Energy Flow: Sources and Uses

Tuesday, April 12th at 9:00PM EDT

30 Comments

A picture is worth 1,000 words. Or 95 quadrillion BTUs, which is how much energy from all sources the U.S. consumed in 2009.

A well-constructed graph can convey so much information. I posted a link to this image on RedHot the other night, but thought it was worth bringing out a few observations.

Since energy flow is represented by the width of the various lines, you may wish to view the original image size here. You’ll need it in order to appreciate the relative contributions of wind and solar.

Observations:

We have truly huge, energy-based economy. It doesn’t turn on a dime.
The U.S. consumes 25% of the world’s petroleum, and produces, not coincidentally, 25% of global GDP.
As much as we hear about “renewable energy”, the dominant renewable source is hydropower. The greens want less hydropower, not more.
Solar is coded yellow in this graphic. Wind is in purple. They are only used to generate electricity. The primary sources of electricity are coal, natural gas and nuclear energy. Wind and solar would have to grow explosively for many years to become a significant source of electricity.
Natural gas is the most versatile fuel on the chart. It is a major source of all energy except transportation, and it has growth potential in that market. We have an ample supply of gas, which is clean, efficient and nearly 100% domestic.

What do you see that I missed?

Cross-posted at VladEnBlog.

30 Comments Leave a comment

Quick question

EcH90 Tuesday, April 12th at 9:55PM EDT (link)

What is “Rejected Energy”?

That was my second question...

acat (Diary) Tuesday, April 12th at 10:12PM EDT (link)

My first was “Seriously, geothermal is that small?” … with the hot springs in Cali, Imperial Valley, IIRC, I’d figured that geothermal would be “shovel-ready”.

Mew

——
self-portrait

Caveat Suffragator

Rejected energy is energy that's generated but not used...

acat (Diary) Tuesday, April 12th at 10:23PM EDT (link)

Like waste heat from a power plant or natural gas that’s burned instead of captured at an oil well. Of course, Vladimir (Steve) will correct me if I got that too wrong.

Long story short, we could ditch wind and solar completely just by getting another percentage of efficiency out of the existing coal and natural gas plants…

Amazing.

Mew

——
self-portrait

Caveat Suffragator

It's called the second law of thermodynamics!

heartlander (Diary) Wednesday, April 13th at 9:27AM EDT (link)

There is no such thing as 100% energy efficiency, and never will be. But most folks don’t realize how MUCH energy is lost in the processes. In the case of electricity, a large percentage is lost in the transmission lines. (One reason that electric cars aren’t all they’re cracked up to be).
http://www.redstate.com/heartlander/2011/01/03/new-improved-clean-and-green-the-coal-powered-car/

Also, this graph isn’t showing how much energy we have to invest up front to produce energy. Mining, drilling, processing, transporting — all of that requires energy. A useful figure for any technology is net energy yield — how many units of energy are produced per unit of energy invested in getting it. The net energy yield of ethanol is nearly zero. We’d be better off using that land to grow food.
http://www.redstate.com/heartlander/2011/01/07/the-one-thing-jimmy-carter-got-right-and-the-one-thing-even-many-tea-party-congressmen-get-wrong/

“The still, small voice of God in every human soul is the greatest ally of the pro-life cause, and why it will ultimately prevail.”
–Donald R. McClarey

Energy lost in transmission lines is small

ajshea (Diary) Thursday, April 14th at 11:28PM EDT (link)

The majority of the “rejected energy” in electricity generation is the heat generated that can’t be turned into electricity. Ever see the huge cooling towers at coal or nuclear power plants?

The actual transmission losses are pretty small, especially in comparison.

Basic rule of thumb is that you generate about as much heat as electrical power (one kilowatt of heat per kilowatt of power produced). I’ve worked on several power plants, and this is the oversimplified quick calculation.

I’m not sure why this graph has the rejected energy such a large portion of the electricity generated, except that its showing percentages instead of actual units of energy.

Correction - 2kw waste heat per kw electricity generated

ajshea (Diary) Saturday, April 16th at 11:44PM EDT (link)

I was thinking only of cooling systems and forgetting about heat lost up the smokestack.

Here are the numbers from Cummins Power:

Cooling system: ~25%
Exhaust heat: ~30%
Generator heat: ~3-8%
Electrical energy out: ~<= 36%
Prime mover radiant heat to ambient: ~5%

As you can see, anytime you can setup something to use that waste heat is a bonus (such as a greenhouse).

