[Subjectivist]

http://youtu.be/10SGBslyVZY

We have been working on this solution for over 40 years, why have we not made more progress?

[KaiserJeep]

Energy conservation without doing anything to constrain population growth simply allows more people to live on the same limited resource.

As an example, I am planning to build a new house that meets the "Passive House" standard. The short version of that is the building uses 10% of the total energy consumed by a conventional home built in compliance with existing building codes. Only a handful of such homes exist today in the USA. Note however that almost half the residential energy (49%) is lost in transmission and distribution.

If we required this performance standard for all new homes, and then sponsored a retrofit of existing structures to similar performance levels, we could save enough residential energy usage to enable the construction of another 500 million homes to add to the 120 million we have. This would allow the US population to increase to roughly 1.5 billion, and if those extra folks share all our bad habits, we would need 500% more petroleum, fresh water, food, etc. Do you think we should do that?

The answer is YES, we need to save every BTU we can, and NO, we need to constrain population to where it is today, and actually decrease it from the present extreme overshoot. Which we have kicked around in PO.com in endless variation, and nobody knows how to do.

[Newfie]

1978, cool.

I suppose there are a lot of reasons we have not made progress.

The other observation is that, based on past performance, we unlikely to make progress in the future either.

[aspera]

S & KJ: As simplistic as it was (and that was the POINT, keep it simple to START the conversation) the IPAT equation encouraged us to keep three orthogonal concepts from muddying up each other. Yet, it seems attempting a discussion about one gets shot down by someone mentioning an orthogonal.

Population [P] needs to drop an order of magnitude (true in the 1970s when IPAT was proposed, still true). JM Greer has a nice piece where he shows how this could occur without a collapse. NB exponential functions work on the "way down" also; increase the death rate by 1% per year (which most would not notice) and wait a century or so. Or raise the rate and shorten the timeframe. Take-home message: small rate changes can have massive effects.

Technology [T] can help. Despite an upper limit to thermodynamic efficiency, we're a long way from that limit in much of society.

Affluence [A] (per capita consumption): Initially entirely ignore (even the creators of IPAT said so). Reducing consumption has proven very difficult but this is the frontier of conservation psychology. T. Princen has argued that, in addition to efficiency (a "T" issue) we need to understand sufficiency (An "A" issue).

See: http://gnhre.org/2014/01/13/the-logic-o ... -t-princen

Also: http://www.snre.umich.edu/profile/tprincen

Nice example of how to work this is from the Dancing Rabbit ecovillage. They reduced electrical consumption [A] by about 80%.And only then went for the most efficient solar technology [T]. Simple, off-the-shelf tech was adequate, and cheap (allowing them to think about keeping spare parts, etc.) Eventually that solar tech might be unavailable. But get their consumption down a bit more and their life ends up being a whole different story.

http://www.dancingrabbit.org

[Surf]

Note however that almost half the residential energy (49%) is lost in transmission and distribution.

According to the EIA:

EIA estimates that national electricity transmission and distribution losses average about 6% of the electricity that is transmitted and distributed in the United States each year.

Source:http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=105&t=3

Government regulations have resulted in substantial saving in appliances such as refrigeration and lighting. all refrigerators in the stores today are more efficient than they were 15 years ago. In many places incandescent bulbs have been banned and are being phased out in favor of LED and CFL bulbs.

However as to homes, in many cases you need to do a major remodel to make the walls thicker for more insulation . Many remodels don't address efficiency at all. Also building codes in many places are old and have not been updated to require more insulation and many need homes are not tested for air leakage through the walls. As a result today's new homes are frequently not much more efficient than homes built 30 years ago. Government could pass a law requiring all new home be passive houses with PV and or solar thermal systems but many state and local governments arn't doing it. It has been done for cars but not for buildings.

[Paulo1]

Yeah Surf,

When I read KJ's stat I immediately thought he must have been talking about ultimate efficiency and not electrical transmission.

After all, that is the whole reason for step-up transformers and high voltage lines....lower the amperage and reduce losses. Otherwise, we would still be in a DC world with low voltage supplies.

I still think that ultimate savings are made in simple solutions such as passive solar and high insulation. Complex housing systems require too much upfront expenditures for what is ultimately gained. Furthermore, a healthy house requires aduquate air exchange.

paulo

[KaiserJeep]

Note however that almost half the residential energy (49%) is lost in transmission and distribution.

According to the EIA:

EIA estimates that national electricity transmission and distribution losses average about 6% of the electricity that is transmitted and distributed in the United States each year.

