Energías Renovables

[nora]

Interesante... Propuesta para que hagan un programa de Salvados dedicado a la energía.

Deseo concedido. El de esta noche es "Oligopoly, el juego de la energía" 

[traspotin]

La Agencia Internacional de la Energía ya ha publicado esta semana el World Energy Outlook 2012:
http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/publications/weo-2012/#d.en.26099...

Aquí destripan un poco la publicación:

IEA report reminds us peak oil idea has gone up in flames
The truly global implications of the 2012 report lie in the warning that we must leave most of our fossil fuels in the ground

Given the bubbling cauldron of violence that the middle East so frequently and regrettably is, the prospect of the US outstripping Saudi Arabia as the world's biggest oil producer in the next decade is deeply striking. The redrawing of the geopolitical map may cool some tensions and perhaps spark others.

But the truly global implications of the International Energy Agency's flagship report for 2012 lie elsewhere, in the quietly devastating statement that no more than one-third of already proven reserves of fossil fuels can be burned by 2050 if the world is to prevent global warming exceeding the danger point of 2C. This means nothing less than leaving most of the world's coal, oil and gas in the ground or facing a destabilised climate, with its supercharged heatwaves, floods and storms.

What follows from this is that the idea of peak oil has gone up in flames. We do not have too little fossil fuel, we have far too much. It also follows directly that the world's stock markets are sitting on toxic levels of subprime coal and gas, a giant carbon bubble ready to explode.

How has it come to this? The simple answer is because the cost of the damage caused by carbon emissions is still not paid by the polluter. But the IEA's World Energy Outlook 2012 also highlights another huge problem which is throwing fuel on the fire: titanic subsidies for fossil fuels. The IEA estimates that $523bn was burned in cutting fossil fuel prices in 2011.

Coal, oil and gas are mature industries and should be more than able to stand on their own two feet by now. Renewable energy, in contrast, is relatively new and needs support in driving its costs down – which it is doing, fast – and to compensate for the market failures which mean greenhouse gases continue to be pumped into the atmosphere in ever greater quantities. Yet, in 2011, subsidies for renewables totalled only $88bn around the world, meaning fossil fuels received six times more. The dirty fuels also got a bigger increase in subsidies in 2011: 30%, compared to the 24% for renewables.

The prospects look gloomier than the smokestack of a coal-fired power station. But there are glimmers of hope. Renewables will become the second-largest source of electricity generation by 2015, predict the IEA, and energy efficiency could in the next two decades cut a fifth of current demand.

But the obstacles to preventing runaway climate change remain formidable. First, the entire valuation of the world's fossil fuels has to undergo a massive downgrade, impossible without the tough global climate treaty that currently seems as far away as ever.

Second, greater energy efficiency is a no-brainer that is easy to support but hard to make a reality, requiring as it does incentivising energy users to use less of the product their suppliers are selling and deep changes in behaviour. Coincidentally, the UK published an energy efficiency strategy on the same day as the IEA report. It is full of laudable good intentions, but will have little impact in the near term. Meanwhile, the government's flagship policy on reforming the electricity market - due any day - contains absolutely nothing on energy efficiency so far.

Keith Allott, head of climate change at WWF-UK, said: "Many governments and businesses are clearly in denial over the threat posed by climate change and need to accept that we have to start leaving fossil fuels in the ground rather than dashing to develop new reserves. It's simply crazy to think otherwise." The problem is that right now, and for many people, it is leaving coal, gas and oil buried that seems the crazier option.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2012/nov/12/iea-report-peak-oil

El artículo original tiene varios enlaces, éste me ha parecido bueno traerlo:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jan/19/fossil-fuels-sub-prime-mervyn-king

Fossil fuels are sub-prime assets, Bank of England governor warned
Open letter to Sir Mervyn King says overexposure to high-carbon assets by London-listed companies risks creating a 'carbon bubble'

[traspotin]

With more than 90% of its electricity generated from renewable energy sources and goals to reach 95% by 2014, Costa Rica is certainly one of the greenest countries on the planet. It also is on track to become the world’s first carbon-free economy.

I recently returned from a 12-day tour sponsored by Global Renewable Energy Education Network (GREEN) and showcasing renewable and sustainable energy in Costa Rica.With this experience fresh in my mind, I thought I’d take this opportunity to share some of the educational highlights with Energy Currents readers.

Costa Rica: A renewables paradise

Mother Nature has greatly influenced Costa Rica’s commitment to renewable energy. The country is blessed by copious amounts of rainfall – most of the country receives more than 100 inches of rain per year. Thus, it’s no surprise that over 80% of Costa Rica’s electricity is generated by hydro facilities. The country also boasts considerable geothermal power as well as growing wind assets, solar, and biomass facilities.

