to think reasonably here. I don't think the car companies have that good of a crystal ball. Sounds like some pretty wild assumptions, especially where such cars could meet the needs of the vast majority of people, who did that study? Doesn't sound all that logical to me, given what I know about electric cars right now. I might drive one to work, but to own as my only car, forget it, the technology isn't there yet. And the electric cars WILL be purchased? Who decided that? If you have never run a business, I suggest you try it once, then come back here and tell us all how confident you are of all of these predictions.

0 Replies

Here is the truth of the matter.

March 12, 2008
Electric Cars Will Not Need New Electric Power Plants?
Oak Ridge National Laboratory researchers claim if pluggable hybrids don't get recharged until after 10 PM then they will require little or no additional electric power plants.

In an analysis of the potential impacts of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles projected for 2020 and 2030 in 13 regions of the United States, ORNL researchers explored their potential effect on electricity demand, supply, infrastructure, prices and associated emission levels. Electricity requirements for hybrids used a projection of 25 percent market penetration of hybrid vehicles by 2020 including a mixture of sedans and sport utility vehicles. Several scenarios were run for each region for the years 2020 and 2030 and the times of 5 p.m. or 10:00 p.m., in addition to other variables.

The report found that the need for added generation would be most critical by 2030, when hybrids have been on the market for some time and become a larger percentage of the automobiles Americans drive. In the worst-case scenario"if all hybrid owners charged their vehicles at 5 p.m., at six kilowatts of power"up to 160 large power plants would be needed nationwide to supply the extra electricity, and the demand would reduce the reserve power margins for a particular region's system.

The best-case scenario occurs when vehicles are plugged in after 10 p.m., when the electric load on the system is at a minimum and the wholesale price for energy is least expensive. Depending on the power demand per household, charging vehicles after 10 p.m. would require, at lower demand levels, no additional power generation or, in higher-demand projections, just eight additional power plants nationwide.

Since I suspect the world has already reached Peak Oil I expect the shift to electrically-powered vehicles will happen sooner than this study assumes. Also, total electric demand will grow more rapidly as dwindling oil supplies cause a big shift toward electrically powered equipment of all kinds.

The great difference in power plant usage between the afternoon and late night is partly a result of a lack of dynamic pricing. If electric rates for homes varied by the time of day based on relative levels of demand then people and companies would shift more of their electric demand toward the late night even before significant numbers of hybrid vehicles hit the market. Such a shift in demand would cause higher utilization of power plants at night and therefore less excess power generation capacity available to charge electric cars.

Fortunately thermal solar and photovoltaic solar will drop in prices and will become cost competitive sources of day time power. Electric cars will then preferentially get recharged in the morning sun before the peak business demand for electric power in the afternoon.

By Randall Parker at 2008 March 12 11:06 PM

2 Replies

@Advocate,

Charge only after 10 pm? Who decides that? And these are hybrids, not purely electric cars, and just 25% of the market, what market, just cars, or cars and trucks, etc.? With population growth, I doubt it would reduce oil consumption that much. I think you pitched a dud, Advocate.

1 Reply

@okie,

Okie-John Stossel wrote:("Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity")

"It's true that the more you drive, the more you pollute BUT it's really just old, badly maintained cars that do most of the polluting. Because emission technology has improved so much , TODAY'S NEW CARS ARE 98% cleaner than the cars built in the 1960"s. Joe Norbeck, a U.C.Riverside Environmental researcher, says emissions from dozens of current models are 'ALMOST BELOW DETECTION LEVELS".
The EPA has found that after charting air pollution for more than 30 years, miles driven have increased by 170% but air pollution decreased by 54%."

Okie, people will not buy cars in which they do not feel safe. They will buy cars with emission controls which are built to withstand a crash. I would never want to see my grandchildren being transported in a tinny electric model. Their lives and well being are worth far more than a miniscule difference in air pollution.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
However they are generally less efficient than coal fired plants thermodynamically, releasing more CO2 per unit of power output.

Could you provide a source for that statement?
The figures I see show the opposite.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2report.html#table_1
Coal is 2.095 lbs per kwh
Gas is 1.321 lbs per kwh

Other sources seem to agree.

Quote:
When burned, coal releases between 200 and 230 pounds of CO2 per MMBtu (One Million British Thermal Units, or 10 Decatherms). Compare this to natural gas, which releases 116 pounds of CO2 per MMBtu, or gasoline at 155 pounds of CO2 per MMBtu. For your reference, every 3,412 Btu represent one kWh of delivered electricity.
http://www.triplepundit.com/pages/askpablo-coal-fired-power-plants.php

Your data is right and I stand corrected.

