Electricity Is Not an Energy Source

Unless you're tapping lightning bolts, electricity isn't a source of energy – it's a way of transporting energy from where it's generated to where it's used. So, when we have to decide whether it makes sense to use electricity for an application like lighting, transportation, home heating, or something else, we have to know where that electricity is coming from, what fuel is used to make the electricity, and what it's going to cost to use electrically-transported energy versus an on-site energy source like oil.

For lighting we've decided not to use kerosene and candles (other than for camping and romance). For transportation we did have lots of electric trolleys but they got replaced by diesel busses and gasoline cars. Oil was cheap and sticking to wired routes was limiting. Now importing oil is an economic and strategic risk; battery technology is better than ever before; electronic controls are cheap; CO₂ emissions are a concern; and electricity is close to making a comeback in transportation.

What fuel your electric car is actually running on depends on where the electricity comes from that you use to charge your batteries. Maybe your electric vehicle is running on coal –very likely in the U.S. where coal is the biggest source of electrically-transported energy. Here in Vermont, if you charge up off-peak, your car is some combination of hydro-powered from Hydro Quebec and nuclear from Vermont Yankee. If you charged up on-peak , your car is probably running on electricity generated at least partly from natural gas.

It makes economic and environmental sense to use electricity to charge your electric car even if the electricity is generated by burning oil. It is so much more efficient to burn oil in a power plant than in a car that, despite losses in transmission and storage, less oil gets burned overall to move you a mile on your way. Moreover, pollutants can better be captured at a power plant than from your tailpipe.

By the same logic, it makes sense to consider electrically transported energy for home heating here in Vermont where 70% of our homes are heated with oil or propane. North of us, as you drive to Montreal in the winter, you don't see smoke coming from houses. Our neighbors are warming themselves with very cheap (for them) hydro power. This hydro power from Canada is also available to us (albeit at a somewhat higher price). We can use it cleanly and efficiently to warm our homes – so long as we don't use it during peak times because, at peak times, there isn't enough transmission capacity to bring us any more than we already buy.

Residential electric rates in Vermont are around $.16/kwh. This is roughly equivalent to $5/gallon oil for home heating. So right now it is cheaper to heat with oil than with electricity. However, if there were an OFF PEAK electric rate of $.07/kwh and if electricity were only used for heating off peak, than it would be just as cheap to heat with electrically-delivered energy as with oil. In fact, at that rate and current propane prices, the average Vermont household could save $750/year by displacing 75% of its propane consumption with electricity. It's probably a good assumption that it will soon be much cheaper to heat with off peak electricity than heating oil as the world's economy and thirst for oil recover together.

Strategically, we are much better off buying Canadian hydropower than oil from the Middle East and other volatile and often hostile places. Environmentally, we'd generate both less traditional pollutants and vastly reduce our carbon footprint. The good news is that there is about to be a lot more Canadian hydro power available since Hydro Quebec has begun a vast expansion program. The bad news, for the moment, is that we can only take more electricity from there off peak because of transmission constraints. Energy from Vermont Yankee is also strategically sound and is currently cheaper than hydro; it certainly doesn't generate sulfur dioxide and CO₂. But it's also unlikely that we can get more power from Yankee than we already are.

So what are the obstacles to greener, cheaper, electrically delivered hydro power for our cars and homes?

1. We need off peak rates with large discounts (but not larger than the underlying economics justify. This isn't a subsidy).
2. We need to add electric STORAGE heating capability to our current fossil-fueled heating systems (retaining the fossil-fuel furnace for power outages and periods of prolonged peak demand).
3. We need cheap electric cars.
4. We need to rethink our mindset that electric heat is bad (formed when oil was cheap and we couldn't assure that we wouldn't draw electricity for heating during peaks).

The smart grid that Vermont utilities are building (with or without stimulus money) can deliver dynamic rates that assure electricity is only used off peak for heat – essentially that we use nuclear or hydro power for heating. That's going to happen.

Electric storage heat added to a conventional oil or propane furnace system costs between $3000 and $4000 installed for the average home. The payback when switching from propane (assuming off peak rates) is already less than five years – a good investment. My prediction is that the economics will soon be favorable for oil as well.

