Beyond Coal: What Future Lies There?

Bluntly put, 23% of our national energy consumption comes from coal. We have enough coal to meet our complete energy needs for app. 250 years. Natural gas, a byproduct or co-recoverable resource found with oil and coal deposits, supplies 24% of our energy needs, and we increase our ability to recover and store it each year. Crude oil, about which so much political ado has prevailed in the last 50 years, is still partly a domestic resource. We only import about half of our yearly consumed aliquot. And oil supplies about 37% of our national energy needs per year.

If you subtract industrial use and home heating, coal supplies, through generating plants, about half of our nation's electric power. Natural gas generation, nuclear generation, and renewables do not promise to put coal out of the picture soon. A huge portion of the nation's carbon footprint, if you care about global climate change, comes from the burning of coal.

We recently lost 29 miners in the Upper Big Branch mine explosion, and we lost 47 miners in 2006 in the Sago mining disaster. Coal mining ranks with commercial fishing and military service as the most dangerous professions in this society. We all listened and watched as prayers, opinions and excuses went up all over the country over the fate of those 29 men, and the question came up once or twice: Do we have to do this? Do we have to put men and women at risk to gouge coal from the earth profitably, burn the coal in some of the dirtiest smokestacks to generate our electricity, and deal with the effects of rapid climate change while wringing our hands and engaging in denial, while our hunger for energy as a society grows every year without respite?

Do we have to kill our miners at this rate to keep the coal plants burning? Yes, apparently we do. Until we have an alternative, and right now we don't, we have to keep drilling, mining, leasing offshore sites to the highest bidder and waiting for the accidents and spills. We have to have the energy. At any cost, human, economic and apparently military. The quiet conspiracy to secure Iraq's oil was an expensive failure. "Clean coal," at least so far, is a myth few of us can buy into. Nukes are scary, and dirty in the long run (dangerous to all life forms for 159,000 years after disposal). Yes, it seems we do have to do all that. And we're all doing it together, all of us consuming energy, and that's all of us, except for a few survivalists.

We have no alternative, so we have no choice. We will continue to put miners at risk, drill and pipe natural gas, float drilling rigs where a spill would be disastrous, humble ourselves at foreign tables, and spill American blood to secure a share of the world's oil reserves. We don't know how long we can keep this up; but we don't have a plan to free us from this dangerous and expensive cycle: the pursuit of more and more energy. God bless the miners, drillers, reactor jockeys and power plant construction workers. We need you more than we let on; and we sacrifice you at a rate that would certainly shame an enlightened society.

Photovoltaic Panels and the Deadly Enemy-- Shade

A prime parameter in the specs for photovoltaic system installation in the Connecticut Clean Energy guidelines refers to shading of the panels: to wit, no shading allowed during the normal "solar day," reckoned to be between 9 Am and 3 Pm. It's a pretty stiff requirement here in tree-covered New England, and it may seem unfair to disqualify a potential roof site because a tree shades it for part of the day. But here, in brief, is the danger of shading and the logic behind zero tolerance for it.
A solar PV array is configured in "strings," or source circuits, of two to 12 panels, according to system voltage. The string of panels is connected from one to the other via the connected module leads so that the current through the string is constant, and the voltage of each module adds up to the nominal system voltage, anywhere from 24 volts for small battery-connected systems to nearly 5oo volts for high-output grid-tie systems. And in that string, or series circuit, a little patch of shade can limit the current of the entire string to a small fraction of capacity. Diodes are installed to permit current to bypass shaded or malfunctioning modules or cells, but the effect is still significant on performance.
Shading analysis in the planning stages is critical to predictable and maximum performance. If an area selected for panel installation is shaded, the time and extent of the shading must be calculated and deducted from the expected output of the system. Sometimes module choices are affected by shading analysis; "amorphous" crystalline cells are slightly more shade tolerant than other module types.
Non-grid tie systems suffer at least as much, if not more than grid-tied arrays. If batteries are matched to the output of the array, a small shaded area alerts the Maximum Power Point Tracking device in the inverter, which senses the efficiency and total output of the system, simply shuts down and waits for the shading to pass. For the duration of the shading, the system sits idle.
Shade analysis, then, is a vital part of planning when photovoltaic arrays are being sited on rooftops or on the ground. The panel manufacturers and government agencies aren't kidding when they say that zero shading is the proper amount. And we, installing professionals, may be advising you to trim or remove trees, or purchase costly racking systems to relieve shading conflicts; we're not just upselling the job. Shade is your enemy in the solar game, whether it's for hot water or photovoltaics. And for photovoltaics, a little shade can be deadly.