ICE’s role in renewables

The Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad or ICE (pronounced ee-say) of Costa Rica is the state-owned electric monopoly that provides power to over 98% of Costa Rican homes. While many of the facilities that produce this power are ICE-owned, a small percentage is owned privately under rather non-traditional contracts. In many cases, these facilities are privately owned for a period of 15 years and are then handed over to ICE, which then owns and operates them. After a decade-long break from allowing such projects, ICE recently announced a plan to again accept bids for privately owned renewable projects (100 MW of hydro and 40 MW of wind). The plan intentionally aligns with Costa Rica’s goal of becoming a carbon-free economy.

ICE also implemented a net metering program in 2010 whose goals were, again, to increase renewable energy production and thus the country’s energy independence. The pilot program also allows ICE to study the effects of distributed generation on its grid as well as to promote new renewable technologies.

A countrywide commitment

Costa Ricans are very proud of their renewable and sustainable efforts, which come at a premium price. Average residential rates are over 30 cents per kWh, and this may soon increase. Yet oddly, citizens are not likely to complain. The dedication to a renewable/sustainable society seems to be a shared goal, and the monetary cost of this commitment is widely accepted as are the variables that can affect it.

For example, with such a large portion of electricity needs met by hydroelectric power, the country is hugely dependent upon rain. And in dryer years, as 2012 has so far been, ICE is concerned that it cannot generate enough supply to match demand. Less water means less hydro power is available. This means costs increase (since power must be purchased from other sources) and so does the amount of power generated from fossil fuels.

The GREEN tour afforded unprecedented access to renewable facilities in Costa Rica. My group and I enjoyed guided tours of hydro facilities, a biomass plant/sugar cane refinery, a geothermal plant, and a wind farm. Not only were we inches from the equipment housed in these facilities (imagine access like this in the U.S.!), but also heard first-hand accounts of how such equipment is run and ICE’s unique perspectives on electricity production.

While GREEN is currently focused on providing this experience to college-level audiences, Enerdynamics and GREEN are discussing a partnership where this unique opportunity could be available to business professionals. For more information, please contact me at jferrare@enerdynamics.com.

Source: SolarFeeds.com

http://news.co.cr/costa-rica-committed-to-renewable-energy/15673/

[Maple Leaf]

Imprescindible

http://www.lasexta.com/videos/salvados/2012-noviembre-18-2012111600028.html

[traspotin]

http://sociedad.elpais.com/sociedad/2012/11/18/actualidad/1353267387_721708.html

La industria fotovoltaica se busca la vida. Tras la moratoria a las nuevas plantas con primas decretada por el Gobierno el pasado 27 de enero, el sector ha comenzado a encontrar una salida en las pequeñas instalaciones para autoconsumo: paneles en industrias con una gran demanda a mediodía (restaurantes, naves con cámaras frigoríficas...) en las que ya permiten reducir la factura eléctrica. De momento se hace sin que el Ministerio de Industria haya sacado un decreto de autoconsumo que debía regularlo, y las eléctricas tradicionales dicen que se puede estar gestando otra burbuja. Si prospera, podría ser el inicio de una revolución en la generación eléctrica, como augura la patronal fotovoltaica, UNEF.

El restaurante La Sal Varador, en Mataró (Barcelona), ha optado por producir un 20% de la electricidad que consume al año. Lo hará con una pequeña cubierta solar de ocho kilovatios. Son 126 metros cuadrados de paneles que conectó el pasado octubre. Denis Cloup, director del proyecto, de la empresa Conergy, explica cómo cuadran las cuentas: “La inversión fue de 13.800 euros. Esa planta producirá 11.200 kilovatios-hora al año. Esa es la electricidad que dejará de comprar fuera, a la eléctrica. A un precio de 15 céntimos de euro por kilovatio-hora, resulta que en ocho años habrá recuperado la inversión”.

Eso, suponiendo que el precio de la electricidad no suba. Pero con un déficit acumulado de tarifa de 24.000 millones de euros, lo previsible es que crezca y que la instalación se amortice antes, según Conergy.

En los hogares las cuentas están menos claras porque en buena parte de España el consumo se produce principalmente de noche, aunque comienzan a salir dispositivos para programar electrodomésticos para que funcionen a mediodía, cuando los paneles producen.

“Es la única salida que le queda al sector”, afirma un responsable de una empresa
El caso de Mataró es solo un ejemplo de algo creciente: la apuesta por el autoconsumo instantáneo. Hasta ahora, la industria fotovoltaica estaba volcada en construir grandes plantas en suelo, que conseguían jugosas primas por la electricidad producida. Cuando Industria secó las primas ya señaló que el “balance neto de electricidad cuya regulación está en curso, constituye una alternativa real para el desarrollo de instalaciones de pequeño tamaño a través del fomento del autoconsumo de energía eléctrica”. Balance neto significa que uno produce energía solar y lo que no consume lo intercambia en la red. La norma que lo regula debía estar lista cuatro meses después de la moratoria, pero sigue en tramitación.

