Kind of O/T for Detroit (?): Renewable energy article in today's Freep

I guess it is related as all folks use energy in one form or another for heat, cooling, lighting, etc.

Couple thoughts:

One, where in the Detroit area are coal-burning plants?

"DTE generates about 70% of its power from coal-fired plants, she said, but is closing old coal plants and seeking to diversify its energy mix as the state and utilities look at the new EPA proposal and reduce emissions." [[Freep).

One problem seems to be that wind-produced energy seems more plentiful in spring and fall [not winter, when energy needs are very high. I remember that from my days living in MI. :[[ ].

The growth in wind sourced energy seems pretty dramatic:

"Michigan went from a capacity of 2.4 megawatts of wind power in 2007 to 287 megawatts in 2011, enough to power more than 120,000 homes. The state is expected to produce an additional 3,000 megawatts as more projects are developed, according to the NRDC." [[Freep)

2.4 --> 287 --> 3,000+ megawatts [[or 3K = 10+ x 287).

BTW, if I understand this stuff, wind is plentiful in the open spaces of MI [[should also be say in states like Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, etc.. Geothermal is very good say south of the Mason-Dixon line where heat pumps are commonly used and heat can be obtained from or pump into the ground. Hyroelectric - out West I assume. Solar - not MI - doubt solar panels are big there.

http://www.freep.com/article/2014062...y-michigan-epa

Isn't the power plant at Conner's Creek in Detroit coal-fired? I'm sure there were at least a few that were built along the Detroit River.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by animatedmartian

Isn't the power plant at Conner's Creek in Detroit coal-fired? I'm sure there were at least a few that were built along the Detroit River.

---

A little story from D.C. area [[NoVa):

The locals did not like coal-fired plants but tolerated them.

As soon as there was a lot of interest in their sites for DEVELOPMENT the 'war' between the city [[Alexandria) and the plant owners began. [[the one I'm thinking is south of Reagan Airport and North of Old Town Alexandria).

I suspect along the Detroit river front, development will play a big role in how long those plants survive.

The big coal burners cab be found in areas where there is access by both boat and rail to the coal piles.

Port of Monroe: https://maps.google.com/?ll=41.88897...21136&t=h&z=16
[[note this area also has a large factory producing wind turbines as well as a nuke plant close by).
Mouth of Rouge: https://maps.google.com/?ll=42.27366...10568&t=h&z=17
Between Marine City and St. Clair: https://maps.google.com/?ll=42.76428...42272&t=h&z=15
Marysville: https://maps.google.com/?ll=42.92563...10568&t=h&z=17

Most of it has been cleaned up over the last 50 years. It was a lot worse. Even these plants are cleaner than they once were with the addition of scrubber technology. Perfect? Not even close. Better? Yes.

Geothermal is not something that will get you off the grid. It is a technology though that uses the soil by your home to reduce heating and cooling costs. It is a lot like how LED lights reduce your overall electric bill, but does not provide a source of cheap energy. Homes today use a ton more power than they used to. 50 years ago, dishwasher were rare, more clothes were hung up to dry, the TV, while the unit itself has become more efficient, only had one plug. Now it adds one for the cable, one for the x-box, one for the surround sound, one for the DVD player in most homes. There were no home computers, printers, or other items using energy. The kitchen? If you had electrical appliances they were typically unplugged and only blender. There were no microwave ovens. Telephones too had no power. A small amount of current was needed but that was provided by Ma Bell. No answering machines then too [[those sort of came and gone). Cell phones, particularly smartphones use a ton of energy by comparison.

Much of our wants have driven the needs to keep these old plants operating. Not to mention, there is a sizable coal lobby that has an interest in allowing this to happen. Appalachia would be doomed if these plants would suddenly close. It is already one of the poorest parts of the country.

Solar is becoming a cheap way to go. The cost of panels is way down. Even Michigan can produce a fair amount of energy when we have enough panels. However, these too are not as clean as folks think. The batteries to store the energy need to be kept away from the living areas as they do emit a small amount of stuff that is bad for you.

DTE also has long term plans for a Fermi III. Anyone old enough to remember the China Syndrome, 3 Mile Island, or Chernobyl is pretty leery of them. All most of you posters know is that these are owned by Mr. Burns and Homer works at one.

Consumer's Energy has quite a few hydro plants in Northern Michigan along rivers like the AuSable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

The big coal burners cab be found in areas where there is access by both boat and rail to the coal piles.