Don't Plunder Our Energy Future in CT

The photo at left is an early 20th century ad piece courtesy of the CL&P website. It depicts a "Future Kitchen" in which electric appliances and facilities stand ready to do the heavy work and make the kitchen a safe, pleasant place in which to work. The artist could not have dreamed of the extent to which our 21st century kitchens depend upon large supplies of electric power to function. Whether modern, highly energy-hungry kitchens and homes are good or bad, we're unlikely to return willingly even to the simple facility in the picture.
Connecticut's annual power consumption increases by about 2.5% per year, and CL&P is running to keep up with the demand, particularly the increasing peak summer demand as New England embraces air conditioning as a summer necessity. CL&P presently operates two nuclear generating facilities, Millstones 1&2, both located in Waterford. The utility also operates two coal-burning plants and a long list of natural gas-burning plants fed by pipelines from long distances. New gas burning plants are proposed, but construction has been halted on two projects due to financial considerations. A recent explosion at a gas burning facility in the commissioning stage resulted in five fatalities and a public rethinking of the wisdom of locating large central generating plants around the state vs. buying power generated from outside the state and paying a premium for transmission losses.
Today, March 23, the Connecticut State Senate Finance Commission meets to consider a proposal to divert funds allocated for renewable energy projects around the state to the General Fund to meet budget shortfalls. "Securitization" of Clean Energy Funds, allocated not from taxes but from utility surcharges, would effectively halt the progress of renewable energy growth in CT by ending subsidies for residential and commercial wind, hydroelectric and photovoltaic (solar electric panels on roofs) energy installations, leaving only corporate entities like CL&P and others in a position to invest in energy generation. The measure would effectively permanize the monopoly CL&P now holds over the energy future of Connecticut.
This link will connect you to a press release in which CT Governor Jodi Rell commits the state to a goal of 20% renewable energy consumption by 2020. The sleight of hand that would buy from hydroelectric sources out of state begs the question of energy independence as well as energy costs. Connecticut residents pay about 20 cents per kilowatt hour, as high as any state in the lower 48, exceeded only by Hawaii. The future of renewable energy in CT is tied to the future of consumer independence, reasonable power rates and the public's influence over energy policy in this state.
Concern for the environment in American politics is at an ebb. The recession has focused our attention on the issues rubbing us raw: jobs, taxes, the failure of American corporation too big to fail, and the need for little taxpayers to shoulder a heavier burden to keep the whole system from tanking. But the long view is not an expendable luxury. What we do now will start affecting us a little next year, and a lot in ten years, when power rates will be even higher, and Connecticut taxpayers along with all Americans will see energy take a huge bite out of our ever-decreasing real wages.
The artist who drew the Future Kitchen above could not have dreamed of the appetite Americans would develop for the convenience of electrically powered devices in every room of the house. But that artist was a veritable visionary compared to the CT legislators who would consider selling our energy future for the little good the money might do in a bad financial (and political) year.