Pero la industria fotovoltaica no ha esperado. Amparándose en un decreto de 2011 para la conexión de instalaciones de baja potencia, y en que las comunidades empiezan a desarrollar los procedimientos, ha comenzado a instalar cubiertas en tejados. Primero, poco a poco, y ahora crece exponencialmente. “Tenemos entre 10 y 15 proyectos entre manos”, explica Cloup.

La misma visión da Sergi Belda, responsable de compras de la empresa Prosolia: “Hay restaurantes, hoteles, cooperativas agrarias...”. Las plantas se diseñan para que no haya sobrantes a la red. Es decir, el equivalente al consumo máximo al mediodía. Teresa Marticorena, de la empresa Proinso, también explica que la firma ha pasado de “hacer plantas con prima en suelo a cubiertas en autoconsumo”. Ya tiene una residencia geriátrica en Badajoz y una nave industrial en Navarra. Los ejemplos se suceden.

Las instalaciones que se van conectando vuelcan a la red la electricidad que no consumen, en un procedimiento que depende de la comunidad autónoma en la que esté y de la empresa distribuidora de turno (según la que sea, pone más o menos pegas).

La abrupta caída del precio de los módulos explica la rentabilidad
La clave está en la bajada del precio de los paneles, que en 2008 suponían el 80% del coste de la instalación y ahora solo un tercio. Por muchos motivos —mejoras tecnológicas, aumento de la capacidad de producción, hay denuncias de subvenciones encubiertas de China...— los paneles cuestan hoy un 20% que hace 10 años. Y siguen bajando.

Cuando salga la norma del balance neto, el excedente se podrá intercambiar y eso ayudará a atraer clientes. “Esta es la única salida que le queda al sector solar en España tras la paralización de las primas. Esto no tiene primas porque no las necesita”, resume Belda.

Las eléctricas ven con recelo este fenómeno, entre otras cosas porque ha empezado antes de que llegue la norma que lo regule. Gonzalo Sáenz de Miera, de Iberdrola, lleva meses polemizando en debates sobre autoconsumo: “La fotovoltaica tiene un futuro esplendoroso, pero si se intenta aprovechar un vacío legal se puede caer en otra burbuja. El autoconsumo va a ser un tema de futuro. Ahora mismo compensa en algunos casos porque la estructura de la tarifa eléctrica está mal hecha. Es arriesgado”. Quien conecta ahora una instalación en autoconsumo no paga los costes fijos del sistema eléctrico (redes, transporte, primas a las renovables...), una enorme partida que sí pagan los demás consumidores.

Sáenz de Miera señala que si se dispara el autoconsumo, la factura tendrá que subir para quien no tenga paneles. Alega que alguien tiene que pagar los costes fijos, como el déficit de tarifa, los 24.000 millones reconocidos al sector. Pero Sáenz de Miera señala que si se reformara la estructura de la tarifa y cambiase el reparto entre costes fijos y de generación, el autoconsumo podría no ser viable.

El sector fotovoltaico rebate esa idea argumentando que es como llamar insolidario a quien opta por bombillas de bajo consumo o por cualquier otro sistema de ahorro, ya que gasta menos electricidad y carga los costes fijos sobre otros consumidores. Industria lleva meses de retraso viendo cuánto hace pagar a quien apueste por el autoconsumo en balance neto, ya que al utilizar la red eléctrica deberá pagar por ella.

El director general de la Unión Española Fotovoltaica (UNEF), José Donoso, no tiene dudas: “El autoconsumo va a ser la próxima revolución energética y los retrasos en la norma solo van a conseguir que España no la lidere. Ya se está haciendo de forma casi clandestina porque los números salen y sin ningún tipo de prima”.

[polov]

En el último podcast de "radioactividad" (CB)  hablán del informe:

http://www.ivoox.com/radioactividad-15-11-2012-informe-world-energetic-outlook-2012-2035-audios-mp3_rf_1574847_1.html

Gracias por sus posts.
Saludos

[Cría cuervos...]