I was considering only the fact that steam plants with reheat (mostly coal -fired) operate at a higher thermodynamic efficiency than gas turbines - even those with low temperature exhaust gas power recovery systems. This means that more electrical power is generated per unit of heat released in combustion. What I faile to consider is the excess gasses (CO2 and others) released by coal anytime it is exposed to the air - in combustion or even just sitting there.

Still, we would be far better off using the natural gas that today produces about 16% of our electrical power to operate vehicles - something that could easily be done even with conventional gasoline engines. This would very significantly reduce our petroleum imports, and, if we used nuclear plants to replace the electrical generating capacity (about 60 would be required) we would both lower the cost and eliminate a huge component of CO2 emissions.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Given that our existing transmission grid and power generating plants were all constructed with private capital, I don't know what might be your factual basis for this remarkable assertion.

our electricity infrastructure was largely constructed back in the day when everything was run as a regulated monopoly, and we had a fabulous system then, though we spent a bit more on it than the owners of the companies liked. Now we have a free market, where critical stuff like the transmission system has been allowed to decay, and capacity has not kept pace with the need. Private companies can run the grid just fine, when the government holds their toes to the fire and forbids them from fleecing their customers. Instead of deregulating the electricity system we should have regulated the oil industry, as their picking of our pockets has long been an outrage. Let's admit that we made a mistake, and re regulate the industry. If the current owners want to walk away then fine, I am good with nationalizing the industry too. We are already quickly moving to nationalize the banks, after they spectacularly failed to do their jobs, lets add electric companies to the list.

I partly agree with you. Before deregulation, utilit systems were granted regional monopolies on the generation, distribution and sale of electrical power. In exchange for this they accepted public regulation of the rates they charged their customers. These were usually based on actual operating and capital costs and they allowed for an agreed return (profit) on the capital investment. This gave utilities a far better incentive to invest in and capitalize new plants and transmission lines than we have today. However, it also gave them less incentive to control or lower operating costs something today's system does much better - at least in areas of the country where there is real competition (California is not one).

It would be very difficult for us to go back to the old system, given the far more complex issues we face with multiple sources of power, particularly given the current fixations on wind and solar sources. One interesting feature of the old system if it were to be restored is the fact that Public utility Commissions that review costs and set prices would quickly be made to face the fact that wind and solar power cost far more than coal, gas or nuclear.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

Here is the truth of the matter.

March 12, 2008
Electric Cars Will Not Need New Electric Power Plants?
Oak Ridge National Laboratory researchers claim if pluggable hybrids don't get recharged until after 10 PM then they will require little or no additional electric power plants.

This is a tired, old canard that multiple DOE laboratories have "discovered" and published repeatedly over the last ten years. While it is true that the natural diurnal cycle of power demand leaves a great deal of "capacity" theoretically unused, actually using this theoretical capacity is a far more difficult problem than its proponents acknowledge. In the first place it puts much more demand on the long distance transmission capacity of our transmission grid than presently exists, and the attempt to get consumption that close to capacity would leave the system dangerously vulnerable to cascading failures. In the second huge costs would be required to install metered, time-managed power at each point of use. Finally, proponents of solar power will be suprised to discover that the sun doesn't shine at night, and that storing and later recovering generated power involves large transformation losses.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

One interesting feature of the old system if it were to be restored is the fact that Public utility Commissions that review costs and set prices would quickly be made to face the fact that wind and solar power cost far more than coal, gas or nuclear.

But wouldn't you see that as a good thing?

When a private monopoly is the most efficient/effective means of delivering essential services, it only makes sense that the governing entity authorizing the monopoly provide oversight and regulation in the people's interest for the purpose of ensuring economy, competence, and environmental protection. As with everything, some do a better job of that than others.

The federal government, however, rarely does anything in the most efficient, effective, or economical manner and environmental concerns are not always well thought out at any level.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Still, we would be far better off using the natural gas that today produces about 16% of our electrical power to operate vehicles - something that could easily be done even with conventional gasoline engines. This would very significantly reduce our petroleum imports,

Except for the fact that we seem to be heavily lobbied to install LNG facility terminals at many coastal areas. The LNG is just another way of delivering foreign oil.

ANYONE read "Gusher of Lies" yet? Its an interesting newsmans expose of several petroleum myths. For example, Brazil is not even close to being energy independent. It appears that when PETROBAS claims that they dont import any crude, they are correct but they fail to let the rest out , in that they directly import GAsoline.

1 Reply

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know