Geothermal

donnybrooke Tuesday, April 12th at 10:30PM EDT (link)

Has some drawbacks — especially when it is government funded.
Check out the Bottle Rock and South Geysers plant article.

http://www.calwatchdog.com/2010/07/08/new-ghost-plants-to-haunt-brown/

I remember an interesting TV show on energy that included these plants and explained some of the reasoning as to why they were not as efficient as hoped. I hope I can find a copy of that program somewhere.

“Journalists were never intended to be the cheerleaders of a society, the conductors of applause, the sycophants. Tragically, that is their assigned role in authoritarian societies, but not here — not yet.”
– Chet Huntley -

Rejected energy

Steve Maley (Diary) Tuesday, April 12th at 10:22PM EDT (link)

I believe that’s a measure of inefficiency. Transmission losses in power lines, for example.

Transportation is assumed to be 25% efficient. Inefficiencies come from incomplete combustion, idling, friction, mechanical losses, etc.

Maybe a real engineer has a more satisfactory answer.

The blogger formerly known as ‘Vladimir’.

Thanks

EcH90 Wednesday, April 13th at 12:15AM EDT (link)

That would have been my guess, I suppose. I’m actually studying to be an electrical engineer, but the bit of power distribution I’ve gotten into is really limited.

Talking of hydro power

1stRichard (Diary) Tuesday, April 12th at 10:07PM EDT (link)

You should also think of the first city in this nation to run on hydro power and now all the burnt and rotting mills there…..

http://www.redstate.com/1strichard/2011/02/27/the-american-dream/

Wondering whether the Columbia River area will fare better...

acat (Diary) Tuesday, April 12th at 10:16PM EDT (link)

or if it’s just Holyoke 100 years later. (Hydropower from the Columbia River powers a growing number of data centers, including Facebook’s new one, IIRC…)

Mew

——
self-portrait

Caveat Suffragator

Is Fracking included in the Nat. Gas?

grandma Tuesday, April 12th at 10:51PM EDT (link)

Also, great graph. DH has manipulated figures from energy flow from power plants, but the latest he was able to find was from 2008. TY for the info. Wish there was more current available.

Ultimately, I’d love to know how much actual energy is wasted for construction, erection, etc. for each dang windmill and the dollar cost/savings of wind vs. fossil fuel generated energy.

Fracking is a process which facilitates nat gas production.

Steve Maley (Diary) Tuesday, April 12th at 11:06PM EDT (link)

Without fracking, we’d produce much less gas.

I’d guess that at least 70-80% of the gas we produce depends on fracking.

The blogger formerly known as ‘Vladimir’.

TY Steve.

grandma Tuesday, April 12th at 11:58PM EDT (link)

I realize my question was sophomoric, but somewhere I read of some hub-bub against fracking. Hence, my question. (Obviously, I’m not an engineer. smile)

I am a real engineer, and...

mattminton Tuesday, April 12th at 11:20PM EDT (link)

Rejected energy is just that, energy (heat, really) that is rejected into the environment and is lost. All the electricity generated in that chart, with the exception of the hydro power, comes from boiling water and directing the steam through a series of turbines that turns a generator. That arrangement is only 50-60% efficient, the rest being lost as heat. Add to that losses from transmission and you can see where all the ‘rejected energy’ comes from. The internal combustion engine is even more inefficient, leading to even more rejected energy. The guy who comes up with a way to recapture even a small part of that would become a very rich man…

I explained income and income taxes to my son. His response: “You have to pay to get paid!? That’s dumb.”

Steam Engines

donnybrooke Tuesday, April 12th at 11:32PM EDT (link)

Strangely, a friend was mentioning something similar the other night.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/aug/27/alternativeenergy.energy

Can never tell how efficient this would be.

There are some systems that use rejected energy making their way into the general consumer market

Michael Dugas (Diary) Tuesday, April 12th at 11:49PM EDT (link)

Heat pump water heaters take the heat that’s removed from the freon and uses it to heat water and some “hybrid” cars are taking braking energy and converting it into electricity to charge the batteries. These are two “basic” examples but saving and using rejected energy is beginning to find its place.

Intro to Federalist Papers; section 5;
paragraph 4.
“…dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the zeal for a firm and efficient government.”