Solar PV Primer, Simple Concepts

The house at left is roofed with solar panels. No doubt there's a real roof under there, but someone has cleverly configured photovoltaic panels to cover the roof so neatly that the eye sees only tempered glass and aluminum frames. The roofing material under the panels will not deteriorate, seeing no sunlight, clomping feet or ice and snow, so its life should be at least as long as that of the panels. The panels are attached flat to the roof, with a slight standoff for cooling air, so wind forces should not be a problem in heavy weather.
Note, if your eyes are that good, the shadows of the small trees in the foreground. They indicate that the azimuth, or compass orientation, of the roof is exactly or nearly south-facing, and that no nearby features like trees or other building threaten to shade the panels any time during the solar day (popularly reckoned to be between 9 AM and 3 PM).
No nearby power lines appear in the photo, so it's hard to be sure whether the panels feed directly out into the local utility wiring (or grid), or to a battery bank designed to power the house after sundown, or a combination of the two functions (bi-modal, it's called).
A tiled roof in the background, along with mountains, suggests either a western US or possibly European location, places where solar panels are considered more progressive than kooky, and where local governments subsidize and encourage responsible photovoltaic installations. The local power supplier, or utility, may be purchasing the panels' output at its own retail rate (net metering is the industry term), or it may be paying a "feed-in tariff" of up to twice the retail value of the power, a practice widely used in Europe and Canada to encourage the installation of solar electric arrays.
The residents of this house (subtle signs indicate this may be a barn) may spend some time each day accommodating their routines to the flow of solar power. They might operate their heaviest electrical loads, i.e. water pumps, refrigerators, dishwashers, clothes dryers, water heaters etc. while solar output is highest, using their own power rather than purchased kilowatt-hours. They might adjust their lifestyles subtly to decrease power usage in the evening, using only lights and small loads while only battery current or expensive utility power are available.
Or, if the system has no "backup," they may go about their business with no thought of loads, since the grid power simply flows into the house at night the same way the solar power flowed out through the meter all day. The local availability of sunlight, or "insolation," may be as little as 2 kilowatt hours per day per square meter, or as high as six kilowatt hours per day per square meter, depending upon latitiude, climate, compass orientation and shading. The panels themselves may be as little as 12% efficient in transforming uv radiation into electric power, or they may be as much as 20% efficient, according to the quality and cost of the equipment when purchased. The panels, by their appearance, are not homemade, or if they are, they are meticulously framed and sealed. The wiring that connects them to each other is high-grade silicone with a sunlight-resistant coating, and the "inverter," the device that transforms the panels' DC output into AC power usable by house loads, also synchronizes that AC output to the grid power for resale.
This primer, with links, is meant to bring your thinking into the picture with solar PV and the role it may/will play in your life in the future. Next time you're driving past a house with panels on its roof, picture yourself living in it. Solar power on the roof doesn't mean less fun for people living under those panels; to the contrary, there's something natural and comforting about being linked to this life-giving power source in a positive and profitable way. But you humans, if you go out there, use sunscreen.

