6 ms·

So forgive me if this sounds jaded, but I fail to see how this technology is a "game changer." 1. Based on the EIA Annual Energy Review 2001 transmission loss

So forgive me if this sounds jaded, but I fail to see how this technology is a "game changer." 1. Based on the EIA Annual Energy Review 2001 transmission losses only account for 3.1% of total power generation in the U.S. 2. A modern, large gas combined-cycle power plant has a quoted efficiency of over 60% http://www.energy.siemens.com/hq/en/power-generation/power-plants/gas-fired-power-plants/combined-cycle-power-plant-concept/scc5-8000h-1s.htm http://www.energy.siemens.com/hq/en/power-generation/power-p... 3. From the presentation: "The carbon footprint is 50% cleaner than the grid and 100% renewable" Wait a minute, if the power generation is truly renewable, then how can it have a carbon footprint at all (other than manufacture etc.)? Isn't the whole point of renewable energy to have a perpetually renewing "closed system"? By that definition then the carbon footprint would be tiny compared to the grid. The reason they say 50% is probably because they are thinking most people will run the units from gas, but that's definitely not renewable. Also, I can't imagine the efficiency of the unit is much higher than 50-60%, but maybe there's some data on that which I have missed. 4. "They have created 11,000,000 kilowatts so far" How much of this is from the burning of fossil fuels versus renewable fuel sources? I am all for fuels cells and development of renewable energy. I think what would truly be a "game changer" is if this device could be used to store the cyclical output from a local renewable energy power system - for example store the energy created during the day from a PV installation for use at night. In my opinion this is more "green washing" than green. edit: formatting

wooster 17y ago
> Isn't the whole point of renewable energy to have a perpetually renewing "closed system"? Nope. Renewable just means the energy source can be replenished. Technically, charcoal would fall in this category, even though it has a pretty hefty C02 output.
- SpacemanSpiff 17y ago
  That's exactly my point. The process of growing the trees that produce the charcoal should remove as much co2 as is released when the charcoal is burned, thus a closed system.
  - wooster 17y ago
    Carbon footprint = carbon output - offsets Much of the charcoal used in tropical regions is made by slash-and-charring rain forests. These forests aren't replanted. So, since the carbon output is high, and there is no offset, it has a huge carbon footprint. You don't get to count the initial carbon sequestration as the carbon offset. If you could, then coal and oil would have carbon footprints of zero. If you develop a closed loop system, like much charcoal production in North America, then yeah, your carbon footprint is low. So, when they say "The carbon footprint is 50% cleaner than the grid and 100% renewable" they mean it produces half the carbon output per amount of energy generated (they claim to be more efficient than many power plants), and has the possibility of using renewable energy such as biomass gas (which is not currently produced in large quantities).
mbreese 17y ago
If you move from a central hub and spoke electricity distribution to a decentralized model, that alone is a game changer. You don't need to worry about the grid at all. 1. 3.1% seems low. Another estimate from 1995 says 7.2% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Losses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Los...). I suspect that the truth is closer to 5%. Also, the losses incurred are dependent upon the distance. Most power plants are located pretty far away from residential and commercial areas. 2. The power plant you're linking hasn't been completed yet. Plus, this is a cutting edge design. Most existing plants won't (couldn't?) be converted to this newer efficiency. And for cost reasons, existing inefficient plants aren't going to be shut down and replaced. 3. The fuel cell doesn't require natural gas. It can also run on biomass, which is completely renewable. And since this isn't based on combustion, you don't get the carbon monoxide, sulfurs oxides, nitrogen oxides, and heavier smog causing hydrocarbons. All of the nasties are produced with combustion. Also, since the CO2 is clean, it can be separated easily from the H2O and stored. 4. Well, they aren't burning anything, so 0% has been from burning fossil fuels. I'd guess most of it was from using natural gas as a fuel, but none of it was burned. One interesting thing I've read is that they are claiming that this is a reversible process, which means it could be used to store PV energy collected during the day and reuse it at night. But, this system produces so much more energy than a PV cell that I'm not sure it would be of much use. You'd need a very large (sq footage) PV installation to generate this much energy.
- SpacemanSpiff 17y ago
  The points you make are good, and I agree with what you are saying. My point was that from an environmental perspective, this device is basically on par with available power generation in terms of efficiency, and when used with natural gas simply moves the co2 generation from a centralized location to many distributed locations, but doesn't cut it down significantly per unit energy produced. IF the device were to be used with biomass fuel, it would certainly be a huge step forward environmentally, but I don't see where the incentive would be outside of environmental stewardship, which some companies value but many do not. From your reply: "...which means it could be used to store PV energy collected during the day and reuse it at night. But, this system produces so much more energy than a PV cell that I'm not sure it would be of much use." This is exactly why I wouldn't call it a game changer from an environmental standpoint. Basically we're still stuck with the fact that it's much easier to produce power by burning, oxidizing in a fuel cell, etc. than by using solar, wind etc. In my book a game changer would be a technology that enables a move to truly renewable power generation while remaining practical and cost effective. Could the energy server fit that description? Perhaps, but it depends highly upon how it is operated.