@ polov:
Acabo de escuchar el enlace de "radiactividad". Yo la verdad es que soy pesimista con el tema de la energía, especialmente en España. Con respecto al último comentario, esto es, distinguir entre lo macro y lo micro, tienen razón. Estudias los informes y es todo muy optimista (se van a cumplir los objetivos, las renovables van viento en popa,...), pero lo cierto es que los hogares y las industrias cada vez lo tienen peor. Es cierto que estos años, en vez de haber invertido en pisos y chorradas, podrían haber invertido en renovar las infraestructuras energéticas de sus pymes o en conseguir la autosuficiencia en hogares, pero la situación a la que nos enfrentamos es que no lo han hecho y ahora escasea el dinero para renovar los sistemas. Aunque estaría mejor en el hilo de EEUU, como se ha tratado de forma individualizada en el enlace que citas, adjunto un documento sobre el papel exportador de USA que me bajé hace unos meses:
http://fa.smithbarney.com/public/projectfiles/ce1d2d99-c133-4343-8ad0-43aa1da63cc2.pdf

[TEOTWAIKI]

El punto de vista anglo a la espantada de Desertec:

Solar storm as desert plan to power Europe falters

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20357167

[Kaprak63]

http://www.energias-renovables.com/articulo/el-coste-de-las-renovables-sigue-bajando-20121120



El coste de las renovables sigue bajando
Luis MerinoMartes, 20 de noviembre de 2012


Día a día, y con la terquedad de un martillo pilón, el coste de las renovables sigue bajando. Hasta el punto de que, según IRENA, para cientos de millones de personas que no tienen acceso a la red es ya la forma más barata de disponer de electricidad. Incluso contando con la red de suministro, las renovables son más baratas en zonas con buenos recursos de sol y viento.

Estos datos, dice la Agencia Internacional de las Energías Renovables (IRENA), “deberían ser una llamada de atención para los políticos”. Que atienden demasiado a otros intereses distintos a los de los ciudadanos, decimos nosotros. “La revolución renovable está en marcha” –apunta Dolf Gielen, director de Innovación de IRENA– En los últimos años se han visto caídas, incluso dramáticas, en el coste de la electricidad con fuentes renovables. Y ahora son la opción más barata para instalaciones aisladas y en zonas que, aún contando con conexión a red, disponen de buenos recursos de viento y sol”.

“El mensaje es claro: las renovables son la opción más barata para cubrir la creciente demanda de electricidad, incluso sin subsidios de ningún tipo. Es también la mejor opción para el medio ambiente. El futuro renovable se puede financiar ya, sin olvidar de que los costes seguirán descendiendo”.

El informe “Renewable Power Generation Costs” que acaba de publicar IRENA, y que se puede descargar en su web, incluye muchos titulares jugosos. Por ejemplo, la biomasa para producción de electricidad es ya competitiva en zonas donde existe disponibilidad de residuos agrícolas y forestales a bajo precio. Con proyectos que están produciendo electricidad por tan solo 0,06 dólares kWh.

Los costes de la termosolar han caído hasta los 0,14 dólares por kWh. Mientras que la energía hidráulica, la principal fuente renovable de producción de electricidad en la actualidad, ofrece los costes más bajos de todas las tecnologías.

La solar fotovoltaica, que ha vivido un desarrollo espectacular en los dos últimos años, está ya preparada para alcanzar la paridad de red con las tarifas eléctricas que paga el consumidor en muchas zonas del mundo. Ahora, sus costes van desde los 0,16 a los 0,36 dólares kWh. Y las zonas de buenos vientos permiten a la eólica terrestre entregar energía a 0,04 dólares kWh.

En comparación, la electricidad generada con combustibles fósiles cuesta hoy entre 0,06 y 0,012 dólares kWh en los países de la OCDE. Y eso sin contar el coste del transporte y la distribución.

En todo caso, el mensaje del último informe de IRENA es rotundo. Y conviene volver a recordar que los costes de las renovables seguirán bajando, mientras que los de las tecnologías convencionales seguirán subiendo. ¿Alguien tiene dudas sobre la apuesta que hay que hacer?

[NosTrasladamus]

Me traigo éste que he dejado en las cloacas...
http://www.transicionestructural.net/las-cloacas-del-sistema/recibo-de-la-luz-oligarquia-y-tramas/msg57467/#msg57467

Qué bonito, los plutócratas poniendose de acuerdo para defender la libertad de información...

La patronal eléctrica en pie de guerra contra el ‘Follonero’

La patronal eléctrica Unesa está en pie de guerra contra Jordi Évole, también conocido como  el Follonero. La razón, el último programa de Salvados en La Sexta, donde con su tono habitual, el periodista catalán puso en solfa muchas prácticas del sector eléctrico que repercuten negativamente sobre los precios que paga el consumidor final.

La preocupación no ha sido sólo por el enfoque crítico del programa y por su elevada audiencia, un 11,9% de share, sino también porque la entrevista con el representante del sector que Unesa había facilitado para dar su versión de los hechos finalmente no apareció en el capítulo emitido el pasado domingo. Así las cosas, el espacio se convirtió en un encadenado de críticas: desde acusaciones por oligopolio hasta escaso apoyo a las renovables.

