[Laurasia]

Hi Everyone: I have a question which may seem rather dimwitted at first, but it's been bothering me. I was trying to explain Peak Oil to my twenty-something son last weekend and I mentioned the horror of prolonged power outages when the crunch comes. He, very reasonably, mentioned that (at least here in the US) a lot of our electricity is generated from coal. Now, I have read that we still have quite a bit of coal left in our "arsenal", and yet, from somewhere I've got this picture in my mind of bleak, dangerous cities left without power for prolonged periods of time. Can anyone explain to me the correlation between oil and natural gas shortages, and power failures. I am thoroughly convinced that we are in for a wild ride, and I want to understand everything about it, so I won't be left stammering if I get in a discussion about this.

Regards,

L.

PS Incidentally, my son is also convinced of Peak Oil, and would like nothing better than to be off the grid, and independent.

[Whitecrab]

I believe the US is getting something like 20-30% of it's electrical power from natural gas plants, 95% of new electrical capacity being installed is gas. About 50% of America's homes are heated by natural gas, as well.

This is at a time when the continent is quite possibly a bad winter or two away from a NG shortage. Canada has more NG heating but less NG power. I understand Britain is also getting close to a crisis.

So that's the short-term answer. Oil is only used for about 1-4% of US electrical generation, something like that, and far less heating.


In the longterm, if oil prices rise or oil is unavailable, it becomes difficult/impossible to power the contruction and maintenace equipment needed to build new plants, maintain old ones, and maintain the grid.


There is a lot of coal, but if you could somehow magically transform coal energy into oil energy without any energy losses, and you could somehow mine the coal out fast enough to replace oil, then coal would become an energy loser in ~40 years. It would start taking 11 lbs of coal to mine 10 out. There's also the whole global warming thing.

[Laurasia]

Thank you for your answer. That makes a lot of sense to me. I knew the UK was having problems, since they use a lot of natural gas for their power-plants (I'm worried about that, too - my mother, sister and all other family members live there); what I did not realize was that the US was now building mainly natural-gas powered plants. I know that natural gas will also have its own Hubbert's Peak, so that makes it clearer to me.

And I had not realized about the connection between oil and the repairing and maintenance of power-grid infrastructure. Was there an element of that in the recent giant North-East power outage, I wonder?

Once again, thanks...now I can appear more knowledgeable! I honestly think that power-outages will be the scariest scenario when the crunch comes. You ought to see us at work, when the power fails. EVERYTHING comes to a stop; then the big, glass building starts to heat up FAST.

Regards,

L.

[MarkR]

As already said, the problem is that NG is becoming a more important source of primary energy for electricity generation. It all comes down to short-term costs: to build a new NG power station costs about half what a new coal power station costs.

Fuel costs are, or perhaps more correctly have been, roughly equivalent between the two but NG again wins out due to considerably lower CO2 emissions which the UK plans to tax (if it doesn't already). In fact part of Tony Blair's strategy to comply with the Kyoto treaty is to replace coal with NG.

Some people blame this on deregulation of the electricity market - previously large companies had virtual monopolies and with high prices, there was plenty of money for investment. New competition induced by deregulation meant lower prices, but much lower incomes, and much thinner wallets - hence the need for the cheapest possible construction cost - even if fuel costs may be a bit higher.

Higher fuel costs have been a problem with NG electricity - demonstrated in the recent rise in energy prices in the UK, but rather more dramatically in the rolling power blackouts in CA in 2001. A sudden shortage of NG spent prices spiking to unbelievable levels (a rise of nearly 2000% in a few months), this coupled with price limits on electricity meant that generators had a choice - shut down or go bankrupt. Most chose the former, leading to months of power shortages.

I'm not sure how much energy is needed for grid maintenance. I would have thought that it was actually relatively low - and that the bulk of the cost was for staffing. Even in the event of a critical acute oil shortage, I would envisage that any government would ensure that utilities would have adequate supplies, whereas the plebs would have to do without. As an example I've looked through 'National Grid's' reports, and a quick calculation suggests that they used about 2000 bbl/d of oil for maintenance of the UK NG and elec grids, and for their US elec grid. On a national scale, that is almost an insignificant amount. Of course, this doesn't include the energy needs for suppliers, etc. but I think it demonstrates that things would have to get *extremely* bad before there was insufficient oil to maintain a power grid. The costs of maintenance are tiny, compared to the costs of generation and losses incurred in the grid itself - so even a massive price spike in the cost of oil would have only a small effect on elec distribution costs.

