Future Energy Sources 1.8 Totally Distributed Multi Technology Co-Generation

That all sounds great. To simply say a generator at every house however it may be powered?

Business is big. Big enough to get past words like "mafia" for it is that necessary.

Power business is as bad as the auto/truck business and lack of common sense evolution.

The power of thier own money is killing us all. To make a dent on a scale like your article would even dent the gov't.

Speaking of power, my bill went up 15 dollars and I can't do a damn thing about it...

Too many inconsistencies with independent power sources, budget people at power companies would pull thier hair out trying to work with it.Then they couldn't raise the bill and never say exactly why. they wouldn't be able to keep it there for millions of customers suddenly spiking the insiders wallets the benefit that billions of dollar maneuvre gains in a very short time frame in a relatively small locale....

Crazy stuff.

.

...To simply say a generator at every house however it may be powered?...

Since water in Israel is relatively cheap, you hardly pay for hot water here at all. How is that?

Every fricking house and apartment in Israel has it's own 1.5 by 2 meters solar heating panel on the roof of the building, coupled with a 200 liter thermally isolated retainer tank for the heated water. The water typically heat-up to about 80 centigrade, of constant flow, 24 hour a day. It's been so ever since the late nineteen-sixties.

- - Got it?

You're invited to come see for yourself, or ask any Israeli around.

For a house, Front:

Back:

For hotels and apartment buildings:

Point of use power generation is now cost effective and competitive with grid power.

Common sense is required to leverage generation with short term capacitive or hydro power storage.

Large power generators and grid owner/operators have a negative incentive to cooperate with point of use generation. Locals, States, & Feds realize massive tax incentives to keep grid power and public power plants in place. John Q Public is content to afford status quo convenience of grid public generation "like the Joneses do".

Present US law profits power generators and grid transmission with incentive to market pollution credits. Pollution profit to AEP, for example, greatly exceeds the profit potential from power generation. If this is obscure or difficult to understant, simply compare pollution by the AES corp per mwh with pollution per mwh by AEP, TVA, or the Southern Co. AES is very clean and profits from efficient generation. AES is also growing, expanding, and profiteering from clean power generation. Meanwhile, AEP is dead struck on marketing pollution credits to TVA and Southern at $60 per ton. AEP purchased pollution credits from the US EPA auction at $3/ton.

HI !

CORNSTOVES has it ! your point is well put & Well STATED.

The grid is over priced & in danger of collapse from $ minded concervitive home owners that have access to self generated power at cheaper rates without various misalenous fees & sercharges. Wake up you mass grid generators!

HI Cornstoves !

I just looked at my power bill, more than half of the bill is surcharges, no wonder the power companies are making big money. if we can cut this extreme surcharges the price is not bad, to do this a home needs to power its self. this calls for a multi generation setup of solar, wind, wave or tide or microturbine run by natural fuel.

yes it looks like a generator in every home is the only way to reduce the price enough to be able to sustain the home at a reasonable price. NOW what is the way to hook all the various power inputs together for a fully powered home. that is the real question.

thanks

goldrushnugget999

One of the hassles of trying to generate all your own electricity is the cost of the multiple technologies. It's far better to stick to the single technology that is best suited to your location and then share the time dependant surplus with others. That way you don't need to duplicate the technology.

It dose however require the used of a grid network to connect all the users so they can distribute their surplus. This is the stumbling block and where ownership of a public utility like the grid can hold the entire community to ransom by refusing to allow users to utilize it to distribute locally generated power.

We have a similar problem in Australia with telecommunications. Originally there was a state owned monopoly that owned all the equipment. When private companies were allowed in to compete the state owned monopoly was partially privatized but they owned all the exchanges, cables and underground pits and refused to allow anybody to run their cables through the existing system. The result is that nobody can really compete and in reality there is still a monopoly when it comes to cable based communications. The whole thing is a total cock up and all the equipment that was really owned by the community has been given to the now fully privatized company can dictate what everybody gets to use. The result is a second rate network and no choice for consumers. If you want cable TV there is only one company you can get it from and all land based communications must go through their cables. The are still messing about trying to tie everybody up with their high speed data network and are currently holding the entire country to ransom refusing to roll out a fiber optic network or allow anybody else to.

MASU ! HI !

What you say sounds great BUT The hole point is to stop the more than 50 percent of surcharges the power companies are charging us home owners and your setup uses the grid and that starts the surcharges. Home generated & used power omits the large surcharges and in the long run will save in the final bill. The repeat of home owned heat currently exists we ( or ) most have furnaces & hot water heaters tied to the grid. When we cut out the grid & produce our power, heat, hot water, There is the largest savings. The initial output is larger but the payback is faster & the pride that comes from being off the grid is a large plus also.

thanks

goldrushnugget999

Overcharging by power generators for use of the grid is a problem and something that needs to be addressed. Whilst it is not realistic to expect to be able to sell any surplus electricity for the same price that it is purchased there needs to be a realistic price credited to those that are generating a surplus. It works well in Australia and at the moment they actually credit you for surplus electricity at the same price as you pay for consumed power. You can also get a government grant and the power company will put up about 25% of the cost of the equipment so at the moment you can have a system installed for about 50% of the real cost.

The point is that if you wish to double your generating capacity using a common technology then the price increases by less than 100%. If you wish to double your generating capacity using multiple technologies then the price increases by 100% or more per additional technology. That's what makes using multiple technologies at single points of consumption difficult to justify on an economic basis. If however you can double you capacity using a single technology that is suited for your location then the concept becomes more economic. You do however need to be able to use this extra capacity and if you can't store it the only solution is to either swap or sell it to those that can use it.

Currently there are many places that will not allow you to co-generate electricity and distribute any surplus on the existing grid, but, if we are going to make a realistic dint in the amount of fossil fuels we are consuming there is going to have to be a change in the attitude of the companies and institutions that are currently blocking it.

It can actually be very profitable for power companies to offer co-generation packages as it can reduce peak demands an reduce the number of power stations needed. It's these power stations that are only used during peak demand periods that are the least profitable and most inefficient as they are quiet often only required for a couple of hours or less on working days. As a result they lie idle for anything up to 95% of the time which means electricity from these plants can cost up to 20 times as much to generate as base load power. If you can reduce the peak load by enough to not need the these extra power stations it can make a big difference in the costs of generating electricity.

Unfortunately concepts like this are quiet complex and require lateral thinking and lengthy periods to show a profit. With the current crop of amoeba brained, short term profit driven, account watching, self promoting, management that has been stuffing everything up for the last thirty years or so it's too complicated and long term and here in lies the problem.

However the concept does work and as has been shown in Australia by Origin Energy can be profitable for all those involved. This is one area that governments can be helpful and if companies are refusing to be realistic about it then government may need to legislate accordingly. I am not for government intervention but there are some situations where private enterprise refuse to act realistically and in situations like this there is little option. The job of government is to lay down the legal and social framework that allows companies and individuals to work together and if they aren't doing their job then in a democracy the answer is simple, don't vote for them at the next election.

Excellent point. The number crunchers or bean counters generally have no long term view. They want to show maximum profit now. This makes them looks good, and preseves their job. Also ups their income. Same goes for CEOs. They do not have the public good, and long range in mind.

You are also right, that the government must step in. They suffer from the same mental limitations however.

The people must force the politicians to change the system.

Ron Wagner

HI ALL !

we are the people & we demand a change to occur ! NOW the solution is the "best way to accomplish that change" maybe we create our own consortium & all cr4 members agree to a certain set of rules, to together accomplish that task. it may be long range 8 to 10 years but it could be done. large current companies grew from small ideas that were built upon to todays super companies. it takes planning and security to carry out those tasks. we need a new organization to accomplish this task 'save man kind from himself" by setting up a organization that will overall rest the power away from the oil biggies and diversify it so not one power can control it any Ware in the world.

think about this goal

thanks

goldrushnugget999

HI masu !

the extra capacity you talk about can be used in another way ! say some micro-turbines generating power. the heat exhaust could be used for heat & cooling while generating power. I did some research & i found that it is being done today.

Look UP www.distributedenergy.com and see the 2007 July/august issue page 10, they explain new ways of packaging systems on a trailer for quick delivery. they not only generate power but heat and cool at the same time making the whole unit 80 to 90 % efficient to redefine the cost of a unit for use in a marginal area.

this new set up can allow home use to start occurring which would allow the system to recoup the costs in as short a time as possible. with the state and fed helping to finance the installation (the figures state ) that the possible home use is not only likely but probable in the short future. AS I Stated here or in other blogs the use of multi technology setups in a combined power heat & cooling could redefine the uses these items can be used in.

thanks

goldrushnugget999

Hi Goldrush,

• the extra capacity you talk about can be used in another way ! say some micro-turbines generating power. the heat exhaust could be used for heat & cooling while generating power. I did some research & i found that it is being done today.

It is true that you can utilize the extra capacity in other ways you need to have some sort of excess electricity generating capacity to cover areas that are unable to generate enough locally.

For example, if you were using photovoltaic cells to generate electricity you would need to be able to generate 200% or your average demand. The reason for this is that you are not going to be able to generate electricity for at least 50% of the time during night so you will need to draw power from somebody else during that time.

You can utilize multiple technologies at each site but it is fare cheaper and simpler to double the generating capacity and share the surplus over the grid than to install an second or even third or fourth technology that guarantees you can generate up to your peak demand.

Another hassle is that if you generate all your energy needs in isolation you need to be able to generate at your peak demand so you will nearly always be generating and wasting far more electricity than you need. By connecting all the generating facilities you only need to be able to generate the average load at any given moment so you can reduce the generating capacity and done end up wasting the surplus capacity.

Storing electrical energy is difficult to do and very inefficient so if you can distribute and use it at the rate it is being generated than to try and store it.

It all depends on how you set up your system:

Nearly 80% of the power we tend to use is for heating purpose.

We are used that everything works with one plug to be connected for power.

If you would need to team up for island mode on a large scale with each house being self supporting you need other set-ups: you need to distribute heat to all devices which need heat and only allow electricity to be used for appliances that simply don't run without.