Port of Monroe: https://maps.google.com/?ll=41.88897...21136&t=h&z=16
[[note this area also has a large factory producing wind turbines as well as a nuke plant close by).
Mouth of Rouge: https://maps.google.com/?ll=42.27366...10568&t=h&z=17
Between Marine City and St. Clair: https://maps.google.com/?ll=42.76428...42272&t=h&z=15
Marysville: https://maps.google.com/?ll=42.92563...10568&t=h&z=17

Most of it has been cleaned up over the last 50 years. It was a lot worse. Even these plants are cleaner than they once were with the addition of scrubber technology. Perfect? Not even close. Better? Yes.

Geothermal is not something that will get you off the grid. It is a technology though that uses the soil by your home to reduce heating and cooling costs. It is a lot like how LED lights reduce your overall electric bill, but does not provide a source of cheap energy. Homes today use a ton more power than they used to. 50 years ago, dishwasher were rare, more clothes were hung up to dry, the TV, while the unit itself has become more efficient, only had one plug. Now it adds one for the cable, one for the x-box, one for the surround sound, one for the DVD player in most homes. There were no home computers, printers, or other items using energy. The kitchen? If you had electrical appliances they were typically unplugged and only blender. There were no microwave ovens. Telephones too had no power. A small amount of current was needed but that was provided by Ma Bell. No answering machines then too [[those sort of came and gone). Cell phones, particularly smartphones use a ton of energy by comparison.

Much of our wants have driven the needs to keep these old plants operating. Not to mention, there is a sizable coal lobby that has an interest in allowing this to happen. Appalachia would be doomed if these plants would suddenly close. It is already one of the poorest parts of the country.

Solar is becoming a cheap way to go. The cost of panels is way down. Even Michigan can produce a fair amount of energy when we have enough panels. However, these too are not as clean as folks think. The batteries to store the energy need to be kept away from the living areas as they do emit a small amount of stuff that is bad for you.

DTE also has long term plans for a Fermi III. Anyone old enough to remember the China Syndrome, 3 Mile Island, or Chernobyl is pretty leery of them. All most of you posters know is that these are owned by Mr. Burns and Homer works at one.

Consumer's Energy has quite a few hydro plants in Northern Michigan along rivers like the AuSable.

---

Thanks!! A lot of excellent points, and yes, I see coal-fired plants here either on the water or near the railroad tracks.

I have read about geothermal which I see as 'niche', if Harry Homeowner wants to install it and save money on his monthly bill. I'd think that geothermal is best in more temperate climates like N.C., Tenn, Georgia, etc. I assume it is only applicable for those with heat pumps. Right?

I feel for the folks in Appalachia, but coal is a dying industry.

My question going forward is electric cars: More electric usage, less gasoline [[usage going forward).

Coal and oil are two fuel sources which should continue to trend downward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emu steve

Thanks!! A lot of excellent points, and yes, I see coal-fired plants here either on the water or near the railroad tracks.

I have read about geothermal which I see as 'niche', if Harry Homeowner wants to install it and save money on his monthly bill. I'd think that geothermal is best in more temperate climates like N.C., Tenn, Georgia, etc. I assume it is only applicable for those with heat pumps. Right?

I feel for the folks in Appalachia, but coal is a dying industry.

My question going forward is electric cars: More electric usage, less gasoline [[usage going forward).

Coal and oil are two fuel sources which should continue to trend downward.

---

Around here all of the plants have both rail and water access. Here is something else to consider as plug-in cars become a larger part of the mix, they will also contribute to the problem of emissions at coal burning electrical plants. The greater our needs, the harder it will be to justify closing them down. Your average person who wants to drive to work would have to live very far out to use solar as a way to charge his car as they would need acres to do so. This is not very good as it leads to sprawl more congestion, and negates most of the money saved by trying it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Around here all of the plants have both rail and water access. Here is something else to consider as plug-in cars become a larger part of the mix, they will also contribute to the problem of emissions at coal burning electrical plants. The greater our needs, the harder it will be to justify closing them down. Your average person who wants to drive to work would have to live very far out to use solar as a way to charge his car as they would need acres to do so. This is not very good as it leads to sprawl more congestion, and negates most of the money saved by trying it.

---

Interesting paradox.

What I find interesting is that the U.S. is getting much, much more self sufficient in terms of energy [[and even being a net exporter, I believe) and which fuels become the winners and which the losers as energy markets change. Radically in the decades ahead?

This is a zero sum game assuming overall energy usage remains fairly constant per capita. We'll use maybe more electricity around the house but less energy to fuel our cars.