Tight is the New Green for Doors and Windows

The infrared photo at left shows radiant heat loss (yellow and red shading) in a typical residential window and door. It also reveals that the most grievous heat loss (purple, violet, almost black shading) takes place around the trim and edges of the opening. This is air infiltration, and it is your deadly enemy in keeping your house warm and dry and free of mold.
We've posted before on the hazards of air infiltration and moisture, and we've urged you all to arm yourselves with caulk, foam in cans, and sticky weatherstripping to fight the crannies that permit heat to escape and air to come in while you're trying to heat or cool your house. Only in temperate spring and fall weather here in New England do we blithely throw open our windows and share the environment indoors and outdoors. In either high summer or deepest winter the potential for unpleasant temperatures and moisture accumulations indoors and makes climate control increasingly not just a luxury.
Enter the capitalist economy. Don't fuss about with all that caulk and foam, say the strident voices on the radio and television; we can change your house's energy performance in a jiffy with 1. new energy-efficient vinyl replacement windows, 2. new energy-efficient vinyl storm doors front and rear, 3. safe, energy-efficient blown-in insulation in attic and walls, no damage to your interior, 4. new, safe, "permanent" energy-efficient vinyl siding with optional foam insulation backing to save you lots of energy and money. And they take credit cards, and they have financial experts standing by to mortgage your house for the full amount.
No sudden moves, now. Will replacement windows perform startingly better than the wooden sash windows or vinyl double-hung you have now? Not if you reduce or eliminate air leakage ( infiltration) through and around your old windows. Then your old windows will perform nearly as well as any window on the market, give or take 15%. Surprised? Same story with the blown-in insulation and the vinyl siding. The best deal of the lot is the vinyl storm windows and doors. They reduce infiltration almost completely through your entry doors. The rest of the "home improvements" won't pay for themselves any time soon.
The article linked here is from Journal of Light Construction on the subject of replacement windows and their rate of payback based on improved energy performance. The math doesn't work. It takes a LONG time to payback the investment on new windows, doors, siding, and blown-in insulation. What takes a SHORT time to pay back? Anything that tightens your house, closes cracks, tightens doors and windows, and reduces air infiltration in and out. That's the magic of home energy. Air. Stop it going in and out, you stop energy from being stolen from your house and your budget.
The boring conclusion is: nothing makes as big a difference in your house as caulk, foam and weatherstripping. Big ticket stuff like windows and viny siding works, eventually. But caulk and foam and gummy weatherstrip work today. If you hire a remodeler, handyman or do it yourself, it still works if you do it right. And it's not too hard. Don't hock the ranch before you've done the chores, ok?The infrared photo at left shows radiant heat loss (yellow and red shading) in a typical residential window and door. It also reveals that the most grievous heat loss (purple, violet, almost black shading) takes place around the trim and edges of the opening. This is air infiltration, and it is your deadly enemy in keeping your house warm and dry and free of mold.
We've posted before on the hazards of air infiltration and moisture, and we've urged you all to arm yourselves with caulk, foam in cans, and sticky weatherstripping to fight the crannies that permit heat to escape and air to come in while you're trying to heat or cool your house. Only in temperate spring and fall weather here in New England do we blithely throw open our windows and share the environment indoors and outdoors. In either high summer or deepest winter the potential for unpleasant temperatures and moisture accumulations indoors and makes climate control increasingly not just a luxury.
Enter the capitalist economy. Don't fuss about with all that caulk and foam, say the strident voices on the radio and television; we can change your house's energy performance in a jiffy with 1. new energy-efficient vinyl replacement windows, 2. new energy-efficient vinyl storm doors front and rear, 3. safe, energy-efficient blown-in insulation in attic and walls, no damage to your interior, 4. new, safe, "permanent" energy-efficient vinyl siding with optional foam insulation backing to save you lots of energy and money. And they take credit cards, and they have financial experts standing by to mortgage your house for the full amount.
No sudden moves, now. Will replacement windows perform startingly better than the wooden sash windows or vinyl double-hung you have now? Not if you reduce or eliminate air leakage ( infiltration) through and around your old windows. Then your old windows will perform nearly as well as any window on the market, give or take 15%. Surprised? Same story with the blown-in insulation and the vinyl siding. The best deal of the lot is the vinyl storm windows and doors. They reduce infiltration almost completely through your entry doors. The rest of the "home improvements" won't pay for themselves any time soon.
The article linked here is from Journal of Light Construction on the subject of replacement windows and their rate of payback based on improved energy performance. The math doesn't work. It takes a LONG time to payback the investment on new windows, doors, siding, and blown-in insulation. What takes a SHORT time to pay back? Anything that tightens your house, closes cracks, tightens doors and windows, and reduces air infiltration in and out. That's the magic of home energy. Air. Stop it going in and out, you stop energy from being stolen from your house and your budget.
The boring conclusion is: nothing makes as big a difference in your house as caulk, foam and weatherstripping. Big ticket stuff like windows and viny siding works, eventually. But caulk and foam and gummy weatherstrip work today. If you hire a remodeler, handyman or do it yourself, it still works if you do it right. And it's not too hard. Don't hock the ranch before you've done the chores, ok?

Two Tribes, One Product, but.... What's Up?