As for the US East coast power failure, I think that it is primarily dependent on poor maintenance (trees allowed to grow too close to power lines - so that in an emergency situation, the lines sag - due to heating due to the power surge - and touch trees that would normally be out of reach), and on poor operating procedures at the grid control centre (the grid monitoring computer had crashed and no one had noticed for several hours - when an engineer did notice, he went for lunch rather than immediately investigate). Again, I don't think I can attribute lack of maintenance to any problem with oil or energy supply, rather I think it was due to aggressive cost cutting in the post-deregulation economy.

[Laurasia]

I have already been researching ways to live an alternative energy lifestyle, because I was so sure that there would be many blackouts, and I'm glad to have the good explanations provided.

I am convinced that the only way to go is to find a way to live WITHOUT electricity. I think solar and wind power will be good as temporary stopgaps for household use (not for industry - that's probably finished) but eventually the solar panels will cease to function (20 years is the guarantee on a lot of them), the storage batteries will be 'kaput' in a much shorter time, and the windmills will require spare parts; all of these things will be irreplaceable. So, the only thing to do is bite the bullet.

Thank you for the explanations...

Regards,

L.

[tdrive]

In US electricity currently is supplied by generators using coal (50 percent), nuclear power (20 percent), hydro (9 percent) and oil (3 percent). Of the remaining electricity on the grid, 18 percent is provided by natural gas (16 percent) and the renewables (2 percent).

The peak oil impact on that is the following. The problem is that with the natural depletion of light oil, and rising prices, the tar sands become attractive economically. However, they require a lot of energy (eroei ~1.5 but is getting better) and this comes from natural gas, so the NG is diverted to tar sands production. Therefore, recently many electric utilities started abandoning building NG plants and opted for coal ones. Also, many started building wind farms since wind becomes also economically viable. As a result the coal price on NYSE jumped about twice, and the electricity will get a bit more expensive. You see, it's a closed physical system, you deflate one end, the others have to yield up.

Cheers,

[Licho]

There is very low correlation between oil prices (main impact of PO) and total electricity production.
Long-term power shortages are highly unlikely.

- many countries have excess generation capacities, mothballed coal plants etc
- a lot of energy is still wasted, and can be conserved (high prices will force conserving)
- electricity generation itself requires very little oil. In my country, it makes (including maintenance, operation etc) just a tiny fraction of 1% of total oil consumption.
- similar goes for coal and uranium mining oil requirement - fractions of percent
- electricity generation will be prioritized and get all oil or replacement synthetic/bio fuels in the case of oil supply disruption
- electricity demand is set to grow when oil declines, but this will be slow process, not much faster than 3% oil decline, and utilities will have time to adapt

[cyotha]

What a coincidence--I have been concerned about the same thing and have spent some time researching it. I just posted a long explanation of how the grid works, along with my guesses about how peak oil would affect it, on the LiveJournal peak oil community.

The main problem as I see it is that the grid requires constant monitoring and maintenance. Take Black Thursday as an example. A blackout hit most of Northeastern U.S. because one high-voltage line went down in Ohio. Huh? With our level of technology, how can that happen? The answer is "very easily." My post explains why. Here's the link:

http://www.livejournal.com/community/pe ... 23151.html

[tdrive]

Yes, we will have electricity. Plenty of it, at a higher price, and we will stop wasting it the way we do today.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')oo bad the engineers who left us with this legacy were boneheads.

[cyotha]

Thanks for your polite and respectful contribution to the discussion.

"Small self-contained grids cannot exist. It all has to be part of the large grid due to load, voltage and frequency regulations."

The large grid? There are 3 grids in the continental U.S.: the Western, Eastern, and Texas Interconnects. They grew out of smaller grids that over time, were interconnected. Hawaii has its own grid. Alaska has one main grid that connects the most populated areas (Anchorage, Fairbanks), but it also has some minigrids, and most of the state depends on diesel generators.

Small grids cannot exist?

By "frequency regulations" I assume you mean the requirement that residential power supply be AC, 60Hz (in the US--50Hz in Europe), which is what our appliances are standardized to use. This has <b>nothing</b> to do with the size of the grid. It is determined by the speed at which a generator rotates. If the armature rotates at a speed of 60 revolutions per second, the generated frequency will be 60 cycles per second.

By "load and voltage regulations" I assume you mean the requirement that electrical distribution systems maintain a voltage of 120 V. What law of physics requires that a grid be large in order to maintain a steady voltage? I can go out and buy a 3-phase generator that will supply enough power for a skyscraper or a hospital and have no problem maintaining the correct voltage. If a city of 40K has its own power plant, why exactly does it need to be linked to the rest of the West Coast's power grid? Fill me in.