En una call conference del comité de comunicación de Unesa, convocada sólo para tratar el efecto del espacio de La Sexta, se acordó remitir una carta al presidente del grupo Planeta, José Manuel Lara, para pedir una compensación por este mal trato. Planeta es el máximo accionista del grupo Antena 3, donde está integrado La Sexta.

La patronal pide un espacio en Antena 3, ya que ningún alto directivo de las empresas de Unesa quería batirse el cobre cara a cara con Évole, dada la facilidad que históricamente ha mostrado el periodista en dejar retratadas a las más diversas personalidades que han aparecido en el programa.

Pues nada, nada que suba el "share"....

http://www.lasexta.com/videos/salvados/2012-noviembre-18-2012111600028.html

[Kaprak63]

Me traigo éste que he dejado en las cloacas...
http://www.transicionestructural.net/las-cloacas-del-sistema/recibo-de-la-luz-oligarquia-y-tramas/msg57467/#msg57467

Qué bonito, los plutócratas poniendose de acuerdo para defender la libertad de información...

La patronal eléctrica en pie de guerra contra el ‘Follonero’

La patronal eléctrica Unesa está en pie de guerra contra Jordi Évole, también conocido como  el Follonero. La razón, el último programa de Salvados en La Sexta, donde con su tono habitual, el periodista catalán puso en solfa muchas prácticas del sector eléctrico que repercuten negativamente sobre los precios que paga el consumidor final.

La preocupación no ha sido sólo por el enfoque crítico del programa y por su elevada audiencia, un 11,9% de share, sino también porque la entrevista con el representante del sector que Unesa había facilitado para dar su versión de los hechos finalmente no apareció en el capítulo emitido el pasado domingo. Así las cosas, el espacio se convirtió en un encadenado de críticas: desde acusaciones por oligopolio hasta escaso apoyo a las renovables.

En una call conference del comité de comunicación de Unesa, convocada sólo para tratar el efecto del espacio de La Sexta, se acordó remitir una carta al presidente del grupo Planeta, José Manuel Lara, para pedir una compensación por este mal trato. Planeta es el máximo accionista del grupo Antena 3, donde está integrado La Sexta.

La patronal pide un espacio en Antena 3, ya que ningún alto directivo de las empresas de Unesa quería batirse el cobre cara a cara con Évole, dada la facilidad que históricamente ha mostrado el periodista en dejar retratadas a las más diversas personalidades que han aparecido en el programa.

Pues nada, nada que suba el "share"....

http://www.lasexta.com/videos/salvados/2012-noviembre-18-2012111600028.html

Me da miedo que un día Jordi Évole se encuentre una cabeza de caballo en su cama y deje de explicar de manera tan sencilla, como para el más obtuso de los ciudadanos pueda enterarse, de los trapicheos que se trae entre manos la putrefacta casta que desgobierna este país.

Si esto fuera Méjico ya habría aparecido tirado en una cuneta con evidentes signos de tortura.

S2.

P.D.: Me quedaba añadir: "pero que panda de HDLGP".

[Decreasing Management]

A ver si ven a partir de ahora un anuncio de una eléctrica en la sexta.

Y si lo vemos, habrá un giro en la línea editorial.

Un poderoso siempre se venga.

[Currobena]

Traído del hilo del cambio climático, por tratarse del gasto energético de la Humanidad:

Artículo largo, pero muy interesante sobre las consecuencias del desperdicio de la energía que generamos en el calentamiento global:
 
 