Source:http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=105&t=3

My information came from this DOE web page: http://buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov/ChapterIntro2.aspx

Primary energy consumption in the residential sector totaled 20.99 quadrillion Btu (quads) in 2009, equal to 54% of consumption in the buildings sector and 22% of total primary energy consumption in the U.S. Nearly half (49%) of this primary energy was lost during transmission and distribution (T&D). Energy consumption increased 24% from 1990 to 2009. However, because of projected improvements in building and appliance efficiency, the Energy Information Administration’s 2012 Annual Energy Outlook forecast a 13% increase from 2009 to 2035.(2.1.1)

The 6% T&D figure is for the entire electric grid, and I agree with it. But residential electrical power includes both suburban and rural residences where pole-mounted or small buried transformers are used - and when it comes to transformers, efficiency comes with size. There are only a few transformer sizes, as well. I knew a farmer with a house and barn and three widely separated outbuildings - and FIVE small pole-mounted transformers and power meters. Sobering thought that we are wasting almost half the residential energy heating outdoor transformers! Note however that transformer losses occur BEFORE the power meter, the power company eats this cost. This is one reason distributed residential solar energy is so desirable, it is generated and used by solid state inverters that are about 90% efficient, much better than the T&D losses in the grid.

Government regulations have resulted in substantial saving in appliances such as refrigeration and lighting. all refrigerators in the stores today are more efficient than they were 15 years ago. In many places incandescent bulbs have been banned and are being phased out in favor of LED and CFL bulbs.

However as to homes, in many cases you need to do a major remodel to make the walls thicker for more insulation . Many remodels don't address efficiency at all. Also building codes in many places are old and have not been updated to require more insulation and many need homes are not tested for air leakage through the walls. As a result today's new homes are frequently not much more efficient than homes built 30 years ago. Government could pass a law requiring all new home be passive houses with PV and or solar thermal systems but many state and local governments arn't doing it. It has been done for cars but not for buildings.

No argument there. There ARE places where there is a threshold such as 50% of the building floor space, and if you remodel more square footage than that threshold, you have to bring the remodelled space up to current codes including insulation. There are also places where the insulation minimums are as much as 50% of the passive home standard. Such homes only use 2X the energy of a passive home. The difference is usually the foundation, which may have 8" or so of foam both below the slab and outside the walls, with no thermal bridges.

[KaiserJeep]

Yeah Surf,

When I read KJ's stat I immediately thought he must have been talking about ultimate efficiency and not electrical transmission.

After all, that is the whole reason for step-up transformers and high voltage lines....lower the amperage and reduce losses. Otherwise, we would still be in a DC world with low voltage supplies.

I still think that ultimate savings are made in simple solutions such as passive solar and high insulation. Complex housing systems require too much upfront expenditures for what is ultimately gained. Furthermore, a healthy house requires aduquate air exchange.

paulo

Nope, as I indicated above, the figure is for the least efficient part of the grid, distributed suburban and rural homes with lots of small guage wires, relatively low transmission voltages, and small, inefficient transformers. But once you get past the power meter, the distribution of power usage looks like this:

[Surf]

According to the EIA:

EIA estimates that national electricity transmission and distribution losses average about 6% of the electricity that is transmitted and distributed in the United States each year.


Source:http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=105&t=3

My information came from this DOE web page: http://buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov/C ... ntro2.aspx

Primary energy consumption in the residential sector totaled 20.99 quadrillion Btu (quads) in 2009, equal to 54% of consumption in the buildings sector and 22% of total primary energy consumption in the U.S. Nearly half (49%) of this primary energy was lost during transmission and distribution (T&D). Energy consumption increased 24% from 1990 to 2009. However, because of projected improvements in building and appliance efficiency, the Energy Information Administration’s 2012 Annual Energy Outlook forecast a 13% increase from 2009 to 2035.(2.1.1)


The 6% T&D figure is for the entire electric grid, and I agree with it. But residential electrical power includes both suburban and rural residences where pole-mounted or small buried transformers are used - and when it comes to transformers, efficiency comes with size. There are only a few transformer sizes, as well. I knew a farmer with a house and barn and three widely separated outbuildings - and FIVE small pole-mounted transformers and power meters.

I always heard and assumed the were very efficient. So I did a google search and found this specification:
http://www.clarkpublicutilities.com/index.cfm/linkservid/BAE88516-A829-4E2C-ABCC086896135E39/showMeta/0/

In section 5 the efficiencies for transformers with a max load of 140 to 3000 watts. Minimum efficiency shown is 98.86%.

