Guest post by Ric Werme
The folks at Lawrence Livermore Natl. Labs produce a fascinating look at all the energy production in the US, from energy in (as quadrillion BTUs, or quads for short) to energy out:
This was featured in a post at Grist.org which has been picked up by several other sites. Even though the graph refers to “rejected energy,” Grist and other posters referred to it as “wasted energy.” I was pleased to see that commentors at Grist quickly pointed out that the inconvenient Laws of Thermodynamics say you can’t get 100% efficiency from thermal systems. (Well, you can, but only if the heat sink is at absolute zero, and we don’t have one.)
I pointed that out at the newspaper blog, and was going to include the link to the discussion here for a previous year’s graphic, but I can’t find it here or at chiefio, or other place I would have been. [NOTE – quite possibly it was my post “Constructal GDP“. – willis]
I think we need a good discussion here, this seems tailor made for an eclectic group like ours.
A LLNL starting point for more information is https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/index.html which includes links to detailed descriptions and similar information for 2008.
Comparisons between the two years are interesting. I hadn’t realized that natural gas usage fell. Most of that was due to declining industrial use, it did go up at power plants. Another referrer to these graphics noted that “Wind power increased dramatically in 2009 to 0.70 quads of primary energy compared to 0.51 in 2008.” They didn’t note that several more dramatic increases are necessary for wind power to be a significant source of electricity.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
One thing that would be helpful to add to this chart is to breakout the the rejected energy numbers for each source of input to electricity generation.
>>
. . . the inconvenient Laws of Thermodynamics say you can’t get 100% efficiency from thermal systems. (Well, you can, but only if the heat sink is at absolute zero, and we don’t have one.)
<<
Thermodynamics also allows 100% efficiency if the heat source is at an infinite temperature. We don’t have one of those either.
One of the ways to increase efficiency is to run heat engines at higher temperatures. A few years back there was lots of research into ceramic engines. Ceramic engines can run at higher temperature than metal engines but suffer from the usual problems with ceramics–they are brittle and easily crack and fail. Also hotter engines make lubrication harder. The latest anti-carbon rage has probably killed this line of research.
Jim
If anything it sure shows the hodgepodge of systems. Pretty inefficient which probably explains the high cost of energy.
In France:
Origine de l’électricité : 82,9% nucléaire, 9,3% renouvelables
(dont 7,5% hydraulique), 3,1% charbon, 3,0% gaz, 1,4% fioul
consommation HC (low tarif)
195 jours à 0,0472 cents + 163 jours à 0,0519 Euro
soit un prix moyen de 0,0493 Euro
consommation HP (high tarif)
195 jours à 0,0803 Euro + 163 jours à 0,0839 Euro
soit un prix moyen de 0,0819 Euro
The bulk of the energy rejected to the atmosphere is attributable to power generation, whether electric power or motive power. In both cases, thermodynamics plays a significant role; so does the acidic nature of condensation in the exhaust of the processes, which limits the minimum exhaust gas temperature in systems using hydrocarbon fuels.
Natural gas combined-cycle turbine (CCT) power generation systems are substantially more efficient than coal and nuclear generation because of the heat recovery steam generation cycle which bottoms the gas turbine generator. However, even they are only about 55% efficient, based on the higher heating value (HHV) of the fuel.
Beyond that, co-generation systems are capable of achieving overall thermal efficiencies approaching 80%. However, integrating thermal energy recovery into existing buildings is difficult and expensive, though it can be quite economical in purpose-designed buildings. Proper matching of the electrical and thermal requirements of the building are critical, and storage may be required to time-shift the availability of the thermal energy.
Diesel-cycle engines are about 50% more efficient than Otto-cycle engines in both stationary and vehicle applications. However, there is resistance to diesel-cycle engines in the US for other than larger trucks. Hybrid vehicles offer the potential to recover a substantial portion of the energy rejected during vehicle braking, but at a significant initial cost penalty. Plug hybrid vehicles can improve the efficiency of the on-vehicle system, but are still burdened with the inefficiencies of the electric power generation system.
One loss the LLNL charts do not reflect is the inefficiency of buildings in using thermal energy for space conditioning, which can be quire large due to infiltration and conductive and radiative heat losses.
Were we to start over from scratch, we could build a far more efficient society, even within the limitations of the laws of thermodynamics. I cannot imagine the costs of doing so, however.
Not much discussion then about 2008 being 100 quads and 2009 being 95….
Ric,
The laws of thermodynamics has never met up with mechanics that was actually efficient. Current turbines were never designed for high efficiency just bad at bulk harvesting. The efficiency base 150 years ago on hydro-electric turbine was on how much space was needed between the outer casing to the turbine blade to turn. So, if it was 8%, then the turbine had to be 92% efficient.
Besides a manufacturers need to make a profit by having to manufacture 20 turbines when one could be sufficient if to take their place. Any energy NOT touching a turbine blade to move it is wasted energy.
Seems to be a word missing.
[Reply: Fixed, thanks. – Ric]
Petrossa says:
April 10, 2011 at 10:51 am
The high cost of energy in France is the tax. 19.6% TVA on all energy. 0.0819 = 8.19cents becomes 9.828cent or 6.552 cent. I paid €200 tax on my recent fioul bill.
I think it would be more realistic if the boxes with the names geothermal, biomass, wind, and solar were sized relative to their contribution. As it is it gives the impression that these contribute more than they do.
That is probably the intent.
This is the chart to show your friends who want you to turn off your lights or switch to compact fluorescents to ‘save oil’. ‘Almost none’ describes perfectly the amount of petroleum that goes to electrical generation in the US.
Some of that rejected energy comes from the Environazi darlings, especially wind and ethanol for gas.
Some go so far as to say it takes more energy from coal to produce the wind turbines than the latter ever produce. Also, there is very heavy-duty environmental damage in China mining the rare earths needed for the bird slicers’ magnets.
Ethanol in cars is even worse. Over half the US corn production goes to a fuel that burns so hot it is dangerous and can damage the car. Other nations are also burning a lot of what used to be foodstuffs. The result has been an explosion of food prices. Some of these have doubled at the wholesale level (wheat) which will eventually mean higher grocery store prices for Americans.
It already meant such high prices in Tusnisia, Egypt, et al. as to spark rioting. No, sweeties, it is not freedom those people want. They say “Freedom go to hell.” They want food for their eight children. Tens of thousands have died in the riots, and now Soetoro (Obama’s legal name) has bombed Libya, killing more people in a remarkable method of protecting them.
Ethanol subsidies come from greenies believing in AGW. It is not just so we can have actual science that we fight that pseudoscientific claptrap. Nor is “economics” the most important reason to establish truth. We are fighting for people’s lives.
Jim Masterson says: “One of the ways to increase efficiency is to run heat engines at higher temperatures. A few years back there was lots of research into ceramic engines. Ceramic engines can run at higher temperature than metal engines but suffer from the usual problems with ceramics–they are brittle and easily crack and fail. ”
I worked on ceramic engine parts a few years ago, the major drawback was cost, they produced less pollution were more efficient but the cost was just to much. Our cheapest piston supplier could make them for $200 to $400 per piston, which may compete with exotic racing pistons, but not with $5 ones for normal engines. The cost to benefit ratio was just not good enough.
I remember from grad school discussions of turbine engines being much more efficient than piston engines for constant power generation. It would seem to make sense to use this style of engine for hybrid vehicles that use electric drive. Run the turbine at its optimum power rating to charge the batteries then shut it down once the batteries are charged.
Excellent reality check. I just hope the people in charge are paying attention.
Here in the northwest, Bonneville Power has been dealing with actual ‘rejected’ energy, not just wasted. This spring both wind and snowmelt have been extreme, so their windmills and their hydro dams have often been running at max. They can order the wind suppliers to disconnect, but they can’t bypass the dams because the anti-scientific anti-Darwinian Endangered Species Idiocy limits the spillway flow. So Bonneville has to turn off its fossil plants and turn down its nuke plant, and still has far more energy than the grid could carry.
Without the requirement of wind as part of their mix, this problem wouldn’t arise; and if they didn’t have to avoid embarrassing the %$#%#% ^&&%* ^&$#^ ^$# %#^&%^ !@ur momisugly#!@ur momisugly#!#!!!!!!! Aristocratic Royal Old-Growth Fish, the problem wouldn’t arise.
I have never heard it pointed out that it that turning off lights and computers in the summer saves a whole lot more money than in winter, since in the summer the AC must counteract the heat produced. In winter they just help heat the place up. The inefficiency of Microsoft is a major contributor to energy waste.
It’s because of reduced economic output and reduced demand. Millions of people are unemployed and millions more under employed. If we can get the government out of the way, a strong economic recovery will lead to increased consumption.
Anthony said: “Wind power increased dramatically in 2009 to 0.70 quads of primary energy compared to 0.51 in 2008.”
——————
This guy
http://papundits.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/renewable-power-fail-as-usual-december-2010/
found that “The amount of power they supplied to all consumers rose in the whole year from 1.89% to 2.32%, an increase of only 0.43%, less than half of one percent.” and yet CO2 emissions increased by more than that.
