Source energy is the energy taken from the earth, such as from a well, a mine, a forest. The energy for exploration, extraction, processing and transport is used to convert the source energy to primary energy for the US economy. The US electrical system uses about 40% of all primary energy.
- Source energy is the energy taken from coal mines, oil and gas wells, and forests for conversion to electricity and heat.
- Primary energy = source energy - energy used for exploration, extraction, processing and transport of fuels (coal, oil, gas, biofuels, wastes, etc.) to users, such as fuel to electricity generating plants, or process plants, or buildings, or vehicles, etc. That means it has not been subjected to any conversion or transformation process.
- Consumed energy by users = net electricity generation (fed to grid) + electricity imports (fed to grid) + fuel to process plants, or buildings, or vehicles, etc.
- Gross electricity generation = primary energy (fuel to power plants) x plant efficiency.
- Net electricity generation = gross generation - plant self-use = fed to grid.
- Electricity at user meters = fed to grid - transmission & distribution losses.
For exploration and extraction mostly diesel and electricity are used.
For processing mostly diesel, natural gas and electricity are used.
For transport mostly diesel is used.
Table 1 |
Well/mine/forest-to-user source factor |
|
Diesel |
1.2700 |
|
Gasoline |
1.2500 |
See table 3 |
Natural Gas |
1.1700 |
|
Electricity |
2.8776 |
See table 4 |
A combination of these energies leads to a source factor of the US electrical system of about 1.08, i.e., the equivalent of about 8% of the source energy is used to obtain the primary energy fed to power plants. Excluded is the embedded energy of all the required infrastructures.
NOTE: Also there is the energy consumed for Operations & Maintenance and on-going replacements/upgrading of the infrastructures used for exploration, extraction, processing and transport of the source energy. That energy and its CO2 are counted separately.
EPA Method of Calculating Combustion CO2 of Pure Diesel and Pure Gasoline
Various government, commercial, and institutional entities calculate the combustion CO2 of various fuels, as becomes clear after Googling the internet for a few hours. As a result, a diversity of values is published year after year, which creates endless confusion among various people who use these values.
The EPA has the responsibility to annually report the CO2 emissions of the US economy.
The EPA co-ordinates its calculation standards with those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC. If that co-ordination did not exist, each country would “invent” its own methods and confusion would be worldwide.
The IPCC guidelines for calculating emissions inventories require an oxidation factor be applied to the carbon content to account for a small portion of the fuel that is not oxidized into CO. For all oil and oil products, the oxidation factor used is set at 0.99, i.e., 99 percent of the carbon in the fuel is eventually oxidized, while 1 percent remains un-oxidized.
However, when EPA deals with the US Department of Transportation, etc., the 99% oxidation factor is not applied.
Among departments, the agreed CO2 value for gasoline is 8887 g/gal, and for diesel is 10180 g/gal. See URL
https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculato...
The Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 600.113) provides values for carbon content per gallon of gasoline and diesel fuel which EPA uses in calculating the fuel economy of vehicles:
Gasoline carbon content per gallon: 2421 grams
Diesel carbon content per gallon: 2778 grams
Pure diesel and pure gasoline consist of hundreds of different chemicals. As a result:
- Their densities, g/l, vary from 830 – 860 g/l for pure diesel, and 710 – 770 g/l for pure gasoline. See first URL
- I assumed 850 for pure diesel and 737 for pure gasoline.
- Both fuels have a Carbon fraction of about 0.86. See first URL
- EPA calculated the Carbon for pure diesel at 2778 g/gal, and for pure gasoline at 2421 g/gal. See second URL
- By working back, the Carbon/l and Carbon weight fraction for both fuels are obtained.
