Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Encouraged by the response to my post on Adrian Bejan and the Constructal Law, which achieved what might be termed unprecedented levels of tepidity, I persevere. Here’s a lovely look at the energy use of the United States:
Figure 1. US 2002 Energy production and consumption by sector.
There are some interesting things which can be seen in this diagram.
1. Almost none of the power for electrical generation comes from oil. This means that even if the US could generate every Watt of electricity from solar/wind/whatever, it will not directly replace our consumption of oil.
2. Generation, transformation, and transmission losses eat up most of the energy used for electrical generation. Overall efficiency is 31%
3. Transportation is worse, with only 20% efficiency.
4. Nuclear is three times the size of hydro.
5. Wood, waste, alcohol, geothermal, solar, and wind electrical generation together are 3% of total energy use.
However, as interesting as I found those, that’s not the reason I started looking at energy use and GDP.
I was sucked into this subject by what I thought was an interesting quote from Adrian Bejan here (PDF, worth reading. My emphasis):
To summarize, all the high-temperature heating that comes from burning fuel (QH or the energy associated with QH and the high temperature of combustion; cf. Bejan 2006) is dissipated into the environment. The need for higher efficiencies in power generation (greater W/QH) is the same as the need to have more W, i.e. the need to move more weight over larger distances on the surface of the Earth, which is the natural phenomenon (tendency) summarized in the constructal law.
At the end of the day, when all the fuel has been burned, and all the food has been eaten, this is what animate flow systems have achieved. They have moved mass on the surface of the Earth (they have ‘mixed’ the Earth’s crust) more than in the absence of animate flow systems. The moving animal or vehicle is equivalent to an engine connected to a brake (figure 4), first proposed by Bejan & Paynter (1976) and Bejan (1982, 2006).
The power generated by muscles and motors is ultimately and necessarily dissipated by rubbing against the environment. There is no taker for the W produced by the animal and vehicle. This is why the GNP of a country should be roughly proportional to the amount of fuel burned in that country. (Bejan 2009).
I must confess, I had thought about GDP and energy before, but never from a thermodynamic standpoint. Here is a graph of per capita GDP and per capita energy consumption for a number of countries:
Figure 2. Per Capita Energy Consumption vs Per Capita GDP for Different Countries. PPP values are used. Image Source
OK, call me slow. I knew that depriving the developing world of affordable energy would impede development. But I had never realized that energy use is development, that there is a thermodynamic relationship between the two. I hadn’t noticed that if a country wishes to develop, it can only develop to the extent that it has energy, and no further. Lack of energy doesn’t merely hinder or slow or delay development of poor countries as I had thought.
It puts an absolute ceiling on development.
Given the number of people in the world living on a dollar a day or so, that’s a discouraging insight in the context of the current war on fossil fuel energy.
To reiterate Nuke’s point:
The comparison of Switzerland, Canada, and Australia is indeed instructive. When you consider that the Swiss rely on the rest of the world to export them their energy and heavy industrial products it becomes obvious that their GDP can only exist because of the energy use of other countries. I suspect that per-capita GDP v. energy use really is a linear trend line. You may be able to move that line up and down but you will not change its shape. Lesson to be learned – a higher standard of living requires a higher level of energy use per-capita. Something I think most already know intuitively.
Doug Badgero says: Lesson to be learned – a higher standard of living requires a higher level of energy use per-capita. Something I think most already know intuitively.
Yes. Now consider this. If you increase your energy use (with the same % waste) then your standard of living will increase. For example. replacing your push mower with a riding type will increase your energy use, but give you more time to do something else, like play with the wife.
Dave Springer says: November 17, 2010 at 2:32 am
“There’s no practical way to “aid” a gas motor with an electric motor at the transmission level and one standard car battery doesn’t hold enough energy to drive around a single city block in any case. Any proposition for using electrical power for vehicular use that involves batteries is doomed to fail or at best doomed to very marginalized use. Batteries (including fuel cells) are expensive, heavy, toxic, and have short service lifetimes. ”
————————————————————–
The electric motor “aided” gasoline engine is a description of the Chevy Volt, now in production and at dealerships next month. Toyota is starting to offer extended range Prius cars that go 30miles on battery only.
As for all-electric cars, the Nissan Leaf will be on sale next year. Then there are the Th!nk City and the Mitsubishi MiEV, both selling now (not in the US). Yes, the Tesla (you can buy one now) is expensive, but it’s a “first adopter” toy. The Fisker Kharma promises to be better/cheaper than the Tesla roadster. Aptera is undercapitalized, but probably on sale in a year.
