VW as a Home Energy Provider

It may soon be time to start thinking about German automobile manufacturer Volkswagen AG (VLKAY) in a brand new way.

For that matter, it may soon be time to think about Honda Motor (HMC), Toyota Motor (TM), Ford Motor (F) and other car giants as more than just car and truck companies. If this happens, it will also be time to think about a major new threat to many traditional electric utility companies, as well as a major market expansion for natural gas providers and a major new reason to believe in the future of green power.

That’s a lot to think about, but when you analyze a new VW project in Germany, it’s not hard to imagine sweeping change in how household electricity, heat and hot water is provided throughout the developed world.

VW has teamed up with privately-held, independent German energy supplier Lichtblick on a project to supply combined heat and power (CHP) units to 100,000 German homes. Lichtblick’s “Ecoblue” CHP units will be driven by natural gas-fueled engines from VW. The units will supply power on demand, thereby providing the backup power that will help keep the world’s green power-connected grids stable when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing.

Altogether, those 100,000 EcoBlue’d homes reportedly will have the equivalent output of a huge 2,000-megawatt (MW) centralized power plant. But as a “virtual, decentralized” power plant, the EcoBlue units won’t cost as much. Also, since they’ll be fueled by natural gas, they won’t pose the environmental threat of a large coal-fired power plant. This network of CHP’ed homes also will provide a cost-effective alternative to large-scale battery and flywheel-based storage systems for preventing grid instability when 20% or more of everyone’s electricity comes from green power sources, as will be required in many countries and U.S. states within five to 10 years.

Another natural advantage of VW’s project is that CHP is far more efficient than centrally-dispatched power. Still another is that because these CHP units will also provide heat, they’ll reduce the need to heat with oil, which will help break the world’s “addiction” to oil. (They’ll also provide a handy source of electricity for plug-in vehicles, which also are going to reduce the world’s oil dependence.)

Honda, too, is powering ahead with a residential-sized home power unit, and it’s easy to see other technologically-attuned car companies jumping in as more electric vehicles come to market. This should increase natural gas usage at a time when the U.S. in particular has more to use.

The losers? Electric utility distribution companies that aren’t “combo” electric and natural gas deliverers could see a lot of ratepayers bolt

Comments

[tripleblack:]

I'm ready. Needless to say, those without NG pipelines to their homes will be left off the grid, but there's always some other alternative. These CHP units sound interesting, and since I'm already long natural gas...

I have only one question. Cost. I did not see "lower costs" listed among the many advantages.

Otherwise, I say: Bring 'em on.

Oct 12 07:19 PM

[ph12321:]

Where will/does Germany get their Natural Gas?

Russia.

Oct 13 10:35 AM

[Bill Paul:]

On cost -- should be cheaper because it's power and heat combined. CHP's inherently more cost-efficient.
On where Germany will get the gas: Russia today, but they're pushing to develop coal gasification and bio-gas technology

Oct 13 10:57 AM

[Road Runner:]

I find it hard to believe that "CHP is far more efficient than centrally-dispatched power". It is almost always the case that the larger the power source, the more efficient it is. Maybe they are including the electric grid loss in their calculations. Or maybe they are including the fact that the residual heat from generating electricity is used for heating.

I would like to see detailed energy efficiency calculations, plus an equipment cost comparison verses centrally-dispatched power and verses standard gas furnaces, to make me a believer.

Considering the caveats above, this seems like a great idea, especially for northern climates.

This is where the US has a big advantage over the emerging countries because the US has a very good natural gas distribution system, whereas the emerging countries have a very poor natural gas distribution system.

Oct 13 12:13 PM

[Caveat M. Tor:]

An early-stage pure play with excellent prospects in this area is Ceramic Fuel Cells (CFU on Australia & London, CEFLF on the U.S. pink sheets.) Its power generating products offer higher efficiency than conventional power plants or generators. While its stock has had a terrific runup from its lows a few months ago (due to the resolution of a serious problem with financing,) it still offers the potential of very high returns, for investors who are not risk-averse.

Note: I own some CFU stock.

Oct 13 12:23 PM

[hermanbrut:]

I've been thinking this way for a while now but this is the first time I've heard anyone working on it. Lots of advantages. No overhead power lines. Nat gas cheap if you live in an area with lots of it.
But the mechanical engine of the generator is the negative. Would require lots of upkeep.
Fuel cells are a more efficient way to go.
Tried in Alaska:
www.fngas.com/fuelcell...

Oct 13 12:43 PM

[jerrydd:]

On Oct 13 12:13 PM Road Runner wrote:

> I find it hard to believe that "CHP is far more efficient than centrally-dispatched
> power". It is almost always the case that the larger the power source,
> the more efficient it is. Maybe they are including the electric
> grid loss in their calculations. Or maybe they are including the
> fact that the residual heat from generating electricity is used for
> heating.

It's more eff because it's a heater!! As it uses both the heat and power, they can be 80% eff.

If I lived up north I'd certainly have a CHP though no good, cost effective ones are out there. I'd get a 5-10 hp diesel and run it on used veg oil, filtered and mixed with a little, 10% kerosene. And run it at 1200rpm for long life during the peak power time, then off peak run the heat, electric from the grid This saves motor life, fuel and you make a nice profit. Many might make, save $400/month if you have a big oil/NG/electric bills in the winter/heating season.
VW units are way too big. It would take a big business to use that much heat.

Fool cells have never and not likely in the future be cost effective because they are very costly and have short lives. If both can be solved they could be used for this but not likely.

Here is a new start up doing these CHP's, solar CSP's and waste heat, all big future markets,
cyclonepower.com
This would be far better, longer life than the VW unit.


>
> I would like to see detailed energy efficiency calculations, plus
> an equipment cost comparison verses centrally-dispatched power and
> verses standard gas furnaces, to make me a believer.
>
> Considering the caveats above, this seems like a great idea, especially
> for northern climates.
>
> This is where the US has a big advantage over the emerging countries
> because the US has a very good natural gas distribution system, whereas
> the emerging countries have a very poor natural gas distribution
> system.
>
>

Oct 13 01:23 PM