Very fuel efficient electric cars = more coal but a lot less oil.

More wind means less or other types of energy.

I'd be curious if certain energy sectors [[e.g., coal, oil, etc.) are hurting domestically in say 20 - 25 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emu steve

Interesting paradox.

What I find interesting is that the U.S. is getting much, much more self sufficient in terms of energy [[and even being a net exporter, I believe) and which fuels become the winners and which the losers as energy markets change. Radically in the decades ahead?

This is a zero sum game assuming overall energy usage remains fairly constant per capita. We'll use maybe more electricity around the house but less energy to fuel our cars.

Very fuel efficient electric cars = more coal but a lot less oil.

More wind means less or other types of energy.

I'd be curious if certain energy sectors [[e.g., coal, oil, etc.) are hurting domestically in say 20 - 25 years.

---

It is not really that simple. You could live in an area where hydro generates energy, not coal. That is about as clean and as sure as you get. Las Vegas, Buffalo, Rochester NY, and Toronto are all large metros where nearly all of the energy comes from hydro.

Then again, you could live in an area where a lot of the energy comes from a nuke plant. Nuclear power is very clean, but it is risky and has horrible waste products.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

It is not really that simple. You could live in an area where hydro generates energy, not coal. That is about as clean and as sure as you get. Las Vegas, Buffalo, Rochester NY, and Toronto are all large metros where nearly all of the energy comes from hydro.

Then again, you could live in an area where a lot of the energy comes from a nuke plant. Nuclear power is very clean, but it is risky and has horrible waste products.

---

Toronto also has or had the largest nukenin the world at Pickering. Québec has maybe the highest rate of hydro production worldwide, quite a bit of wind, and sacrificed an on again-off again nuke plant last year [[Gentilly 3)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

It is not really that simple. You could live in an area where hydro generates energy, not coal. That is about as clean and as sure as you get. Las Vegas, Buffalo, Rochester NY, and Toronto are all large metros where nearly all of the energy comes from hydro.

Then again, you could live in an area where a lot of the energy comes from a nuke plant. Nuclear power is very clean, but it is risky and has horrible waste products.

---

Toronto also has or had the largest nukenin the world at Pickering. Québec has maybe the highest rate of hydro production worldwide, quite a bit of wind, and sacrificed an on again-off again nuke plant last year [[Gentilly 1 and 2)

Kind of getting back to MI:

"Michigan went from a capacity of 2.4 megawatts of wind power in 2007 to 287 megawatts in 2011, enough to power more than 120,000 homes. The state is expected to produce an additional 3,000 megawatts as more projects are developed, according to the NRDC." [[Freep)

2.4 --> 287 --> 3,000+ megawatts [[or 3K = 10+ x 287).

*****

Will there be, in the foreseeable future enough wind-generated power for 1M+ homes as suggested above? [[10x growth)

That is hardly an insignificant number. Matter of fact, it would be a great success story for renewable energy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emu steve

Kind of getting back to MI:

"Michigan went from a capacity of 2.4 megawatts of wind power in 2007 to 287 megawatts in 2011, enough to power more than 120,000 homes. The state is expected to produce an additional 3,000 megawatts as more projects are developed, according to the NRDC." [[Freep)

2.4 --> 287 --> 3,000+ megawatts [[or 3K = 10+ x 287).

*****

Will there be, in the foreseeable future enough wind-generated power for 1M+ homes as suggested above? [[10x growth)

That is hardly an insignificant number. Matter of fact, it would be a great success story for renewable energy.

---

Michigan's best wind power potential is off shore.

http://windeis.anl.gov/guide/maps/map2.html


One factor that can improve the use of wind and solar is a reduction in size/cost of energy storage. Musk claims he will get battery cell cost below $180 per kwh. That would have an impact beyond his electric car.

I don't think there will be some sort of fast shift. More likely is a gradual systemic shift away from fossil fuels as other technologies reduce their costs and the energy/environmental cost of fossil fuel extraction goes up. I read somewhere that about 100 years ago it took the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil to extract 100. Today, that ratio is 1:7.

Fossil fuels will die very hard, though.

They have a tremendous energy density advantage and technology is improving the amount of useful work that one gets from burning them.

For example, A Prius getting 50mpg has about the same C02 score as an EV when the average of all sources of electricity is factored.

I would cite sources with key text in context as I do in automobile forums, but this site has a very lame text entry box.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pickford-Bentler

Michigan's best wind power potential is off shore.

http://windeis.anl.gov/guide/maps/map2.html


One factor that can improve the use of wind and solar is a reduction in size/cost of energy storage. Musk claims he will get battery cell cost below $180 per kwh. That would have an impact beyond his electric car.

