Recycled Energy Blog » greenhouse-gas emissions

Tom Casten at AAAS 2010: How to stave off climate change, increase income and improve quality of life

Dick Munson — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 06:00:45 +0000

Our own Tom Casten will lead a symposium on energy recycling at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Although conventional wisdom assumes that mitigating climate change will raise the cost of energy, this symposium will present a contrary view: that many proven technologies can substantially increase the efficiency of generating heat and power, cutting energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions simultaneously.

The event is entitled Gray Is the New Green: How Energy Recycling Curbs Both Global Warming and Power Costs. It will take place February 21 at 8:30am in San Diego.

The panelists include several renowned energy experts:

Tom, who will discuss the economics of clean energy by comparing the costs of 14 clean energy options such as wind, solar, nuclear, and cogeneration. Casten will argue that improving “generation efficiency” has the greatest potential to benefit the economy while reducing greenhouse gas pollution.
Lester Lave, professor at Carnegie Mellon University and co-director of the Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center. He will report on the work of a committee on energy efficiency that he recently chaired for the National Academy of Sciences. Among other things, Lave will report that the U.S. could bring total energy use back to mid-1980s levels simply through energy efficiency.
Marilyn Brown, professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology and former leader at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. She will discuss the many policy barriers to energy efficiency and present policy suggestions to help overcome these barriers. Her recommendations will be based on her own research and emphasize the imperative of serving current economic needs without blocking efficiency investments.
Lawrence Ambs, professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and co-director of the Northeast Regional Combined Heat & Power Application Center. He will serve as the symposium’s discussant, or moderator.

Those who are familiar with RED’s work know the basic contours of Tom’s argument, which is this. The U.S. energy system is grossly inefficient. The typical power plant throws away two-thirds of its energy, largely in the form of waste heat, when producing electricity. This abysmal rate, while tragic, presents an opportunity: increasing the efficiency of our energy system would help enable us to stave off the catastrophic effects of climate change while increasing national income and improving the quality of life.

Tom has never before presented to the AAAS, so this is an exciting opportunity.

Recycled energy as the bridge to a carbon-free future

Dick Munson — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 01:12:28 +0000

Melissa Mullarkey, a public policy associate here at RED, argues in Trends that capturing waste energy would help the U.S. transition into a carbon-free future. Yes, we eventually need to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels entirely. But that can’t happen overnight.

In the meantime, we have to start making big reductions in our greenhouse gas emissions so we can avoid the worst effects of catastrophic climate change. Energy efficiency, Melissa says—especially through technologies like combined heat and power (aka cogeneration)—is the best way to get here.

The Nation: gray power is green

Dick Munson — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 21:15:35 +0000

In the latest issue of The Nation, Lisa Margonelli makes the case for increased use of “gray power” sources, especially waste heat, across the Midwest and South. Calling these regions “the Colossus of Carbon,” she cites a RED analysis revealing the immense amounts of electricity that could be generated from waste energy at manufacturing plants in places like Ohio. “All those smokestacks,” she says, “hold the potential for a lower-carbon renaissance.”

The nature of the magazine publishing this piece bears reflection. The Nation, the journalistic standard-bearer of American progressivism, is extolling the virtues of energy recycling about two weeks after Chief Executive, one of the country’s ultimate capitalist publications, has done the same. Two publications with very different views of the world are coming to similar conclusions on one issue, at least: that by generating energy more efficiently, we can fight global warming while bolstering the economy.

These two magazines aren’t the only unlikely pairs to point out the benefits of this work. The moderate-liberal New Republic has highlighted the potential of energy recycling, as has the business-friendly Forbes. So have the libertarian Lynne Kiesling and the environmental lion Al Gore. So, indeed, have apolitical science outlets ranging from Nature to Orion to American Scientist.

I recite this list not simply to advertise good writing about the issues near and dear to my heart, though there is that. My point is that energy recycling is an issue that could transcend our nation’s partisan divide and provide a path forward on finally tackling climate change. It’s not the only solution. But it’s a big one. It’s what makes the RED team get up in the morning. And I believe it’s an idea whose time has come.

Massive potential (and barriers) of energy recycling featured in Chief Executive

Dick Munson — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 03:51:12 +0000

Ron Bailey gets it. He’s a libertarian journalist who has written an excellent piece on energy recycling for the latest issue of Chief Executive magazine. From the very first paragraph, he captures a fundamental reality that now eludes most participants in the current energy debate:

Two-thirds of the energy people produce is wasted. It goes up power plant chimneys or dissipates into rivers and lakes through heat exchangers. Capturing this wasted heat would greatly reduce fuel costs and dramatically cut the emissions of carbon dioxide, which are thought to contribute to global warming. Cogeneration, or producing and using electricity and heat simultaneously, is the business opportunity being pursued by companies like Westmont, IL-based Recycled Energy Development (RED) and White Plains, NY-based Trigen Energy.