- The combustion CO2 for pure diesel is 2778 x 44/12 = 10186 g/gal, or 22.456 lb/gal
- The combustion CO2 of pure gasoline 2421 x 44/12 = 8876 g/gal, or 19.569 lb/gal
- Both values are slightly different from the above-stated 10180 and 8887 g/gal.
https://www.iea-amf.org/content/fuel_information/diesel_gasoline
https://www.chargepoint.com/files/420f05001.pdf
NOTE: All this appears to be straight forward, but it took me an entire day of Googling among confusing and conflicting sources, before I, as an experienced Googler, had found, and re-found, the referenced URLs.
Table 2/Combustion CO2 |
EPA |
EPA |
Fuel |
Pure diesel |
Pure gasoline |
Octane |
95 - 98 |
|
Density range, g/l |
830 - 860 |
710 - 770 |
Density assumed, g/l |
850 |
737 |
C weight fraction |
0.8634 |
0.8677 |
C, g/l |
733.9 |
639.5 |
l/gal |
3.7854 |
3.7854 |
C, g/gal |
2778 |
2421 |
44/12 |
3.6667 |
3.6667 |
CO2, g/gal |
10186 |
8876 |
g/lb |
453.592 |
453.592 |
CO2, lb/gal |
22.456 |
19.569 |
CO2 Emissions of Gasoline and E10: E10 fuel (90% gasoline/10% ethanol) has a source energy, which is reduced due to exploration, extraction, processing and transport, to become the primary energy fed to E10 vehicles. See URL.
http://www.patagoniaalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/How-muc...
Burning E10 (90% gasoline/10% Ethanol) = 0.9 x 19.569 + 0.1 x 12.720 = 18.884 lb/gal
Upstream = 0.9 x 4.892 + 0.1 x 13.556 = 5.759 lb/gal
Total = 24.643 lb/gal, if CO2 of ethanol is counted, 24.643 - 1.272 = 23.371 lb/gal, if not counted.
Table 3/Fuel CO2 |
Combustion |
Upstream |
Total |
lb CO2/gal |
lb CO2/gal |
lb CO2/gal |
|
Burning pure gasoline |
19.569 |
||
Upstream = 25% of combustion, per EPA |
4.892 |
||
Total |
|
24.461 |
|
Burning pure ethanol |
12.720 |
||
Cropping, processing, blending |
13.556 |
||
Total |
26.276 |
||
Burning E10 (90/10) |
18.884 |
||
Upstream |
5.759 |
||
Total, if ethanol CO2 is counted |
24.643 |
||
Total, if ethanol CO2 is not counted |
17.612 |
5.759 |
23.371 |
. |
|||
Burning pure diesel |
22.456 |
||
Upstream = 27% of combustion, per EPA |
6.063 |
||
Total |
28.519 |
||
Burning pure biodiesel, B100, soy oil |
20.130 |
||
Upstream = 43% of combustion |
8.656 |
||
Total, if biodiesel CO2 is counted |
28.786 |
||
Total, if biodiesel CO2 is not counted |
8.656 |
||
Burning B20 (80/20) |
21.991 |
||
Upstream |
6.582 |
||
Total, if biodiesel CO2 is counted |
28.572 |
||
Total, if biodiesel CO2 is not counted |
17.965 |
6.582 |
24.546 |
Source Factor of US Electrical System: The US economy was supplied with about 25,451.00 TWh of primary energy in 2013. See Table 6. In this analysis, I used the 2013 emission data in conjunction with the 2013 electricity generation data.
