[OldSprocket]

I find this diagram useful to drive home how much energy the U.S. of A. gets from fossil fuels.

The whole 1.6 Meg report is available from http://eed.llnl.gov/flow/pdf/ucrl-tr-129990-02.pdf

[MikeB]

I love using this in my classroom. The energy "lost" (ie wasted) just shocks the hell out of students.

[Andy]

If that diagram does not illustrate the potential for efficiency gains (particularly combined heat and power), then nothing will. Distributed electricity production utilizing waste heat can chop the waste from the electricity section from 26 quads to possibly 10. Of course, large central generating facilities are not very compatible with combined heat and power.

Look at transportation as well. Look at the percentage waste, it is the highest of all the fuel uses. This can also be cut by more than half eventually if we decide to favour more collective transport, smaller vehicles and scale down the use of the ICEV (Internal combustion engine vehicle), scale down air transportation and favour more steel wheel on steel rail transportation.

[0mar]

If that diagram does not illustrate the potential for efficiency gains (particularly combined heat and power), then nothing will. Distributed electricity production utilizing waste heat can chop the waste from the electricity section from 26 quads to possibly 10. Of course, large central generating facilities are not very compatible with combined heat and power.

Look at transportation as well. Look at the percentage waste, it is the highest of all the fuel uses. This can also be cut by more than half eventually if we decide to favour more collective transport, smaller vehicles and scale down the use of the ICEV (Internal combustion engine vehicle), scale down air transportation and favour more steel wheel on steel rail transportation.

The best rule to apply in any situation goes as follows:

If it makes too much sense, it'll never be adopted.

[Kingcoal]

OldSprocket, your post, with very little words, says it all. All Americans should have this chart burned into their foreheads.

Currently, we have no energy policy at all in the US. Most of the old energy policies such as fuel economy standards for cars have been gotten rid of, or frozen, by either Bush1 or Bush2. Between 1970 and 1990 we became about 50% more efficient in our use of hydrocarbons. We need to keep going and people have to be made aware of that.

[aahala]

Kiddos, please review the above chart.

There may be a pop quiz concerning it during the semester and you may

be required to recreate it as part of your final exam.

[Devil]

Here is a similar chart for the UK

http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/inform/energyflowchart.pdf

I've done a spreadsheet to compare the two, but unfortunately I can't post it here. It's quite revealing!

[OldSprocket]

I knew different people would see different things.

I cannot tell you how much of the electrical waste is long transmission lines and how much is inherent. Electrical devices each take a few to several percent of the energy passing through. My own very small off-grid solar electric system is very inefficient. The PVs capture a small part of the energy falling on them, and most days the batteries are full so the electricity nowhere to go. (Unless I'm on the computer and listening to the stereo.)

Likewise, much of the transportation waste is heat and unburned fuel, but how much is start-and-stop driving and traffic jams.

Another point the diagram show me is that non-fossil electrical energy is such a small portion of the current energy diet. There is NO WAY to expand it to cover for all fossil fuels. The U.S. needs deeper change.

At least that's what I see.

[JayHMorrison]

Another point the diagram show me is that non-fossil electrical energy is such a small portion of the current energy diet. There is NO WAY to expand it to cover for all fossil fuels. The U.S. needs deeper change.

I believe it is very possible to have non-fossil fuel cover the electric grid component of our energy usage. Expanded nuclear and wind energy also with some hydro and solar will get us most of the way there. France gets about 70% of their electric grid from nuclear and they are massive exporters of electric grid energy to Spain and England.

The example set by France regarding nuclear energy is just about the only thing I admire about that country.

The transportation component of our energy use is much more difficult.

[OldSprocket]

Another point the diagram show me is that non-fossil electrical energy is such a small portion of the current energy diet. There is NO WAY to expand it to cover for all fossil fuels. The U.S. needs deeper change.

I believe it is very possible to have non-fossil fuel cover the electric grid component of our energy usage. Expanded nuclear and wind energy also with some hydro and solar will get us most of the way there. France gets about 70% of their electric grid from nuclear and they are massive exporters of electric grid energy to Spain and England.

The example set by France regarding nuclear energy is just about the only thing I admire about that country.

The transportation component of our energy use is much more difficult.

It may cover the non-fossil electrical component, but the electrical component is still a small part of the whole energy picture. I think many people are looking for non-fossil energy to power hydrogen cars, residential heat, and other uses where electricity has been a minor component. I still think there is NO WAY to cover our wasteful diet without fossil fuels.

As with all estimates, YMMV.

[JayHMorrison]

It may cover the non-fossil electrical component, but the electrical component is still a small part of the whole energy picture. I think many people are looking for non-fossil energy to power hydrogen cars, residential heat, and other uses where electricity has been a minor component. I still think there is NO WAY to cover our wasteful diet without fossil fuels.

