Transcript Slide 1
Efficient Power Generation Dick Munson Recycled Energy Development Midwest Media Project 10 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 Pollution 67% Total Waste Line Losses 9-20% Fuel 100% 33% delivered electricity Power Plant T&D and Transformers 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 longterm 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, greenhousegas 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 FuelConversion Efficiency Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Pollution 10% Waste Heat, no T&D loss Electricity Fuel 100% CHP Plants 90% Steam Chilled Water (At or near thermal users) US Electric Efficiency,1900-2005 Primary Efficiency, Delivered Electricity Final Efficiency raw energy to useful work 100% 90% Local Generation Plants we have built that recycle waste heat Denmark Electric Efficiency 80% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Year 20 00 19 90 19 80 19 70 19 60 19 50 19 40 19 30 19 20 19 10 0% 19 00 % Efficiency 70% do UK ne s Fr i a an ce Br az il I Ar nd ge ia nt in a In US De Ne nm th ar er k la n Fi ds nl an Ru d G ss er ia m an Po y la n Ja d pa n Ch Po ina rtu g Ca al na d M a ex i W co O R LD DE share as a % of total power generation U.S. is an International Laggard in Capturing Heat and Power 60 50 Feasible Target of 30% CHP in US 40 30 20 10 0 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 Recycled Energy in the US 9,900 MW Recycled Energy in Service 95,000 MW Identified Opportunities Source:USEPA 2004 Study Recycled Energy (At user sites) No Added Pollution 10% Waste Heat 25% Electricity Waste Energy 100% 65% Steam Steam Generator Back-pressure Turbine Generator 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 [email protected]