|
Interview with William C. Olson, senior vice president of business development for ElectraTherm.
Editor's Note: When we saw the statement that unused burned fuel represents a huge potential energy source for the U.S., we wanted to learn more about it.
 Give us an idea of how much heat from burning fuel is wasted in the U.S. each year, and what this energy if recycled could mean for U.S. energy needs.
WO: Each day in the United States, thousands of companies burn fossil fuels to heat boilers, melt metals, run engines and cook the food that lines grocery store shelves. Despite industry efforts to use heat from burning fuel as efficiently as possible, staggering amounts literally go up in smoke each year. According to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), 20 to 50 percent of all fuel burned goes unused into our atmosphere. If harnessed, the potential waste heat capacity, in the U.S. alone, could generate 46 GWs of new, clean electricity annually. That is enough electricity to replace (or not build) 92 500MW gas-fired combined cycle power plants, with zero emissions.
Is this a problem just for factories or is it relevant as well for homes and other buildings?
WO: Factories create the largest quantities of waste heat, followed by large buildings, and finally homes. A factory could capture waste heat and turn it into electricity to increase efficiency by up to 20 percent. Large companies, universities, or any building with a boiler, can also capture large quantities of waste heat. The technology to capture the waste heat put off by individual homes is in development.
What kind of technology is needed to recycle energy such as waste heat, and why isn't it in more widespread use?
WO: Though the basic technology required to produce power from such sources has been known for many decades, low cost fuel and power accompanied by the relatively high cost of small scale system manufacture have conspired to hamper the economic viability of making power from heat at temperatures lower than 300°F, at capacities less than 1MWe.
A number of developments in recent years have improved the prospects for such systems:
1. The rise in the cost of natural gas and oil, and corresponding increases in electricity tariffs.
2. Growing incented use of landfill gas and biofuels as energy sources, as well as base load applications for stationary IC engine generating plants.
3. The recognition that heat exchangers currently mass produced for use in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry are equally well suited for ElectraTherm power systems.
4. The development of a new energy conversion device, ElectraTherm's Positive Displacement Twin Screw Expander containing the most efficient rotor profile developed and patented by City University, London, and ...
5. As the world population grows, more industry is required and therefore more waste heat is available. The rising cost of fossil fuels and electricity and concern over environmental issues have led to a renewed interest in recovering power from low grade heat sources. Employing the Twin Screw Expander (rather than an expensive turbine) and certain trade secrets, ElectraTherm has significantly reduced the installed cost of heat recovery power systems in the 20kW to 500kW class.
You've said the recycled heat industry has little influence compared to the solar, wind and biomass lobbies. Does recycled heat give more bang for the buck than these other three more glamorous methods?
WO: The Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) as adopted by all but a few states promote the use of wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, small scale hydro, etc. but ignore surplus heat entirely. When asked for an explanation of this seemingly inconsistent position, the historical answer most often heard from those stakeholders inside the RPS is that surplus heat is derived from the combustion of fossil fuels, thus excluding it from consideration as a renewable resource. Recent events in Washington have begun to recognize energy efficiency (utilizing waste heat) as the fifth renewable ... after wind, solar biomass and geothermal.
As noted in the chart below, there is more bang for the buck. Solar is not base load, wind is not base load or inside the fence, biomass is not emission free and geothermal is not inside the fence. While recycled energy reduces fossil fuel consumption, it is emission free (biomass is not), is base load (solar and wind are not), inside the fence (wind and geothermal are not) and can generate additional electricity at the lowest cost. After the capital expense of the machine, ElectraTherm Green Machines produce emission free power at less than a penny per kWh, cheaper than dirty coal.
Because waste energy streams are produced on-site, the recycled electricity would be consumed locally, minimizing line losses and avoiding transmission and distribution system upgrades.
Reduced Fossil Fuel..Emissions-Free..Base Load...Inside Fence...Gen Cost $/kWh
Solar PV...............Yes........................Yes...............No..................Yes...................... .20
Wind.....................Yes........................Yes...............No..................No....................... .04-.05
Biomass................Yes........................No................Yes................Yes...................... .06-.12
Geothermal...........Yes........................Yes...............Yes................No....................... .05-.07
Recycled Energy...Yes........................Yes...............Yes................Yes..................... .03-.04
Is there anything else you'd like to say about the waste heat situation?
WO: As stated in Time Magazine's Jan. 12, 2009 cover story on energy efficiency ... "Energy efficiency is perfectly clean, remarkably cheap, surprisingly abundant and immediately available. It has the astounding potential to reduce: carbon emissions that threaten our planet ... and energy costs that threaten our wallets. Unlike coal and petroleum it doesn't pollute ... unlike solar and wind, it doesn't depend on the weather ... unlike ethanol, it doesn't accelerate deforestation or inflate food prices ... unlike nuclear plants, it doesn't raise uncomfortable questions about meltdowns, terrorist attacks or radioactive-waste storage ... it doesn't take a decade to build ... it isn't what-if like hydrogen, clean coal and tidal power ... it's already proven to be workable, scalable and cost-effective ... and we don't need to import it."
Additionally, the only way to manufacture steel, glass, cement and petrochemicals, or to transmit oil and natural gas to their respective markets, is by consuming fossil fuels. Neither solar, wind, nor geothermal power can refine a barrel of oil or produce a ton of glass. Since we are nowhere near eliminating our need for fossil fuels, the U.S. must improve efficiency. Utilizing waste heat from industrial processes could immediately increase efficiency by as much as 20 percent. Not next year, not in three years ... today!
Mr. Olson also is a founder of ElectraTherm (www.electratherm.com). An entrepreneur for 28 years, he holds a B.A. in political science and philosophy from Loyola Marymount University.
Trackback(0)
 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
