RE: Research Topics

["Weststeijn, Andries" <Andries.Weststeijn@essent.nl>]

Dear Kevin,

----<SNIP>----------
	The problem with "political stimulation" is the cost. Political
stimulation
	of events is effective when it is of the nature of "priming the
pump." If
	the pump is "just about ready to start" then Government assistance
can be
	very helpful. If the Governments try to "prime the pump" before its
time to
	start has come, then this will result in enormous waste. Here in
Canada, the
	Government spent enormous sums on helping renewables get "up and
running",
	and sadly nearly all of these funds have been wasted, with little or
nothing
	to show for them now.

With all the learning curves, still some organization needs to look ahead
and even look beyond the next elections.
If government is not doing a good enough job, we ought to have them do it
better! That's what elections are for.
In this case I see no alternate organization with financial means. 

Although free enterprise might offer support here and there, they cannot be
expected to be first in line to look after the general interest. 
Having said that, look how much private money is currently going into
hydrogen and fuel cell technology world wide.
Apparently that pump was primed alright!
 
----<SNIP>----------
	OK.... if I was a Government Bureaucrat working in the Back Rooms,
and
	wanting to put together a series of recommendations, I would want to
	recommend Projects and Policies where monies spent now would make a
	difference.

Short term and long term are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Concrete support for projects with short term effect are a stimulus for both
hands-on people and policy makers.
But the issue at stake (depletion and warming) definitely requires long term
thinking. 
Since the funds for long term thinking will not come from a general
conference of united international companies, it has to come from government
circles.
And why not, that's why we want them there: to look out for our interests.
They better be very busy!

----<SNIP>----------
	I think that the expected price of oil energy should be the largest
single
	determiner of which biomass projects should be favored, and when
they should
	be favored, either with funding to support research, or with funding
to
	support implementation.
	Imagine that we know the price of Crude Oil for the next 50 years,
assuming
	the Worlds present energy mix. We could then say which renewable
	technologies would be most likely to become economically
advantageous first.
	It would be these technologies that Governments should support with
Research
	and Implementation funding. Funding placed in this manner would make
the
	biggest difference quickest. Then, with an increase of renewable in
the
	Global Energy Mix, the Crude Oil price estimate could be revised,
and a
	"second round of funding " could be implemented, for the next set of
"most
	likely to be economic" projects.

You just formulated how I can easily see it too.
On top of that you'll see from region to region (country to country if you
like), politically inspired incentives to bring some technologies around a
bit quicker than others.
But since this List is closer to R&D and practical implementation than to
legal and political issues, I rather would stay close to how you formulate
it.

----<SNIP>----------
	..............However, the 25% of the World is probably the 25% that
consumes
	the most energy. Specifically, for example, the US is obsessed with
low
	energy prices, and as a consequence, there is most waste taking
place there.

Is very true for now, but since big improvements can be made, that might
inspire the innovative side of the US free enterprise system to dig into
this challenge ( I mean, a 10% cost savings potential after all inspires
more than a 3% potential!).
In fact, a good many Listers definitely belong to this category of being
financially inspired by the potential of energy savings and/or re-use of
waste materials.
And if a little initial support is needed to get over that first hurdle
(your "priming the pump"), that's probably money well spent in the long run.

----<SNIP>----------
	I don't know but I would have thought that a Combined Cycle natural
gas
	plant that had the 50% greater energy efficiency would cost more
than the
	"Rankine only" coal plants. The combined cycle plants need the gas
turebines
	PLUS the boilers and steam turbines.

You indeed need all of those, but a lot smaller size for the same power.
At equal power, imagine a coal plant to be big and bulky with lots of
support equipment and due to its sheer size rather awkward erected locally
on the construction site. 
In contrast, a GT combined cycle plant much smaller, leaner, highly
modularly built in the factory and with less construction work on site. 

----<SNIP>----------
	> The sulphur/ash removal costs in a modern coal plant are around
zero.
	Would not that only be true in the fortunate circumstances where the
power
	plant had sale for its wastes?

Lotsa market opportunities for concrete and gypsum!
Problem might be that something needs to "give" to make room for these
products in a market already functioning.
Might be a matter of involving the stakeholders in that market.

----<SNIP>----------
	> A GT plant has half the O&M charges from a coal plant.
	> Altogether works out, very roughly, to a 15-20% cost advantage for
a coal
	> plant.
	You haven't "reversed your conclusion," have you?