As with all estimates, YMMV.

The electrical component is not a "small" component of the whole energy picture. The electrical component appears to be about 60% of the picture. If we accept the concept that transportation is about 40% and oil powers most of that transportation sector, then the focus should be on how to shift as much as possible of our transportation energy needs to the electric grid.

Plug-in hybrid personal transportation. I think if that became common, it would fill a large piece of the gap. Re-charge your vehicle each night, which is smaller and lighter than vehicles we are currently using, perhaps even a scooter for most folks. TGV type trains for distance travel. Light rail for inner city mass transit.

Lots of nuclear power planets using uranium and thorium. Lots of Wind power. Lots of solar power on all building and homes. Dump all of the used nuclear waste under permanent storage in geologically stable mountains.

It doesn't solve all issues. But it fills a big piece of the coming gap from peak oil. Perhaps with expanded awareness we can gradually come to accept a less wealthy lifestyle which is more localized.

[OldSprocket]

The electrical component is not a "small" component of the whole energy picture. The electrical component appears to be about 60% of the picture.

Are we looking at the same diagram?

The figures in the diagram at the start of this thread say electrical energy provides less than twenty percent of the energy used. Of the electricity generated, sixty-six percent comes from fossil fuels, or thirty-four percent from non-fossil. Multiply thirty-four percent by twenty percent and I end up with less than seven percent.

Less than seven percent.

Please forgive me if I was looking at the wrong diagram.

[Frank]

The Vanadian-Redox battery could play a role in the transportation side of things. Used electrolyte can be pumped out and replaced by fresh electrolyte fairly rapidly.

http://www.ceic.unsw.edu.au/centers/vrb/

The way I see it, any and all efforts to improve efficiency should be encouraged by policy and implemented ASAP.

[JayHMorrison]

Are we looking at the same diagram?

The figures in the diagram at the start of this thread say electrical energy provides less than twenty percent of the energy used. Of the electricity generated, sixty-six percent comes from fossil fuels, or thirty-four percent from non-fossil. Multiply thirty-four percent by twenty percent and I end up with less than seven percent.

Less than seven percent.

Please forgive me if I was looking at the wrong diagram.

I think we are coming at this from different angles. You are looking at 2002 numbers. I am projecting forward based on example of France (nuclear 70%), Denmark (Wind 20%) and Germany (Wind 8%). Those examples tell us that it is feasible to have our electric grid be almost 100% non-fossil fuel based.

We can conclude that eventually the entire electric grid can be run by non-fossil fuels. Nuclear, Wind, Solar, Hydro, Biomass. So I start off with 60% of our gross total power being mostly non-fossil fuel based. The electric grid component of our power needs can be achieved by nuclear and wind with current technology.

The only reason we still have coal and natural gas as part of our electric grid is because the plants have already been built. The large piece of the capital cost has already been spent and thus is makes no sense to stop using them until the fuel expense makes it no longer worthwhile. Natural Gas at $6+ is making that the case in the USA. Natural Gas for the electric grid is no longer competitive. Utilities have been dumping their natural gas power plants throughout 2004.

The only power plants seriously built in the last several years were natural gas because they were relatively cheap and nobody fought them. If someone is trying to build a coal power plant, the environmental hurdles are huge. Almost as tough as nuclear.

At the same time, about 40% of our energy needs are transportation related, which is currently almost entirely oil based. The challenge is in this sector. About 67% of our oil consumption is converted to transportation use (your posted chart). The rest goes to other uses.

The challenge is to shift as much as possible of our daily transportation to the electric grid where nuclear, wind, solar and hydro can carry the load in a non-fossil fuel manner which is mostly ultra low CO2 emmission.

Plug-in hybrids, TGV style trains between major cities, Lightrail for urban transportation, bikes, walking, etc.

It is not the same lifestyle we are used to now. It is a much less convienent lifestyle. But it is a rational and feasible lifestyle.

[Devil]

I don't understand what OS is trying to say. The total energy used to provide electricity is 38.44% of all the energy used. This is hardly negligible. Unfortunately, 68.85% of it is lost. This is a terrible state of affairs, because 9.11% is non-thermal and the average of transmission losses (not specifically shown in the diagram) is about 5.1%. This means that the efficiency of the thermal systems is execrable and certainly nothing to be proud about, about 24%.

As I mentioned earlier, I did a comparison with the UK figures. I'll summarise consumptions:

Category UK% US%
Res/comm 12.83 19.72
Indust 9.27 19.12
Non-fuel 8.71 5.94
Transport 14.50 26.67
Electric loss 14.97 26.46
Other losses 5.33 0.00 (!)
Exports 34.43 3.02

Most of the other losses in the UK are natural gas emissions (horribly GHG)

Note the additions are not exactly 100%, but this is because of rounding errors and similar.