Remember: A Citizen on the dole is a Liberal Vote at the Polls.
END ENTITLEMENTS!

Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum !

How come ?

Jonas Parker Wednesday, April 13th at 1:57AM EDT (link)

The percentages don’t add up to 100% ? They add to 94.49 %

I don't think they're

BigRedConservative (Diary) Wednesday, April 13th at 2:59AM EDT (link)

using percentages, I think it’s measuring actual use, which comes to 94.49 quads, not percentage points. But I’m not an expert.

And two and two always makes a five
It’s the devil’s way now
There is no way out
You can scream and you can shout
It is too late now

Radiohead

That's right.

Steve Maley (Diary) Wednesday, April 13th at 6:22AM EDT (link)

A few years back, we were using 100 quads per year, which made figuring percentages easy.

Between efficiency gains & the recession, we used 5 quads less in 2009.

The blogger formerly known as ‘Vladimir’.

Is my heater the most efficient thing in the country?

jackhammer Wednesday, April 13th at 5:32AM EDT (link)

looking at that chart, it looks like the natural gas sent to my home to heat it is the most efficient use of energy out there….shame I can’t use my heater to generate electricity…

Good observation.

Steve Maley (Diary) Wednesday, April 13th at 6:27AM EDT (link)

Electrical generation involves using heat to generate electricity. You’re burning gas & directly using the heat, hence greater efficiency.

The blogger formerly known as ‘Vladimir’.

Iwas surprised to see that biomass and geothermal

kyle8 (Diary) Wednesday, April 13th at 6:44AM EDT (link)

were both much bigger than solar.

“Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty”
Kyle

Did you notice ...

utahrepublican Wednesday, April 13th at 2:07PM EDT (link)

that GROSS solar is only 1/3 of the NET energy now being used to power America’s vast fleet of electric cars? And that is before any rejected energy loss in transmission.

I’m tell’n ya, the CA legislature is taking this medical marijuana thing too far when they think they are going to get 1/3 of electricity from renewable sources.

Wait until you see...

gettingsl Wednesday, April 13th at 7:29AM EDT (link)

all the pretty windmills in California along with their accompanying transmission towers, blighting the entire landscape to meet the new California law of 1/3 of energy from renewable sources. Not to mention that the cost per kwh will necessarily skyrocket, but I guess that meets Obama’s energy plan.

Brilliant graphic!

Dave_in_Fla (Diary) Wednesday, April 13th at 10:55AM EDT (link)

Reminds me of the map of Napoleon invading Russia.

One point about rejected energy, that also includes the fact that you can’t store energy. When you produce it you have to use it, otherwise it is wasted.

“If they were merely incompetent, then at least SOME of their actions would have been to the benefit of the country.” – Joe McCarthy

Mostly true...

skorrent1 (Diary) Wednesday, April 13th at 1:00PM EDT (link)

But batteries and capacitors provide temporary storage of electric energy. Windmill greenies in England have been touting the ability to use their excess energy to pump water into elevated holding ponds, then they release it through hydro turbines as needed. The same principle is used in tidal hydro generation. You can convert kinetic energy to potential energy in many ways, but it doesn’t affect the big picture.

Yeah, I knew about those hydro holding pond tricks

Dave_in_Fla (Diary) Wednesday, April 13th at 3:50PM EDT (link)

However I chose not to mention it because those aren’t a discussion in this graphic.

“If they were merely incompetent, then at least SOME of their actions would have been to the benefit of the country.” – Joe McCarthy

Hydro v. Wind

Lammo (Diary) Wednesday, April 13th at 5:01PM EDT (link)

This is almost funny. Basically, hydro wants wind to sit down and shut up during peak production time for both systems:

Wind-power producers fight possible shutdown of turbines
“Pacific Northwest wind-power producers are battling a proposal that could force them to periodically shut down their plants in the months ahead, potentially costing them millions of dollars in lost revenue.

Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) officials say that limiting wind production could be required to free up space in the regional transmission system to handle hydropower generated from the melt-off of a huge mountain snowpack this year.”

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2014756586_windpower13m.html

Don’t be so open minded that your brains fall out. (John Corapi, The Black Sheep Dog)

Governmental Methane

simplyright4me Wednesday, April 13th at 7:01PM EDT (link)

Methane, that which is expelled from rotten or rotted matter. Or government has plenty of it right in DC.