If you fill a battery pack with PV cells and work with high efficiency lamps you can do a lot. Add solar heat collectors and heat storage at different levels (even above 100°C for the coffee machine), a wind turbine can be a nice add on if you are allowed to install it.

A nice fancy word needs to be adopted in a broader spectrum: hybrid.

· Nearly 80% of the power we tend to use is for heating purpose.

The amount of energy used in heating or HVAC depends greatly on the climate and for much of Australia heating is not the greatest consumer of energy. However, globally the amount of energy consumed by HVAC is large and there are much more efficient and less polluting ways to go about it.

World wide slightly over half the worlds electricity is generated by burning coal and overall electricity generation and distribution is about 30% to 40% efficient, so if you are using electricity for heating is a particularly inefficient way to go about it.

Cooling however is a more complex problem and while cooling is more efficient than heating it is still a major energy consumer that can be done more efficiently using a whole host of technologies and techniques.

If you remove the portion of the electrical load that is used for HVAC, or at least reduce it considerably, the concept of co generation becomes even more applicable and simpler to implement. It also means that the existing grid will not only be capable of handling the distribution of surplus generating capacity to wherever it is needed at current levels, but for a considerably increased demand in the future.

To make each individual structure capable of generating all it energy needs at all times is something that is not only difficult to do but expensive and results in a lot of duplicated equipment that is only used for short periods during peak demand. Unless you find some way to store electrical energy efficiently there is no other way to overcome the fluctuating demand at individual locations. However, the larger and more diverse a co-generation system is the more reliable and cheaper it becomes for each individual user. The other important factor is that it can be achieved with current technology and is not dependent of the development of any new technology like a method of storing large amounts of electrical energy.

"World wide slightly over half the worlds electricity is generated by burning coal and overall electricity generation and distribution is about 30% to 40% efficient, so if you are using electricity for heating is a particularly inefficient way to go about it."

O you are really positive on the efficiency of the power plants worldwide, I would assume that the global efficiency is somewhere wetween 20 and 25%.

But you also know that it is true: a lot of this energy is used to heat up water in household equipment: coffee, dishwasher, washing machine,..., this to levels where heat storage is no problem.

In older houses electric heaters are often added to avoid the costly plumbing of new pipework. It all comes down to price and comfort: so easy and the cheapest method, view from cost of installation point.

Even in new houses, cost are often kept as low as possible, and electric heaters are placed. Electricity is even not that much expencive as when you start to make the calculation for the cost of usage the electric method wins often the first 10 years. As the fuel cost is only a fraction of the price of electricity the influence of oil being at 80 to 100 $/barrel is low.

Here it is that the government needs to interact: free market has brought us what we face now. Some correction need to be added: the CO₂ footprint of each device should be evaluated. equipment that enables low carbon usage must be helped, the money should be found in the sales of "cheap stuff" where the carbon efficacy is bad.

Why is the market for solar and wind energy so slow starting and a low volume market: the alternative is way to cheap. The alternative solar and wind systems all try to make electricity that can be injected in the grid. This is an energy and financial costly system and a bit stupid if you know how much of this energy is later transferred to heat.

Hi Gwen.Stouthuysen

• Even in new houses, cost are often kept as low as possible, and electric heaters are placed. Electricity is even not that much expencive as when you start to make the calculation for the cost of usage the electric method wins often the first 10 years. As the fuel cost is only a fraction of the price of electricity the influence of oil being at 80 to 100 $/barrel is low.

Accountants, treasurers and politicians all talk about something like a level playing field, however, in reality the energy market is anything but level. In reality we are subsidizing the price of fossil fuels with the money we are going to need to spend in the not too distant future, to cope with the environmental damage and changes the use of these fuels has brought about.

When you factor in these future costs the use of renewable energy becomes a whole lot more attractive, regardless of which technology you are using. The problem is how do you level the playing field so the price being paid for fossil fuels reflects the true cost of the use of such fuels.

The usual answer being bandied about is a carbon trading scheme but in reality carbon trading schemes only reinforce the status quo. Carbon trading schemes offer little to no incentive for energy producers to create alternative energy technologies while they can keep doing what they are by sling a few dollars to some third world country that doesn't have access to and is not likely to ever have access to the sort of living standards and technology many of us take for granted.

The whole mess we are now facing and are likely to face in the near future and I am not just referring to global warming here but many of the sociopolitical problems as well, are a classic example of greed gone berserk. There is a narrow minded belief that many subscribe to, that the only thing that counts is short term profitability and it is this attitude that has gotten us into much of the mess we are now in. How many times have we seen managers, directors, share holders, etcetera sacrifice anybody and anything they can to show a massive increase in short term profits. Once they have ransacked everything and achieved these short term profits they cut and run with their bonuses just before the mess they have created comes to the surface.

It is this attitude of "I'm ok and that's all that matters", that is at the hart of many of the problems, including climate change and global warming, we now face. Unless the attitude to and acceptance of the people that espouse to this way of thinking changes dramatically, we are doomed to continuing on our current wasteful and self destructive path.

The carbon trading schemes: who was the originator of this idea?

Should be banned: there is not alternative for green power: or you go the full way or not. It is an accountants solution for the crouds: the succes of these formulas show that the masses are willing to pay for the real cost of energy but politicians, lawyers and accountants are not letting them pay.

Often little wind farms are paid for by the inhabitants of the community where they are placed: only lawyers find lonely idiots who want to preserve the view. Sometimes they win, sometimes the arguments are so idioteque that the wind farms are installed.

My idea is that transport wil be ennoying polluting for the next decades, there is no decent alternative for hydrocarbon based energy. OK little plans can fly for 30 minutes on battery power, but payload is zero to 100 gr (camera) and pilot need to stay on the ground.

But fixed installations can run on alternative sourcing without problems. Cogeneration is one big leap ahead.

Hi, Masu, Gwen.Stouthuysen, and others--

I think the overall thread is addressing electricity moreso than other energy forms.

To establish the "level playing field", the system must permit producers and consumers to access the distribution grid or network on terms that are open and without prejudice. Accounting and rate structures should keep access open for all on the same pricing terms (therefore, the rate structure would treat the production and distribution of power as two separate components of a bill). Within the USA, transmission-only is called "wheeling".

This system would also need to treat all producers or all consumers in equivalent ways, regardless of size (residential, commercial, industrial, large-industrial). Many would balk at this approach because it will require new ways of thinking.

The system should use time-of-day billing for demand (kW capacity) as well as for consumption (kWh usage). The metering and billing technology is already available and is cost comparable to the existing ways being used. Since many renewable sources such as solar PV are able to peak at times when peak loads are common, this is a fair way for paying for this power, and encourages its contribution to the total.

This system needs to treat an individual who is both a producer and/or a consumer equitably. Avoided-cost purchase rates therefore need to be time-of-day based, so at peak load times there would be higher revenues if you are a producer, as well as similarly higher costs if you are a consumer.

Interconnection rules for small or large producers need to be easy to understand and reasonable--this is a regulatory topic. Safety for utility workers, stability and security of the grid, and quality of the electric waveform are all legitimate topics to include in this.

Regulatory rules should reward and encourage systems with multiply-distributed supplies. The robustness and reliability of the entire grid would be improved. The present USA multi-state grid interconnections are frequently loaded near their maximum and are thus unstable when presented with a sudden change (such as a large generator going off line). The protective relaying systems and schemes are overwhelmed when this occurs, and the resulting cascading loss of control has been huge.

DC connections or interconnections provide for greater stability because voltage fluctuations are much easier to absorb than frequency fluctuations. Regulatory schemes could require such interconnections to compartmentalize the grid even if distances are not large. Producers who rely on a DC source and inverters, or an easily-controlled AC frequency in their source, should be given a premium in their rate structure--they are able to keep up with any sudden changes in frequency and possibly even contribute a transient increase in their supply if the grid requires it.

An educational component is needed also. A distributed multiply-sourced system needs to be seen for what it is--more robust and stable, more adaptable to changes.

Pricing that includes the environmental costs needs to be more than just carbon trading schemes. Flexibility in this is necessary. Any approach or technology is open to abuse and errors, as well as obsolescence.

An "environmental expense tax" can be created to reflect the total costs of any item and be coupled with an "environmental mitigation credit" (to recyclers, converters, etc.). This goes far beyond just the power generation and distribution topics. Yet it also is included in them because it would account for the environmental expense of things like the mercury in fluorescent bulbs (some manufacturers have significantly lower levels) or the type of silicon used in PV cells.

Money needs to be available for nascent technoloty. Scale and maturity of the technology both ultimately reduce costs.

All the above comments apply easily to industrialized countries and countries that are well along the road to industrialization. For the very large numbers who are better described as agricultural or mistakenly thought of as "primitive", multiply-distributed independent systems are a good approach. Even better if these are designed for the possibility of future modular increases in size or interconnection. Hundreds of thousands of these have been sold and installed, with great benefits.

Wisdom and blessings--John M.

Masu,

You point to something very sensitive: adding cables to create separate networks or allowing third parties to modify community owned networks.

The pavement is dug up almost every year for the normal works on the grids. Imagine that there would be extra networks for concurrents in gas and electricity, telecom,...

In telecom we have a kind of free market. The long distance communications are covered by multiple companies and in the cities you have several companies that use a butch of techniques to hook you up.

Did it become cheaper? Yes, for the big customers. It are those that are interesting.

The same is happening in the electricity market: the competition in suppliers is only playing for the big customers, the rest has to pay the deficit.

My idea is that you need to look into your energy usage and techniques to cope with unreliable supply. You will see that most of the energy goes to heat and cold. And surprisingly these are the most easy to store.

So if you would build a heat/cold storage that is filled during the high sun time and used when you are at home, the total energy bill could be reduced enormously. (as you do not sell the energy to the grid when there is to much and by back when you need it (at a higher price as someone needs to pay for the grid)

In the total cost picture the grid is the most expensive part of the electricity market. And the grid needs the most attention, lot's of people and cars need to drive through the whole country to keep the grid alive.