This is an idea that could change the world: simply by boosting the efficiency of the U.S. energy system, we could substantially reduce our global warming pollution while helping American businesses to become more profitable. Bailey’s piece examines this reality, with special attention to the work of RED Chairman Tom Casten. In commenting on why the current system of electric utilities is so inefficient, Casten says: “Utilities have traditionally made money on how much they invest, not how efficient they are. It’s the only industry that increases its profits when a company redecorates its president’s office.”

Read more of what Ron Bailey has to say about potential of energy recycling and the barriers it faces.

DOE report states CHP can improve nation’s energy security and reduce greenhouse gas emissions

Dick Munson — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 18:44:40 +0000

The U.S. Department of Energy has released a report stating, “Combined heat and power (CHP) technology holds enormous potential to improve the nation’s energy security and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.” It notes that CHP systems in 2006 represented 9 percent of the nation’s total electricity capacity and 12 percent of total power generation.

CHP supports the nation’s move to a clean energy economy and the creation of clean jobs. By adopting policies to achieve 20 percent of electricity generation from CHP by 2030, the United States could save the equivalent of nearly half the total energy current consumed by U.S. households.

Combined heat and power (CHP) can generate 1 million new jobs and avoid 60% of projected CO2 emissions

Dick Munson — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:36:14 +0000

The Oak Ridge National Laboratory released its CHP report in December 2008, but it’s worth reviewing again. CHP, it says, helps the United States enhance energy efficiency, ensure environmental quality, promote economic growth, and foster a robust energy infrastructure. Using CHP today, the U.S. already avoids more than 1.9 quadrillion British thermal units of fuel consumption and 248 million metric tons of carbon-dioxide emissions, enough to remove more than 45 million cars from the road.

In 2006, CHP produced more than 12 percent of total U.S. power generation. The report calls for high-deployment policies that would generate $234 billion in new investments and create nearly 1 million new highly-skilled, technical jobs throughout the U.S. In this scenario, more than 60 percent of the projected increase in CO2 emissions between now and 2030 would be avoided.

Greenhouse gas emissions can be cut rapidly — history shows that change can be easier, cheaper, and faster than we think

Dick Munson — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 19:51:24 +0000

Sean Casten’s recent article in Spark explains that history is rife with examples of rapid change in the power sector. He argues the current congressional climate-change debate is based on a false assumption — that many decades are needed before greenhouse-gas pollution can be cut.

Consider, for instance, the rapid changes resulting from the Energy Policy Act and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s subsequent Order 888. When unregulated entrepreneurs finally were allowed to generate power, they — in only ten years — built nearly 200,000 megawatts of electric capacity, twice that available from all the nation’s nuclear reactors. Put another way, it took us nearly a century to build the first 800,000 megawatts of our electric grid, but just a decade to increase it by another 200,000. These plants, moreover, were built mostly with private money, rather than by monopolies guaranteed a profit.

Consider also New England’s forward capacity market. When smaller players (and not just utilities) were finally incentivized to reduce electricity demand, this forward market brought forth — in just two years — nearly 3,000 megawatts of energy savings, more than 10 percent of New England’s largest peak demand. The massive improvement in grid reliability occurred without the need to consturct a single central power plant or the need for financial backstops from ratepayers.

Sean concludes, “Our optimism is much more likely to be limited by our ambition than any capital, technical, thermodynamic, or commercial constraint. Tackling climate change and changing the electricity system can be easier, cheaper, and faster than we think. Once we start.”

If health care reform seems nightmarish, just wait for the fight over the grid

Dick Munson — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 18:07:40 +0000

In The New Republic’s annual energy issue, Brad Plumer chronicles the history of our inefficient electricity sector, and examines the myriad regulatory barriers that inhibit progressive energy companies from producing clean, affordable power—even as our nation struggles to create energy security and address climate change. Some of Tom Casten’s experience with this struggle is highlighted.

While the Climate Change bill is sure to ignite fierce and bloody battles on the Hill, it’s critical not to lose sight of the opportunity it presents. We have a chance to drive innovation and inspire entrepreneurs to move forward with bold plans that can simultaneously lower greenhouse emissions and energy bills.

Read the full article to learn more about how federal laws are currently discouraging simple, proven and available solutions to the greenhouse gas problem.

Recycling waste energy could cut more emissions than removing all cars from the road

Dick Munson — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 20:27:25 +0000

Recycled Energy Development has released a new video — entitled “Changing the Way the World Makes Power” — that describes how capturing waste energy can improve the nation’s environment and economy. The first in a series of three videos, this release describes how recycling waste energy could cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent and generate nearly 40 percent of the nation’s electricity.

According to RED chairman Tom Casten, “Recycling waste heat from manufacturing facilities could do more to fight global warming than taking every passenger car in America off the road, and it reduces energy costs.”