Why waste heat is the problem and not CO2 – go long carbon price  Posted on 22 November, 2012                                   In an attempt to preamble this post with qualifications on not being pro this or that, not anti this or that, an anarchist or muppet media cheerleader, I might try to convince you this is not a promotion of anything else but free thinking. But somewhere within that preamble you would form an expectation of what this post may (or may not) contain and you would end up disappointed in some way, shape or form. So f*ck it, I’ll save you the time and me the effort. You see I don’t care if the planet is getting hotter by 1 degree every 10 years. Why? Because there is nothing I can personally do about it if it is, except adapt myself and my family to it as it changes my life. Since supposedly intelligent and morally attached representatives are forcing this change onto me, I may as well have a say in how I deal with it.
Now that might sound like resignation to you, but the reality of life after $5Trillion in bailouts following the collusion and fraud of 2008 has woken me up to my own opinions. This is simply an extension of that realisation.
Intuitively, 380ppm (or more correctly 0.038%) of CO2 does not sound like a whole lot. In economic terms, 0.038% expressed as a growth rate of anything is pretty small. But it is not a rate of change, it is the measured value of CO2 in the atmosphere. I’ve tried to put thoughts on this previously with little success -
 a) Commentary: On the hypocrisy over climate change
 b) AGW and accurate global population distributions
The end result is truly the trade of the millennium – a one way sure thing. That is, go long carbon prices, and stay long. Pass the trade certificates onto your children and them onto theirs. It’s about the concept of ‘heat rate’ (thermal efficiency) and the reality that in the US in 2011, 63% of all the energy used to generate electricity was waste, and mostly as waste heat. Waste heat sources can be measured as kW(th) thermal, as equivalent references to other kW units of energy and power. But get the 63% number – that means greater than half of all energy converted as ignited/burnt/combusted was waste heat.
Some further background
 You would understand the kilowatt unit ‘kW’ for your metered electricity, call this kWe (for kilowatts of electricity). When electricity is run through a filament light (typical incandescent bulb), almost all of this kWe is converted to heat through the resistance of the filament – it gets hot. The same for toasters, kettles, element stoves etc. The kilowatt hour (kWH) is the measure of 1 kilowatt run continuously for 1 hour.
Most simply, a 1000watt (1 kW(e)) bar heater running for 1 hour uses 1 kWH(e) producing 1 kW(th) thermal heat. Converting kW(e) back into kW(th) thermal produces heat you can feel with your hands at home, every day.
The verification data comes from the EIA’s latest US electricity summary data. The US EIA has recently published this graphical representation that virtually no-one would fully appreciate -http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/sec8_3.pdf
The graphic (with my markups below) showing the reality of the US electricity industry
 (note: this is not a fossil fuel love/hate)

 - don’t let the green colour fool you, it’s from the EIA
 - might not include secondary or tertiary heat recovery technologies
 - most electricity conversion losses are at thermal power plants (as heat);
 - metered electricity = net generation + T&D losses ; (transmission and distribution)
 - approx 63% of all energy used for US electricity generation in 2011 wasn’t converted to electricity;
 (very diplomatic of the EIA to say the least; some well chosen words)
So the 63% that “wasn’t converted to electricity” was what then? … and why would it be left shaded green? I have nothing against green per se, or monochromatic graphics. The thermal power plants would be coal, fuel oil, syngas, natural gas, bio fuels, bio mass and nuclear. 65.5% of the total energy used to generate electricity in the USA is fossil fuel derived. To be fair on the EIA data, waste heat recovery systems and cogen/trigen/CHP technologies are probably not included in the above stated conversion losses. At best, heat recovery technologies are still not very widespread and might lift the total average heat rate up a few percentage points – certainly would not lift the network heat rate higher than 50%.
The bottom line – the heat rate of the US electricity industry is a mere 37%. This is the residual (left over) output of kWe generation of the total energy needed to generate it. It means that thermal waste (as kW(th)) is almost DOUBLE this, but substantially more than all combined metered electricity generated in the US is wasted as heat.
BUT WAIT! This is a global phenomenon not restricted to borders of the US. You might argue the US would be a leading example of high efficiency power generation, without naming names. So using a heat rate of 37% for total global electricity production would not be unfair. Globally, 63% of all energy consumed to generate electricity is heating up the atmosphere. Again, the best case is slightly less wasted heat using heat recovery cogen/trigen/CHP technologies.
Thought experiment – imagine a heating element running 24hours 7 days (24/7/365) doing nothing but heating up the local area? This thermal waste heat element is equal to the total amount of electricity being generated and delivered to homes and factories 24/7/365.
For you own verification – a far better current statistical summary of global trends is from the iea.org
http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/kwes.pdf
Alteratively World Energy Outlook 2012 (also from the iea)
http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/English.pdf

 - critical to understand this increasing trend
 - no indication or mention of efficiencies or heat rates
 - no indication or mention of heat recovery technologies
 - the heat rate of the global system is not likely to change appreciably on current (increasing) trends
 - the heat rate (and waste heat) is greatly unaffected by any treatments targeting CO2 of existing/future generation units
Conclusion (the controversial bit)
 I am hopeful that more intelligent people than I read this with direct experience in the climate argument. I don’t think the ICC reports acknowledge heat rate and the waste heat content as per above. Instead, they opt for the CO2 content of the waste, and not the enormous amounts of heat wasted in generating electricity around the world. Which is a gaping flaw in the AGW debate in my humble opinion. By my back of the envelope calculations, this heat alone (when adding it up globally) accounts for more immediate and measurable climate change than the contribution of 380ppm (0.038%) of CO2.
This previous article (link) has a more estimates for global heat rates including motor vehicles. It is a much larger problem globally.
Directing environmental policy towards addressing this glaring oversight on efficiencies and waste heat (and NOT C02) would be an impossible mission. I cannot get myself past CO2 being the lesser of 2 evils and a massive financial opportunity for those who stand to benefit from trading CO2. Far worse would be that addressing CO2 fails to do anything at all to reverse the temperature trends – this would be a human travesty of epic proportions should the environmental conditions worsen as predicted.
Food for thought while everyone is hell bent on solving the Al Gore CO2 problem. If Al had used this argument while on the scissor lift to heaven artificially scaled J-curve CO2 chart, I might have listened to his whole argument. While the current CO2 policies will have an impact to reduce the gross levels of waste heat above, it won’t be significant simply because it is not the focus. Yes, cogen/trigen/CHP plants offer a partial solution – you are not going to know how much until it’s too late, or the carbon price is $2500/ton – whichever occurs sooner. Certainly less of an impact in developing/emerging markets, even if they use CO2 scrubbers. The reality is that only those few people who read this, or something similar to it will even be aware of a larger issue going unaddressed, much less understand it.
Regards, … and try to stay cool for fellow southern hemisphereans, it’s gonna get warm out there!
 atr
p.s. the above is limited to just electricity generation heat rates. My previous (un)controversial article estimated a much bigger heating problem. Long carbon prices – it really is the trade of the millennium if this is how they think they are going to solve it.