No way that you will find the power company ready for paying you the money that the final end user paid for the grid usage.

If you would pull your own cable to the electricity shop, then we are back in a serious business.

Or you can send your mother in law for a pound of electricity ....

What I am questioning is the ethics behind the people supplying the service also owning the distribution system as well.

For example when you have a telecommunications supplier that owns the telephone exchanges as well as the pit system and all the cabling to end users it is in their best interest not to allow competitors to use their cables to supply a competing service. The result is that you can never have a true free market place as the competitors can never supply the connections to individual end users.

If you have electricity generators also owning the grid and distribution system you have the same problem and you can never have a true free market because the generators can control and limit the access of competing generators have to the customer base.

This sort of thing goes on all the time and what we end up with is a system that people call a free market which in reality is a monopoly with one company controlling the whole thing and holding the consumers to ransom.

The only solution I see is that you must separate the ownership of the generating or service providers from the distribution system. That way you have a true level playing field and a true marked driven economy that will result in the suppliers competing with each other to offer the customers the services they both want and need.

Masu

"For example when you have a telecommunications supplier that owns the telephone exchanges as well as the pit system and all the cabling to end users it is in their best interest not to allow competitors to use their cables to supply a competing service."

Yet deals get made all the time for sharing; mainly because of legislation that prevents monopolies. Take for example long-distance carriers and alternative telephone service providers. Here in Toronto there are any number of long-distance providers, all competing against one-another; and the owner of the lines can't compete on an equal footing with them. Their billing comes on the owner's billing form. Formerly, there was only one telephone company in the city. There are now at least three major carriers; and the number of lines only increased for one of them, who has installed an underground fibre optic network coast to coast to differentiate itself from the rest (I think it follows the rail lines, but I'm not certain). The in-town underground distribution system, where it occurs, is shared by all, including hydro distribution.

My own project calls for sharing existing government-licensed or owned underground transportation/cabling/sewage/water systems (and other concessions) in return for an electrical supply to government real estate and a system of charges related to people's ability to pay. My company will depend on the availability of sharing space, but will provide its own conduits into the premises of end-users.

I hope folks will not be stuffy about sharing.

Mark

Hi Mark,

We have the same sort of thing in Australia with the original state owned telecommunications company being the only one to offer full telecommunications services. But they are holding us to ransom. They wont let anybody else run cables to houses and actively support local user organized petitions to stop anybody from running cables above ground or in a separately dug pit system. They are also messing about and refusing to roll out a fiber optic system while blocking anybody else from doing likewise. The result is there is no fiber optic to end user system in Australia. The also managed to constrain the competing cable TV supplier so much that they eventually went out of business so they now have a monopoly when it comes to cable TV in Australia.

Compare that the advances in both the services offered and price of mobile phone services that do not require the cables to the end user. The cost of calls is continually reducing and they are offering more and more services day by day. For a land line phone the local services have hardly improved and we are paying more and more. Where I lived in Adelaide I wanted to get incoming caller identification on my phone as I was having some problems with nuisance calls. The informed me that the local exchange could not offer the service and there was no plan to upgrade the exchange. It didn't matter which long distance carrier I was with I could not get the feature because the only connection I could ever have was via that exchange.

With a nearby suburb the bandwidth into an exchange hit the limit and they could not add any more phones or broad band links to that suburb. That was nearly 6 years ago and the only way to get a new phone or broadband in that are is when somebody cancels and existing service.

They are really acting in a appalling manner towards the community they are supposed to serve and have us by the short and curlys. Min you all this is happening while they make record profits.

If the pit system were owned by a separate business then the second major carrier have stated that they would start installing their own exchanges and offering a full service the next day. The thing that really gets me off side is that originally when it was a state owned monopoly the people owned the pit system and telephone exchanges but when the government privatized the business they threw in the pit and end user cabling with it and now it is all privately owned.

It's a total cock up and there is no way to fix it short of buying back the pits and cables from the private carrier and the setting it up as a separate independent business. Mind you, you need to convince them to sell it and they would more than likely charge the earth for it.

Masu

Sounds like a delicious basis for a class-action suit citing several of the cases you mention. Can you use a little extra cash?

If the amount in the suit is high enough, say in the billions of dollars --with the intended recipients (plaintiffs) being a laaaaarrrggge part of the Australian public, the 'power of the courts' might be able to effect a change from the monopoly status under which you now suffer.

Every country has a really successful class-action lawsuit company. Which one is yours? Doesn't cost anything to ask them if it's worth their while. It's all pro-bono, or whatever, anyway, when the game is precious and the effort not too difficult.

Normally, I'm not a litiginous guy --unless some client is trying to stiff me for work I've done for them-- but in this case, I'd make an exception. Almost makes me wish I had something as obvious around here to sue about.

Mark

Gidday Mark,

Whilst there have been class actions taken out in Australia they are a very rare event and certainly not guaranteed to succeeded.

The problem with the current setup was the way the telecommunications industry was deregulated and privatized. When the government decided to deregulate they turned the state owned monopoly into a company that had the federal government as the sole share holder. Later on they decided to sell of 49% of the shares but still held onto the controlling interest. They have since divested themselves of the remaining shares and it is now a true privately owned business.

The problem is when it was owned by the government they set up the riles and regulations to protect their interests and so you never really had a level playing field. But, now they have divested themselves of the controlling interest the whole thing has backfired and the rules that they set up to favor the government owned company now favor a privately owned company, that, like most large businesses, is behaving badly. That leaves the poor old consumer stuck in the middle with the company protected by the legal system the government set up specifically to protect the business.

The only way out that I can see, is that the playing field that was deliberately set up on a bias needs to be leveled, but, I am not sure how you can go about it. Certainly the government is showing no interest in fixing the mess they created. Maybe what needs to be changed is the government.

Naw. You have to hit 'em where it hurts...in the pocketbook. Nuthin' else will phase 'em even a little bit.

Go gettem, kid!!

Mark

I was thinking of something along the lines of Douglas Adam's solution in the "Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy".

We build three giant spacecraft that can house the entire population of the Earth We then put all the lawyers, used cars salesmen, politicians, amoeba brained management, etcetera in the first spacecraft while everybody that shows even the slightest sign of being a thinker in the other two. Then, when we all set off together to in search of a new world to populate we send the first space craft off in one direction while the rest of us go the opposite direction.

Mind you, knowing my luck the universe would turn out to be a closed universe that gets you back to where you started from if you go fare enough in one direction.

HI MASU !

ONE OF THE WAYS TO CUT THE STRANGLE HOLD THE UTILITIES have on the cities is to get the city to become a self generator of power and take advantage of the many generators in the city that will provide the power the city needs for it's will being.

in Connecticut, u.s.a. the power was produced locally up until the mid 1950's than the utilities were set up to buy out the local power procurers and create a power monopoly which was good for 30 or so years, than the deregulation came in and the prices rose to outrageous prices. now it would be better to go back to local power generation to stop the surcharges which are now more than 100 percent of the original bill. the state is considering doing just that, the prices are going through the roof and a lot state people are moving out of here. something has to be done to correct the problem as soon as possible. the state is saying how can they withdraw from the new area power grid they just created. the going back to decentralized generation would be the best bet, the state would have a greater hold on prices if they could have many varied generators using different sources for that power, the federal government would grant not only the state but the producers a price difference so the power would be affordable to all.

thanks

goldrushnugget999

Hi GOLDRUSHNUGGET999,

In Australia the states are much larger than in the USA and this makes trying to do things at a local level considerably more complex. The other problem is the tyranny of distance and communities in Australia are separated by considerable distances.

I think the problems faced throughout the world really all boil down to the same problem and that is the people that are generating the power also own the distribution grid and so can control who, what, where and when people can utilize it.

While I am not a supporter of government intervention there are a few places that it is essential that the people control what is going on and this happens to be one of them. Since we are all affected by and need to be connected to the grid then it is in the publics best interest that we own this particular piece of infrastructure and therefore have control over who, what, when and where connections are made to it. Power generating companies can then all compete on a level playing field and can't hold the consumers to ransom by preventing competitors from starting up and competing with them.

A commerce based economy can only be successful when all business compete on a level playing field and unfortunately many of the economies throughout the world are anything but level. Existing companies have become all powerful and bloated with managerial staff that measure the success of their company on a pure short term profitability basis. While it is true that a business exists to make a profit that is not the sole reason for its existence and supplying a service to its customers, a creative, enjoyable and secure environment for their employees and acting in a moral and ethical basis are equally as important. If you simply look at it from a short term profit basis you are raping you customers, employees and the community in general and it always ends up hurting both the customers and employees.

I just spent the last few days visiting a friend that I used to work with some 30 years ago. Back then we both worked for an international controls company that was renowned for its innovative thinking. It was run completely by engineers and was a top place to work and we both work our way up to regional managerial level. Since the companies inception all management positions were filled by promoting somebody from within the company and even though this had worked for around 100 years it was not long before the retiring directors and upper level managers were replaced from outside by people that were accountants and not engineers. The rot set in quickly and we both soon realized that there was no future for us within the company.

We both went in different directions and my friend set up his own business in competition. After nearly two decades the company we both worked for has gone from around 100 employees and having a large office, workshop and stores building to a handful of employees working out of serviced offices. Meanwhile my friend, using the exact practices that had been so successful to our original employer has grow his company to the point that it is now many times larger than the company we left and is likely to soon be around the size it was back in its heyday.

An interesting point was the effect working with the bean counting upper level management had on both of us. We had never discussed it before but both of us found that our health was deteorating, we found it difficult to sleep and were haunted my nightmares.

HI masu !

ALL WELL SAID. I think you hit the nail on the head. It looks like the first company you worked for just sat back and collected their dollars without any investment back into the company. how could they stay in business losing that much people and dollars. i am glad your friend started some competition it shows that he is doing well, taking all the competitions accounts soon your friend will be able to buy the bad company out or put them out of business. it might be a good idea to invest in your friends business. it sounds like he is very successful.

thanks for the great explanations about running a company.

goldrushnugget999

"It might be a good idea to invest in your friends business."