The video series was created to show manufacturers and policymakers how they can reduce energy costs, slash greenhouse gases, and create jobs — all at the same time.

How much CO2 do our nation’s coal and gas plants actually produce?

Sean Casten — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:40:56 +0000

It was the best of half-centuries, it was the worst of half-centuries …

Broadly speaking, there are only three things we can do to lower CO2 emissions: switch fuels, use energy more efficiently, or use less energy (conserve).

Our CO2 conversations too often focus on one of those three in isolation: Coal bad. Recycled waste heat good. Conservation isn’t an energy policy. Each assertion is both narrowly true and broadly incorrect, to the extent that each simplifies three prongs into one.

To understand why, try to answer a simple question: if we shifted our power generation fleet to preferentially dispatch natural gas plants instead of coal plants, how much would CO2 emissions fall?

That would seem to be an easy bit of math: just measure the CO2/MWh of each plant, multiply the difference by the MWh switch, and we have our answer, right? Turns out it’s a tad complicated, for the simple reason that the fuel switching strategy is also an efficiency strategy. Does a newly dispatched gas plant look like one of the old, 30% efficient, natural gas-fired Rankine “steamers,” or does a newly dispatched gas plant look like one of the new, 50% efficient combined cycle gas turbines? What about the coal plant that gets turned off?

Better still, let’s ask an easy question: how has the CO2 signature of our nation’s coal and gas-fired power fleet changed with time?

DOE/EIA keeps voluminous records of fossil fuel consumption and power generation by fuel type. On the following charts, I’ve divided total fleet fuel use by total fleet MWh and then multiplied by a consistent 0.06 tons of CO2/mcf of natural gas / 2.7 tons CO2/ton of coal to yield the following:

Interesting. From 1960-1990, there was no statistically significant change in gas fleet CO2 emissions, which held steady at 0.63-0.65 tons/MWh. Then all of a sudden in the 1990s, the fleet transformed itself, reducing its CO2-intensivity by 25% in just 10 years. What happened?

In a word: competition. The introduction of competitive access in the 1992 Energy Policy Act (and subsequent FERC rulings) brought forth a flood of natural gas plants, many of which were nearly twice as fuel efficient as the old junk that the grid had previously relied on. Prior to that point, costs were simply something that you passed along to customers. After that point—for much of the grid—cost control was a route to greater profits. Not surprisingly, generator owners suddenly got religion on cost-control. And when your number one cost is fuel, that means they got religion on fuel control. That’s good.

Now let’s look at what happened to the coal fleet during the same period:

From 1960-1970, the coal fleet holds steady at 1.17 tons/MWh, but then starts an inexorable upward trend. While the gas fleet became more efficient with time (after 1990, at least), the coal fleet is steadily less efficient. Way less in fact—to the point that the CO2 emissions associated with a MWh of coal-derived electricity are 18% higher today than they were in 1960.

What happened here? Two things:

1. Unintended consequences. 1970 saw the passage of the Clean Air Act, a deeply flawed bill. It was good in terms of what it did for regulated pollutants, but lousy in terms of what it did for unregulated ones (e.g., CO2). By effectively mandating pollution control approaches that impose parasitic loads on coal plants, the CAA is directly responsible for lowering coal plant energy efficiency, so that we now burn way more coal per MWh than we did before passage. We therefore emit way more CO2 per unit of useful electricity. That’s not to ignore the beneficial elements of the CAA, from sulfur to particulate control, but simply to point out that an environmental regulation that encourages energy inefficiency leaves much to be desired.

2. Dispatch considerations. As noted here, the last 30 years have seen virtually no construction of new baseload power plants in the US, but have seen a steady increase in the annual load factor of currently existing baseload plants. In other words, plants that used to spend most of their life turned off now spend most of their life turned on. In the coal fleet, that means that the least efficient stuff runs more now than it used to. So in addition to the unintended consequences of the Clean Air Act, we also have the simple fact of steadily growing electricity demand that causes us to pull our power from ever-more-undesireable sources.

Why didn’t the competitive forces unleashed by the 1992 EPACT also drive up the efficiency of our coal fleet, like they did for gas? Again, it’s an easy answer: competition. Coal plants are lousy investments. No one builds them who has to put their own money at risk.

One last thing

Here’s the tragedy: If we had run the gas fleet at a constant fuel efficiency from 1960-present, we would have emitted an additional 1.3 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. That’s 1.3 billion tons not in the atmosphere today thanks to energy efficiency.

On the other hand … if we had run the coal fleet at a constant fuel efficiency from 1960-today, we would have emitted nearly 9 billion fewer tons of CO2 into the atmosphere over the last fifty years.

1,300,000,000 steps forward, 9,000,000,000 steps back.

Note: This first appeared on Grist.