Posts

CO2 Sequestration – DOE Resources

/0 Comments/in , /by

CO2 Sequestration – DOE Resources
(One of a series of UFTO Notes based in part on the recent visit to Los Alamos National Laboratory)

The Dept of Energy is very active in this arena, and is exploring a wide range of approaches, both near and long term. Here are links to various DOE and lab websites which offer a number of reports, studies, plans, and other information:
– http://www.fe.doe.gov/coal_power/sequestration/index.html
– http://www.netl.doe.gov/products/gcc/indepth/carbseq/seq_ind.htm
– http://www.lanl.gov/partnerships/co2/

——–

Advanced Process Concepts for Carbon Management Workshop

A invitational workshop was held last March, to identify and assess a number of advanced concepts for carbon management and to obtain industrial support for the most promising concepts. [Unfortunately, very few utility representatives attended.]

The workshop was sponsored by the Center for Applied Research in Carbon Management [CARCM, a joint effort between the National Energy Technology Lab (NETL) and Los Alamos National Lab (LANL)]. It was hosted by Texas Utilities (TXU) in Dallas on March 20 & 21, 2000 with 33 participants. Complete details and copies of the presentations are available at:

– http://www.lanl.gov/energy/ecology/carcm_workshop/index.html

The “Summary of Breakout Sessions” provides a good overview of the conference conclusions.

Abstract: Innovative thinkers from national labs, universities, government, and industry were brought together in a workshop to develop a working definition of advanced/novel carbon sequestration concepts, assess the technical and financial risks associated with several examples, and identify new examples. Four breakout sessions discussed carbon dioxide extraction from air, coupling energy production with carbon sequestration, biological/terrestrial approaches, and by-products.
– http://www.lanl.gov/energy/ecology/carcm_workshop/pdf/breakout.pdf

Contact:
R. Tom Baker, Los Alamos National Lab
505-667-7013 bakertom@lanl.gov

BPA Conf on DG, Renewables

/0 Comments/in , /by

Conference–Distributed Resources, Renewables and the Environment

February 2, 2000, Portland, OR

Sponsors
Bonneville Power Administration
Energy NewsData, Energy Dynamics Online project

Observations:
Sitting through this conference, I had the contradictory feelings of “same old same old”, while at the same time there seemed to be so much good stuff being said that it was hard to absorb it all. Perhaps it was the combination of a lively mood, good speakers who could clearly state the big picture, and some genuinely new ideas. The crowd was very pro-DG/Renewables, with some good cautions raised about environmental effects (you don’t want to turn on all your dirty diesels on a peak-load bad-air day!).

My own takeaways (with biases showing):
– Tech change (internet, DG) is irresistible.
– Dereg/restructuring is irresistible (though timing is uncertain).
– The “Home-Town” utility has a huge opportunity and role to play – if it wants to, and particularly if new kinds of regulation can be put in place.
– Think price, not cost. Think niches, not “the market”.

During the final panel session, Joel Gilbert gave a frightening summary of the capacity situation and vanishing reserve margins in the US, predicting a showdown in the east this coming summer. Capacity additions are not keeping pace with shutdowns, and there is zero investment in new transmission capacity.

Energy NewsData has provided a list of attendees plus a lengthy report about the conference online at: http://www.newsdata.com/edonline/groundhog

=================================

NOTES

Introduction — Steve Wright, Sr VP, BPA

The “Energy Web ” — It’s coming, even if we’re not sure what it looks like.
1. Reliability — need for new capacity
–Gen supply – Hydro resources diminishing (fish, relicensing); coal restricted (airquality)
–RTO timing very uncertain; investments on hold pending outcome
–Opportunity for new market entrants — DG and renewables.

2. Consumer Choice — retail access coming, sooner or later, gradually or suddenly
Consumers value reliability and environmental stewardship

3. Technological change – It’s all coming together for DG, though many hurdles put in the way. Exec survey – most expect FC’s becoming a reality; State or Fed net metering laws; Fed interconnection stds (IEEE). AMR, electronic billpaying seen as very significant.