What happened compared to a decade ago (The GM EV-1 was a low capability money loser) is that Lithium batteries have matured enough to be used in automotive applications.
My favorite electric vehicle is the Zero-S. http://www.zeromotorcycles.com/
So, of 1,000 MW generated, approximately 700 MW are lost in Generation, transformation, and transmission …
Care to break that down to each individual part? (i.e., Generation, transformation, and transmission)
Generation may be your biggest of the three ‘parts’, and I think it a little disingenuous to lump all three together insofar as it leads others to make incorrect assumptions as to the efficiencies of ‘the grid’ since most ppl overlook the generation part …
.
More info on the Chevy Volt.
Actually Smokey I wrote for Jeff ID, a year ago, how we tried to build an electric car and the problems with it.
The post is here: http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/page/4
I may not have expressed myself perfectly but in my opinion little has changed.
KindestRegards
A fine post at the Air Vent, a jones. Highly recommended. It’s clear that you have put much thought into the question of electric cars, which are no panacea.
I was thinking of the connections between energy use and economic value during a side discussion about ethanol in a recent thread. Ethanol enthusiasts insist that the production of ethanol results in a large EROI, or Energy Rate of Return.
Yet the only way ethanol competes on the market with ordinary gasoline is through large subsidies and mandates. It is obvious that since ethanol can only be produced with subsidies that it uses more of society’s scarce economic resources than its value. Since a basic input into industrial production is energy, it would seem unlikely that ethanol production creates significantly more energy than its energy value.
It turns out that David Pimentel of Cornell has done a careful analysis of both the energy and economic inputs to produce ethanol and other bio-fuels, and determined that more energy is used to produce ethanol than is in the product, he estimates 72%.
Ethanol fuels: Energy security, economics, and the environment
http://www.springerlink.com/content/f23j03184744317x/
Ethanol industry promoters and many “greens” promote studies that do not include all the inputs, and then don’t attempt the reconciliation of the putative high EROI of their calculations, and the negative economic ROI of unsubsidized ethanol and other bio-fuels.
What the “green” analysts are doing is reminiscent of the planners of the Soviet Union who attempted to direct economic resources based on necessarily imperfect physical calculations and assumptions without benefit of the market’s “invisible hand.”
_Jim says:
November 17, 2010 at 7:56 pm (Edit)
Disingenuous: lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; slyly deceptive or misleading;
Why can’t you simply point out that neither Figure 1 nor I detailed the split between the electrical losses, without editorial comment? I never even thought of splitting them, it wasn’t relevant for what I was trying to say. Why do your ugly fantasies about my motives have to be a part of it?
_Jim, I invite you to take your nasty allegations of “disengenuous” behaviour and go away. You want the answer about the split between the losses? Go google it for yourself, there’s a good fellow. Come back when you have learned the rudiments of polite discussion. I haven’t attempted to guess at, and then attacked, your motives.
Please return the favour.
No Smokey you are wrong, I was merely a part of a team put together in a hurry to try to solve energy supply problems post the 1974 oil crisis. Which we did inasmuch as it could be done.
The basic physics and engineering have not changed much today. There have been incremental improvements as you would expect but that is all.
There is a new fantasy amongst politicians and indeed the press and so forth that somehow some revolution in energy supply and usage can happen overnight. It cannot of course.
I suppose this new idealism comes from the idea that the WWW and the internet and its rapid progress can be applied to the most basic energy industry. It cannot.
You have seen it on here that Mr. Fuller somehow believes that CHP is the solution to everything: along with improvements in hydroelectric turbines and I do not know what else.
NO. There is no panacea. No worldwide solution except in the imaginations of these persons political or otherwise.
It is the job of the engineer to devise the least worst solution at the best price to meet the local requirement, whether that is in Siberia or the Tropics.
It is just like climate really, just as there is no such thing as worldwide climate, just regional ones, there is no such thing as a universal engineering answer to the need for heat, power and cooling. Except in Startrek or the like I suppose.
But there is always fantasy particularly amongst politicians which mulcts the poor taxpayer.
Kindest Regards
Your intermediate step for automobile transportation will be ethanol (it’s already cheaper than gasoline, and powering almost 10% of the fleet.)