Already done.

The company I work for has just gone through the full cycle: being known as the improvement company, sending off the development, being sold to a mayor, gaining the money out of the product base. Luckily the upper management is replaced (Koslowsky is out) and the new one had the clear idea of reviewing the future. We have been ordered to pick up the development lead again.

All researchers are gone and knobody in management knows the cost of this but we are starting up the work of hiring new brains.

HI Gwen !

By your company firing the brains and hiring new brains ! that will set the company back 5 to 10 years to regain the same capability that it had. By that time the whole business area will have changed to a higher level. Dose the company have the time to develop new products to sustain the business for that long ? DO THEY have the investors to sustain that long term cost with maybe no profit ? It sounds as if they are fluffing up the company for a big sale at a later point to a competitor, Gwen be careful of the consequences, like loss of retirement & other benefits.

GOOD LUCK ON YOUR DESISION ABOUT YOUR COMPANY

goldrushnugget999

They have me to bridge the gap.

Let's say that not everything is lost and the products we have are still good to cover the gap we still face.

On preparing for the future: The contrary is more likely as we just went through a mayor reorganisation (one of the biggest in US history) to streamline the businesses of the different divisions and to split where there is no logical combination (healthcare and automotive electronics do not share their customers, how hard you try you will not find a big business plan behind a surgeon who want's to drive a car which ontains connectors of the same make as the gloves he is used to on the job)

Some divisions were send out and others have been merged. All without people being fired.

Here in Western Europe you don't loose your build up rights when the company is changing owner. I went though a mayor closing before and got paid for 6 months with only 3 years working there, the relation is more than linear so you can calculate yourself what you would have with 30 years. Good to start your own company. All engineers of my devision could move with the company, nearly none did it as we all had another job and liked the money we got for being fired.

HI Gwen !

IT looks as if your company is really taking care of you ! your are a rare employee, not many can say that their company covers 99 % of all retirement problems in house.

You should keep an eye on them just in case !

thanks

goldrushnugget999

Gwen:

I've seen it before; and, unfortunately, we'll probably see it again: too many Boards of Directors hiring a new CEO without either a clear idea of his/her planned (mis-) direction or being given clear guidelines by them of what is expected from him/her by way of carrying on in a fashion that provides continued good leadership. Somehow, the Boards just have stupid faith that the new leader will follow a great course of redemption.

Your company is fortunate to have the sense to re-adjust back into business, but they have to be right behind the 8-ball now, as quite probably support people for specific products may be gone with no one (now) who can replace the former client contact properly or with any client-specific product knowledge. And executives who are thus dismissed have an understandable extremely low tolerance to return to the offending company.

Here's wishing you success in picking up the pieces. Let this be a message to anybody who thinks wholesale dismissals are ever a good move!! (Me included! I fantacize about replacing the entire traffic planning department when I'm Mayor after the next election! Your company's situation points out quite loudly that that is a dumb idea--although delicious to think about.) Instead, the new CEO should have consulted with department heads regarding his/her ideas for change, and LISTENED to the feedback. (OMG! I'm going to have to LISTEN to thos non-compos excuses for a traffic planning department. Maybe I'll reconsider running LOL.)

All the best, Gwen

Mark

Inertia, vested interests, lack of knowledge, vision, money, incentives, even insufficient socio-economic structures to promote such power de-centralization are factors in failure to develop Totally Distributed power sources. That said, there are enticing possibilities that would seem to be yelling "money to be made here". Ageis Energy has 75kw unit that might be suitable for an apartment building (or neighborhood?). Climate Energy LLC has a 1.2 kw Honda engine natural gas home unit. Feedlots and landfills could convert smelly problems into methane for electricity and heat, there is a small Finnish town whose sawmill waste is providing low emission gas-fired heat and power for 4000 residents, and there are tens of thousands of home units in Germany and Japan reporting combined efficiencies of 80% or more. Why not tall buildings with wind turbines on top, or buildings designed to increase wind pressure/velocity prior to entering the turbine? Thin film solar developers are claiming costs of solar electric can be reduced to 1 to 2 dollars a watt a few years in the future, so entire roofs could be covered over in retro-fits. The thought of a global power network is exciting, (wasn't it R.B. Fuller's idea?) but requires peaceful cooperation that may be beyond our evolutionary level at this point of our development. The Global Energy Network Institute has a web site that details talks among some Arab states, Russian-Japanese islands, Russia-Alaska, a bunch of SE Asian nations and islands-it boggles the mind!

Another excellent thread, Masu. Good on you!

My main frustration with grid tie is finding reasonably priced synchronisers. Certainly, manufacturers like Trace Technology/Xantrex (http://www.xantrex.com/web/id/47/p/1/pt/18/product.asp), Mastervolt, Sunnyboy, Philmac (woh wah, expensive!) provide excellent DC -> AC units but what to do in the AC -> AC arena?

[I like the Xantrex SW4548 as it is very flexible, functional and has grid-tie built in. An excellent unit for here in Bali where we have frequent blackouts. I strap these onto huge Exide battery banks for commercial 'UPS' type applications.]

Let's just say I have a diesel generator (hopefully running happily on coconut oil J) and I want to grid tie it. Currently as I understand it, this involves a syncroniser such that the generator and the grid are in sync. What a problem… Then add something like a tapping transformer (http://www.eaglerise.com/english/productinfo.asp?id=820043&Pid=55) so that the load to grid may be maintained at a reasonable level for the genset.

So yes, DC -> AC is pretty much covered but AC -> AC? What to do?

After all, when we discuss large scale grid interconnect, we're dealing with the same issues: syncronisation and feed-in voltage.

I'm all ears, gentlemen.

I'm please to say that the USPTO has just informed me that my patent application is due for final examination in three months. All of the following description pertains to this particular patent-applied-for, which is (warning to copycats who are not startled by the 51 claims necessary to create one of these things <|{:-) ) quite general in its conformations, protected by international patent treaties, and dates back via parenting documents at the USPTO and elsewhere to prior to 2002.

For those of you who are not yet familiar with it, the application is a bioreactor co-generation plant using gas turbine, waste-heat steam turbine, and Sterling-supplied power (and potenentially cold fusion reactors) from a single source renewable methane fuel generated in an array of interconnected gas production containers --a 'tank farm' fostering a particularly robust strain of methanogenic bacteria -- that is actually located and maintained within its breatheable atmosphere.

All byproducts from this type of fuel generation have current means of eco-friendly alternative uses and disposal/dissipation technology that renders it almost completely clean (still a problem with the good ol' CO2 production, but that's being investigated and the results look promising).

The generating station is located below-ground in a sounded, seismically-protected housing with no external waste discharge, except for clean, ambient-temp air and used-up gas generation media which has been killed, infused with aerobic bacteria and transferred to the surface as viable compost while its former growing tank is scoured, restocked with the anaerobic bacteria and special feedstock and replaced on-line in the tank farm.

Being below ground allows for the mapping and replanting/replacement of both below-grade and surface ecological components as the generator is being built, or even the return of a pre-building surface environment to an enhanced version (e.g. wetland, forested area, schoolyard, park etc.) It also allows for a multi-storey below-ground building for neighbourhood use built above the generating station. Such a building might house parking, retail development, hydroponics food production, neighbourhood community activity centres, and so-on; while leaving the surface environment unruffled.

One of the chief features of this type of generation plant is the ability planners have to utilize it to a specific draw or series of draws in a grid. With a carefully plotted future-use expectation, triple backup production plant (also useful to allow down time for scheduled maintenance), and a one-third overdraw capacity, areas supplied by this multigeneration plant will have no blackouts or brownouts. A series of such stations connected in a grid could comfortably allow for high-use surges and even uploading to help current power-oriented suppliers out in case of overload.

The transmission array is all under ground as well, and protected from stray EMF by MU metal-wrapped wiring in grounded RF caging, just in case there's substance in all those reports of illnesses that result from prolonged proximity to transmission lines.

Because its intended target consumers include (in addition to obvious consumers like the West and the Far East) countries that can not presently afford general electricity supply, but still practice some attempt at democratic government with a viable human rights legislation, the company I intend to create to produce these plants will be supported by patrons of a dedicated foundation rather than stockholders.

A bonus is the inexpensive cost (compared to current varieties of electricity generation plants) to build and operate such plants.

There is a brief description of the plant you are welcome to visit at

http://ecofriendlypower.wetpaint.com

Mark

Hi Mark,

..looks really good, do you have business plan(s) yet?

Still working on last minute stuff, with the examination and patent 3 mos away.

I have a fairly comprehensive and completely untraditional business plan that understands having shareholders owning the generating facilities will make the operating company's board of directors fiduciarily responsible to the bottom line.

But since the main idea behind the generators is to provide not only a clean source of electricity, but one that is generally available worldwide; and that includes providing it to countries that have no wealth to extend into projects like this, being fiduciarily responsible to the bottom line becomes counter-productive.

So rather than having shareholders, the corporation will remain in private ownership and be funded by a foundation composed of sponsorship partners, or Patrons. The foundation will be non-profit with its stated beneficiaries fitting closely the aims of (probably only) the corporation. Needless to say, the foundation, and hence its patronage membership at all levels will enjoy certain fruits of patronage as a thank-you from the corporation...whatever can be safely offered under the law. After all, the patrons of many theatres are entitled to better seats during certain performances.

That's only the beginning. The plan deals with the ordinary things one might expect in a plan, and thereafter tackles some fairly innovative territory. For example, "sales people" will be dealing with governments (and, in some cases, industry) on all levels, making offers of energy provision to those who qualify in terms of type of government and social freedoms in trade for some fairly broad permissions of establishment. The sales department has to be composed of rather remarkable persons (mostly married couples) with certain levels of serious lifestyles and integrity, ready to deal with all kinds of environmental advocates, bureaucrats and assemblies of elected officials/monarchs etc. in a friendly, relaxed style that reflects their level of responsiblitily. So their department is more like ambassadorships, and they are entitled 'Marketing Ambassadors'.

