Carry-over grain stocks as an emergency fuel

In a typical year, the US has carry-over stocks of grain with a total energy content of 0.5 to 1.0 quad (10/sup 15/ Btu). These stocks could serve as an emergency supply of solid fuel which could provide a partial substitute for coal in coal power plants. This report discusses the technical feasibility of burning grain-coal mixtures, the availability and price of carry-over stocks, and the amount of coal for which the grain could substitute

Electric utilities and residential solar systems

The long-run incremental cost (LRIC) of providing electricity for solar heating and hot water systems is estimated for three utilities using a utility capacity expansion model and compared to the cost of providing electricity to electric-only systems. All investment, fuel and operating costs are accounted for. Hot water systems and combined heating and hot water systems are analyzed separately. It is found that the LRIC for solar backup is no more than the LRIC of electricity used for purely electric heating and hot water devices and also no more than the incremental cost of normal load growth. For the three utilities studied, there appears to be little basis for rate distinctions between solar devices using electric backup and electric-only heating and hot water devices. Off-peak storage heating and hot water devices have a much lower LRIC than the standard systems; again, there appears to be no basis for distinguishing between solar and electric off-peak devices. Compared to average cost pricing, incremental cost pricing offers considerable benefits to customers using solar and electric heat and hot water, especially if a separate lower rate is adopted for off-peak storage devices; these benefits can amount to several hundred dollars per year. Substantial savings in the use of oil and gas fuels can be achieved if residences using these fuels convert to solar systems, savings not necessarily achievable by a shift, instead, to electric systems

Solar and geothermal energy utilization n SF-2: a sensitivity analysis

A sensitivity analysis was conducted of the utilization levels for Solar, Geothermal, and Advanced Energy Systems (ASGA) technologies during the 1985-2000 time period. In particular, the sensitivity of the utilization levels was tested with respet to both analytical techniques and to specific parameter assumptions. The sensitivity to analytical techniques was examined insofar as certain criteria were examined to elucidate their importance in determining the level of use of the ASGA technologies. The criteria incorporated consideration of such factors as total cost of the energy system, environmental impacts, and resource use patterns. The parameter assumptions studied included costs of ASGA costs of ASGA technologies, costs of non-renewable resources, and limitations on the use of technologies and resources. (MHR

Utility load management and solar energy. Study background and preliminary market potential analysis

The large-scale use of electrically assisted solar heating and hot water (solar/electric HHW) systems can have a substantial effect on electric utilities. Under some conditions, peak loads may be increased causing electricity generation costs to rise. However, with appropriate control and thermal storage equipment tied to the HHW system, the timing of the delivery of electricity to the HHW system can be controlled so that it is accomplished during those times of the day when utility supply costs are lowest. In this study various load management schemes for these applications are being investigated to determine their effect on the cost of generating the back-up electric power and on the cost of the required control and storage system. Solar/electric HHW systems are compared to electric-only systems for several utilities and several HHW system designs. The issues underlying the study, the methods of investigation, and the results of the first phase of the study are described. In this phase a preliminary analysis of the maximum market potential for night-time precharge electric-only hot water systems in either utilities was conducted. This analysis indicated that if about 20 to 40 percent of the residential customers used these appliances in a load managed mode, the 10 PM--8 AM valley in the utility load curve would be filled. For combined electric heating and hot water, the corresponding fraction is 6 to 12 percent. It is estimated that in each case, roughly twice the number of residential customers could be accommodated in the valley if solar/electric systems were used instead

Crop residues as a fuel for power generation

Crop residues could serve as an alternative energy source for producing electric power and heat in agricultural regions of the United States. Nearly 2 quads of residues are estimated to be available as a sustainable annual yield. These can substitute for up to one quad of conventional fuels used to generate electricity and up to an additional quad of petroleum and natural gas currently used for producing heat. The most promising routes to residue conversion appear to be regional generators sized in the megawatt range, and the mixing of residues with coal for burning in coal power plants. Costing farmers from $0.70 to$1.25 per million Btu, to harvest and prepare for use as a fuel, residues can be a competitive renewable energy supply

