energy


 

The whole world. A big concept.

If everyone in the world went to energy efficient lighting – a big if. The hut in a village in Africa. The hallway in a high school if Syracuse. The rest room in a bar in Paris.

It would save $70 billion worth of energy. Which equals 1.5 billion barrels of oil. Which translates into 555 million tons of carbon dioxide.

The source of that data is not Greenpeace, the Russian Communist Party [may it rest in peace], or your wacko of choice. No, it is Philips, the giant of bulb makers, as relayed in a NY Times magazine article

And probably most important to those in the power industry – the readers of EnergyBiz - it will eliminate – puff – like magic- the need for power generated by 500 mid-sized electric generating facilities. Hundreds would be here in the old US of A.

By Monday, we will post the current issue of EnergyBiz magazine online at www.energybizmag.com. It contains lots of electrifying [that is an adjective but also a verb!] new examples of OUT OF THE BOX thinking that will transform our energy challenges into opportunities.

The lowly light bulb is but one example. Multiply the kind of transformation the folks at Philips envision across our economy and you will see why we are in truly exciting times. I do not care if you buy whether global warming is man-caused or not [even though today's Wall Street Journal on p. 10 reports new information about the damages caused by human warming of the globe based on 30,000 data sets]. Certaintly even skeptics whistling in Dixie can buy the intelligence of walking down a path that means the world will need 500 fewer power plants. Let’s call the associated slashing of greenhouse gas emissions a gift to those who worry about such things, without waiting to prove whether the pending disasters they worry about are certain, likely or unlikely to occur.

Now if they can only get the light of these efficient light bulbs a warmer hue… so my living room does not feel like a hardware store. With time….

 

Distributed generation generates electricity from many small energy sources. It has also been called on-site generation, dispersed generation, embedded generation, decentralized generation, decentralized energy or distributed energy.

Currently, industrial countries generate most of their electricity in large centralized facilities, such as coal power plants, nuclear reactors, hydropower or gas powered plant. These plants have excellent economies of scale, but usually transmit electricity long distances. Most plants are built this way mainly due to a number of economical, health & safety, logistical, environmental, geographical and geological factors. For example, coal power plants are built distanced from cities to prevent its heavy air pollution from affecting the populace. Some coal power plants are built nearby collieries to minimize the cost of transportation of coal. Hydroelectric plants are limited to operate on sites with enough waterflow. Most power plants are often considered too far away for their waste heat to be used for heating buildings.

Low pollution is a crucial advantage of combined cycle plants that burn natural gas. The low pollution permits the plants to be near enough to a city to be used for district heating and cooling.

Distributed generation is another approach. It reduces the amount of energy lost in transmitting electricity because the electricity is generated very near where it is used, perhaps even in the same building. This also reduces the size and number of power lines that must be constructed.

Typical distributed power sources in a FIT scheme have low maintenance, low pollution and high efficiencies. In the past, these traits required dedicated operating engineers, and large, complex plants to pay their salaries and reduce pollution. However, modern embedded systems can provide these traits with automated operation and clean fuels, such as sunlight, wind and natural gas. This reduces the size of power plant that can show a profit.

Distributed energy resources
Distributed energy resource (DER) systems are small-scale power generation technologies (typically in the range of 3 kW to 10,000 kW) used to provide an alternative to or an enhancement of the traditional electric power system.

The usual problem with distributed generators are their high costs.

The one exception is probably microhydropower. A well-designed plant has nearly zero maintenance costs per kWh, and generates useful power for many years.

One favored source is solar panels on the roofs of buildings. The production cost is $0.99 to 2.00/W (2007) plus installation and supporting equipment unless the installation is DIY bringing the cost to $6.50 to 7.50 (2007).[1] This is comparable to coal power plant costs of $0.582 to 0.906/W (1979),[2][3] adjusting for inflation. Nuclear power is higher at $2.2 to $6.00/W (2007).[4] Most solar cells also have waste disposal issues, since solar cells often contain heavy-metal electronic wastes, (CdTe and CIGS), and need to be recycled. The plus side is that unlike coal and nuclear, there are no fuel costs, pollution, mining safety or operating safety issues. Solar also has a low duty cycle, producing peak power at local noon each day. Average duty cycle is typically 20%.

Another favored source is small wind turbines. These have low maintenance, and low pollution. Construction costs are higher ($0.80/W, 2007) per watt than large power plants, except in very windy areas. Wind towers and generators have substantial insurable liabilities caused by high winds, but good operating safety. Wind also tends to be complementary to solar; on days there is no sun there tends to be wind and vice versa. Many distributed generation sites combine wind power and solar power such as Slippery Rock University, which can be monitored online.

Distributed cogeneration sources use natural gas-fired microturbines or reciprocating engines to turn generators. The hot exhaust is then used for space or water heating, or to drive an absorptive chiller [5] for air-conditioning. The clean fuel has only low pollution. Designs currently have uneven reliability, with some makes having excellent maintenance costs, and others being unacceptable.

Cogenerators are also more expensive per watt than central generators. They find favor because most buildings already burn fuels, and the cogeneration can extract more value from the fuel.

Some larger installations utilize combined cycle generation. Usually this consists of a gas turbine whose exhaust boils water for a steam turbine in a Rankine cycle. The condenser of the steam cycle provides the heat for space heating or an absorptive chiller. Combined cycle plants with cogeneration have the highest known thermal efficiencies, often exceeding 85%.

In countries with high pressure gas distribution, small turbines can be used to bring the gas pressure to domestic levels whilst extracting useful energy. If the UK were to implement this countrywide an additional 2-4 GWe would become available. (Note that the energy is already being generated elsewhere to provide the high initial gas pressure – this method simply distributes the energy via a different route.)

[edit] Modes of Power Generation
DER systems may include the following devices/technologies:

Combined heat power (CHP)
Fuel cells
Micro combined heat and power (MicroCHP)
Microturbines
Photovoltaic Systems
Reciprocating engines
Small Wind power systems
Stirling engines

[edit] Communication in DER systems
IEC 61850-420 is under development as a part of IEC 61850 standards which deals with the complete object models as required for DER systems. It uses communication services mapped to MMS as per IEC 61850-8-1 standard.
OPC is also used for the communication between different entities of DER system.