The EIA 2013 emissions data was higher than at present, mainly due to gas replacing coal. It is ironic, I could find the 2016 GERMAN electricity generation data, but not the 2016 US data.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States
Item |
Table 3 |
% |
TWh |
1 |
Source energy |
100.00 |
27664.00 |
2 |
Expl./Extr./Proc./Transp. |
8.00 |
2213.00 |
3 |
Primary energy, per URL |
92.00 |
25451.00 |
3a |
Electrical PE = 0.4 of 3, per URL |
|
10180.40 |
4 |
Electrical SE = 3a/0.92 |
|
11065.65 |
5 |
Gross generation |
|
4227.62 |
6 |
Self-use |
3.82 |
161.55 |
7 |
Net generation to grid, per EIA |
|
4065.97 |
8 |
Conversion factor = 7/3a |
|
0.3994 |
9 |
Imports, per EIA |
1.15 |
46.74 |
10 |
Total to grid, per EIA |
|
4112.71 |
11 |
T&D, % of To grid, per EIA |
6.50 |
267.33 |
12 |
To electric meters |
|
3845.38 |
13 |
System efficiency, PE basis = 12/3a |
|
0.3777 |
15 |
System efficiency, SE basis = 12/4 |
|
0.3475 |
16 |
Source factor = 1/0.3475 |
|
2.8776 |
CO2 Emission Intensity of US Electrical System: The total CO2 emissions were 2053 million metric ton in 2013, and 1821 MMt in 2016, due to less coal and more gas burning.
Table 4 |
||
Year |
2013 |
2016 |
CO2, MMt |
2053 |
1821 |
To meters, TWh |
3845.38 |
3845.38 |
kg CO2/kWh |
0.5339 |
0.4736 |
lb/kg |
2.2046 |
2.2046 |
lb CO2/kWh, PE basis |
1.1770 |
1.0440 |
Upstream factor |
1.08 |
1.08 |
lb CO2/kWh, SE basis |
1.2712 |
1.1275 |
g/lb |
454 |
454 |
g CO2/kWh, SE basis |
577 |
512 |
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=18511
CO2 Emissions of New England Electrical System: NE grid CO2 intensity was 726 lb/MWh, or 0.726 lb/kWh, or 726/2204.62 = 0.3293 metric ton/MWh, on a primary energy basis. This is low compared to the US and many other local grids, because of the high percentage of low-CO2 hydro, nuclear and gas on the NE grid. See Table 5.1 of URL.
ISO-NE calculates Vermont CO2 emissions at 210 lb/MWh, based on electricity supplied to utilities. The woodchip-fired McNeil and Ryegate power plants emit almost all of the CO2.
CO2 emissions allocated to Vermont = 6,100,000 MWh/y x 210 lb/MWh = 640,500 ton/y, or 581,053 Mt/y, i.e., the CO2 of the in-state generated electricity is spread out over the electricity supply to utilities. See Table 5.1 of URL.
https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2016/01/2014_emissio...
Table 5‐1
2014 New England System
Annual Average NOX, SO2, and CO2 Emission Rates (lb/MWh)
Table 5/State |
NOx |
SO2 |
CO2 |
Connecticut |
0.29 |
0.11 |
592 |
Maine |
0.43 |
0.28 |
838 |
Massachusetts |
0.54 |
0.35 |
932 |
New Hampshire |
0.40 |
0.29 |
665 |
Rhode Island |
0.19 |
0.01 |
945 |
Vermont |
0.10 |
0.01 |
210 |
New England |
0.38 |
0.22 |
726 |
NOTE: Vermont has a low electrical CO2/kWh. ISO-NE estimates it at 210 lb/MWh. Burlington, a major city in Vermont, is NOT 100% renewable (as it claims), because almost all of Vermont's ELECTRICAL CO2 is from wood-fired McNeil in Burlington, and that is renewable only on a 50 - 100 year basis, provided the forest, from which the trees were taken, would still be there to do the absorbing and that the forest CO2 absorption/acre is unimpaired by development, clear-cutting, disease, etc.
U.S. Sen Angus King
Maine as Third World Country:
CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power
Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.
Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT
******** IF LINKS BELOW DON'T WORK, GOOGLE THEM*********
(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.” https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/
Not yet a member?
Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?
We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
-- Mahatma Gandhi
"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi
Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!
Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future
"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."
https://pinetreewatch.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/
© 2024 Created by Webmaster. Powered by
You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!
Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine