NIMBY to IMBY a new clear option.

[HalcyonRichard]

Hi
  I have been researching possibilities for energy generation for my future smallholding.
 And thought I had a cunning plan. But I came across a number of ideas about the future of electricity
generation and future models that the power suppliers are planning. This post is a
mish-mash of what I discovered and think could happen. I compare nuclear with CHP as it
current topic for our masters.

Any system has to consider a number of parameters :-
Baseload,peak use(spinning reserve),robustness(reliability),capital cost,energy cost,carbon
emmissions, transmission losses and compatibility with intermittent sources/renewables.

The system coming to a home near you soon delivers on all these.

Suppose the politicians(really legislation generation humanoids). Decide we need a new power
station - coal,gas,oil,nuclear. Is there a better option ?

Fuel cells are used domestically in japan and there are current contracts in the UK for many
thousands. The newer models and current units in resarch can get 65% electrical efficiency
from natural gas. But for the model considered 33 % or less would be O.K.Having higher
efficiency is useful but not vital.See below for expected costs per kWh capital cost.Note
overall efficiency for water output at 80 C.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_combined_heat_and_power

The system in mind would have a 5kW electrical output and produce 10kW of heat(33% electrical efficiency).
It could operate off grid and provide electricity and heat - a useful fall back option. It would
provide heat@15kW i.e. using the electrical output to add to the heat. Or up to 5kW of electricity
i.e. it could modulate the percentage of electricity used.For a 1 MW power station we would need
200,000 CHP house holds(from 30,000,000. Does not include spinning reserve)

So how would you replace a power station with a distributed CHP fuel cell grid and how would it
compare ?

By installing 200,000 units free in ex NIMBY households(1/10 cost of nuclear).

Baseload Nuclear nearly perfect. Fuel cell system more than perfect The distributed system will
always generate heat for heating when required or hot water storage tank if not. The gas that
is burnt in a gas generation plant/nuclear wastes the heat CHP always uses it.(at least 2x more efficient)

peak use(spinning reserve) Nuclear useless. Fuel cell system nearly perfect. It can be arranged that
some systems will always be using electricity for heat. Switching this heat off means instant
export to the grid. Other units can be turned on for known peak periods. Capital cost of spinning reserve
is £2500 per household. CHP would not require this. As plant need replacing we save the replacement cost.


robustness(reliability) Nuclear very good Fuel cell system nearly perfect. Distributed system and standalone
off grid operation provides high availability. If one unit fails no impact on system. Failed system still
operates from grid electricity.

Energy cost Nuclear 3.5 p/kWh Fuel cell system 3.5 p/kWh (best guess for both)

carbon emmissions Nuclear build and fuel preparation cause C02 emmissions. Fuel cell system CO2 emmision low
as gas is used(but 2x efficiency of current gas plant)

compatibility with intermittent sources/renewables Nuclear forget it. Fuel cell system excellent. system
can absorb all renewable energy generated by modulation of gas used.

Transmission losses Nuclear centralised plant means highest losses. Fuel cell system can be controlled
to produce electricity close to where it is required transmission losses low.

Capital cost per kWh installed. Nuclear = $7000. Fuel cell system = $750.I dont belieeeve it !

Current energy suppliers are considering giving customers free CHP fuel cell boilers
as a cost effective option. This is cheaper that building power plants.Gas use will
either halve or power output with the same gas burnt will double.


Regards

Richard

[daftlad]

It certainly makes more sense to do that rather than build more gas power stations but what happens when the gas runs out? and they still use fossil fuels.
One of the things that needs sorting is the peak use problem, the way the French deal with it is interesting,
The bigger the supply, the more the standing charge, so 30 amps is 15 euros, 45 amps is 30 euros and 60 amps is 60 euros (ish) so people are encouraged to not have big appliances that push there usage over there limit. They also have gadgets that will load shed non essential circuits, so when people put the kettle on the immersion is switched off.
They also used to have a system called option EJP which gave you cheap electricity for most of the time but for 18 days you would have to pay 10 times as much for leccy for 18 hours of that day, they would give you one hour warning and when the leccy went expensive a contact would throw, you could wire it to switch everything off except the lights and then there would be only one option and that would be to go to the pub.
I think they call it smart metering? the French have had it for years!
ta ta

[HalcyonRichard]

Hi Daftlad,
               Absolutely right about peak use. In the days of the Central Electricity Generating Board CEGB Industrial users paid a rate that was fixed by their peak usage - so one time large power use upped your price for the whole period. The CEGB at one time used "managed demand" i.e. they had x power stations and would set the rate for electricity to curb demand to capacity.

The gas certainly will run out ! Using home CHP will cut gas usage by half(so it will last longer). Fuel cells have been developed to run on various fuels so this will extend usage. Thats of course if usage does not increase because power is cheaper this way.

I think that energy efficiency is very under utilised. My electricity usage has been cut from 14 kWh a day to 4 kWh/day. with relatively little effort. The stand by on TV recorder was 0.5 kWh/day - criminal. Most people I know do not even know how much electricity they use.