wooster 17y ago

> Isn't the whole point of renewable energy to have a perpetually renewing "closed system"? Nope. Renewable just means the energy source can be replenished. Technically, charcoal would fall in this category, even though it has a pretty hefty C02 output.

SpacemanSpiff 17y ago
That's exactly my point. The process of growing the trees that produce the charcoal should remove as much co2 as is released when the charcoal is burned, thus a closed system.
- wooster 17y ago
  Carbon footprint = carbon output - offsets Much of the charcoal used in tropical regions is made by slash-and-charring rain forests. These forests aren't replanted. So, since the carbon output is high, and there is no offset, it has a huge carbon footprint. You don't get to count the initial carbon sequestration as the carbon offset. If you could, then coal and oil would have carbon footprints of zero. If you develop a closed loop system, like much charcoal production in North America, then yeah, your carbon footprint is low. So, when they say "The carbon footprint is 50% cleaner than the grid and 100% renewable" they mean it produces half the carbon output per amount of energy generated (they claim to be more efficient than many power plants), and has the possibility of using renewable energy such as biomass gas (which is not currently produced in large quantities).

mbreese 17y ago

If you move from a central hub and spoke electricity distribution to a decentralized model, that alone is a game changer. You don't need to worry about the grid at all. 1. 3.1% seems low. Another estimate from 1995 says 7.2% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Losses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Los...). I suspect that the truth is closer to 5%. Also, the losses incurred are dependent upon the distance. Most power plants are located pretty far away from residential and commercial areas. 2. The power plant you're linking hasn't been completed yet. Plus, this is a cutting edge design. Most existing plants won't (couldn't?) be converted to this newer efficiency. And for cost reasons, existing inefficient plants aren't going to be shut down and replaced. 3. The fuel cell doesn't require natural gas. It can also run on biomass, which is completely renewable. And since this isn't based on combustion, you don't get the carbon monoxide, sulfurs oxides, nitrogen oxides, and heavier smog causing hydrocarbons. All of the nasties are produced with combustion. Also, since the CO2 is clean, it can be separated easily from the H2O and stored. 4. Well, they aren't burning anything, so 0% has been from burning fossil fuels. I'd guess most of it was from using natural gas as a fuel, but none of it was burned. One interesting thing I've read is that they are claiming that this is a reversible process, which means it could be used to store PV energy collected during the day and reuse it at night. But, this system produces so much more energy than a PV cell that I'm not sure it would be of much use. You'd need a very large (sq footage) PV installation to generate this much energy.

SpacemanSpiff 17y ago
The points you make are good, and I agree with what you are saying. My point was that from an environmental perspective, this device is basically on par with available power generation in terms of efficiency, and when used with natural gas simply moves the co2 generation from a centralized location to many distributed locations, but doesn't cut it down significantly per unit energy produced. IF the device were to be used with biomass fuel, it would certainly be a huge step forward environmentally, but I don't see where the incentive would be outside of environmental stewardship, which some companies value but many do not. From your reply: "...which means it could be used to store PV energy collected during the day and reuse it at night. But, this system produces so much more energy than a PV cell that I'm not sure it would be of much use." This is exactly why I wouldn't call it a game changer from an environmental standpoint. Basically we're still stuck with the fact that it's much easier to produce power by burning, oxidizing in a fuel cell, etc. than by using solar, wind etc. In my book a game changer would be a technology that enables a move to truly renewable power generation while remaining practical and cost effective. Could the energy server fit that description? Perhaps, but it depends highly upon how it is operated.