Keynote Address — Carl Weinberg

“The philosophies of one century become the common sense of the next”
i.e. renewable energy, environment, sustainability [spaceship earth]

Forces at work:
1. Market based governance — “free markets” — gov’t does things to establish markets that “do” things (instead of gov’t “doing” things directly).
2. Environment – learning necessity to live symbiotically with nature, and to include it in our P/L measures. DG/Renewables only part of answer.
3. Tech change — from economies of scale to economies of mass production. DG can be tailored to individual needs. De-integration of vertical utilities. Link pieces of system with information rather than with organizations. Mix of central and decentralized. Developing world may be better with largely decentralized ( e.g. straight to cell phones, skipping wire system).

Karl Rabago, Rocky Mountain Institute

Benefits of DG – short lead time, small units (less lumpy); portable- quick to deploy and redeploy; built “like cars not cathedrals”, genuinely diversifies portfolio risks.

For the Utility/”Residual Disco” – resiliency; increase T&D life; better capacity utilization; source of reactive power; premium power quality; cut reserve requirements; load following options.

For environment – Combined heat and power; use local (waste derived) fuels.

Randy Berggren, manager, Eugene Water & Electric Board

Municipal utility (elec, water, district heat — 100,000 customers) Intend to remain vertically integrated. Own some generation, 24 hour trading floor. Lots of public involvement in new Integrated Resource Plan; strong connections to community. Strong commitment to conservation and renewables — goal to add 1% of system load each year. Local utility (“Home Town”) can be the delivery infrastructure for PV– don’t need to cede market to new (dot com) entrants.

Larry Papay, SAIC

“Three D’s”
– deconstruction (deregulation) of the utility industry
– digitalization ( includes huge power quality requirement)
– decarbonization – environmental concerns and valuing of emission credits

Ralph Cavanagh, NRDC

Need to mobilize and incentivize existing (utility) companies for DG, rather than regard them simply as the obstacle to a “disruptive technology”. DG can enhance the grid. Need performance standards so it’s not worse for environment, noting that generation close to load means the emissions are close to people.

The “home-town” utility can and should be involved, and do it, but not as a monopoly. Need new kind of regulation with incentives to provide reliable wires at lowest cost; not rewards based on system throughput. Need to deal with stranded system fears. Need incentives to invest.

Joel Gilbert, CEO, APOGEE Interactive Inc

“Bubba don’t care” when it comes to energy, restructuring, environment, etc.. At most 2% of the population is really motivated, but even they aren’t well informed.

People do want “business interruption insurance”, for both business and personal, but they don’t care about the difference between a fuel cell and a microturbine. There are some people who want a fuel cell for fun, as a luxury — so sell it to them, and never mind how many $/KW.

The Home Town wires company could do this — turnkey installation, dispatch it too (outsource it if you have to). Enron doesn’t want the wires-co talking to the customer, but they’re the ones who fix things after the storm.

What is the customer’s motivation? Appeal to their fear and greed. “Reduce it to a bumper sticker.” Life Insurance didn’t sell at first, until they stopped calling it “death insurance.

Recommended reading- a book “Revenue Management” by Robert Cross, on how the airlines use price signals to educate the customer and maximize their revenues. Electricity doesn’t have price signals (i.e. time of day), and even California hasn’t been able to get a demand response from customers.

Alison Silverstein, Texas PUC

The “Texas Model” for DG interconnection policy is freely available to other states to use as basis for their own program. It was largely a “win-win”, or at least “equal grumbling”. The process went fast, achieving “80%” consensus. For the rest, decisions were made, so as to move ahead.

The objective was to remove barriers to entry by DG, to set forth the rules, and then get out of the way and let the market do its work. A DG has the right to get on the T&D system. (T pricing was standardized in ’95, and D pricing is being developed). There are standard agreements, procedures, deadlines and fees. There are limits on how much DG can be hooked up to a given circuit. An interconnection cookbook manual is in the works, along with a equipment pre-certification process.
http://www.puc.state.tx.us/rules/rulemake/21220/21220.cfm

Eric Heitz, The Energy Foundation

While not opposed to DG, per se, concerned that hype is far surpassing reality, and the environmental issues are serious. Small diesels are plentiful, and very dirty. Microturbines emit far more NOx than CCGT, and fuel cells more CO2. Combined Heat&Power only brings microturbines up to the level of CCGT. [There are sure to be arguments over these assertions. It sounded like not much attention was given to emissions performance of new technology.]

Recommendations: DG should be required to be as clean or cleaner than new CCGT, and standards should ratchet down over time. Reward CHP and efficiency. Make manufacturer responsible for lifetime emissions performance.