I don't think there will be some sort of fast shift. More likely is a gradual systemic shift away from fossil fuels as other technologies reduce their costs and the energy/environmental cost of fossil fuel extraction goes up. I read somewhere that about 100 years ago it took the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil to extract 100. Today, that ratio is 1:7.

Fossil fuels will die very hard, though.

They have a tremendous energy density advantage and technology is improving the amount of useful work that one gets from burning them.

For example, A Prius getting 50mpg has about the same C02 score as an EV when the average of all sources of electricity is factored.

I would cite sources with key text in context as I do in automobile forums, but this site has a very lame text entry box.

---

After reading this thread, maybe I should be shot at sunrise [[tongue in cheek, comment. ;) ).

I have an all-electric house [[in the D.C. area) and almost bought a Prius.

Maybe I forgot where all the electricity came from. :o

Couple of other, not self-depreciatory, comments:

1). Aren't fossil fuel extraction costs coming down? Can't we produce natural gas at a lower cost then the prevailing market rate for gasoline [[on a MPG basis)? [[I assume a CNG vehicle is cheaper to driver than a typical gasoline fueled car).

2). I think Musk is trying to do with energy what Gilbert is trying to do in Downtown Detroit, namely, play long ball and be transformative.

Kind of O/T for this thread:

I pulled up a 60 Minutes show on my DVR and saw Musk [[Tesla) discussing his plans.

What I didn't realize about the charging stations.

I believe 'Planner reminded us that the major source for electricity is coal. So it is one fosill fuel, coal, replacing another, oil.

Musk is building his charging stations and trying to do SOLAR energy [[panels) and use renewal energy.

We'll see if in 10 or 20 years it is the wave of the future and if the oil companies hit on hard times domestically.

Wonder how this might effect Texas, Louisiana, Okla, in 25 years????

I remember as a college student learning about how Ford did his 'vertical integration' - his Rouge plant made steel, made parts, assembled those parts into vehicles, etc.

The only thing he didn't do was get into the energy market.

Tesla would like to build automobiles and fuel them. That sounds pretty 'vertical' to me. I believe they sell without dealerships also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Around here all of the plants have both rail and water access. Here is something else to consider as plug-in cars become a larger part of the mix, they will also contribute to the problem of emissions at coal burning electrical plants. The greater our needs, the harder it will be to justify closing them down. Your average person who wants to drive to work would have to live very far out to use solar as a way to charge his car as they would need acres to do so. This is not very good as it leads to sprawl more congestion, and negates most of the money saved by trying it.

---

Except that this is wrong. A Nissan Leaf stores about 20kwh. If you needed to completely charge it every day, you would need a solar system with a rated capacity of about 8kw [[that is generous, but I'm making allowances for Michigan's unusually bad solar conditions), so you would need around 1000 sqft of solar panel. That is a lot, but it is only a bit more than 2% of an acre.

Quote:

---

I have read about geothermal which I see as 'niche', if Harry Homeowner wants to install it and save money on his monthly bill. I'd think that geothermal is best in more temperate climates like N.C., Tenn, Georgia, etc. I assume it is only applicable for those with heat pumps. Right?

---

Household geothermal is great in places like Michigan--it can save you a huge amount on both heating and cooling, but as was said by other people, it still requires electricity to run the pumps and the heat pumps. In warmer climates air-exchange heat pumps work fine, but in Michigan you can't efficiently heat with those in the winter, whereas a geothermal one will work well. The problem with household geothermal is the installation cost--you need a substantial amount of piping buried, either horizontally or vertically, and you need an appropriate site, usually one which isn't too rocky and where the water table isn't too deep, although I don't think that is generally a problem in Michigan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mwilbert

Except that this is wrong. A Nissan Leaf stores about 20kwh. If you needed to completely charge it every day, you would need a solar system with a rated capacity of about 8kw [[that is generous, but I'm making allowances for Michigan's unusually bad solar conditions), so you would need around 1000 sqft of solar panel. That is a lot, but it is only a bit more than 2% of an acre.



Household geothermal is great in places like Michigan--it can save you a huge amount on both heating and cooling, but as was said by other people, it still requires electricity to run the pumps and the heat pumps. In warmer climates air-exchange heat pumps work fine, but in Michigan you can't efficiently heat with those in the winter, whereas a geothermal one will work well. The problem with household geothermal is the installation cost--you need a substantial amount of piping buried, either horizontally or vertically, and you need an appropriate site, usually one which isn't too rocky and where the water table isn't too deep, although I don't think that is generally a problem in Michigan.