Now that we have engines hitting the market that get essentially the same mileage on ethanol as on gasoline, and enzymes that are reducing the cost of producing ethanol from cellulose to the $2.00/gal range, and since the cellulosic ethanol will be produced locally, from local feedstocks, and since the byproduct of said production is a boatload of lignin for use in electrical generation, part of this problem is on its way to being solved.
We still have a problem with finding a replacement for diesel, but maybe a significant amount of truck transport can be transferred to rail. I’m sure we’ll come up with something.
The thought crosses my mind: Is it “Energy,” or is it “Technology.” Those people in the Solomons are surrounded with Enormous amounts of Energy. Wave/Wind/Solar/Biomass/Ocean Current/Ocean Gradient to name a few. They might even have some fossil fuel, or Uranium deposits underfoot. But, they don’t have the “knowledge,” or “Technology” to put their energy to work.
Or, Maybe they just like their low-energy lifestyle.
Edit:
I should have said, “it’s already cheaper than gasoline, even w/o subsidies.”
_Jim says:
November 17, 2010 at 7:56 pm
Sounds about right to me – Before I posted my praise for the graphic I looked at the lost energy output and concluded it included the waste heat of the Carnot cycle and other thermodynamic processes.
While it would be nice to see that split further (e.g. lost energy from hydroelectric generation is very low, transmission my be high since large hydro isn’t built near cities), the graphic was pushing “too complex” already.
I agree with with Willis’s assessment of your use of “disingenuous.” It was a little disingenuous on his part to suggest you answer it yourself, I doubt he expects you to do anything constructive.
So I’ll pop off with comments based mainly on vague memories, perhaps they’ll encourage you to do the search so you can criticize me too.
Generation – I hate when I see some thermodynamic process rated as a percentage of theoretical efficiency. The world needs a good < 50 kelvin heat dump. In the meantime, I'll settle for keeping manatees warm during cold weather in Florida. A good use for waste heat.
Transformation – AC conversion is quite efficient. A step-down transformer that supples power to a town may need a cooling fan, but not much more. I don't know how Hydro-Quebec does their DC-AC transform, though I did get forced off the road going into work one Sunday morning by people delivering the unit to the Westford Massachusetts terminal. Big black (okay, dark gray) box, not much support for cooling, must be pretty efficient.
Transmission – I hear 50% bandied about. That's what convinced me the graphic included absolute thermodynamic losses. The graphic says "Distributed electricity 11.9." Assuming the 50% transmission loss is right, then that's 23.8 quads leaving the power plants, and 24.4 quads of waste heat at the plants. I think that's about right. (Please accept my apologies for the three place math given my one place guesstimates about the proper ratios.)
Ric Warme
Try a reality check with some hard numbers from the US Energy Information Agency
http://www.eia.gov
In 2007, national-level losses were 6.5% of total electricity disposition excluding direct use.
From Kum Dollison on November 18, 2010 at 12:22 am:
From Kum Dollison on November 18, 2010 at 12:28 am:
Reality Check from Bloomberg:
For December delivery, that’s only a 4 cent difference making the mentioned reformulated gasoline more expensive than ethanol. Are the current subsidies so little that the price of ethanol without them would rise less than four cents? What additional cost is there to make the reformulated gasoline versus standard gasoline?
Also notice the current cash market trading prices. From here, unleaded gasoline spot price (New York Harbor) on Nov 16 was $2.2832/gal. Above, ethanol in New York was $2.355/gallon. To me, it sure doesn’t look like ethanol is currently cheaper than gasoline.
And for making blended gasoline, the ethanol will “cost” another 45 cents a gallon?
This is without figuring out “cost per amount of stored energy” to allow for ethanol’s lower energy content, as well.
By the way, perhaps you should correct your wording. In the US, ethanol is certainly not powering almost 10% of the automobile fleet. I would have noticed such a massive infrastructure and ethanol-only pumps at the filling stations if that were the case, and noticed it mentioned in the news. What we do have, is most automobiles powered by gasoline which could be blended with ethanol, some powered by diesel, and a few by “alternate fuels” which includes electricity. Here in central Pennsylvania, the gasoline pumps have a “warning” sticker, ‘may contain up to 10% ethanol.’ Ethanol-blended gasoline may account for “almost 10%” of the gasoline use, but we do not have “almost 10%” ethanol-powered automobiles.
Ric Werme says: November 18, 2010 at 5:59 am
Sounds about right to me – Before I posted my praise for the graphic I looked at the lost energy output and concluded it included the waste heat of the Carnot cycle and other thermodynamic processes.