Cheap electric cars may take longer than cheap electric storage heat. Batteries are still big, heavy, and expensive. My prediction is that we'll displace oil in heating faster than in transportation.

The biggest obstacle may be an anti-electricity bias which equates electrical use with waste regardless of the source of the electricity and whatever else it is displacing. In fact, more use of electrically-transported energy may be just what the economist, the strategist, and the environmentalist ordered.

Comments

[Butch:]

Thank you for your intelligent and rational post. We would indeed be better off using electricity from hydro and nuclear sources to power our stationary uses of energy. Wind and solar have a contribution to make but they can not provide for all of our needs without a significant increase in the cost of electricity. It is unfortunate that a large number of citizens do not have a good understanding of nuclear power. Also, did you know that the government (using NERC as the source) does not count Canadian capacity (largely nuclear and hydro in the Northeast) in determining capacity available to serve US load? This seriously understates the capacity available to serve the energy needs of the New England and New York power pools thus distorting policy discussions in the political realm.

Sep 21 08:05 AM

[jerrydd:]

The cheapest way to heat is super insulation, better windows, etc. The energy you don't use is the cheapest, lowest polluting, most secure of all. I live in Fla and it keeps my AC/heat bills under $25/month with about $22/mo for the rest of my electricity use including charging my EV's.

Next if one does heat with fuels, best produce electricity first, then heat with the waste heat. If I lived in the north, I would buy a diesel or NG engine, run it at low rpm making eff electricity peak power for very good profit and heat at night from cheap offpeak electricity.

For woody biomass a new small steam generator is coming soon and it's company will be a great investment,
www.cyclonepower.com/
Check latest news release. It will be used in solar CSP in home sizes too and can be used for CHP. I have no investment in it though would if I could. Too busy investing in my own things.

He doesn't know me but I use to work for him decades ago and I know eff steam and his unit is the best. And he is a great inventor and produces his inventions. For places like Vermont it's going to be very good.

Home wind is very low cost if you have a good site. Wind can be found for $1k/kw and under $2k/kw installed. Since they last 50 yrs it's very low cost.

Lead batteries are only $100/kwhr and last 10 yrs so one can store off peak power and use it during peak.

If one has a stream, river on ones property then your own hydro is by far cheaper.

EV's can be inexpensive but car companies don't want that as they are simple, last forever and need few aftermarket parts, thus hitting their best revenue streams. If they were to use composite bodies, aero shapes and fork lift EV tech they can be built now for the same as an ICE is. Lithium is almost low enough in price to be competitive with ICE's. A simple 10hp/1000lbs of car generator weighing under 100lbs can give an EV unlimited range at 100mpg for long trips.

There is no shortage of energy, just a shortage of the equipment to catch of make it.

Sep 21 09:45 AM

[iggyDalrymple:]

"Electricity Is Not an Energy Source"
And neither is oil or hydro....all energy
is ultimately sourced from the sun.

Sep 21 09:49 AM

[tuj:]

"all energy is ultimately sourced from the sun. '

Very true, except the nukes.

Sep 21 10:09 AM

[Trane250:]

Here are a few things for the "greenies" in the Green Mountain state to consider: Entergy Nuclear the operator of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant has applied for a 20 year license renewal. It is not clear if the NRC will grant such a request, which means that it may be decommissioned in 2012. HydroQuebec can also not renew the power purchase contracts that it has with the VT utilities. What will you greenies do then?

Sep 21 10:13 AM

[Ferdinand E...:]

An interesting and useful article. Many Swedes read English of course, but I hope that they don't read that Ontario Hydro is increasing capacity. The ignoramuses who make the energy decisions in this country prefer solar to more hydro, although sun is in short supply most of the year.

Sep 21 10:44 AM

[George Marc...:]

Another multi-fuel, external combustion genset on the market is the Whispergen Stirling engine. Its electrical efficiency and Combined Heat and Power (CHP) capabilities would be comparable to Cyclone Power's steam engine genset. See, www.whispertech.co.nz/.../.