The entire project is quite interesting, with lots of innovative thinking. But this digresses from the main theme in here, so I'll stop and wait for a more suitable discussion to offer any more on the topic.

Thanks for asking.

Mark

Hi Mark,

Judging from your market/community implementation concept/plan, I guess you'd have plenty of fund raising to do! I do like the community building part of this activity, since it is only through trust and acceptance that many great ideas see long lasting/sustainable success.

Also, (I'm not sure if you're already onto this,..)you may want to look at a completely self contained set-up,vis-avis, portability. Whole system designed to fit one or a few container boxes/frames. Obviously, output from such units may be too small for a given community, then again, such modules would be highly scalable.

MARK

THE Proposer will need to start out with an above ground small plant and expand from there to the proposed undergroung plant. all along the way youll need to raise $ and connections to complete all the steps proposed. over all it looks doable & a logicale step to attempt. being a non-profit would give you a leg up on taxes & control of the end product, but be carefull there are specilists out there that would try to break in & change the ultimate goal you are setting up for the new organization. i wish you the best, i hope you can complete this project, the world needs a new power supply run by a true humantarian to benifit people & cuntries in a bad way today.

HI MarKTheHandyman !

It's been about a month sence your reply on your invension DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER UPDATE FOR US ?

goldrushnugget999

GOLDRUSHNUGGET

Nothing to report. Thanks to all the CR4 participants who logged in to have a peek at the posted portions of the Executive Summary (link above). There may be more to come in there later, and I'll post information about that. A very special thanks also to the various posters with specialty knowledge who have sent along helpful hints and useful links, etc. I absolutely do follow them up and often store them away for future use as well.

Interestingly, after I sent an email to the Prime Minister's office about the impending patent, several departments of the Canadian Government have also had a peek at the website. Good to know they're curious, although the interest shown by Natural Resources is kind of puzzling, since the generator is a renewable-resource technology. And I guess the Canadian Forces just like to keep abreast of such things.

In listening to the news media for the past three years, it becomes more and more apparent to me how desperately the world needs some kind of environmentally positive, inexpensive, and versatile source of electrical power generation. Hopefully, when the time comes to raise the funds for the first several installations, there will be a good response.

Mark

"the interest shown by Natural Resources is kind of puzzling, since the generator is a renewable-resource technology"

They will surely want to know which resources you will be using, and what kinds of effects are likely if there is some sort of leakage from your plant - non-native organisms of any size can have devastating results to habitats. Having said that, there are many instances of governments allowing imports of species which then go on to wipe out native organisms. (Just make sure those in charge have some way to make money out of it and you will succeed)

MARK !

I Read your paper, as i was looking through a local paper CONNPOST for SAT. MARCH 17 2007, i found you some info about a WASHINGTON POST story by lori aratani on a teenage scientist experimenting with capturing the power of sewage. the article states there is a way to capture a electric charge from bacteria that digests sewage. maby you could incorporate this into your power setup? this sounds promising, his 2 year reasurach for the washington suburban sanitary commission's Seneca wastewater treatment plant in Germantown MD. into ways to do smarter things with wastewater. other scientists that were there were very impressed at the way he harnis power directly from wastewater & the bacteria digesting it. this looks like you would be interested in it, so i thought i would send it along. he is also working on a microbial fuel cell to generate power.

good luck with your endevor.

HI ! AGAIN.

I JUST READ ANOTHER CONN POST ARTICLE FROM A NEAR TOWN (ANSONIA CT.) is paying 21.5 cents per kwh for power WOW that's a lot. at that price solar is looking a lot better for all in our area.

Try to imagine what would happen to the small private power generation market

IF

excess power could be sold back to the grid at 60 to 90% of the retail price.

S. HOUSTON !

IN THE HOME GENERATION MARKET PAY BACK WILL BE AT A FAST PACE & GIVE SMALL INVESTORS A BETTER REPAYMENT SCHEDULE, SAVING MONEY & INCREASING VARIABILITY OF PROJECTS ONE COULD PUT IN SCHEDULES FOR LONG TERM PLANNING & LONGTERM PROFITS.

I KNOW THAT IF I CAN GET A PROJECT COMPLETED & HAVE IT EARN IT'S COST RETURN QUICKLY IS A BIG ADVANTAGE TO ME THE HOME OWNER THAT HAS SEVERAL DEMANDS ON THAT DOLLAR NEEDS, THE RETURN RATIO TO BE STEPED UP TO LOWER HIS OVERALL COST & ALLOCATION OF THE DOLLARS IS A BIG DESISION MAKER.

Difficult to imagine. Easier to imagine that the local power authority would limit the upload and pay a minimum that would make it economically unfeasible to create the surplus in the first place.

Then intermediate or federal government would impose a tax on the income from the upload that would add an extra cost of living to the producer.

Then local government would hit the private producer with a property improvement tax increase based upon his/her ability to provide a private power source.

In order to keep your bread buttered on the correct side, discard the surplus until uploading it becomes something local power authority begs you to do, with other governmental authorities on side with them and firm private-producer-protective legislation in place.

Mark

YES ! MARK

THE STATE & FED GOVERNMENT SEEMS TO SPOIL THE MATER TO FATTEN THERE WALLET. There COULD BE A WAY AROUND IT BY ADDING A THIRD POWER SOURCE, & A FORTH SOURCE OF POWER, SAY WIND, BIOGEN, SOLAR, TIDAL or CURRENT, AND CO-GEN FOR EACH, STAY A STEP A HEAD.

I GUESS THEY WILL CATCH UP EVENTUALLY IF ONE STOPS DEVELOPING & ADVANCING THERE COMPANY, THER"S IS A OFF SHORE OWNERSHIP TO STOP FURTHER TAXES OR GO TO A COUNTRY THAT WILL GIVE A TAX BREAK FOR DEVELOPING POWER SOURCES THERE.

HI MarkTheHanhyman !

I've looked for a sterling type generator that you mentioned & found a STM power sterling type engine. it runs on multi fuels externally & Generates 55KWS per hour.

this engine sure fits a lot of areas for my home power, now try to cut the cost to affordable rates it might be the one for my home when the excess is sold at $.21 per kW hour. the engine just got written in a newsweek article on, ten Eco-Friendly Companies on msnbc.com

Hi GOLDRUSHNUGGET999,

"it runs on multi fuels externally & Generates 55KWS per hour"

Kw per hour doesn't make sense. Kw or thousands of watts are a measure of the rate energy is being expended or created. Therefore you cant have Kw per hour it doesn't make sense.

55 Kw is a fair old power consumption. With a 240 V supply that work out at around 230 A. I somehow thing that you would have some trouble getting a sterling engine to run a generator at that sort of level. It's also about 74 Hp so it would be one humungous sterling engine

Do you have a link to the site that you got the information from, I would like to have a look and see if I can figure out how much they are really getting from their engine?

HI ! MASU

THE WEB SITE you requested is stmpower.com and there is a lot of info on this engine with there brochure i'me sure you will be very interested in this.

the power output is 55 thousand watts per hour, rated or 55kwh take a look.

I have had a look at the site an now know what they are talking about. The 55 Kw has no hours tacked onto the end of it. What they mean is that their systems are capable of an output of 55 kw.

55 Kw translates to an output of 55 Kjs^-1 (kilo Joules per second). Power is the rate at which energy is being transferred and is measured in watts while the energy itself is measured in Joules.

The confusion arises because electricity generating authorities sell energy in Kwh or kilowatt hours. A Kwh is the amount of energy you would have if you had a rate of 1,000 watts for one hour. If you convert it to joules you get

1 Kwh = 1,000 watts x 1 hour

1 Kwh= 1,000 watts s 60 minutes x 60 seconds

1 Kwh= 1,000 watts x 3,600 seconds

1 Kwh= 3,600,000 Joules = 3.6 Mj

Having said all that 55Kw is a fair old power output and not the sort of power you would generate at home. It would also be a fairly large unit and I suspect the photographs are of much lower output units.

Something else that worries me is that they say they are get 30% net electrical efficiency and 80% overall system efficiency. This doesn't make sense to me, if the electrical efficiency is 30% then the overall efficiency can't be higher than that. I think they have the figures back the front and the electrical efficiency is 80% with the overall efficiency being 30%. That would certainly make more sense and fit more with my experience with generators as they normally run at around 80% efficient.

Finally I doubt that you will ever be able to install these in a domestic or residential environment. The reason being is they use high pressure hydrogen as the heat transfer medium. Hydrogen is a tricky thing to deal with and will always leak, especially when it is at pressure. It is also highly explosive and dangerous stuff. That is one of the big stumbling blocks with the so called hydrogen economy, it's really dangerous stuff especially when under pressure.

I havn't read through all of the site but I will have a detailed look over the next couple of days and post what I find out.

HI ! MASU

THANK YOU FOR YOUR GREAT Discription of the STERLING ENGINE with Compressed HYDROGEN as a heat transfer medium. I learned a lot with this reply thanks, i hope you take a further look, what would you sugest as a heat transfer medium?

something that would safe for home use. MABY nitrogen or methane compressed?

looking for your detailed look

talk to you soon.

Hi GOLDRUSHNUGGET999,

You may be interested to know that I will be starting a thread on this blog that looks as Sterling engines and their use to generate electricity in a couple of weeks. The link you gave me has given me some good background and I will be including the link in my introduction.

Thanks for the link and look out for the thread in a couple of weeks.

HI MASU !

I will be looking for your thread on sterling engins in a few weeks maby i can learn a few things from you

thanks again

goldrushnugget999

I'm not sure that you will learn anything from me, I hoping to learn heaps from the thread myself. I know two fifths of five eighths' of bugger all about Sterling engines and havn't got a clue where to start yet. I am going do have to do some serious research before I start the thread. If anybody has any links to good sites on Sterling engines they would be greatly appreciated.

...links to good sites on Sterling engines...