Generation – I hate when I see some thermodynamic process rated as a percentage of theoretical efficiency. The world needs a good < 50 kelvin heat dump. In the meantime, I'll settle for keeping manatees warm during cold weather in Florida. A good use for waste heat.
Transmission – I hear 50% bandied about. That's what convinced me the graphic included absolute thermodynamic losses.
———————————————————-
I agree with your assessment of generation losses, but you have to keep track somehow, and there are processes that are not Carnot limited, such as PV and fuel cells. As for transmission losses, I have also heard the 50% number bandied about. I spent hours searching online trying to get quantitative information on that and failed. So I calculated line losses assuming a 1000 MWe plant shipping power 1000 km (500 KV and 2000 A) with an assumed 6 cm wire diameter and the resistivity of 1100 alloy aluminum (9.89E-8 ohm-cm). I got less than 2% transmission loss, ignoring the 3-phase complication, and line heating lowering the conductivity. So I am forced to conclude the 50% transmission loss is not a real number.
I also agree that electric cars are not a panacea, but they probably will phase in gradually to gradually lower petroleum consumption. I own three cars, and if other factors are comparable, I would certainly replace one of them with an electric.
Kadaka, the prices you are quoting are *before* the Blending Credit ($0.45/gal) has been applied. The “Blenders’ Credit” goes to the “Blender,” not the Producer; thus it doesn’t show up in the wholesale price.
I was looking at the futures contracts. I have to admit; that there is such a disparity between the futures, and spot contracts is Very interesting. I thank you for bringing that to my attention.
Lets look at the BTU and subsidy adjusted price,
$2.888 – Regular Gasoline
vs.
$3.309 – E85 MPG/BTU Adjusted Price
+0.450 – Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (Subsidy)
$3.759 – Actual Price of Ethanol Per Gallon
Ooops looks like your statement is wrong.
Myth: Ethanol is Great (Video) (5min) (ABC News)
Study: Ethanol Won’t Solve Energy Problems (USA Today)
“Ethanol is far from a cure-all for the nation’s energy problems. It’s not as environmentally friendly as some supporters claim and would supply only 12% of U.S. motoring fuel — even if every acre of corn were used.”
Ethanol And Biodiesel From Crops Not Worth The Energy (Cornell University)
The Cellulosic Ethanol Mirage: Verenium and Aventine Are Circling the Drain (Energy Tribune)
From Kum Dollison on November 18, 2010 at 1:43 pm:
I take it that is based on my comment: “And for making blended gasoline, the ethanol will “cost” another 45 cents a gallon?”
That’s about the boondoggle of blended gasoline, while we were comparing just ethanol and non-blended gasoline. It’s acceptable to consumers as it’s about the cost of normal gasoline. They generally don’t know that for every 10 gallons of mandated 10% mix there’s another 45 cents of OPM (Other People’s Money) being payed out, as in 45 cents of “lost” tax money that has to be paid back in somewhere to cover government expenditures, which could be from their own taxes or by selling debt in their name (as a US citizen).
So what happens when the blender’s credit goes away, and they’re paying that much more at the pump? Likely not much, the average working person has already cut their driving down with the economic crunch, they’re buying what they have to and don’t have the luxury of quibbling much about the price. It’ll just add to the resentment against the government for imposing more unneeded regulations without caring how it hurts the little guy.
BTW, for as much as you like to push ethanol, I sure hope you realize that those of us in the trenches are in no rush to switch to 100% ethanol vehicles, especially if they’re going to cost more. Not that many can afford new cars anyway, and people wanting to buy a house are going to be saving a lot more money so they won’t be buying either. The market for “costs more but good for the environment” ain’t there right now, and possibly for the next decade.
Take notice of the new car ads, around $13,500 starting price for a gasoline-powered compact car getting up to 40 mpg is often mentioned. Affordable and efficient are the marketing points for the masses. The concept of paying more for a hybrid to save money on gas has taken a severe hit. Except for draconian government mandates essentially banning new gasoline-powered vehicles, can you think of a reason to buy a new ethanol-only car that’s acceptable to average normal people?
Kadaka, I’m not aware of any “ethanol-only” cars on the market. Today, you can buy (order, anyway) a Buick Regal with a 2.0L TDI engine that gets virtually the same mileage on E85 as on gasoline. In a year, or so, you will be able to buy that 40 mpg car that gets the same mileage on E85 as on gasoline (it will, however, deliver about 20% more power when using the 85% ethanol blend.)