 
 Lo de la Agencia de la Energía usando el verde para  que el desperdicio parezca ecológico...mejor no lo comento.   
 
 http://atradersrant.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/why-waste-heat-is-the-problem-and-not-co2-go-long-carbon-price/
 
 

[pollo]

Traído del hilo del cambio climático, por tratarse del gasto energético de la Humanidad:

Artículo largo, pero muy interesante sobre las consecuencias del desperdicio de la energía que generamos en el calentamiento global:
 
 

Why waste heat is the problem and not CO2 – go long carbon price  Posted on 22 November, 2012                                   In an attempt to preamble this post with qualifications on not being pro this or that, not anti this or that, an anarchist or muppet media cheerleader, I might try to convince you this is not a promotion of anything else but free thinking. But somewhere within that preamble you would form an expectation of what this post may (or may not) contain and you would end up disappointed in some way, shape or form. So f*ck it, I’ll save you the time and me the effort. You see I don’t care if the planet is getting hotter by 1 degree every 10 years. Why? Because there is nothing I can personally do about it if it is, except adapt myself and my family to it as it changes my life. Since supposedly intelligent and morally attached representatives are forcing this change onto me, I may as well have a say in how I deal with it.
Now that might sound like resignation to you, but the reality of life after $5Trillion in bailouts following the collusion and fraud of 2008 has woken me up to my own opinions. This is simply an extension of that realisation.
Intuitively, 380ppm (or more correctly 0.038%) of CO2 does not sound like a whole lot. In economic terms, 0.038% expressed as a growth rate of anything is pretty small. But it is not a rate of change, it is the measured value of CO2 in the atmosphere. I’ve tried to put thoughts on this previously with little success -
 a) Commentary: On the hypocrisy over climate change
 b) AGW and accurate global population distributions
The end result is truly the trade of the millennium – a one way sure thing. That is, go long carbon prices, and stay long. Pass the trade certificates onto your children and them onto theirs. It’s about the concept of ‘heat rate’ (thermal efficiency) and the reality that in the US in 2011, 63% of all the energy used to generate electricity was waste, and mostly as waste heat. Waste heat sources can be measured as kW(th) thermal, as equivalent references to other kW units of energy and power. But get the 63% number – that means greater than half of all energy converted as ignited/burnt/combusted was waste heat.
Some further background
 You would understand the kilowatt unit ‘kW’ for your metered electricity, call this kWe (for kilowatts of electricity). When electricity is run through a filament light (typical incandescent bulb), almost all of this kWe is converted to heat through the resistance of the filament – it gets hot. The same for toasters, kettles, element stoves etc. The kilowatt hour (kWH) is the measure of 1 kilowatt run continuously for 1 hour.
Most simply, a 1000watt (1 kW(e)) bar heater running for 1 hour uses 1 kWH(e) producing 1 kW(th) thermal heat. Converting kW(e) back into kW(th) thermal produces heat you can feel with your hands at home, every day.
The verification data comes from the EIA’s latest US electricity summary data. The US EIA has recently published this graphical representation that virtually no-one would fully appreciate -http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/sec8_3.pdf
The graphic (with my markups below) showing the reality of the US electricity industry
 (note: this is not a fossil fuel love/hate)