On Sep 21 09:45 AM jerrydd wrote:

>
> The cheapest way to heat is super insulation, better windows, etc.
> The energy you don't use is the cheapest, lowest polluting, most
> secure of all. I live in Fla and it keeps my AC/heat bills under
> $25/month with about $22/mo for the rest of my electricity use including
> charging my EV's.
>
> Next if one does heat with fuels, best produce electricity first,
> then heat with the waste heat. If I lived in the north, I would buy
> a diesel or NG engine, run it at low rpm making eff electricity peak
> power for very good profit and heat at night from cheap offpeak electricity.
>
>
> For woody biomass a new small steam generator is coming soon and
> it's company will be a great investment,
> www.cyclonepower.com/
> Check latest news release. It will be used in solar CSP in home sizes
> too and can be used for CHP. I have no investment in it though would
> if I could. Too busy investing in my own things.
>
> He doesn't know me but I use to work for him decades ago and I know
> eff steam and his unit is the best. And he is a great inventor and
> produces his inventions. For places like Vermont it's going to be
> very good.
>
> Home wind is very low cost if you have a good site. Wind can be found
> for $1k/kw and under $2k/kw installed. Since they last 50 yrs it's
> very low cost.
>
> Lead batteries are only $100/kwhr and last 10 yrs so one can store
> off peak power and use it during peak.
>
> If one has a stream, river on ones property then your own hydro is
> by far cheaper.
>
> EV's can be inexpensive but car companies don't want that as they
> are simple, last forever and need few aftermarket parts, thus hitting
> their best revenue streams. If they were to use composite bodies,
> aero shapes and fork lift EV tech they can be built now for the same
> as an ICE is. Lithium is almost low enough in price to be competitive
> with ICE's. A simple 10hp/1000lbs of car generator weighing under
> 100lbs can give an EV unlimited range at 100mpg for long trips.<br/>
>
> There is no shortage of energy, just a shortage of the equipment
> to catch of make it.

Sep 21 11:21 AM

[Howard_T:]

I'm very much heartened to see someone finally point out what I have been trying to get people aware of for a long time. That is the limitation of the electrical grid in the transmission of power. Simply enough, without a lot more infrastructure in the way of power lines, towers, insulators, transformers, and the like, not to mention the necessity for more right-of-way and the maintenance thereof, you just can't transmit a lot of electricity over long distances. Those who insist that there is free electricity for the northeast in the form of solar conversion in the desert southwest or wind conversion in the central plains just don't understand the immutable laws of physics.

Mr. Evslin, you have done a very good job here of pointing out the economic facts of life and some effective ways of dealing with them. We who live next door to you here in NH also benefit from Hydro-Quebec, as well as the nuclear plant at Seabrook, NH. Unfortunately, our primary source of power is a coal-fired plant in Bow, NH, that the environmentalists have been trying to shut down for years. Should they succeed, or should the Obama energy tax plan become law, we in NH are in for some frighteningly high electricity costs. The Seabrook nuclear plant will need to be refueled and re-licensed before long, and if this is held up or denied, and Hydro-Quebec no longer is able or willing to supply energy from Canada, I may soon be heating with wood, lighting with oil lamps, and cooking on my propane grill.

Sep 21 04:04 PM

[LKofEnglish:]

i remember the 60's and trying to heat a new addition with electricity. EXPENSIVE. Oil which was the heat installed in this very large house back in the 20's was VASTLY cheaper. The cheapest? Exactly as presented above: the fuel "you don't use." After that? My friends use outdoor wood furnaces and wood from their own land now. Since most people have abandoned Northeastern cities for the sunny south and west land is much more availible and wood supply is quite high because nobody cares about the farmer either and they've all gone bankrupt and their land has returned to its natural "wooded" stated. high oil prices been the best thing ever for dealing with the "too many people" problem up here so keep packin' em in down in Atlanta, Orlando, Vegas and Phoenix. The only other thing that chases the city people away more is the government response to high oil prices. Of course governments only create "less of something" so the bare shelves that are now appearing is a little striking. Can the KGB be far behind?

