Discuss: The Unsung Solution

In the “Reasons Not to Glow” discussions, last one no. 36, I have outlined how we can kill three plus major environmental problems with one action.  That action is to apply a process called pyrolysis to our massive organic waste messes as it will turn some of the waste into charcoal and get some energy. It will also destroy germs and almost all toxics thereby cutting greatly the megabucks spent on maintaining dumps to keep those hazardous materials from seeping into water supplies.  And it will thereby help lower the costs of cleaning up our water supplies getting more and more polluted now. 
I urge discussants here to check the “Reasons Not to Glow” discussion board to learn more details.  Dr. J. Singmaster

There seems to be a widespread lack of comprehension, even among “energy enthusiasts” of the meaning of the term, “waste heat” (and a lot of other fundamental thermodynamics).  Do you really think a power generating station is intentionally throwing away potential power, i.e. profit?  This alone should make you question this kind of careless or intentionally misleading half-truth.  Fact: you can’t make a heat engine work without waste heat.  This is not an obscure concept, it’s fundamental.  A 100% efficient (i.e. perfect) coal-fired power plant would be only 64% efficient.  This French guy named Carnot figured this out in 1824.  Before you blaze into the future, you need to catch up to ~200 years ago, people.  Emotions and conjecture don’t make electricity, knowledge of sound science and engineering does.

Martin: You make two common mistakes - allow me to briefly respond to each.

First power stations don’t make money by saving costs - they make money by deploying capital.  Such is the consequence of our electric regulation, and explains why the industry was twice as efficient in 1910 as it is today (in 1910, they recovered waste heat).  So yes, they are throwing away heat, but no, they’re not throwing away profit.  The regulatory model is responsible for this collapse in efficiency, not a lack of focus on shareholder returns by utilities.

The second mistake is to assume that what matters is carnot limits on efficiency.  Yes, you can’t make more power than Carnot dictates but that’s not really relevant.  Remember that Carnot doesn’t limit heat recovery (e.g., as hot water or steam) and the majority of the energy that goes into the power plant leaves in this low value form.  But if I recover heat that displaces a fueled boiler elsewhere, I’ve gotten around Carnot, since I’m now directly saving high-value gas/oil/etc. with low value heat.  The other side of that equation though is that Carnot only applies if you’re recovering heat from power plants - if you are recovering heat from industrial exhaust stacks (from whence Jeff Smith’s dataset derives), you can still have exhaust that is quite hot and able to do useful work and generate more power.

My heat came from recycled energy (landfill) in a small town called Moedling, south of Vienna, in 1975!!! I’m fairly certain other European towns have done this for a while, so why doesn’t America look to them for advice?

Ms. Cox"s comment, No. 20, shows a lack of understanding by many environmentalists about composting etc. because with the giving off of heat, carbon dioxide is also released in the biodegrading of organic waste. And seepage from such facilities may be causing ground water contamination.  Using pyrolysis as I described in several comments mentioned in “Reasons Not to Glow” avoids giving off that gas needlessly and would stop any problems of germs or toxics getting out from organic wastes to pollute water.  Dr. J. Singmaster

I much enjoyed this article, it speaks to what needs to be said. We need to stop seeking out more and more supply to meet more and more demand when we can be addressing harvesting new energy within our existing supply ie: stack heat etc… combined with assertive and meaningful conservation, not just installing CFLs in our homes.  In Ontario, my Province, it is estimated that there is an easy 30% energy savings that could be recouped in making commercial buildings more efficient, yet what are our current politicians thinking of doing, building more nukes ‘to meet the every growing needs of Ontario’ rather than calling it what it is, ‘meeting the ever growing waste in Ontario’.  Great article, esp the comment about sexy vs not so sexy energy sources.

Mike Nagy:
Your province, Ontario, illustrates the way conventional thinking blocks efficiency.  Premier McGuinty pledged to close coal plants, and an organization I chair, Alliance for Clean Technology or ACT developed a consensus among developers, environmentalists, equipment suppliers and large industrial users on a definition of ‘clean technology’.  ACT proposed that OPA issue a standard offer for power from clean technology at a price reflecting at least half of the true value of clean local generation.  The Ontario Power Authority and Energy Ministry responded with a reasonable draft proposal for clean technology (CESOP), but limited eligibility to toy power plants, under 10 megawatts of capacity.  OPA, in my view, learned the wrong lessons from their standard offer for renewable energy.  ACT identified 600 megawatts that could be generated from industrial waste out of just the largest stacks in the province, all with more than 10 MW capacity.  “Oh,” said the bureaucrats, we must hold an auction for anything above the toy size, so we can be sure the citizens got the best price.  This response has surface logic, but developing recycled energy projects takes two to three years, has never been successfully induced with a request for proposal in any jurisdiction.  Furthermore, if the OPA does not rapidly induce new clean generation, the province will be forced to the default case of building more inefficient central generation that cannot recycle byproduct waste heat, and will cost more than the prices in the draft CESOP.
OPA’s response?  Hire a consultant to study ACT’s comments.  A year has now passed since McGuinty sought action, and the coal plants keep warming the planet and causing 12 cents of health and environmental damages per kWh generated (Energy Ministry study).  Ontario industrial plants keep throwing away valuable exhaust energy 24/7.  Ontarians keep paying to warm the planet.

My suspicion is that the good folks at OPA have their veins filled with the old “Central Generation System” kool aid, cannot imagine a world of multiple generators close to load, and have used their knowledge to frighten the ministry into inaction.  Maybe there is a more gentle explanation, but the results—zero—remain.
Talk to WWF in Ontario about how you and your fellow Ontarians can help move to clean technololgy.

Tom Casten

In a word, yes, companies leave revenue on the table. It costs money to harness resources. Sometimes they don’t have the expertise, other times they just don’t see it.

Every company and every consumer who owns or rents a roof and who does not put photovoltaic solar panels on said roof is throwing away potential revenue. 

Everyone who says ‘wind power spoils my view’ is really saying ‘my view is worth more to me than clean energy.’