 - don’t let the green colour fool you, it’s from the EIA
 - might not include secondary or tertiary heat recovery technologies
 - most electricity conversion losses are at thermal power plants (as heat);
 - metered electricity = net generation + T&D losses ; (transmission and distribution)
 - approx 63% of all energy used for US electricity generation in 2011 wasn’t converted to electricity;
 (very diplomatic of the EIA to say the least; some well chosen words)
So the 63% that “wasn’t converted to electricity” was what then? … and why would it be left shaded green? I have nothing against green per se, or monochromatic graphics. The thermal power plants would be coal, fuel oil, syngas, natural gas, bio fuels, bio mass and nuclear. 65.5% of the total energy used to generate electricity in the USA is fossil fuel derived. To be fair on the EIA data, waste heat recovery systems and cogen/trigen/CHP technologies are probably not included in the above stated conversion losses. At best, heat recovery technologies are still not very widespread and might lift the total average heat rate up a few percentage points – certainly would not lift the network heat rate higher than 50%.
The bottom line – the heat rate of the US electricity industry is a mere 37%. This is the residual (left over) output of kWe generation of the total energy needed to generate it. It means that thermal waste (as kW(th)) is almost DOUBLE this, but substantially more than all combined metered electricity generated in the US is wasted as heat.
BUT WAIT! This is a global phenomenon not restricted to borders of the US. You might argue the US would be a leading example of high efficiency power generation, without naming names. So using a heat rate of 37% for total global electricity production would not be unfair. Globally, 63% of all energy consumed to generate electricity is heating up the atmosphere. Again, the best case is slightly less wasted heat using heat recovery cogen/trigen/CHP technologies.
Thought experiment – imagine a heating element running 24hours 7 days (24/7/365) doing nothing but heating up the local area? This thermal waste heat element is equal to the total amount of electricity being generated and delivered to homes and factories 24/7/365.
For you own verification – a far better current statistical summary of global trends is from the iea.org
http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/kwes.pdf
Alteratively World Energy Outlook 2012 (also from the iea)
http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/English.pdf

 - critical to understand this increasing trend
 - no indication or mention of efficiencies or heat rates
 - no indication or mention of heat recovery technologies
 - the heat rate of the global system is not likely to change appreciably on current (increasing) trends
 - the heat rate (and waste heat) is greatly unaffected by any treatments targeting CO2 of existing/future generation units
Conclusion (the controversial bit)
 I am hopeful that more intelligent people than I read this with direct experience in the climate argument. I don’t think the ICC reports acknowledge heat rate and the waste heat content as per above. Instead, they opt for the CO2 content of the waste, and not the enormous amounts of heat wasted in generating electricity around the world. Which is a gaping flaw in the AGW debate in my humble opinion. By my back of the envelope calculations, this heat alone (when adding it up globally) accounts for more immediate and measurable climate change than the contribution of 380ppm (0.038%) of CO2.
This previous article (link) has a more estimates for global heat rates including motor vehicles. It is a much larger problem globally.
Directing environmental policy towards addressing this glaring oversight on efficiencies and waste heat (and NOT C02) would be an impossible mission. I cannot get myself past CO2 being the lesser of 2 evils and a massive financial opportunity for those who stand to benefit from trading CO2. Far worse would be that addressing CO2 fails to do anything at all to reverse the temperature trends – this would be a human travesty of epic proportions should the environmental conditions worsen as predicted.
Food for thought while everyone is hell bent on solving the Al Gore CO2 problem. If Al had used this argument while on the scissor lift to heaven artificially scaled J-curve CO2 chart, I might have listened to his whole argument. While the current CO2 policies will have an impact to reduce the gross levels of waste heat above, it won’t be significant simply because it is not the focus. Yes, cogen/trigen/CHP plants offer a partial solution – you are not going to know how much until it’s too late, or the carbon price is $2500/ton – whichever occurs sooner. Certainly less of an impact in developing/emerging markets, even if they use CO2 scrubbers. The reality is that only those few people who read this, or something similar to it will even be aware of a larger issue going unaddressed, much less understand it.
Regards, … and try to stay cool for fellow southern hemisphereans, it’s gonna get warm out there!
 atr
p.s. the above is limited to just electricity generation heat rates. My previous (un)controversial article estimated a much bigger heating problem. Long carbon prices – it really is the trade of the millennium if this is how they think they are going to solve it.

 
 Lo de la Agencia de la Energía usando el verde para  que el desperdicio parezca ecológico...mejor no lo comento.   
 
 http://atradersrant.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/why-waste-heat-is-the-problem-and-not-co2-go-long-carbon-price/
 
 

Otra de las ventajas no escritas de las renovables: no existe calor residual, ya que todo el calor residual lo iba a acabar siendo de todas formas.

[Dan]

Otra de las ventajas no escritas de las renovables: no existe calor residual, ya que todo el calor residual lo iba a acabar siendo de todas formas.

Aunque a grandes rasgos es cierto, no lo es en el caso de, por ejemplo, la solar. Se queda en la Tierra cierta cantidad de luz que de otro modo saldria al espacio.

En cualquier caso, mas eficiente eso que quemar combustible, esta claro.