In the photo at left, a jet engine is being used to burn natural gas, and the rotational energy is not being used to transport sales managers to St. Louis. The energy is being used to turn generators which will power the Mashantucket Tribal Nation's casino operation in Connecticut. The natural gas, purchased from the local utility at bulk rates, is less expensive as a generating source than power transported via the local grid from the Millstone Nuclear Power Station in nearby Waterford. Natural gas, the price of which was expensive while crude oil prices were spiking a year ago, is cheap now, and if it remains cheap, the project is expected to "pay for itself in three years," says Charlene Jones of the Mashantucket Tribe. Northeast Utilities, the parent company that sells both the electrical power and the natural gas, shrugs and says, " Co-generation's better for the environment and it's better for everything else." Presumably "everything else" refers to Northeast's bottom line. The aging grid here in Southeastern CT is stretched to support large consumers like the tribal casinos, and selling the gas for co-generation is profitable for Northeast while unburdening its electrical distribution network, which is in need of expensive repairs and upgrades.
The carbon footprint of Millstone Nuclear Power Plant is a theoretical zero, or near-zero. Neutrons don't pollute, in the classic sense of emitting carbon dioxide. As long as they don't escape, they do nothing. Someday the spent fuel will become a major economic and political migraine, but for now, Millstone is as green as a witch's bum.
The burning of natural gas, billed as the "cleanest of fossil fuels," emits 117,000 lb. of CO2 per billion BTU generated. Oil in its various forms emits 164,000 lb. of CO2. Coal, the pigpen of fossil energy, emits 208,000 lb. per billion. Photovoltaic panels emit nearly zero, except in their manufacture, which amortizes to almost bupkus over their life span. Millstone emits quite a bit of heat, but almost no carbon dioxide, except for the staff, who won't quit breathing, even just for the one day of the test. So "better for the environment" is a statement that can be argued: better than what?
The Jemez Pueblo Indian tribe of southern New Mexico are in the beginning stages of a 22 million dollar project which will generate 4 megawatts of electricity, most of it for sale to the surrounding communities at favorable rates, netting the tribe much needed cash. The Jemez Pueblo tribe was denied a casino permit by the BIA bureaucrats on the basis that no one will drive to their reservation to gamble. Been to Foxwoods lately? It's isolated; possibly less so than Jemez. But that deal is done, and the Jemez Pueblos are making the best of their options by putting panels on every roof in the tribal community, as well as ground-mounted arrays on open land belonging to the tribe. With an expected 25 year profitability goal, the tribe will show positive cash flow from the start due to favorable financing through the government. Carbon footprint? Near zero. And other tribes, notably the Campo Kumeyaay near San Diego, are enjoying their proximity to eager consumers to install wind and solar co-generation facilities that will unburden the local utility while providing a revenue stream for the tribe--- one that won't be strangled by the next recession and doesn't involve the questionable economics of gambling, a transfer of funds from one pocket to another that manufactures nothing but the occasional big winner.
So, two tribes, one energy crisis, two solutions, and two very different worldviews. The Jemez Pueblos will see modest income and reap big positive community response from their eco-friendly project. The Mashantucket Pequots, in choosing the "cleanest of fossil fuels," have done a smart business deal that benefits their bottom line, and the utility's bottom line, but contributes nothing to the surrounding communities except carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and slot machines. Their roof surfaces, likely much larger than those available to the Jemez Pueblos, remain untroubled by photovoltaic panels. Although Connecticut has generous tax and rebate programs for commercial PV installations, the bang is in huge flames and high-speed turbines. The Mashantucket Pequots are my neighbors. Thanks, guys. I hope you make a smarter choice next time.

The Math of Lower Thermostats

The trio at left are wearing Vulcan Snuggies, intergalactic precursors of the recent lounging garment fad. Apparently on Vulcan they keep their drafty old cavern dwellings cool to save energy. I take a neutral position on Snuggies, except that they do qualify as comfortable indoor apparel to keep a body warm in a cold room. In dormitories they compensate for stingy thermostat settings regulated by central computers.
But at your house, with four walls and your heating system between you and the howling wind, the math of heat loss makes a compelling argument for warm clothes and lower thermostat settings. If your walls are sealed and insulated to an average of R10 including windows and doors, and if your outside wall exposure totals about 3000 square feet including ceiling, the formula in the wiki link yields a heat loss of 18,000 btu per hour at ten degrees outdoor temperature and 70 degrees inside. Decrease that to 60 degrees inside temperature and the heat loss goes to 15,000 btu per hour. And, at 50 degrees inside, it drops to 12,000, a 33% decrease in energy loss. And Snuggies only cost 20 dollars US or so. And they make them for your dog.
You don't have to work a miracle on your roof with PV panels, or smuggle some neutrons out of the Millstone power plant on your way home, or buy a miracle Shaker heater. You can work the basic math of heat loss with your thermostat settings. But you're going to need some warm, comfortable clothes to stay happy and well. It doesn't have to be a Snuggie, it can be a robe, vest, jacket or sweater. Or just a warm companion. That's the best I know for empowering us little folks against the financial bind of winter in New England.