Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
It's good to have a challenge.
The idea that most energy use is wasteful and can be easily eliminated is just plain wrong.

Most fossil fuel energy, just in producing electricity, gets wasted. Take a look at this nice graph in Wikipedia.

Of course, you can't have perfect efficiency. 50% is state of the art for a coal-powered plant. What you can do is forbid inefficient new plants and phase out inefficient old plants. For fossil fuels, this means only allowing highly efficient combined heat cooling and power plants that have a capacity to be retrofitted for carbon capture and storage.

According to the EIA, the efficiency of the electrical system in the USA is currently 31.5%. (derived from this .pdf). So 78.5% of inputs get wasted right there, and it's possible to bring that waste back to 50% with current technology.

MOST energy use goes to feed us, clothe us, and keep us warm.

Residential uses 21% of energy according to the EIA (.pdf).

Clothing used about 0.3% of energy (for production) in 2002. Then again, by volume probably around three quarters of clothes are imported now by the US. The food industry used 1.3% of energy (from this .pdf, compared with the last)

Total it up and you have 23% at most (though transportation and retail energy use will still add a bit).

The total for industry (including food and clothing) is 32.5%

Solving these problems will require VAST commitments of time, money, planning, innovation, and just plain hard work.

If you take cradle to cradle, it's about redesigning the entire industrial production and consumption system. I didn't say it was easy, just that it's managable. We can currently live within our means just by reducing the wastefulness of the system, because it is so gigantically wasteful.
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 06:42:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So 78.5% of inputs get wasted right there

That would be 68.5%, of course.

Most above numbers derived using excel, less fallible than my mind!

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 08:30:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
nanne:

Of course, you can't have perfect efficiency. 50% is state of the art for a coal-powered plant. What you can do is forbid inefficient new plants and phase out inefficient old plants. For fossil fuels, this means only allowing highly efficient combined heat cooling and power plants that have a capacity to be retrofitted for carbon capture and storage.

According to the EIA, the efficiency of the electrical system in the USA is currently 31.5%. (derived from this .pdf). So 78.5% of inputs get wasted right there, and it's possible to bring that waste back to 50% with current technology.

Are these percentages relative to the maximum thermodynamic efficiency of the processes we're talking about, or does 100% represent the unattainable situation in which all energy is converted to work with no heat loss?

Remember, for heat engines thermodynamic efficiency is 1 - (cold temperature) / (hot temperature) and the "cold temperature" is essentially ambient temperature around 300 Kelvin, which is pretty damn high. If you have a steam engine where the steam is heated to 600 Kelvin (327 celsius) your maximum thermodynamic efficiency is 50%.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 08:41:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
AECI website - Chouteau Power Plant among most efficient gas-based plants

The Chouteau Power Plant has greater efficiency than a simple-cycle combustion turbine unit because it employs both a steam turbine and a combustion turbine to power the generator.

Chouteau features two heat-recovery steam generators (HRSGs), each measuring about 70 feet by 100 feet, that capture exhaust heat to power a steam turbine. In contrast, hot exhaust from the gas turbine is vented to the atmosphere on a simple-cycle plant.

At Chouteau, exhaust heat enters the HRSG, or boiler, at about 1,085 degrees Fahrenheit and moves through the structure, heating tubes of water to create steam to power the steam turbine, which turns the generator to produce electricity. Afterward, the exhaust is vented from the stack at about 200 degrees.

This heat-recovery system increases the efficiency of the unit to 58 percent, compared with 33 percent efficiency of a simple-cycle plant.

The first cycle of this power plant has a "cold temperature" of 1085F = 1287K, and an efficiency of 33% which suggests a "hot temperature" of at least 1930K (the higher the actual temperature of the boiler the higher the theoretical efficiency, which must exceed the achieved efficiency).

The second cycle receives 67% of the initial energy and has a hot temperature of 1287K and a cold temperature around the boiling point of water (as low as you can get if you use steam), that is, 212F = 400K. The theoretical maximum efficiency would allow it to extract 69% of this 67%, leaving only 21% of the initial energy and for a total efficiency of 79%. So, the achieved 58% efficiency is at most 73% of what is thermodynamically achievable.

Of course, the boiling-point stem that comes out of the power plant could be directed to some industrial use that only requires boiling water, or even to heat homes or heat water for homes, for reduced heat losses.

But the absolute maximum efficiency with an initial hot temperature of nearly 2000K and a final cold temperature of 300K, where the end result is water at room temperature, is about 85%. It's possible that with gas you cannot get any higher than that in any case, and 58% is 68% of that.

It's not about energy, it's about free energy (in fact, the Gibbs Free Energy as the inputs and outputs not only happen at room temperature but also at atmospheric pressure).

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 10:11:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You can do dual cycle on a coal-fired plant if you use gasification (gasification will end up using some of the energy, but that's still worth it). Now if you combine a dual cycle plant with combined cooling - heat- power, you can get very high efficiencies. Wikipedia says that the theoretical efficiency of a C(C)HP plant would be up to 89%.
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 11:05:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Are these percentages relative to the maximum thermodynamic efficiency of the processes we're talking about, or does 100% represent the unattainable situation in which all energy is converted to work with no heat loss?

The unattainable situation. Note that much of the heat loss can also be used if you do combined heat and power. Never all, of course.
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 11:16:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Recent estimates are that, should everyone consume like the US, you would need 11 planets. So if you manage to get from 68.5% waste to 50% (impossible of course -you WILL need to transport your energy source, then you WILL need to get your electricity to the point of consumption at the right voltage, it can never be zero transport or conversion waste), assuming the same improvement is realised in other fields, you need... 7.5 planets. Better, but nowhere near.

Or take planes. Whatever your efficiency, you can't go below the required energy to counteract gravity. If you do, well, you don't fly, it's that simple.

Cradle to cradle is a very nice aim, and I support it. But it is not manageable as a way to keep consuming the same. We will have to consume less.

Having said that, there is a lot we can do with equal consumption, and there is so much that is uselessly consumed that consuming less should not prove all that painful. Apart from no longer seeing my friends from Australia, my family from Laos... that will prove the hardest.

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi

by Cyrille (cyrillev domain yahoo.fr) on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 09:17:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Occasional Series