Why not start with Wiki, then to this portal, then here, to this working model, then to this FAQ, then to this cute little explanation, then to this enlightening animated article, then to this short article, then to this Austin State University project, then to this British portal, full of refs, then to this commercial application of Solar with Stirling (not a bad idea, the Stirling being low pressure heat transfer device), then to this rotary model, then I stopped quoting, because the yield was above million possible URLs.

CR4 Admin: replaced broken links, disabled the SF Austin SU link

Thanks Yuval.

Hi,

Back from some day's with the wife.

Stirling engines do work with a transfer medium. Typically Hydrogen is used as it has a low friction and high heat transfer coefficient. The counter fact is that hydrogen leaks, and each unit needs to be equipped with a hydrogen generator.

Modern Stirling engines are now filled with normal pressurised air or nitrogen. Easier to keep the pressure (no leaking through metal and joints) and much easier for maintenance. (start up with simple tools as a compressor)

The overall efficiency is related to the total effective energy that is available from these units: normally they are equipped with a hot water collector, the 80% is reflecting to the sum of heat and electricity available. It will be strongly bound to the heat storage level when you couple it to an under floor heating system the efficiency will be much higher.

Short, Sweet, Concise. Loved it!

THANKS Gwen !

Great words, using compressed air or nitrogen is a good sugestion. now that will improve the safety factor for home use i guess i can get started now -- thanks !

goldrushnugget999

GOLDRUSHNUGGET

In the power station, the Sterlings are run off any exhaust source around which a Venturi tube can be mounted to provide the temp differences. With one very large gas turbine and a two or three-stage steam turbine arrangement (hopefully although probably just a single turbine would still be great!), this means no more than three or four Stirlings driving small generators. The power from them is hopefully going to be enough to supply the station's lighting and perhaps some controls requirements - no more. The purpose of the Stirlings is mainly to milk all possible generating power from the fuel source. If someone has devised a method of getting lots of power from Stirlings for other purposes than current industrial uses, that's a bonus. I'd be very interested in learning more about it. Thanks.

Mark

HI Mark !

Friday was a power day in Connecticut, our local paper has two article's, one about the city of Stamford is planning to get off the grid by setting up a local power grid to just run local buildings and city offices, the local businesses will run each other with excess power from each ( Connecticut post, by Susan haigh, in your money section.

on the front page sikorski air craft is planning to set up it's own power plant & getting off the grid, also included was twenty of the largest plants in the state including G.E.

IT looks as though the home owner hasn't got a chance of getting low cost power in this state any more.

There might be a chance for you to set up a business here because connecticut needs a lot of power, even the state is allowing cities to set up their own power grids to supply local power & get off the REGION grid. IT LOOKS AS IF IT'S BAIL OUT TIME FOR CITIES IN CONNECTICUT. CHECK OUT WWW.ConnPost.COM Friday APRIL 20 edition.

front page & section C yourMONEY & take a look on what's up in Connecticut!

THIS IS WHAT WE THE HOME OWNER HALF TO PUT UP WITH IN CONNECTICUT !

GOLDRUSHNUGGET999

GOLDRUSHNUGGET

Offer property owners a tiny little property tax deduction for installing their own electricity supply systems that do not depend upon fuel-driven generators.

Offer them another for beautifying their property in the front.

Offer another for beautifying it in the back.

Give them another for growing a tall deciduous tree on the property on its sunniest side.

Another for supplying a new heat pump in their home heating/cooling system.

And another for supplying some considerable home gardening.

Offer them a tax-based incentive to install beautiful gardens around the city instead of spending money using city employees to do all of them. Only allow perennials to be planted in these gardens to save the expense of tearing out the garden every year and replanting it.

The increased revenue and savings will more than pay for the measly few mill points the city has to spend to attain these improvements; not the least of which will be increase in visitor traffic.

Make road construction contracts award-able only to construction companies who offer to work with the local Conservation Authority to dredge/clean up or install flow controls for some small part of the city's rivers and creeks on a voluteer basis with every contract awarded.

Fight back with positive change.

Mark

I may have misunderstood one of the points, but here goes anyway.

The idea that all of the population of one neighbourhood would have chosen the same method of powering their home is a little bemusing - unless global powers are at work again - I would have thought that a range of devices in each area would go a long way to evening out the power demands.

Globalising the grid would have to be done in such a way that the power supplied travels the shortest distance to its usage point - a windy day here in Scotland would not be able to directly feed a snowy Sydney as losses would wipe out the power far from the destination.

We can also expect many new laws imposing which type and method of connection are used, and no doubt much greater fees for allowing excess power to travel along these grids.

There were several points raised so far so rather than separate posts I will cover them with one.

Too many inconsistencies with independent power sources, budget people at power companies would pull thier hair out trying to work with it.

This is not the case. The accounting system just has a single extra item on it that allows for the power that is co-generated and fed back onto the grid. The way it works is that the metering system is capable of metering the power consumed from the grid as well as the power supplied to it. The other thing is that you will find that any accounting system already in place has a method of crediting each account so crediting co-generators is nothing complicated. Any accounting system that couldn't cope with crediting users for the power they generated would be a pretty crappy system and the twit that programmed it in the first place was a dope.

Power business is as bad as the auto/truck business and lack of common sense evolution.

This is true but pressure can be brought to bear in numerous way and they can be convinced to change their ways. The system I referred to in my post is offered by an Australian company so if we can do it you can. Excuses like it's too hard, to complicated, can't be made to work, is not desirable, won't make us money are all baseless because Origin Energy make it work in Australia. If they can do it here then other companies can do it elsewhere.

So yes, DC -> AC is pretty much covered but AC -> AC? What to do?

AC to AC isn't that much of a problem at the co-generation level as you can easily rectify it and then use the inverter to handle the synchronizing part. Some wind farms actually do this on a large scale and the smaller scale makes it easier to achieve. The system offered by Origin is based on solar panels but I can see no reason that the inverter co-generation controller couldn't be powered by hamsters on treadmills if you were so inclined.

The thing is we need to do something about global warming and we need to start doing it a decade ago. We havn't the time to stand about procrastinating about a handful of super rich companies getting even richer or thinking up new and exotic technologies. The co-generation system works, is available and can, if widely implemented have a considerable effect. Frankly I don't think we have any choice, anything else is likely to have too long a lead time, so it's up to all of us to force the powers to be to accept the facts and implement systems like this..

A point that may have been missed, at least I don't don't remember seeing it discussed regarding the 17% "long line/grid" transmission losses.

In the tradition configuration, power from generating facilities are transmitted over realitively long distances over "long lines/grid" to remote loads, hence the 17% loss.

With the addition of distributed cogeneration, the distributed "remote" load demand is deminished and consequently the demand on the "long line/grid". This should result in a significant improvement in grid efficiency (reduction in "long line/grid" power loss).

It seems that mature distributed cogeneration network could reduce line losses below 8% ... except under dire regional conditions ... for example, a hurricane.

Is it reasonable to conclude that over time, such a distributed cogeneration network, if truly economical, would evolve to the point where the original primary generating capability would be "spinng reserve" and "long line/grid" power losses would approach 0%?

Hi S Houston,

I don't know if we have conversed before but hello and welcome to CR4.

With the addition of distributed cogeneration, the distributed "remote" load demand is deminished and consequently the demand on the "long line/grid".

This is a very good point and is something that I hadn't thought of. The more diverse the technology and the larger the area that co-generation is used over the more reliable and self sufficient the system becomes. The concept is that a diverse and wide spread enough system would be able to supply all the energy requirements without the use of any large scale power plants.

I havn't done the calculations to see if this is actually possible or not bet even if it isn't such a system would reduce our dependence on power plants considerably. We also may never be able to reduce the power flowing down these long distance connectors but I do believe we can reduce the power going down them and hence, as you pointed out, reduce the losses.

Another thought/question:

If the 80% (or more) of the grid demand is provided by cogeneration, then the grid (if properly designed) should be far more restistant to disruption? This type of system will require the BEST LOAD and FAULT MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGIES.

Specific strategies (and equipment) would have to be developed to avoid black outs/grid collapse (like those experienced in NE USA - twice). I'm reasonably certain these cascading failures have occurred on non-USA grids as well.

None the less, the distributed cogeneration does offer the opportunity for a more robust system.

This configuration is an interesting network problem.

Yes Masu

But how to AC ->AC?

There are two ways to use AC as a source of power for a co-generating system. The first and most efficient is the method that power stations use now which is synchronous generation. The generators are brought up to speed and once the voltage and frequency is synchronized with the grid they are connected. The problem with this is that it requires some fairly sophisticated control systems but with modern electronics it's not impossible. The second is to rectify the AC with a bridge rectifier and then use the same inverter that is used for things like solar power to regenerate the AC in synchrony with the mains. This is less efficient but with smaller systems like those that would be used in a home it is easier to achieve than trying to synchronize and keep a generator in synchrony.

The system that Origin offer is an electronic inverter that supplies about 1 Kw but since it is supplied from a DC source there is no need to worry about synchronize the power source. If you were using a wind turbine or other system that is more efficient at generating AC then you insert a bridge rectifier and some smoothing capacitors between the generator and inverter and away you go.

I think I remember you mentioning that you worked with UPS (Uninterruptible Power Supplies) and some of the larger, more up market ones actually have generator inputs. The initial loss of power is covered by the batteries which allows for the time needed to start and get generators up to speed. These systems actually run the load from an inverter all the time and this inverter is synchronized to the mains supply in both voltage and frequency. In normal operation the mains are rectified and supply the power to run the inverter and charge the batteries. Even though they keep the inverter output synchronized with the mains this is only done so that in the event of an inverter failure the mains can pick up the load. The generator input doesn't even need to be the same frequency as it ends up being rectified and regulated by the battery charger. These systems are really not greatly different to some of the co-generation system that are around with the exception that they supply an isolated load rather feeding the power back onto the grid.

Modern semiconductors can take a hell of a lot of grunt and generating a 240 V sin wave at 10 A isn't that much of a problem, I purchased some FETs the other day that are rated for 15 A and can tolerate 300 V for $14.00 a piece and these could easily cope with pushing a couple of Kw back onto the grid.