[JayHMorrison]

Devil, are there any energy losses from nuclear besides the standard transmission losses?

[Devil]

Of course there are: nuclear is just as thermal as coal/oil/wood/NG, in that the heat generated is used to make steam that drives turbines. The problem is that many turbine designs are single stage, so that the steam coming out may still be at 150°C or even much higher. This necessitates cooling towers, immersed heat exchangers or domestic heating heat exchangers to cool the steam down to condense the ultra-pure water for re-use. This alone represents losses of about 50% of the input energy (the rest would be bad boiler design, with typically 25% of the heat generated going up the stack, rather than into making steam). In terms of pure financial economy, there is a trade-off between thermal efficiency and capital cost: a triple expansion turbine costs ~8 x the cost of a single-stage one for an increase of shaft power of about 25% and maintenance costs and times are higher, too.

[OldSprocket]

I am projecting forward based on example of France (nuclear 70%), Denmark (Wind 20%) and Germany (Wind 8%). Those examples tell us that it is feasible to have our electric grid be almost 100% non-fossil fuel based.

It is feasible. It requires tripling non-fossil electrical generation. From the top left of the diagram, Nuclear, Hydro, and Biomass currently provide 13.8 quads. Coal and Natural gas provide 25 quads. After tripling the non-fossil generation of electricity, we compare well with the European examples you quote.

So I start off with 60% of our gross total power being mostly non-fossil fuel based.

I don't start so far in the future. The diagram appears to show 15 percent from non-fossil.

The challenge is to shift as much as possible of our daily transportation to the electric grid where nuclear, wind, solar and hydro can carry the load in a non-fossil fuel manner which is mostly ultra low CO2 emmission.

It looks like you are trying to do this without increasing the size of the electric grid. To increase the size of the grid to power industry and transportation, I look to the next-to-rightmost column. Electricity provides 8.4 quads for residences, 3.4 quads for industry, and .002 quads for transportation. These total 11.8 quads from electricity. From the same column, natural gas, coal, and oil provide 50 quads. It looks like the grid would have to increase in size. Perhaps five times the current size. That increase in size would have to happen while weaning electrical from fossil fuels.

I don't understand what OS is trying to say. The total energy used to provide electricity is 38.44% of all the energy used. This is hardly negligible. Unfortunately, 68.85% of it is lost.

The amount of useful electricity is 20% at the other end of the diagram. Fossil fuels provide 60% of that 20% is from fossil fuels. My point is that trying to power every air conditioner, power lawnmower, and giant SUV is preposterous. Reducing the energy budget is far more practical than expanding non-fossil electrical generation by 15 times its current size.

I live with off-grid electricity. I cycle. I'm not sure that we disagree too much as long as you might agree that non-fossil is currently a small portion of U.S. energy and that slashing energy use is as important or more important than expanding non-fossil electrical generation by 15 times.

[JayHMorrison]

My point is that trying to power every air conditioner, power lawnmower, and giant SUV is preposterous. Reducing the energy budget is far more practical than expanding non-fossil electrical generation by 15 times its current size.

I live with off-grid electricity. I cycle. I'm not sure that we disagree too much as long as you might agree that non-fossil is currently a small portion of U.S. energy and that slashing energy use is as important or more important than expanding non-fossil electrical generation by 15 times.

I agree that reduced energy consumption is just as important as the concept of shifting to non-fossil fuel electric grid and shift as much transportation as possible to electric grid power.

I don't see SUV's in our future much longer. Gasoline prices at $2 are already crushing sales for SUVs. Ford has cancelled their largest SUV already. Another run to $2.50 or $3.00 gas should help to finish off the SUV craze.

I am not so sure our electric grid has to expand by a factor of 15x. Here is why.

1) I expect economic growth to stall in the coming years. Energy prices are likely to cause a series of recessions.

2) I expect solar power to become competitive and more homes and businesses to begin using this. Distributed power in many homes and buildings will lessen the overall load on the electric grid. The benefit of solar is that it is most effective during times of peak electric grid demand. Afternoons when airconditioning is at it's peak demand.

From everything I have read (and being just a hobby reader on this topic without professional experience):

a) Solar has the potential to meet about 10% of our overall energy needs.
b) Wind has the potential to meet about 20% of our overall energy needs.
c) Hydro is already maxed out at 3% of our current electric grid, so it will likely decline as an overall provider of power as the electric grid expands.

So that means we eventually needs to get about 70% of our remaining electric grid power from other sources. Personally, the only option that makes sense to me is nuclear (uranium and thorium). Then we preserve our coal, oil, natural gas and tar sand reserves for non-energy related needs.

To me, this is the most logical way to go. Which is why it likely won't happen.

[Ludi]

I expect solar power to become competitive

How will it become "competitive?" Competitive with what?