Co-Generation Getting everything you can out of energy and resources

[evought 0]

This is not exactly a new idea, but it is a critical one. As we reach peak oil and approach global warming, there is no one technology which can replace everything we currently do with less energy and less polution. In the end, less energy must be used and less polution produced.The idea of co-generation is simple: get everything you can out of every watt of power and every ounce of a resource by letting side-effects work for you, not against you. As an example, a electric plant can use waste heat to run a chemical process in the factory next door. The factory gets cheap energy; the electric plant gets rid of waste heat before the water cycles backthrough its turbines. Everybody wins.Examples of co-generation can be large and complex. A coal electric plant need not stop at using waste heat. CO2 scrubbers can be used to produce dry ice for sale. SOX/NOX scrubbers can make gypsum (drywall) as a by-product. Waste ash can be used for soil treatment (if metal levels are low enough). For that matter, coal plants can and sometimes do burn waste tires. They burn as clean as and hotter than coal (steel belts are a problem- they melt and stick to the grate).Examples can be much smaller. When you heat with a woodstove and put a pot of water on top, you are using co-generation. On our farm, our woodstove disposes of dangerous deadfall and combustibles in the wood lot, cooks our dinner, heats our home, and produces ash which is leeched for potash lye and turned into soap. Spent ash goes into the compost to alkalize manure.With enough effort spent on co-generation, we can seriously dent our energy use, our resource depletion, and cut pollution levels. Without it, well, with every farm in the country producing corn, we could not make enough ethanol to fuel our cars at the present rate.

[Dinesh Samant 0]

Its a good concept. But is it practical?If this idea is to be implemented in reality then so many of the existing industries will require to shift their operations. What about the cost of shifting? and the energy / power utilised in it? It will more than erection of the new plant. Since it will involve dismentling of old plants and again reerecting them.Also in case of new plant there are so many other factors other than energy / power whaich will influence this decision. Like availablility of skilled labour and raw material on that perticular site. climatic conditions etc.If these factors are not favorable then nobody will sanctionaed a manufacturing plant even if he may be getting the power free of cost.So even if its a good concept I have doubts about practicality.I wud rather suggest developing and shifting renewable sources though little costlier.

[evought 0]

Its a good concept. But is it practical?If this idea is to be implemented in reality then so many of the existing industries will require to shift their operations. What about the cost of shifting? and the energy / power utilised in it? It will more than erection of the new plant. Since it will involve dismentling of old plants and again reerecting them.
Also in case of new plant there are so many other factors other than energy / power whaich will influence this decision. Like availablility of skilled labour and raw material on that perticular site. climatic conditions etc.
If these factors are not favorable then nobody will sanctionaed a manufacturing plant even if he may be getting the power free of cost.
So even if its a good concept I have doubts about practicality.

I wud rather suggest developing and shifting renewable sources though little costlier.

Like most ideas of this nature, it becomes more practical as 1) the related businesses are under the same control (market diversification) and 2) the cost of energy and raw materials goes up. But your point is well taken.

#1 involves a high risk business wanting alternative outputs as a hedge against a drop in the price of their primary market. If the price of electricity goes down, there is a chance that the price of gypsum, dry ice, emissions credits, or paper (in the plant next door) will go up. I have seen this trend with AES (Allied Electrical Systems owns various plants in the NE US and Europe) where the market price of electricity is regulated but the production cost has been rising steadily.

This is also the case on our small farm where the margin in various products or types of produce as well as cost of raw materials is very tight. Since all of the operations are conducted by the same small group, process re-engineering and thus cogeneration is possible and effective.

I think #2 is obvious and is the same reason renewable resources are becoming more practical. A coal plant may be able to produce electricity for 7-9 cents per KWH, while a solar farm may cost 13-15 cents (amortizing the cost of the cells). If coal costs go up (either because of reduced availability or because of emisions regulation) just a few cents, and emissions credits make solar a few cents more profitable, they are suddenly competitive. The same goes for producing paper or plastic with the heat from a coal plant. Additionally, where it is expensive (because of circumstance or regulation) to provide coolant for a plant (coal, nuclear, NG, whatever), the cost of actually using the heat may be negligible.

In the end, as in all things, it depends.
Edited April 12, 2006 by evought (see edit history)

[Elite Players 0]

Like most ideas of this nature, it becomes more practical as 1) the related businesses are under the same control (market diversification) and 2) the cost of energy and raw materials goes up. But your point is well taken.
#1 involves a business that is risky wanting alternative outputs as a hedge against a drop in the price of their primary market. If the price of electricity goes down, there is a chance that the price of gypsum, dry ice, emissions credits, or paper (in the plant next door) will go up. I have seen this trend with AES (Allied Electrical Systems owns various plants in the NE US and Europe) where the market price of electricity is regulated but the production cost has been rising steadily.

This is also the case on our small farm where the margin in various products or types of produce as well as cost of raw materials is very tight. Since all of the operations are conducted by the same small group, process re-engineering and thus cogeneration is possible and effective.

I think #2 is obvious and is the same reason renewable resources are becoming more practical. A coal plant may be able to produce electricity for 7-9 cents per KWH, while a solar farm may cost 13-15 cents (amortizing the cost of the cells). If coal costs go up (either because of reduced availability or because of emisions regulation) just a few cents, and emissions credits make solar a few cents more profitable, they are suddenly competitive. The same goes for producing paper or plastic with the heat from a coal plant. Additionally, where it is expensive (because of circumstance or regulation) to provide coolant for a plant (coal, nuclear, NG, whatever), the cost of actually using the heat may be negligible.

In the end, as in all things, it depends.

involves a business that is risky wanting ! its wrongs guys.

[Elmbonsai 0]

It's nice hear people talking like this, waste doesn't just go away.

The town I live in actulally uses this idea, except that the power plant is run off of natural gas, after the main turbine burns the fuel the residual heat is funneled into a collector stack where all the water is removed and then the dried hot air is run through a series of smaller turbines that create about the same amount of output as the initial burn. The by product is Ammonia, which they allow to go into the air; I think they should trap it and recycle it. The other by product is a mineral sludge which gets boiled down into cakes.

I am currently in the process of trying to get the city to let me have the mineral cake tested, if this proves to be useful it could be used as a fertilizer additive.

 

I know that when commercial meat is smoked that the smoke is then funneled through vents and quickly cooled and this is how they get the flavoring liquid smoke the left over CO which put through catalytic converters has now oxidized into CO2 is then trapped and bottled and used to carbonate things like beer.

 

The FDA has bans on un-smoked meat having CO gas being put on it, you see CO gas makes meat and some fish (salmon) perk up and become very pink and look really "fresh."

This is the same FDA that says that we don't need to know all the ingredients that go into pre-preared foods.

This is why sometimes a single serving of a food item will have no fat and the whole package will have tons more, go figure.

 

The catalytic converters on our cars convert CO and many other toxic compounds from the exhaust into "harmless" ones, when was the last time you had yours checked, did you even know your car had one of these?

 

Companies should re-think their position on what they consider waste because many things that are considered waste can (with a little help) be turned into very useful things (not that beer carbonation is terribly useful but flat American beer is terrible).

[MediYama 0]

Interesting concept indeed, I think this would solve lots of problems. Even though I don't see the world changing yet. So I wonder who listens to the wise people...

Edited June 13, 2007 by MediYama (see edit history)