Jim Masterson says: April 10, 2011 at 10:45 am
. . . the inconvenient Laws of Thermodynamics say you can’t get 100% efficiency from thermal systems. (Well, you can, but only if the heat sink is at absolute zero, and we don’t have one.)
Thermodynamics also allows 100% efficiency if the heat source is at an infinite temperature. We don’t have one of those either.
Whilst I know what you are trying to say, the truth is that you can get 100% efficiency, you just have to redefine “waste” heat as “useful” heat. Likewise why is any of the transportation energy “useful”? All of it goes to waste, none of it is reusable in any way – even if you include potential energy gain from going up hill, unless all the vehicles are produced at sea level and end their days scrapped on some mountain, the average energy gain is zero, so there is absolutely no useful energy in transportation.
Personally I think these types of diagrams are sometimes worse than useless from an energy analysis point of view, because we use energy for a purpose and the meaningful value is the energy used doing something not some arbitrary “efficiency”.
I prefer splitting the diagram into: transportation = energy/mile; heating = energy per house/C/yr or something similar and electricity- which really encompasses most things which are not heating and transportation. You could I suppose add some finer divisions like: cooling (fridges/air conditioning), lighting, stationary motive (machinery), communications (kwh/byte?) etc.
“rejected energy” isn’t really due to inefficiency, but due to energy consumed that is wasted. See, most of that is from transportation, and that is all due to not just waste heat in exhaust gases and radiator emissions, but to vehicles operating but idle: your car sitting in your driveway on idle, jets waiting on the tarmac to take off, cars, trucks and buses sitting in traffic jams, etc.
Power generating plants experience a similar thing when they are generating power off-peak: putting energy into the system that isn’t being consumed, idling down due to low demand off-peak, windmills spinning in the wind off-peak, dams diverting water to spillways, etc etc.
Cogeneration from engines and MicroTurbines for smaller site hosted DG is anywhere from 80% to 92% efficient running off of good old natural gas TODAY.
The chart also leaves out the thermal energy LOST/not recovered by PV that is now being recovered by the likes of Cognenra:
http://www.cogenra.com/why-solar-cogen/how-solar-cogen-works/
…thinking this equates to ~40-60% lost.
Given where our TOP energy use goes, I think traditional cogen from natural gas is the way, along with CNG, to dig our way out of our economic and energy woes.
The sooner we get started….the better.
Scottish Skeptic: “Personally I think these types of diagrams are sometimes worse than useless from an energy analysis point of view, because we use energy for a purpose and the meaningful value is the energy used doing something not some arbitrary “efficiency”.”
I understand your comment, but, using your example, if we could get the car to perform the same amount of “purposeful” work, while using less energy, wouldn’t that be a desirable thing, all things being equal? Also, you mentioned re-use. I don’t think the point with any of the measurements is re-use. Rather, I think the idea of the graph is to think through the purposeful work being performed and then determine what energy is being used other than in the performance of that work. Reasonable minds can certainly differ on what constitutes useful work, but it seems there is still some value in looking at the energy efficiency concept as well.
A G Foster says:
April 10, 2011 at 1:17 pm
“The inefficiency of Microsoft is a major contributor to energy waste.”
The boot times of Windows these days doesn’t differ much from a Linux (having used Debian and Ubuntu) IMHO… After boot, neither operating system steals a significant amount of processor time. You should of course switch off services you don’t need like that Office indexing stuff.
If you’re earnest and want to save energy, try working with some Intel Atom 1.6 GHz system – consumes next to nothing and executes Win XP just fine IMHO.
As someone who grew up in an area where the Summer temperatures regularly exceed 100F (38C) I can state with extreme confidence that Air Conditioning need not counteract anything (outside of your refrigerator or a Real Server Room®). Personal weakness explicitly not exempted.
There is 5.39% missing from the total energy, where did that go it can’t be all lost in independent rounding can it ?
ew-3 (April 10, 2011 at 10:38 am):
“One thing that would be helpful to add to this chart is to breakout the the rejected energy numbers for each source of input to electricity generation.”
The numbers behind the LLNL graphic can be found at http://www.eia.gov/aer/pdf/aer.pdf
The particular values you mention can be found in section 8. For example, for electricity production from coal in 2009, Table 8.4a gives the energy consumption as 18.325 quads, and Table 8.2a gives the energy production as 1764.5 billion kWh [=6.02 quads]. Be careful with the units! 1 quad is approximately equal to 293 billion kWh. [And why they don’t use TWh instead of “billion kWh” is beyond me.]