Strategic cost-benefit analysis of energy policies: detailed projections

Current US energy policy includes many programs directed toward restructuring the energy system in order to decrease US dependence on foreign supplies and to increase our reliance on plentiful and environmentally benign energy forms. However, recent events have led to renewed concern over the direction of current energy policy. This study describes three possible energy strategies and analyzes each in terms of its economic, environmental, and national security benefits and costs. Each strategy is represented by a specific policy. In the first, no additional programs or policies are initiated beyond those currently in effect or announced. The second is directed toward reducing the growth in energy demand, i.e., energy conservation. The third promotes increased domestic supply through accelerated development of synthetic and unconventional fuels. The analysis focuses on the evaluation and comparison of these strategy alternatives with respect to their energy, economic, and environmental consequences. Results indicate that conservation can substantially reduce import dependence and slow the growth of energy demand, with only a small macroeconomic cost and with substantial environmental benefits; the synfuels policy reduces imports by a smaller amount, does not reduce the growth in energy demand, involves substantial environmental costs and slows the rate of economic growth. These relationships could be different if the energy savings per unit cost for conservation are less than anticipated, or if the costs of synthetic fuels can be significantly lowered. Given these uncertainties, both conservation and RD and D support for synfuels should be included in future energy policy. However, between these policy alternatives, conservation appears to be the preferred strategy. The results of this study are presented in three reports (see also BNL--51105 and BNL--51128). 11 references, 3 figures, 61 tables

Strategic cost-benefit analysis of energy policies: comparative analysis

Current US energy policy includes many programs directed toward restructuring the energy system in order to decrease US dependence on foreign supplies and to increase our reliance on plentiful and environmentally benign energy flow. This study describes three possible energy strategies and analyzes each in terms of its economic, environmental, and national security benefits and costs. Each strategy is represented by a specific policy. In the first strategy no additional programs or policies are initiated beyond those currently in effect or announced. The second is directed toward reducing the growth in energy demand, i.e., energy conservation. The third promotes increased domestic supply through accelerated development of synthetic and unconventional fuels. The analysis focuses on the evaluation and comparison of these strategy alternatives with respect to their energy, economic, and environmental consequences. The results indicate that conservation can substantially reduce import dependence and slow the growth of energy demand, with only a small macroeconomic cost and with substantial environmental benefits; the synfuels policy reduces imports by a smaller amount, does not reduce the growth in energy demand, involves substantial environmental costs, and slows the rate of economic growth. These relationships could be different if the energy savings per unit cost for conservation are less than anticipated, or if the costs of synthetic fuels can be significantly lowered. Given these uncertainties, both conservation and RD and D support for synfuels should be included in future energy policy. However, between these policy alternatives, conservation appears to be the preferred strategy. The results of this study are presented in three reports: The Overview; The Detailed Projections; and The Comparative Analysis

Strategic cost-benefit analysis of energy policies: overview

This study describes three possible energy strategies and analyzes each in terms of its economic, environmental, and national security benefits and costs. Each strategy is represented by a specific policy. In the first, no additional programs or policies are initiated beyond those currently in effect or announced. The second is directed toward reducing the growth in energy demand, i.e., energy conservation. The third promotes increased domestic supply through accelerated development of synthetic and unconventional fuels. The analysis focuses on the evaluation and comparison of these strategy alternatives with respect to their energy, economic, and environmental consequences. The results indicate that conservation can substantially reduce import dependence and slow the growth of energy demand, with only a small macroeconomic cost and with substantial environmental benefits; the synfuels policy reduces imports by a smaller amount, does not reduce the growth in energy demand, involves substantial environmental costs and slows the rate of economic growth. These relationships could be different if the energy savings per unit cost for conservation are less than anticipated, or if the costs of synthetic fuels can be significantly lowered. Given these uncertainties, both conservation and RD and D support for synfuels should be included in future energy policy. However, between these policy alternatives, conservation appears to be the preferred strategy. The results of this study are presented in three reports (see also BNL--51127 and BNL--51128)