Pamela Lesh, Portland General Electric

(See Feb 4 UFTO Note – A Proposition for a New “Regulatory Contract”)

At the BPA Conference in Portland (Feb 2), one of the distinct highlights was a presentation by Pamela Lesh, VP Rates & Regulatory Affairs at Portland General Electric. She outlined a remarkable new approach for regulating distribution utilities that goes well beyond “performance based rates”. It was the first public airing of ideas she’s been developing for some time.

The real conceptual breakthrough is to separate the basis on which the utility gets paid from the way the customer is billed, so the right incentives can be presented to each one. Here’s the next to last slide (the complete text appears below):

——————————-
– Price to the utility to align success so that the more effectively the utility achieves the results, the better it does, i.e., unit-based, not usage-based, pricing.

– Price to the customer to encourage conservation and prevent abrupt shifts in cost, e.g., usage or demand-based, not flat, pricing.

– Yes we can price differently to the utility and to the customers! We will just need to balance collections with payments.

Calif. Interconnection Workshop Dec 6

/0 Comments/in , /by

Just received this note a few minutes ago from Jairam Gopal, the head of CADER.

It appears that California is gearing up to follow in the footsteps of Texas and New York, and do something about interconnection requirements.
————————————————————–

Subject:  Hello everyone:
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 10:21:22 -0800
From:  “Jairam Gopal” <Jgopal@energy.state.ca.us>

Hello everyone:
Please see the CEC Web site at:

http://www.energy.ca.gov/distgen/notices/index.html

for the following posted documents:

1) CEC’s Nov. 3 Order Instituting Investigation on Interconnection issues.
2) Siting Committee’s notice of first interconnection workshop to be  held on December 6.

As you are aware, this OII follows the CPUC Decision of the earlier proceeding on Distributed Generation and Distributed Competition.

The CEC will lead the proceedings on Interconnection Issues and will kick off the process with the above mentioned workshop on December 6, 1999. If you are on the service list of the earlier CPUC proceeding, you should receive a hard copy of the Notice by mail.

Jairam
Chair, CADER
_______________________
Jairam Gopal
(916) 654-4880  (tel)
(916) 654-4753 (fax)
e-mail:   jgopal@energy.state.ca.us

Energy Storage Assoc. Meeting

/0 Comments/in , /by

Energy Storage Association (ESA) Fall Meeting
“The Value of Energy Storage in a Restructured Utility Market”
Sacramento, CA
November 18 -19, 1997

((An UFTO Note on Nov 10 gave the original agenda for this meeting.))

*** –> SPECIAL OFFER <– ***

This one time, the ESA is offering to send a free copy of the full proceedings to prospective members, together with their membership solicitation package. Membership in ESA is a good way to stay in touch with developments in utility storage, and a year’s company membership is only $1500.

To request the package and proceedings of the November meeting, contact (please tell them UFTO sent you):

ENERGY STORAGE ASSOCIATION
TEL: (301) 951-3223
FAX: (301) 951-3235

E-MAIL: John Hurwitch, Executive Director, jwitch@switch.smart.net
——————————-

–> MEETING HIGHLIGHTS

(more details on request–and in the Proceedings)

–> Overview of the Market:
The goal of ESA and the DOE Utility Storage program is to build market volume for storage systems. Utilities are proving to be a very tough market for battery storage, despite a strong benefit/cost story. One hypothesis is that the benefits are scattered among different stakeholders (even within a utility), with no single part being big enough by itself. Nobody is in a position to put it together, and restructuring is making the situation even worse, as the walls go up inside utilities. Also, utilities say they have no money, and want the first cost to be very low, regardless of life-cycle considerations. Meanwhile, big needs are looming, especially on transmission systems, but nobody seems to own the problem or is in a position to make the investment.

Vendors are offering turnkey systems for various applications and markets, but there are very few orders, and those are mostly for very special situations, e.g. in Alaska (remarkable success stories). Vendors are getting very discouraged, and may be close to throwing in the towel.

Is the problem with the Technology? Marketing? Or do utilities “just not get it?” Or, are the proponents wrong in their view that storage is an idea whose time is overdue, and that it’s largely a matter of “education”? In 1996, DOE and Sandia visited with over two dozen utilities to try to understand the industry’s views on storage. Results were recently published: “Report on the Energy Storage Systems Program Executive Meetings Project” SAND 97-2700, November 97. However, more dialogue with the utility industry is still needed, to get to the bottom of these questions.