First, a question to you, Masu. By co-generation, do you mean many parallel sources of power all connected together, many of these sources being from different types of technology or energy sources? Or, do you mean (as the term is normally understood in the USA) utilizing the same heat source for more than one type of energy need, such as a fossil fuel fired boiler supplying a steam turbine for electricity and the low-pressure steam then supplying hot water for a residential community or a business? This latter use of the term describes systems with total energy efficiencies of well over 55%, compared to the typical efficiency of a steam turbine plant at 35-40%.

I am fully in favor of the concept of multiple sources of energy. The robustness of this approach and its flexibility all are healthy. Grid connection and payment for the energy produced was fought by the utilities in the USA, and only got off the ground in any real way when it was mandated by Federal law. Many hurdles were present at first, and some remain, such as questions about safety and prevention of back-feeding power into a dead line while someone was working on it.

Others have mentioned the very real problems of system stability in the large interconnected grids we have. These have received careful study, but the recommended fixes seem to be difficult for the utility companies to swallow. If they are trying to do this at the same time as they are seeing a grass-roots push to change their basic business plan, things will get interesting. Fortunately, there are many existing examples of utility structures which are primarily involved in the acquisition, wheeling, distribution, and sale of energy without being directly involved in the generation side.

Good experiences and pressure will slowly open doors more widely. Pacific Gas and Electric, in California, resisted buying anyone's electricity, but became much more willing after that earthquake in the early 1980's in the SF Bay area knocked out much of their generating capacity for a few days and they were kept up and running by a couple large businesses who were able to send excess capacity into the grid.

Demand for equipment to make small systems will drop costs. We will see systems which are third-party certified as suitable for direct grid connection, with no more difficulty than making a connection to a circuit breaker and throwing a switch.

To get there, we will need changed business plans which will recognize the potential for such sources and include it in the overall models for energy generation and consumption. Present plans usually are still central-style and call for growth and mega-plant construction. Changing these business plans and the regulatory, legal, and social structures which are already in place can be harder than having a lion stop eating flesh. A good case study and one person's history on this can be read in the book: "Dynamos and Virgins, An advocate's personal account of the struggle to force a new idea, and a new future, on the nation's power companies", David Roe, Random House, New York (1984), 218 pages.

I don't remember the title of the book I read recently, but it described one organization's work to install micro-solar systems in rural homes in many countries, including Vietnam, Burma, Nepal, and a number of others. They set-up locally owned businesses which made components, did installations, provided maintenance, financing, etc. Sadly, the book also pointed out the ways in which small systems threatened the people in power. So the approach you suggest, Masu, is dangerous to those who hold power; this will be its greatest challenge (as well as its greatest success).

We need to act on this. John M.

POWER BACK to THE PEOPLE!

Sorry ... I could resist!

That's a brilliant slogan S Houston, do you mind if I use it?

<<<< EVERYONE IS WELCOME TO USE IT >>>>

POWER TO THE PEOPLE

MAY MOST F IT BE RENEWABLE

First, a question to you, Masu. By co-generation, do you mean many parallel sources of power all connected together, many of these sources being from different types of technology or energy sources?

Yes this is precisely what I am referring to, sorry about any confusion I should have realized that the term co-generation would have different meanings throughout the world. The different interpretation of technical terms is something that I try and keep on top of and I often mention the CRIMINAL use of acronyms so my apologies for any confusion.

It is indeed the old idea of combined heat and power.

There used to be day's that this was a normal procedure: plants had their own power house and used the waste heat in their process.

The main idea behind Co generation is that small units, installed in private property produce the heat needed to warm the house and have hot water. The waste is electricity that can be dropped on the grid. The units function from a central control point that decides which one is active (depending on the heat locally needed and the local power consumption)

The main engine is a Stirling engine fired by a natural gas burner. (Actual status of European experiments) Stirling engines enable the use of each possible heat source.

In the old day's only big installations were coupled to heat consumers. The efficacy went down as the heat output needed a certain level.

By using small units the heat distribution problems were countered: produce the heat where you need it and transport the electricity.

As you mentioned there are dangers: how to prevent that a line is kept under tension while local workers intended to shut it down. It forces that the units work together and have a kind of communication system. (It is like the capacitors in a TV set: they keep lethal voltages even when you switch of and unplug the set)

I think I added this link in a previous blog.

http://www.cogen.org/

Check it out, they really take it seroius.

Masu,

Taking the load down from a conventional power station reduces the efficacy. That is the last thing that should be done.

Starting to build Co-generation networks could avoid building new plants as power demand goes up.

On this side of the globe space is becoming the big issue: nobody wants to have those things in the backyard. Extending existing power lines becomes each year more difficult: locals 'who need the power' will fight till upper high court to avoid the construction of new high voltage lines.

It could be very useful for power companies to install some units in a power demanding community. This distributed generation model will also avoid the losses from the high power distribution and transformation. The amount of CO₂ (and other pollutants) generated in the co-generation model is lower than in the traditional model where the waste heat is used to heat up ponds and rivers. (And households burn all kind of combustibles in less controlled processes, sometimes throwing out 50% of the heat through the chimney)

Is there an advantage to making local power all DC? I seem to recall that, over short distances, DC is more efficient. It is also possible to get DC appliances, lighting, etc....

This may make it better to have a "neighborhood inverter" to put power up and take power down off the grid for local usage. This would reduce capital, maintenance, and make it easier for homeowners.

Any thoughts from the electrical community?

There are several DC distribution systems over the world.

At one moment in time it was not decided what to use, until Tesla created his motor. Then there was a serious benefit in using AC.

An indecent lamp will make make no problem of AC or DC. All the other lighting equipment has parts that work based on AC, tuff shit when you want to do the job with DC.

DC has also the major problem that it can't be converted from one voltage level to another easily. DC-DC converters are quite consuming. The best way to transform DC is through a motor - dynamo system. (highest efficacy, cost is nice)

On local level working with a separate DC network in your house to drive the low voltage lighting (Halogen and LED) fed by a PV cell and stored in a simple lead acid cell you can have nice results (= high efficacy)

Modern equipment could easily work with 12VDC. (and even avoid some power unit heating problems)

The main problem comes when you want power (cooking, vacuum cleaner,..)

Thanks for the info--12 VDC seems easy just because batteries can be purchased off the shelf. However, don't local transmission losses eat you up? Why not 120 VDC?

I like having two different circuits--my house is wired with separate lighting circuits anyway. Put high-intensity LED's for lighting and you might save a bundle over the long run!

What are "indecent lights"?

I have chosen for 12VDC as this is the perfect voltage for lamps (halogen and LED)

Indecent lamps = glow wire lamps (the lamp invented by Edison) It could be that I made a spelling error.

As explained DC is not easy to transform, higher voltages would ask for transformation. When choosing DC I would work with different circuits coupled to PV cells and batteries.

The actual AC transformer is a nice machine: it works in both way's. DC-DC conversion can't be done in both way's. Taking away the benefit of large scale co-generation.

All generators-dynamo's-alternators make AC which is electronically or mechanically transformed to DC (if you want DC at least)

PV and chemical energy is DC.

Thanks for answering my questions!

Back to the salt mines....

Indecent lights are incandescent lights with their pants down.

With or without their pants down, their lighting is friendlier to the human eye and better in general for working areas than flushing lights (which are fluorescent lights that blush whether their pants are up or down) because, as the word indecent implies, their lighting more resembles the spectra of natural lighting, while the flushies are considered "harsh".

So the idea of banning indecent in favour of flushing might be perhaps a little precipitious (or, as we say, knee-jerk...which is more difficult with your pants down).

Mark

Hi Mark,

My complements on the clever word sculpture. I do however have to disagree with the statement

their lighting more resembles the spectra of natural lighting, while the flushies are considered "harsh".

as the colour temperature of a fluorescent light is considerably closer to the colour temperature of daylight than the colour temperature of incandescent light.

In the good old days, before digital photography became commonplace, taking images under filament illumination required either a special tungsten film, that is more sensitive to the red end of the spectrum, or a blue filter to correct the colour. Photography under fluorescent light however did not require colour correction or the use of special film.

Cheap fluorescent lighting can flicker, something that can be painful as well as annoying, but this can be reduced to an imperceptible level by increasing the frequency. The colour temperature of fluorescent lighting is however considerably closer to daylight than the colour temperature of incandescent lighting.

Masu & company,

I wish color were that simple, in fluorescent lighting. Each phosphor compound used in the coating inside the tube tends to fluoresce at a particular band of wavelengths. By mixing different phosphors together, the designers achieve a composite color which is more-or-less white, but whose actual spectral distribution can be quite skewed and uneven. Thus, we have over 20 different "white" fluorescent bulbs, described with many common names such as "cool white" or "warm white" or "daylight", and many other names which often include the color temperature they are supposed to resemble. Manufacturers have agreed on a "color rendering index", to rank how well each particular white does, with scores from below 60 to 85 and more. There are a number of published reports linking certain colors to better or poorer mental health, and many "whites" are intentionally chosen for these as well as other reasons.

Since the electronic ballasts operate at very high frequencies, the flicker problems are rapidly disappearing. (At the higher frequencies, the phosphors are significantly more efficient at absorbing the ultra-violet and fluorescing the visible light, so visible light output is substantially higher for the same energy consumption, or is the same for a lowered energy consumption.)

--John M.

It is like dimming: We are used to the effect of dimming on a filament (I will not use the other word again) as it becomes cooler the color changes.

With fluorescent tubes the color will not change, there will simply be less light. It gives a different appreciation and people do not like it. But you get used to it.

My wife did not like the color of the LEDs I installed, some moths later she was used to it.

As I have done earlier this post is going to answer queries from several posts.