I therefore think the DOE website is in error, or they are referring to the losses in the home only. Many older wall wart transformers are just cheep transformers with an efficiency of 30 to 50%. Most new electronic now have switching AC to DC converters that are typically have an efficiency of 80 to 95%. In sum places high efficient AC to DC conveters are now required by law. If you factor old inefficient wall warts with with lighting losses and low efficiency fans in furnaces the DOE figure makes sense for just the home. I could be wrong but that is the way it looks to me.

[Surf]

I always heard and assumed the were very efficient. So I did a google search and found this specification:
http://www.clarkpublicutilities.com/ind ... howMeta/0/

In section 5 the efficiencies for transformers with a max load of 140 to 3000 watts. Minimum efficiency shown is 98.86%.

I therefore think the DOE website is in error, or they are referring to the losses in the home only. Many older wall wart transformers are just cheep transformers with an efficiency of 30 to 50%. Most new electronic now have switching AC to DC converters that are typically have an efficiency of 80 to 95%. In sum places high efficient AC to DC conveters are now required by law. If you factor old inefficient wall warts with with lighting losses and low efficiency fans in furnaces the DOE figure makes sense for just the home. I could be wrong but that is the way it looks to me.

On further examination of my search results I found this link:
http://www.copper.org/environment/sustainable-energy/transformers/education/trans_ad.html

Apparently most utilities today are very concerned about efficiency but may have not been as concerned in the past. Additionally non-utility owned transformers can frequently be low efficiency models. So in some cases the DOE statement may be correct.

[KaiserJeep]

Ever heard of the aging power grid? MOST of the grid is obsolete transformers. They are characterized by undersized iron cores which are submerged in a cooling oil bath. Newer and more efficient transformers use "laminated" cores, comprised of multiple insulated iron plates, to minimize such losses.

The voltages on overhead poles are often below 10,000 volts (in fact 3800-4000 volts is very common) to minimize corona discharge and the possibility of setting nearby tree branches on fire. Therefore to deliver the same power, the current through the wires must be increased - and such wiring used to be copper but now is frequently aluminum, which has a higher electrical resistance than copper and more power cooks of the wires themselves as heat.

The largest investment by far in the electrical grid is this "last mile" wiring, switching, and other components. Many utilities have zero long range upgrade plans. Even here in Silicon Valley I have seen ancient cylindrical transformers afire from overload - and only then replaced with larger, rectangular transformers with cooling fins. Meanwhile an overloaded transformer has been operating - sometimes for years on end - at the lowest extreme of efficiency due to elevated temperatures. Heat is wasted power, after all.

[Subjectivist]

A couple thing KJ, aluminum main lines are so much lighter and cheaper than copper you can make them much larger in cross section than the old copper wires they replace. If you properly size them the resistance goes down substantially. The problem arises when companies size everything to the minimum capacity, the thinner the conductor the higher the resistance.

For the transformers you are sadly correct, for the companies it is a simple trade off. They lose X power to waste heat but they have Y old transformers in use and Z older transformers in stockpiles. Upgrading as the old units hit a certain age makes financial sense, and once the bean counters get around to setting up a replacement schedule things will change. Until then the guys in the field have to work with the materials the company stockpiles.

If you really want to upgrade the transformers across the country you could have the IRS announce a tax credit for every old style unit replaced with a new style laminated core unit. That would lead to a rapid switch over from old to new as companies went for the tax credit incentive. Instead all we get are thousands of hours of politicians talking about smart meters that can shut off your personal appliances if they think it is a good idea.

[KaiserJeep]

Subjectivist, your comments are in line with those I read in my IEEE pubs. I don't know how much benefit your proposed tax credit would have, as the problem remains the same in areas where electric utilities are thoroughly regulated and other areas like Texas where regulations are much lighter.

In fact there is an interesting dynamic in play here in Silicon Valley. Copper has enough scrap value that people are stealing it right off the poles when one is downed in an accident and trips a breaker. For the last few years, the PG&E trucks have been replacing copper wires (actually copper coiled around steel cores) with aluminum. You would think this was the perfect opportunity to make a transformer upgrade at the same time. But what they do instead is install the aluminum high tension cables, then crimp on copper pigtails to connect to the old cylinder transformer, some of which have been on the poles so long that they display visible rust here in Silicon Valley, which takes 4+ decades in this climate.

I get it, those old transformers are still working, and they contain cooling oils full of cancer-causing PCBs and other nasty chemicals, so not replacing them has an upside. But here in the place where we have invested more money in distributed solar PV on residences and businesses and public buildings, we have possibly the oldest pole transformers in the country. You can drive around on a Summer day, and watch all the waste heat distorting the air above those pole transformers. Sometimes you see one burning on the pole. Last year, I saw a transformer fire under a steel grate in the sidewalk - it looked like an erupting volcano in miniature scale.