Sep 21 04:07 PM

[TinyTim:]

and geothermal


On Sep 21 10:09 AM tuj wrote:

> "all energy is ultimately sourced from the sun. '
>
> Very true, except the nukes.

Sep 21 04:53 PM

[TinyTim:]

In many places, hydro is not considered very green.
Check out the politics on the Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Powell.

Sep 21 04:57 PM

[MarkitWacha:]

Don't send any more people to Dallas. We're pro-business, and I have to weave through all the out-of-state traffic in the mornings now. People are coming here in droves, but I hope they don't bring their bad ideas with them.


On Sep 21 04:07 PM LKofEnglish wrote:

> i remember the 60's and trying to heat a new addition with electricity.
> EXPENSIVE. Oil which was the heat installed in this very large house
> back in the 20's was VASTLY cheaper. The cheapest? Exactly as presented
> above: the fuel "you don't use." After that? My friends use outdoor
> wood furnaces and wood from their own land now. Since most people
> have abandoned Northeastern cities for the sunny south and west land
> is much more availible and wood supply is quite high because nobody
> cares about the farmer either and they've all gone bankrupt and their
> land has returned to its natural "wooded" stated. high oil prices
> been the best thing ever for dealing with the "too many people" problem
> up here so keep packin' em in down in Atlanta, Orlando, Vegas and
> Phoenix. The only other thing that chases the city people away more
> is the government response to high oil prices. Of course governments
> only create "less of something" so the bare shelves that are now
> appearing is a little striking. Can the KGB be far behind?

Sep 21 06:35 PM

[terravario:]

Howard T has a point about people's unreasonable expectation that solar and wind generated electricity from the plains and southwest can easily be transmitted to the east coast. We in the Great Lakes are more interested in tapping the 300+ gigawatts of potential windpower capacity in the Great Lakes and distribute it within the region for the benefit of our 42 million Canadian and US citizens who presently require about 75+ gigawatts of generating capacity. A diverse and robust Great Lakes grid can utilize windpower as baseload capacity with only modest balancing from existing hydro and pumped storage capacity. We don't need wind or solar power from the plains and southwest. That electricity should be fed into a grid that includes Denver, St. Louis, Kansas City, Omaha, Dallas, Houston and Phoenix.


On Sep 21 04:04 PM Howard_T wrote:

> I'm very much heartened to see someone finally point out what I have
> been trying to get people aware of for a long time. That is the limitation
> of the electrical grid in the transmission of power. Simply enough,
> without a lot more infrastructure in the way of power lines, towers,
> insulators, transformers, and the like, not to mention the necessity
> for more right-of-way and the maintenance thereof, you just can't
> transmit a lot of electricity over long distances. Those who insist
> that there is free electricity for the northeast in the form of solar
> conversion in the desert southwest or wind conversion in the central
> plains just don't understand the immutable laws of physics.

Sep 21 06:55 PM

[THofler:]

I really don't understand why there is so much oil and propane home heating in the eastern U.S. I've lived in the midwest, southwest, & now central coast CA, and the vast majority is heated with nat. gas. (A few living out in the boonies use propane.)

Given the cost differentials, I always assumed that there was not the nat. gas pipeline infrastructure out east. I recently looked up a map of the major gas pipelines & was surprised to find that the east & new england coverage was actually pretty good.

Is the answer that the local minor pipeline infrastructure is really that bad? The cost of oil heat or oil electricity is horrible compared to nat. gas, not to mention the really unfortunate competition it creates for motor vehicle fuel supply. And now the E&P companies say we have a 100 year reserve of nat. gas within the 48 states + the Gulf, already discovered.

Sep 22 01:32 AM

[tripleblack:]

Natural gas will be an important intermediate fuel between our current infrastructure and whatever eventually replaces it. Solar coatings which replace the role of "paint" have some promise, perhaps supplemented with tiny hydrogen power cells able to crack their own hydrogen from available water or atmosphere... Scifi stuff now, of course.

I'm hoping that the new all-electric cars coming in the next few years (both GM and Ford have them) pan out. The idea of just plugging the car in and recharging right in my own garage has a real appeal.

Oct 04 07:34 PM