Firstly Gwen.Stouthuysen in post #19 stated

The main idea behind Co generation is that small units, installed in private property produce the heat needed to warm the house and have hot water. The waste is electricity that can be dropped on the grid. The units function from a central control point that decides which one is active (depending on the heat locally needed and the local power consumption)

Once again I must apologize for the confusion. The concept of co-generation that I was referring to is the generation of electricity by the end user, at the end users location primarily for the use in the same building that contains the generating system. Only the surplus capacity or energy that they generate that isn't used is sent to the grid for distribution to others that have a generating short fall. The electricity is not a secondary left over after heating but is the primary object of the process. Unfortunately the term co-generation has different meanings throughout the world but if you read the information about the Origin Energy system you will have a good idea of what I am referring to.

Gwen.Stouthuysen Also stated in post #20

Taking the load down from a conventional power station reduces the efficacy. That is the last thing that should be done.

This would be true initially but most power stations have multiple generators and once the co-generation system became diverse and widely distributed enough generators could be shut down, thus saving the running and fuel costs. Ultimately I would hope that the system would have enough capacity to not use fossil fueled power stations at all. In the event of a shortfall existing hydroelectric power plants, which can be brought on line quickly could be used to make up the difference. Hydroelectric plants could also be used to store any surplus capacity as well.

habib in post #21 asked,

Is there an advantage to making local power all DC? I seem to recall that, over short distances, DC is more efficient. It is also possible to get DC appliances, lighting, etc....

The main reason that we use AC today is that it is easier to step the voltage up or down with transformers. With transmission lines the power lost in the transmission lines is proportional to the square of the current flowing through these lines. Therefore by doubling the voltage we halve the current and reduce the transmission lines by ¾. Strangely however if you use DC at the same voltage as AC you will loose less power in the transmission but the problem of trying to step say 330 Kv DC down to a useable level is very difficult to solve. It is also fairly inefficient and any gains in reduced line losses are overwhelmed by the losses in the voltage conversion

As for using DC to supply power to appliances the answer is yes you can get just about all of them to ruin on DC but depending on the type of appliance it can be fairly complex and expensive to do. For example a simple filament light globe can easily operate on DC although the voltage needs to be somewhat lower. However the motor in say an air-conditioned is a different kettle of fish and requires some fairly fancy and expensive electronics that until not so long ago was not even available. As the electronics becomes more common it will undoubtedly become cheaper but it will be quiet some time before you will be able to run everything on DC as cheaply as on AC. You will still have the problem of changing voltages at the transmission line level so I can't see DC coming back into favor any time soon.

Another thing to keep in mind is that mains voltages can't travel very far. Even in Australia where we use 240 V tall buildings need high voltages (usually 11 Kv) supplying transformers distributed throughout the entire length of the building. The buildings are just too tall to be able to run the sort of power needed at normal supply voltages.

I hope this has cleared up some confusion and again I apologize for any confusion due to the different local interpretation of technical terms. Unfortunately with a global forum like CR4 this sort of confusion is inevitable and something we just have to live with.

Masu,

When you talk about Co-generation you will need to have at least two things generated. The Origin approach is not Co-generation.

Origin is a distributed power plant: lots of small PV units working together in an area.

The experiments as run by cogen.org are really Co-generation, they make heat (65%) and electricity (35%) were the heat is needed, the electricity is injected on the grid before your counter (that is why I call the electricity the waste) You can buy it if you want, but you don't need to buy it. The system is dimensioned for your heat need. You also don't pay the fuel, you pay the kWh of heat that you take from the system.

Gwen

Hi Gwen,

The system Cogen Europe is just one way of going about it where the majority of the energy is used as heating. In Australia however the heating requirements are considerably less. Here are a couple of links to maps for heating degree days and cooling degree days for the entire continent. As you can see heating is not the problem in Australia and even though the majority of the population lives in the south east of the continent Sydney requires more days of cooling than heating. If you look at the statistics for Sydney you will see that the minimum temperatures only dip slightly below 10° C from June to August and by 09:00 it is above 10° C all the time. If you look at the maximum temperatures even in the coldest month of July the mean maximum is still 25.9 degrees.

This means that if you have an air-conditioned structure even in winter you will more than likely need to run the cooling system every day of the year even in the middle of winter. I have worked on several sky scrapers in Sydney commissioning the automation systems and for the most part you can get by heating the buildings from the electrical load and radiated heat of the occupants.

The Origin Energy system dose use photovoltaic cells to produce about 1 Kw of power but there is no reason that this power couldn't come from a wind turbine, micro hydroelectric generator, sterling engine, micro geothermal generator or people peddling push bike generators if you were so inclined. The important part is the inverter that takes the DC and synchronizes with the mains supply so that it can either be used directly or distributed for use by others.

Which system is the most suitable depends where you are. In Europe and North America, where heating constitutes a large portion of the energy consumption direct heating would be the best way to go. In places that do not require the same level of heating the equation is completely different and it is better to generate electricity as the primary resource and either use it at the point of generation or distribute it to where it is needed.

Masu,

Here you point to a real difference that will eventually lead to a total different solution: We need to heat our houses and that takes way more energy than the electrical appliances. You need to cool the house and need electricity for it.

The main idea of using distributed production is what bind the two: somehow the network stability has to be guarantied.

Global warming will push the need for cooling in your area, where for Europe the main idea is that our summers will be cold with some really hot periods.

Approx 80% of the energy consumed in Europe goes to heat, imagine that you can replace that by alternative sourcing and co-generation.

Gwen

Thanks Masu for your clear explanation of the issues!

Reference comments

Gwen.Stouthuysen Also stated in post #20

Taking the load down from a conventional power station reduces the efficacy. That is the last thing that should be done.
====
Ultimately I would hope that the system would have enough capacity to not use fossil fueled power stations at all. In the event of a shortfall existing hydroelectric power plants, which can be brought on line quickly could be used to make up the difference. Hydroelectric plants could also be used to store any surplus capacity as well.

Obviously your points are correct ... there is the need for "spinning reserve" with gas turbine and hydro as the next level of backup.

My take;

1. ...to borrow neighbourhood gas distribution network concept....; let's add 2 more distribution lines, AA)oxygen, BB)nitrogen (these 2 gases could be tapped off a wider/bigger grid that feeds compressed air to industries/other consumers - as proposed elsewhere in CR4.)

2. oxy-fuel(piped gas or engineered coal) burner can be real compact or less intruding. Have one unit of oxy-fuel burner for pure heating and another for power generation - preferably DC, and step it up or down with power chips.

e.g.: oxy-fuel external heater+nitrogen(piped) as working medium for micro-gas turbine+dynamo/alternator. Major point here is, working medium/nitrogen only needs to be heated such that upon complete expansion in the power turbine, exhaust gas temperature is no more than a few degrees ambient temperature.

I just dug up the figures for the amount of electricity consumed by my house in Sydney Australia for the year 2006. If others could do the same for where they lived if would give a better picture of how achievable a system like this would be so if you have the time please see if you can find last year energy bills a post the data here. It would be greatly appreciated and I would be in debt to you.

My house is a 17 room house occupied by 6 adults, 2 children, 3 dogs, 2 goldfish and a pet mouse that is all electric and located in Sydney Australia. Last year we consumed 23,927 Kwh of electricity so for a system along the lines previously described I would need to generate about 30 Mwh of electricity annually.

Photovoltaic Cell Generation. According to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology Sydney has 7.2 hours of sunlight per day so based on this we can calculate the generating capacity required as follows

Generating_Capacity = Energy_Consumption ÷ Hours_Generation

Generating_Capacity = 30 Mw ÷ (365 x 7.2)

Generating_Capacity = 11.45 Kw

While this is considerably more than the system Origin Energy is offering it is not an impossibility

Micro Hydroelectric Generation Hydroelectric generation is fundamentally more efficient as it can be readily scaled to meet demand. So for a system equivalent to the previous system we can run it all the time and so the capacity now becomes

Generating_Capacity = Energy_Consumption ÷ Hours_Generation

Generating_Capacity = 30 Mwh ÷ (365 x 24)

Generating_Capacity = 3.42 Kw

This is easily achieved and can be purchased off the shelf from companies like Joyti Limited who offer systems as small as 5 Kw that can run on a little as 2 m of head.

Wind Turbine Generation Unfortunately I do not have access to the statistics on wind for Sydney but along the coast the temperature difference between the land and sea generates a wind of about 10 to 15 knots from about 12:00 till around 18:00 each day. Then from about 20:00 till about 06:00 the wind blows the other way at around 2 to 5 knots. So if we average this over time we get something like 6.875 knots for 16 hours a day so if we work on 6 knots (3 ms^-1) for 16 hours

Generating_Capacity = Energy_Consumption ÷ Hours_Generation

Generating_Capacity = 30 Mwh ÷ (365 x 16)

Generating_Capacity = 5.1 Kw

Using the equation derived at the end of this post and an estimate that a turbine generator has an efficiency of about 50%, the density of air is 1.204 Kgm^-3 and a velocity of 3 ms^-1

Turbine_Diameter = 2 x ((2 x 5.1 Kw) ÷ (π x 50% x 1.204 Kgm^-3 x 3³ ms^-1))^½

Turbine_Diameter = 28.26 m

Which is a fairly large wind turbine for a house and would be fairly impractical by itself but if you look at the equation you can see that the velocity of the wind is to the power of 3 and so small increases in the velocity or the wind can have a dramatic effect on the size of the wind turbine. The velocity of the wind is a pure guess and was deliberately kept low. If the wind velocity was in fact twice the 3 ms^-1 estimate then the diameter of the turbine would reduce to 10 m or roughly a third of the calculated diameter.

There are many methods that could be used to generate electricity and others might like to use the equations to see how much capacity they would need to be energy neutral. You can also use multiple methods at a single site, for example there is no reason you could not use a wind turbine and solar panels to increase the hours of generation and therefore reduce the required generating capacity.

While the concept of having a co-generation system that is overall energy neutral requires more capacity than the systems currently on offer it is not an engineering impossibility. With the economies of scale and mass production the cost of these systems will only come down and I truly believe that the concept of an overall energy neutral co-generation system is realistic and could likely be achieved within a decade or so.

Here is the derivation of the equation to calculate the dimensions of a wind turbine.