Re: the Ohio line. I don't give a shit why the line went down; it's irrelevant. When the failure of one component can cause a blackout over the entire Northeastern US and parts of Canada, the system is flawed.

[tdrive]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hanks for your polite and respectful contribution to the discussion.

[cyotha]

Well, I'm not an engineer, but I'm smart enough to explain the reasoning behind my thinking. You still haven't answered my question. If there is a reason why grids have to be huge and interconnected, lay it out for me. Smirking at my ignorance doesn't count.

You didn't design the system; Edison and Westinghouse did. Set up a big central power station and hook everyone into the same long-distance distribution network. Engineers since then have been refining the technology, but the basic structure was set in the early twentieth century. It was more economical for power companies, but that doesn't mean it was a better design.

Explain why it's necessary to distribute electricity in a system so interdependent that human error by a few guys in Ohio can cause a blackout for the Northeast.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cyotha', '
')You didn't design the system; Edison and Westinghouse did. Set up a big central power station and hook everyone into the same long-distance distribution network. Engineers since then have been refining the technology, but the basic structure was set in the early twentieth century. It was more economical for power companies, but that doesn't mean it was a better design.

[tdrive]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')xplain why it's necessary...

[JackBob]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')
Laurasia, Here's my 2 cents. Using natural gas to heat water, to create steam, to turn a turbine, to generate electricity, transfer the electricity over power lines to heat water for showers or for cooking is just plain inefficient. The rules of thermodynamics results in an energy loss as heat each time the energy is transferred from one form to another. Notice that at the beginning and end we are heating water? Electric hot water heaters and electric stoves need to be replaced with natural gas or propane. I have retrofitted many of my friends homes this way. An initial capital investment sure, but you are ever more free of the grid and power failures, and you can fill the tank when you can afford it.

[cyotha]

Hey, thanks for the suggestion.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')ower System Analysis and Design
by J. Duncan Glover, Mulukutla S. Sarma

[DavidM]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Laurasia', 'T')hank you for your answer. That makes a lot of sense to me. I knew the UK was having problems, since they use a lot of natural gas for their power-plants (I'm worried about that, too - my mother, sister and all other family members live there); what I did not realize was that the US was now building mainly natural-gas powered plants. I know that natural gas will also have its own Hubbert's Peak, so that makes it clearer to me.
.

[kevin]

I agree with JackBob, except for one point-

Replace the electric water heaters with solar heating systems... no problem. Solar thermal systems are by far and away the best investment in terms of solar energy.

HOWEVER,

They most definitely do not last as long as PV panels. Most PV panels now are covered by a 25 year performance warranty (80% output after 25 years). A huge majority of the PV produced in the 60's and 70's are still working. I have several customers with this equipment.

The evacuated tube systems that I've installed are overkill for domestic hot water systems. A regular flat plate collector works very well, if sized and installed correctly.

Remember, comparing solar thermal systems with solar electric systems is apples and oranges. They do two different things.

Solar is still cool!

[kevin]

One of the best solutions I can think of is distributed power. This is the type of system I live on. I am totally independent of the grid, producing all my own electricity with solar and wind turbines. This is a micro grid in action. Very stable, frequency and voltage dead on all the time. No atomic clock or satellite needed. The idea that a grid has to be huge to be stable is nonsense, all due respect, tdrive.

This option is obviously not good for everyone ( apartment dwellers, for example). First and foremost, conservation needs to be mandated, since we obviously can't control ourselves. This statement in itself chaps my libertarian hide, but one look at the consumption of resources in this country is nauseating.

The truth is, the macro grid in the US is overloaded and in generally poor shape, due to it's age, the cost of continuous upgrades, and rampant over-development. To think that we can continue to add tens of thousands of energy inefficient homes to an overloaded system year after year is pretty short-sighted. My grandfather was a contractor on the power grid system in California in the 1950's, and some of what he put up is still there. The power usage now is WAY higher than back then.

Peak oil affects this industry in this manner: how does everything get moved around the US? Trucks. These vehicles bring the spare parts, coal, humans, toilet paper, and overpaid CEO's to the power plants. Add the transportation factor to the equation, and it all becomes more expensive. Plus all the line maintenance that must go on involves transportation- all petroleum fired. It takes diesel to dig the coal out of the ground. The LNG tankers don't run on nuclear reactors either.

[Guest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DavidM', '[')b]With Natural Gas, since it is lighter than air, it has a natural tendency to push itself out of the ground and into our drilling equipment.