---

Didn't there used to be tax credits for geothermal?

I assume it works best, financially, for bigger houses.

I have a town house in the D.C. area, all electric, and my total electric biill is about $1,800 per year.

i assume half if heating/cooling and half general electrical usages.

What would I be trying to save maybe $200 / year on heat and A/C with geothermal???

Yes, there were. I'm not sure if they have expired yet.

Yes, it is more economic for larger houses. Or for complexes--an example is that some of the coop townhouses in Lafayette Park share a geothermal system.

Knowing nothing about your house except that it costs $900/year to heat/cool, I would guess you would save at least $200, maybe twice that, but not enough to justify the capital costs--if you saved the whole $900 it wouldn't justify it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mwilbert

Yes, there were. I'm not sure if they have expired yet.

Yes, it is more economic for larger houses. Or for complexes--an example is that some of the coop townhouses in Lafayette Park share a geothermal system.

Knowing nothing about your house except that it costs $900/year to heat/cool, I would guess you would save at least $200, maybe twice that, but not enough to justify the capital costs--if you saved the whole $900 it wouldn't justify it.

---

Heating and cooling is a lot more than $900 a year. What geothermal does is estabilish a baseline higher than the winter average to heat your home [[about 50 degrees f, did not look it up, but judging simply by how much cooler a basement is than the rest of the house), and takes that same baseline to provide cooling. In the summer my gas bill is trivial, in the winter it is about $150. I have a small home without geothermal. For those with real big homes, or in complexes such as co-ops that are being built the savings can be considerable and shoudl not require a credit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mwilbert

Knowing nothing about your house except that it costs $900/year to heat/cool, I would guess you would save at least $200, maybe twice that, but not enough to justify the capital costs--if you saved the whole $900 it wouldn't justify it.

---

Why not? Sure there's a lot of up front cost. But you also get a pretty nice tax incentive on that. I believe its like 30% of the cost of the system. Assuming the person needed to replace their existing system, you need to pull the cost of a traditional HVAC out of the remaining [[beyond subsidy) geotherm cost.
Amoritize the balance over a 20 yr lifespan. As long as that remaining cost isn't over $18,000 [[$900 x 20 yrs) the system would be "free". And that's assuming the price of natural gas doesn't go up.

You also need to look at the resale. A home with geothermal will sell for more than one without.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kevgoblue

Why not? Sure there's a lot of up front cost. But you also get a pretty nice tax incentive on that. I believe its like 30% of the cost of the system. Assuming the person needed to replace their existing system, you need to pull the cost of a traditional HVAC out of the remaining [[beyond subsidy) geotherm cost.
Amoritize the balance over a 20 yr lifespan. As long as that remaining cost isn't over $18,000 [[$900 x 20 yrs) the system would be "free". And that's assuming the price of natural gas doesn't go up.

---

I wouldn't make this calculation without including the interest on the installation cost. Amortized over 20 years at 3%, $18,000 upfront would be almost exactly $1200/year. So if you borrowed to do the installation, you would be cash-flow negative for 20 years. It is true that you would probably recover some of the cost when you sell, but I don't really think it is worth it.

I completely agree that it is a hedge against rising energy costs, which is attractive. I'm all in favor of geothermal heat pumps, but it isn't usually economic to retrofit them, especially in smaller buildings. People doing new construction [[or very significant rehab) on appropriate sites should definitely consider them. It might make a lot of sense on a house that has been scrapped and needs a complete replacement of its heating system anyway, assuming the lot would allow it--it would probably work great if you had an adjacent empty lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Heating and cooling is a lot more than $900 a year. What geothermal does is estabilish a baseline higher than the winter average to heat your home [[about 50 degrees f, did not look it up, but judging simply by how much cooler a basement is than the rest of the house), and takes that same baseline to provide cooling. In the summer my gas bill is trivial, in the winter it is about $150. I have a small home without geothermal. For those with real big homes, or in complexes such as co-ops that are being built the savings can be considerable and shoudl not require a credit.

---

There might be a "context" issue here.

I mentioned in discussing my situation that the town house is in the Washington, D.C. area, not Detroit.

I would never have electric heat in Detroit and it would be very, very expensive.

An 'average' day in D.C. for January would be 42/28. The average high for Detroit might be around 30 degrees for January.