I was surprised that power companies are planning these more efficient systems and at the same time the government decided to build more nuclear power stations it just does not add up ?

Regards

Richard

[bxman]

Hi Daftlad,
               Absolutely right about peak use. In the days of the Central Electricity Generating Board CEGB Industrial users paid a rate that was fixed by their peak usage - so one time large power use upped your price for the whole period. The CEGB at one time used "managed demand" i.e. they had x power stations and would set the rate for electricity to curb demand to capacity.

The gas certainly will run out ! Using home CHP will cut gas usage by half(so it will last longer). Fuel cells have been developed to run on various fuels so this will extend usage. Thats of course if usage does not increase because power is cheaper this way.

I think that energy efficiency is very under utilised. My electricity usage has been cut from 14 kWh a day to 4 kWh/day. with relatively little effort. The stand by on TV recorder was 0.5 kWh/day - criminal. Most people I know do not even know how much electricity they use.

I was surprised that power companies are planning these more efficient systems and at the same time the government decided to build more nuclear power stations it just does not add up ?

Regards

Richard

So the Recorder was using 20 watts on Stand By?

was that from new or did it develop a fault ?

Who made it ? and which model?

Criminal is hardly a strong enough term.

Congratulations you did a brilliant job on reducing  your consumption
have you managed to keep it up?

best wishes
Patrick

[renewablejohn]

Richard

Unfortunately the power companies have a conflict of interest when it comes to microCHP. Classic example with British Gas (Whispergen) why sell a product that is efficient when you can use twice as much gas in a centralised power station with no district heating. Similarly a microCHP like the Otag Bison using wood pellets totally bypasses the existing UK infrastructure and makes the consumer independent and they certainly dont want that.

[HalcyonRichard]

Hi Patrick,
               I do not have the recorder now it was a Goodmans which was turned off at the wall. I now have a Humax which is 1/3 watt on standby. Ihad to change the settings to get it to do this. There was no fault with the old one !

Last years  electricity was an average of 4 kWh/day (October - October). We are currently using 6-7 kWh/day. But my partner is working at home all day and I probably work 50% at home. We assemble PCB's -prototype and small scale production the reflow oven needs a 16 Amp feed and this is the main extra. Balanced against this we now have one car and average 6000 miles/year buisiness and private.

Hi renewablejohn,
                          Certainly some vested interests fighting a rearguard action. I think they are having their arms twisted a bit though.

Regards Richard

[Philip R]

I believe for this to really work well in the longer term, a heat distribution network, connecting the loads and sources together needs to be developed. It also needs to work both ways. That way renewables like solar can play a role in the sunnier 2/3 of the year, using other fuels in the winter.

Personally I wouls prefer to see a move back to local CHP plants, like that in Slough albeit, mainly feeding the industrial estate but also some housing. Also when in Germany last December in Munich, I saw evidence that the local district heating pipework system was being extended to cover more domestic premises in the town centre. Power coming from its CCGT/CHP plant on the banks of the River Isar. The Danes have plants with large marine type diesels providing peak looping capability, the heat dump being a large water tank/thermal store, feeding the local heat mains.

PhilipR

[dhaslam]

The problem at present with high efficiency fuel cells is that they operate at high temperatures like 1000C.  This makes them expensive to build and maintain.   They might  be practical on a larger scale for local generation and volume production would eventually lower the price.      The question is whether  it would be better to persevere with a  completely  renewable system consisting of wind farms and home PV and put up with slightly inefficient  central generation for backup.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_oxide_fuel_cell

[brackwell]

Richard,

Congratulations on using so little elec. My Humax takes 20w 24/7 - how do you get it on such a low standby ?  What do you loose by doing this?

Ken

[skyewright]

So the Recorder was using 20 watts on Stand By?

When I started going around with a plug-in watt meter a couple of years ago I was shocked to find that a small, 15 year old, JVC "CA-S200 Compact Component System" (i.e. Radio/Cassette/CD) was using 14W on standby. Turning it "on" and using it only increased consumption by another 10W, so standby consumption was knocking on 60% of full use! Needless to say it's now only plugged in when it's being used (which isn't as often as it used to be...).

[HalcyonRichard]

Hi Dhaslam,
                 Yes certainly a stumbling block. Tokyo gas realised this and have gone through a number of "phases" of development. They currently have units with a 10+year life. I think the currnt phase is to reduce manufacturing costs. The technology is still quite new relatively speaking. I think the current nuclear problems in Japan may quicken development - I certainly hope so.

Hi Ken,
           Sorry for the late reply - I have been very busy. My recorder is the Humax PVR-9300T. By going through the menu system I found a selction of "power saving in standby" It was turned off ?. I turned it on to get what I should think should be the default setting. I think I gain 3 watts in standby - at a cost of a longer power up from standby time(now about 10 seconds). The menu navigation or buttons to press on the remote are:-

Menu,Preferences,miscellaneous,"power saving in standby" (turn it on).

I deliberately chose a model with very low standby - well in the end 

Regards Richard