[Surf]

If you really want to upgrade the transformers across the country you could have the IRS announce a tax credit for every old style unit replaced with a new style laminated core unit. That would lead to a rapid switch over from old to new as companies went for the tax credit incentive. Instead all we get are thousands of hours of politicians talking about smart meters that can shut off your personal appliances if they think it is a good idea.

I did another search and The DOE has passed new efficiency standards for transformer manufactures. The mandated efficiency is dependent on the size but the lowest value I saw was 97.8%. The law doesn't require replacement of inefficient transformers. Only sets a minimum efficiency level for new transformers. So the impact will not be immediate.

However with with electric car sales growing and solar PV installations growing utilities may be forced to upgrade many without waiting for the old ones to fail. The frequent storms in the east that force utilities to rebuild the distribution system frequently, May also accelerate the replacement rate.

The New rule is expected to have the following effect:

DOE's analyses indicate that today's standards would save a significant amount of energy. The lifetime savings for equipment purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with amended standards (2016-2045) amounts to 3.63 quads.
The cumulative net present value (NPV) of total customer costs and savings of today's standards for distribution transformers, in 2011$, ranges from $3.4 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $12.9 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased equipment costs for equipment purchased in 2016-2045, discounted to 2012.
In addition, today's standards would have significant environmental benefits. The energy savings would result in cumulative emission reductions of 264.7 million metric tons (Mt) (5) of carbon dioxide (CO 2), 223.3.thousand tons of nitrogen oxides (NO X), 182.9 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (SO 2), and 0.6 ton of mercury (Hg). (6)
The value of the CO 2 reductions is calculated using a range of values per metric ton of CO 2 (otherwise known as the Social Cost of Carbon, or SCC) developed by a recent interagency process. The derivation of the SCC values is discussed in section IV.M. DOE estimates the net present monetary value of the CO 2 emissions reduction is between $0.80 billion and $13.31 billion, expressed in 2011$ and discounted to 2012. DOE also estimates the net present monetary value of the NO X emissions reduction, expressed in 2011$ and discounted to 2012, is $93.2 million at a 7-percent discount rate and $234.1 million at a 3-percent discount rate. (7)

M

[dashster]

The answer is YES, we need to save every BTU we can, and NO, we need to constrain population to where it is today, and actually decrease it from the present extreme overshoot. Which we have kicked around in PO.com in endless variation, and nobody knows how to do.

I could be wrong, but I don't think that the majority of people believe that population growth is bad at this point. Certainly not in the United States, where population growth comes entirely from immigration (birth rate is below replacement level). The only thing that will convince them it is is for at least one of the fossil fuels to peak in production. Even then I think there will still be a lot of rationalization and wishful thinking. It will probably take at least two of the three fossil fuels peaking in production before the majority of the world decides that population growth is bad.

[Smurfs1976]

Here in Australia (specifically the state of Tasmania), electrical losses are about 4% in the transmission from power station to terminal substations or major users (large factories etc) and it's about 10% from power stations to households.Those figures are average values, it would be higher for an individual house in the middle of nowhere and less in the city, but as a whole they are correct.

Is something so different with the transformers used in the US that causes them to lose so much energy? The ones we have here, only get noticeably warm under high loads and normally produce very little heat.

[Surf]

Is something so different with the transformers used in the US that causes them to lose so much energy? The ones we have here, only get noticeably warm under high loads and normally produce very little heat.

I have been searching for an answer. While I don't have anything conclusive I have observed the following in my search.

Many transformers in the grid are 40 years old. Many materials commonly used in today efficient transformers may not have existed 40 years ago. So older transformers were probably not as efficient as today's models. I am not seeing anything indicating older transformers were less than 90% efficient.

If you replace a old 94% transformer it today with a 98% efficient you would cut the losses by 50%. So if you could say the old distribution network is losing 50% of all of the generated power you might be correct. there are a lot of distribution transformers so a 6% loss in them could amount of most of the network loses.

Distribution transformers are not strictly used by utilities Many businesses also buy them. Since every Kw lost in a transformer is one less Kw the utility cannot charge for. So utilities have a lot of incentive to use efficient transformers. A business on the other hand wants a factory constructed at the lowest possible cost. If that factory needs a transformer the electrical contractor my install the cheapest transformer they can get to maximize his profit.

So overall I am seeing nothing different than what I would expect in Tasmania. However the grid in the US is much larger so a lot of small losses add up. However now that people are aware of the issue steps are being taken to reduce the energy loss. That is the common patter I see in the US once people become aware that something can be made more efficient at minimal cost regulations are created to address the issue. Rules requiring more efficient refrigerator, insulation in homes, fuel efficient cars, etc..