And, you’ve Got to get away from this BTU be-all, end-all. Ethanol has a much higher Octane Rating than gasoline (114 vs 84 for the RBOB it’s blended with.) The new engines coming out will be able to adjust their Compression (via the variable turbo,) and the volume available for fuel mixture in the cylinders via manipulation of EGR in order to achieve parity between gasoline and E85 mileagewise.
In short, it’s not just BTUs, but, also, the Efficiency in which the BTUs are utilized.
As for prices, it works this way: If the “futures” contract is showing $2.11 on the CBOT, you can, usually, buy from the biorefinery for approx. $2.00 gal. The Blender is buying for the wholesale price (in this case, approx. $2.00 gal + transportation, and jobbers profit,) and then taking a $0.45 tax credit.) This brings cost to the blender down to approx $1.55/gal + trans., and jobbers fee, and state and federal taxes.
Bottom line is, if you’re a station in the upper midwest you’re probably buying your ethanol for somewhere in the neighborhood of $2.05 to $2.10. If you’re down in the Gulf the jobber is quite likely raping you for $2.45 or $2.50. That’s just an inefficiency in an immature market that will eventually go away when local supplies come online.
I know there are a lot of “fossil fuel” guys that frequent this site, and everyone has a right to argue against their perceived competition; but in the end they will do just fine, and ethanol will continue to expand to fill the void that’s developing from an increasing tightness in global petroleum supplies. It’s all quite easy to see once you step back and observe the world as it is, and pay attention to how it is developing.
From Poptech on November 18, 2010 at 4:11 pm:
Better check the math. From that site comes a retail price of $2.515/gal for E85. The tax credit is $0.45 per gallon of ethanol blended in. For E85 (15% ethanol), with the blender’s credit and using the MPG/BTU adjusted price ratio, the full math would be:
[2.515 + (0.15 * 0.45)] * (3.309 / 2.515) = 3.398
$3.398/gal E85 MPG/BTU Adjusted Price with blender’s tax credit added in.
Not $3.759/gal, but still pretty dang high.
You can’t use “Retail” price. Ethanol is in short supply right now, and is being bought heavily on the “International” market. It’s being bid up. You’ve got to go to what it actually costs to produce. The producers are currently producing, and selling at a profit for around $2.00 – $2.05.
And, I told you, you’ve Got to get away from that phony “BTU adjustment.” It doesn’t mirror reality. Even the non-efficient Flexfuel cars, and trucks on the market, today, aren’t giving up nearly that much. My flexfuel Impala gives up about 20%. A guy on the thread the other night (not an ethanol lover, by any means) stated that his Ford F-150 gives up 13%. And, as I keep referencing, some of the engines that are coming on the market, now, will get virtually the Same mileage on E85 as on gasoline.
As for old phony-baloney Pimental, maybe he’d like to explain how we’re replacing 9% of our gasoline, any only using, after allowing for DDGS, about 20% of our field corn crop.
Okay, look, about BTUs: Coal has BTUs. Gasoline has BTUs. Ethanol has BTUs. Firewood has BTUs. Chocolate Kisses have BTUs. The couch you’re sitting on has BTUs.
All BTUs Are NOT Created Equal. Some do certain jobs better than others. If I were forced to use either gasoline, or ethanol to heat a pan of water I’d choose gasoline. If I were going to use one or the other in a new, advanced ICE engine I’d use ethanol. I can compress it more, and get more power.
Let’s put it this way: I can cruise along at seventy mph, or so, and get equal mileage with gasoline, but if I get in a tough spot, and need to accelerate out the ethanol will get me out quicker. Got it? Now, I’m not talking about the engine in your car (or mine,) unless you just bought a new Regal. I’m talking about the engine that will be in the car you buy from one to five years from now, depending on the car you buy.
Regards my previous post:
Sorry Poptech, I was backwards on the ethanol percentage, E85 is 85% ethanol, not 15%.
[2.515 + (0.85 * 0.45)] * (3.309 / 2.515) = 3.812
$3.812/gal E85 MPG/BTU Adjusted Price with blender’s tax credit added in.
Holy Crud, that’s worse than the $3.759 you came up with!
Man, if the blenders lose that credit and that 45 cents gets passed on to the consumer, I think it’d be a very hard sell to convince people it’s a good thing to pay about a buck more per gallon in equivalent terms. I sure wouldn’t buy it.