Efficient Power Generation Dick Munson Recycled Energy Development Midwest Media Project 10 July 2007.

Efficient Power Generation

Dick MunsonRecycled Energy Development

Midwest Media Project10 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

Fuel

100%

33% delivered electricityPower Plant

T&D and Transformers

Pollution

67% Total Waste

Line Losses 9-20%

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 long-term 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, greenhouse-gas 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 Fuel-Conversion Efficiency

Combined Heat and Power (CHP)

Fuel

100%Steam

Electricity

Chilled Water

90%

10% Waste Heat, no T&D loss

Pollution

(At or near thermal users)

CHP Plants

US Electric Efficiency,1900-2005

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Year

% E

ffic

ien

cy

Primary Efficiency, Delivered Electricity Final Efficiency raw energy to useful work

Local Generation Plants we have built that recycle waste heat

Denmark Electric Efficiency

U.S. is an International Laggard in Capturing Heat and Power

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Denmar

k

Nether

lands

Finlan

d

Russia

Germ

any

Poland

Japa

n

China

Portugal

Canada

Mex

ico

WORLD US UK

Indon

esia

France

Brazil

India

Argentin

aDE

sh

are

as a

% o

f to

tal

po

wer

gen

erat

ion

Feasible Target of 30% CHP in US

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

Source:USEPA 2004 Study

Recycled Energy in the US

Identified Opportunities

95,000 MW95,000 MWRecycled Energy

in Service

9,900 MW9,900 MW

Recycled Energy (At user sites)

Waste Energy

100%

10% Waste Heat

Steam Generator

65%

Steam

25% Electricity

Back-pressure Turbine

Generator

No Added Pollution

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]