Ah, reverse engineering!!
No, not really. I know the cents/kWh cost prices, that's where this comes
from.
But admittedly, if I had assumed gas at twice the price rather than 3x the
price of coal, the conclusion would have been reversed.
Fortunately, Fred Murrell just wrote on this List:
	Coal is widely available delivered to power plants in the US at
prices less than $1.30/MMBtu, while gas comes in now at just over
US$3.00/MMBtu with some additional cost for delivery. 12 months ago or so,
gas was at $10/MMBtu. Four months ago, $2/MMBtu. 
So, my factor of 3 (say, gas at US$4.00/MMBtu) was not the very lowest, but
also not the very highest ratio in coal/gas fuel pricing. And my (European)
reference oversees coal price is about 30% higher anyway. Hope Fred had rail
transportation included in his $1.30/MMBtu.

----<SNIP>----------
	> As for the higher value purpose....agreed.
	> But there is a lot of energy used for plain bulk, which is
nevertheless
	> still necessary to keep society running.
	I presume by "plain bulk" you mean the general energy requirements
for
	electricity and transportation. Is this correct?

Yes, including bulk use in industry!

	> That's what needs to be covered as well, i.e. the lower value
purposes.

	Many of the "lower value purposes" are just the ones that are most
amenable
	to conservation effort. For example, if I was "Energy Dictator" for
Los
	Angeles, where about 2/3 of the rush hour traffic is single person
	occupancy, I could eliminate about 50% of road traffic and
transportation
	energy consumption simply by requiring that people employ car
pooling, and
	that only cars with 4 people in them would be allowed on the "rush
hour
	lanes". Alternatively, I could allow these people to arrive at the
same net
	result simply by increasing the price of gasoline adequately. :-)

Exactly, in the end it all comes down to choice even within the same set of
constraints!.
And look at the BART system in San Francisco.
Same state, same economy, different local solutions.
Seattle, same story, mucho underground bus traffic.
What do people locally value, what do they accept?

Where I'm at is a kind of policy not to built too many parking garages in
city centers.
Has a definite practical drawback on commuting!
Drive up to your office and then circle around for the rest of the day....

----<SNIP>----------
	There are some interesting fundamentals with wind vs. solar.
Specifically,
	once a site is selected and approved for wind, the "site cost" would
be
	about the same, whether a .5 or 5 MW turbine system is installed.
Solar
	sites have a power output which is almost directly proportional to
area.
	Also, turbines benefit from "economies of scale, while solar panel
cost
	would be relatively independent of size.

Over here you see small wind turbines be replaced by larger ones, just to
make use of the valuable approved site.
I have a row in front of my office where every other small one was replaced
with a large one in a pattern of high-low-high-low etc.
Quite effective.
I believe all those Californian ridges near Altamont Pass get this treatment
too.

----<SNIP>----------
	> Personally, I believe in cofiring of biomass in coal plants given
the
	> enormous potential of that world wide.
	> (by comparison, annually 1050 million tons of coal in the US
alone!)
	> Many ways to have that biomass fed to coal plants.
	> And a very direct replacement of long-cycled CO2 from coal to
short-cycled
	> CO2 from biomass.

	Co-friring of biomass is indeed a great way to go. It allows biomass
to be
	burned in a way that it can "share then economies of scale" with
coal.

Right on ! ! !

----<SNIP>----------
	> Re Club of Rome
	> Their answers were as good as their assumptions.

	Exactly!!! And this is was my concern earlier in this thread.....
the
	connectivity between increasing price and extending availability was
being
	overlooked.

Thirty years after the Club of Rome now WE have to make assumptions for the
(energy) future in our day and age! 
As has the IPCC panel.
And we should not refrain from doing so, even if the last tit bit of
knowledge and "proof" isn't in yet.

----<SNIP>----------
	 As these points are successively reached, we will conserve and
substitute,
	extending the remaining supply. But we will not run out, for this
very
	reason.

	My concern is with the shallow and simplistic term "running out." As
	presented, it infers "absolutely no more oil", and I contend that it
is
	silly to do this without mentioning oil price.

I you ask me, we agree.....:-) !

But what do we tell Anouk?

best regards,
Andries

-
Bioenergy List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/bioenergy/200202/

Bioenergy List Moderator:
Tom Miles,  tmiles@trmiles.com
List-Post: <mailto:bioenergy@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bioenergy-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:bioenergy-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:bioenergy-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Bioenergy List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Bioenergy Events and Information:
http://www.bioenergy2002.org
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html Bioenergy
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html Gasification
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html Carbon