The ESA has proposed a flagship project called “Storage 2000,” as a joint program with DOE to stimulate and accelerate development, with a goal of 200 MW of project commitments by the year 2000. Applications are to include renewable, distributed, generation/transmission (ancillary services), and customer systems.

–> Energy Storage in the UK
The closer storage is to the customer, the better. Anthony Price, of National Power, UK, compared batteries to warehouses for “just in time” distribution, where it’s well known that you put storage only in one place in the system, close to the customer. He showed an analysis of the bulk market hourly price over time. Even with big differences between on and off peak wholesale prices, you can’t win by buying off-peak and selling on-peak. Not only are there roundtrip (storage) losses, but you’re also fighting the spread (sell at the bid price, buy at ask). What you’d be selling is capacity, and there’s currently an excess.

The farther down the distribution chain you are, more distribution costs are built into the price of goods, so storage has more value. However, whoever owns the storage controls that value. “If the customer owns the storage, then the rates are wrong”.

–> Uninterruptible Power and Power Quality
While utility storage isn’t moving, UPS and P/Q applications are a very strong market (a lesson there somewhere?). There are still issues, however. Though vendors have products, there’s often insufficient understanding of what a “disturbance” really is. For example, they may design for a 3 phase symmetrical fault, which rarely occurs. Phase shifts and waveforms need particular attention. Too often, products need to be redesigned in the field.

There are several interesting systems using steel flywheels: – International Computer Power — steel flywheel in a 100 kVA motor genset to provide ridethrough, successfully demonstrated for two years at a Hewlett Packard site, dramatically reducing diesel backup starts. – Holic Power Protection — 100’s installed worldwide. Diesel generator and flywheel combination where the flywheel dynamically adjusts itself to maintain constant generator speed. 1250 kVA unit runs about $1.1 million. Without the diesel, it can provide short term ride through. – Active Power, Austin TX, has been issuing press releases lately. Modular pancake unit provides 400kW for 5 sec, for short discharge P/Q applications.

In “new” technology (composite) flywheels, Beacon Power presented their plug-replacement for batteries in UPS systems. The 1 kW, 2kWh unit goes directly on the DC bus. Beacon is a joint venture between SatCon and Duquesne. They expect to be in production by the end of ’98, with beta tests in mid year.
–> Renewables and Storage
Solar and Wind energy systems need storage, particularly in remote/village power applications. The opportunities are huge, particularly to supply the 2 billion people in the world with no electricity, and to displace diesel fuel consumption. A number of programs are trying to come up with reliable modular integrated systems (hybrids with diesel, solar or wind, and batteries). Batteries are often blamed as the weak link in renewable energy systems (right along with inverters), but the blame may be misplaced–often the wrong type of battery is installed by local people.

The President’s “Million Solar Roof” initiative is beginning to be felt, though this may not necessarily imply much use of storage. SMUD has a huge commitment to renewables, and are just now beginning to consider the potential benefits of storage in that context.

The first major project under Storage 2000 is to be the “Renewable Generation and Storage ” (RGS) project. Partners will be selected by formal solicitation process in 1998 for design, development and testing of a prototype integrated system with a PV array, inverter and storage, ready for customer use. International opportunities exist for “Remote Area Power Systems” or mini-grid systems. Funding is available, and local governments are motivated, e.g. in Latin America. The Solar Energy Industry Association has information. ( http://www.seia.org ).

–> Texas Energy Storage Technology Institute (ESTI)
This is a coordinated research program involving all the universities in Texas, funded in part by the Texas Energy Coordinating Council, a state agency. ESTI is doing work in capacitors, batteries, and particularly high performance flywheel systems for railroad applications. DOT and DARPA funding support the Advanced Locomotive Propulsion System, which includes a 3 MW Allied Signal gas turbo-alternator, and the University-developed 167 kwh flywheel for braking and acceleration. The idea is to provide an alternative to electrification of railroad right of way. ESTI wants to encourage synergies between stationary and mobile storage systems. Contact John Price, 512-471-4496, 512-232-1888 (direct), j.price@mail.utexas.edu, http:/www.utexas.edu/research/cem

–> Key Note Speaker

Separately, Pramod Kulkarni of the CEC outlined the priorities for storage in California, seen as a “strategic” area under the public benefit R&D program.