download Skype
|
California, victim of energy efficiency and peak demand?
We have followed the debate on the Californian energy crises and are very surprised by all the misconceptions that seems to be out there. One of the largest and maybe most dangerous is that the Californians is a bunch of energy wasting people with a high luxury consumption. We also found some attempts to accentuate these misconceptions and to make political and commercial benefits out of it. Even in the congressional hearings on the subject. The following facts might be a surprise for some people and must be emphasized, before serious debate can take place.
Is the Californian an energy wasting person?
The following data shows the true situation,
Statistics shows that the Californians are very good on energy conservation, with a per capita consumption of only 60% of the national average.
Has California's energy consumption been growing extremely and fast?
The following data shows the true situation,
All major sectors of California's economy show modest, steady growth over the last decade. Between 1995 and 2000, the state's electricity consumption overall, as well as its residential sector, grew 2.5 percent per year. This growth rate is not unusual for the state when compared to the historic record, and is moderate when viewed in the context of the growing population and economy.
The California commercial sector did grow at a higher rate over this same period -- 3.5 percent per year -- but this is a moderate rate that was matched and exceeded in the late 1980s.
Has California's energy consumption been growing more than US average?
The following data shows the true situation,
The graphic, based on data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration and the California Energy Commission, shows that between 1995 and 2000, California increased its electricity consumption at 2.5 percent per year, while the United States as a whole increased its consumption at 2.1 percent per year. The difference between the two is not substantial.
Has the Californians energy consumption been growing more than US average?
The following data shows the true situation,
There are two important points to be made:
The first, California's per capita, and per GDP consumption of electricity are considerably below that of the United States as a whole. California's per capita electricity consumption stayed relatively flat through until 1998 while the United States' grew. Suggesting that California's readiness to conserve energy is far higher that US average.
The second point is that both California and the United States have become slightly more electricity-efficient in producing a unit of GDP, suggesting that energy efficiency contributes to increasing productivity as well as reducing the energy bills.
Has the California energy production kept up with consumption?
The following data shows the situation,
Table: Existing Capacity and Planned Capacity Additions at California
Electric Utilities by Energy Source, 1999
|
|
| State Primary Energy Source |
Existing |
Planned Additions1 |
| Num. of Units |
Gener. Nominal Capacity (MWatts) |
Net Summer Capacity (MWatts) |
Net Winter Capacity (MWatts) |
Num. of Units |
Gener. Nominal Capacity (MWatts) |
Net Summer Capacity (MWatts) |
Net Winter Capacity (MWatts) |
|
| U.S. Total2 |
9,493 |
677,811 |
639,324 |
651,388 |
448 |
44,410 |
38,051 |
42,838 |
| Coal |
1,082 |
296,883 |
277,780 |
279,834 |
W |
W |
W |
W |
| Petroleum |
3,035 |
54,444 |
49,153 |
53,444 |
189 |
930 |
832 |
911 |
| Gas |
2,043 |
129,510 |
118,472 |
123,585 |
225 |
41,339 |
35,296 |
39,893 |
| Water (Pumped Storage
Hydro) |
140 |
18,214 |
18,945 |
18,770 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
| Water (Conv.
Hydro) |
2,934 |
71,586 |
74,122 |
73,445 |
13 |
322 |
306 |
296 |
| Nuclear |
101 |
102,291 |
95,030 |
96,215 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
| Heat |
58 |
3,809 |
4,808 |
5,100 |
12 |
1,402 |
1,204 |
1,324 |
| Multi-Fuel |
7 |
221 |
211 |
205 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
| Other Renewable3 |
92 |
840 |
790 |
777 |
W |
W |
W |
W |
| California |
564 |
24,292 |
24,323 |
24,406 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
| Coal |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
| Petroleum |
36 |
597 |
526 |
548 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
| Gas |
78 |
5,674 |
5,397 |
5,472 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
| Water (Pumped Storage
Hydro) |
30 |
3,353 |
3,730 |
3,724 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
| Water (Conv.
Hydro) |
399 |
9,591 |
9,838 |
9,830 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
| Nuclear |
4 |
4,555 |
4,310 |
4,310 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
| Waste Heat |
8 |
293 |
274 |
274 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
| Multi-Fuel |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
| Other Renewable3 |
9 |
229 |
247 |
247 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
1/ Planned additions
are for 2000 through 2004.
2/ Existing capacity totals include a
13-megawatt expander turbine fueled by hot nitrogen.
3/ Includes
geothermal, biomass (wood, wood waste, nonwood waste), solar, and
wind.
* Less than 0.5 megawatts. W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of
individual company data.
Notes: Total may not equal
the sum of components because of independent rounding Plants sold
or transferred to nonutilities are not included in these data; For
the planned additions, the States that have only one primary source will
have that primary source withheld.
Source: Energy Information
Administration, Form EIA-860A, "Annual Electric Generator Report Utility."
|
California have an electricity production that are more or less balanced with consumption on a yearly basis. Their closest neighbors have a large surplus of electricity on a yearly basis. It is therefore understandable that they thought that they could buy excess energy from outside. It is a little naive and only shows the lack of understanding of the dynamics in peak demands. Since all are using the same design principles and operating policies with the same flaws, the neighbors will have limited resources to sell at peak demands. It might be a need of an update and upgrade of energy resources, but the risk is that it will be a very big surplus in the region, once the major flaws on the consumer side are corrected.
Conclusions
For a number of years California was saving energy at the same rate as the consumption raised. It is understandable that they thought that this could be maintained, encouraged by the results from the efforts. The peak demand could at that time be bought from the neighbors. Unfortunately the energy saving efforts hit a wall and at the same time the neighbors could not deliver enough at peak times. The result is the current crises and in that sense the Californians are victims of their own energy efficiency.
The root of the problem is that common calculations and design principles are based on very rough simplifications and steady state conditions. Old knowledge, developed through hundreds years of experience, has during a few decades been replaced by principles that are based on constant temperature and that the energy needed always is proportional to the temperature difference outside - inside. A change in design, dimensioning and control philosophies, can produce spectacular results in energy saving and especially on peak demands. If the thermal mass of the building structure is utilized to even out indoor temperature fluctuations and move excess energy from day to night, from one day to the next or from periods of warm weather to colder ones. This is what always has taken place in buildings before technology made it possible to maintain any desired constant indoor temperature by a prompt supply or extraction of energy. The implementations of such changes in philosophies are bound to happen.
It is sure that the solution can be based on the above principles and maybe with a modest upgrade of the energy production. As we understand it, the production plants and the distribution net, are in need for updating.
© Copyright energysavingnow.com 2000.
© Copyrights to Software @ this site
|
|
BIOFUELS ASIA
conference
2008 - 27th-28th March 2008,
Thailand
Energy Savings in
UK
Energy Savings in
USA
"Disturbed children"
and
"Grumpy old men".
|
