CHP and its Future With CF/LENR (Guest Post)

Many thanks to ECW Reader Alain Samoun who has provided the following article about combined heat and power systems.

Some statistics that I have gathered about CHP (Mainly from Cogeneration & On-Site Power Production (COSPP) http://www.cospp.com )

CHP: Combined Heat and Power (electricity)  also called Cogeneration and DG distributed generation.

The local production of energy is more efficient, using usually natural gas with smaller electrical output (1KW -100MW) compared to large centralized energy plants using fossil fuels or nuclear fission (up to 1,600MW). The use of CHP in commercial building can reduce the demand of energy by 40% in comparison of separate production of heat and power.

Europe is the leader in CHP use (11% of total electricity used – mainly with fossil fuel – before the US, but the Obama administration has set a higher goal. Germany plans to have 25% of its electricity from cogeneration by 2020, up from 15% today. There are 25,000 micro CHP units in Germany in the range of 1-50KW with grants from the gov ranging from 1,500 to 2,000 euros per unit.

In the US nationwide, 82.4 GW of CHP systems had been installed at commercial and industrial sites as of July 2013. Chemical companies made up the largest set of users, accounting for 29% of installations, followed by fuel refining companies at 18%. CHP capacity is set to rise from its present base of 93.5 GW to a total of 115.9 GW by 2020.

France has 800 CHP installations @5MW average. They have problems with subsidies ending soon to support them. But insulation of buildings may increase the use of microCHP.

Advantages of local power/heat generation: As an example, in New York City, electricity costs more for delivery than for generation. (Forbes) mainly because the grids maintenance.

It is 5 to 25 per cent cheaper to transport energy in the form of gas in pipelines than to transport electricity over power lines. The use of CHP in commercial buildings can reduce the demand of energy by 40 per cent in comparison to the separate production of heat and power.
Despite its dominance, the US gas turbine market value is expected to increase at a slower pace than steam turbines, from $486 million in 2013 to $1.21 billion by 2020, at a CAGR, Compound Annual Growth Rate, of 13.5%, says GlobalData. Meanwhile, the steam turbine market value will grow from $314 million in 2013 to $827 million by 2020, at a CAGR of 15.3%

The E-Cat (or equivalent) will be more compatible to the current booming industry of CHP than retrofitting large power plants.  CHP should be easily adapted to CF/LENR reactors and when technically ready, will certainly be accepted by this industry. CHP also makes use of smart gridssmall infrastructures computer controlled to distribute electricity to small communitiessmall townsoffice and residential buildingssmall scale manufacturing etcParallelly, the heat produced by the reactors can be used  for heating/cooling of buildings and agriculture (Greenhouses).

CHP with CF/LENR could be used in industrial processes, especially to make drinkable water. CHP can even be adapted  to smaller scale (MicroCHP) like this company: Nirvana Energy — http://www.nirvana-es.com/system.html — which is planning to produce heat, hot water and electricity for individual housing, with a small unit not much bigger than a gas range.

Alain Samoun

  • heath

    Good God, agreed.

  • fritz194

    NEWS…..

    Cold fusion is back at the American Chemical Society ;-)
    http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070329/full/news070326-12.html

  • jousterusa

    In the political world, President Obama gets a lot of bad-mouthing no matter what he does, but his October Executive Order on cogeneration is a classic example of how a president can use the Oval Office to foster forms of research that are productive and sometimes life-saving, and that can help move our economy and oiur industries forward in a highly competitive world. I hope all of you will join with me in remembering that this is the kind of thing the President’s order hoped to accomplish – and already has.

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      Why do I need a president to order me to use CHP? With your wonderful Executive Orders, who needs the other 2 branches of government? Genghis Khan was also fond of Executive Orders. Has Putin heard about this?

      http://www.congressforkids.net/Constitution_threebranches.htm

      • Quiet Wine Guy

        Well, I’m reminded of how FDR through his executive authority helped Europe when the rest of the Government was caught up in the isolationist fervor.

        • Iggy Dalrymple

          War time demands executive decision……..I’m not referring to political warfare.

          • Quiet Wine Guy

            We won’t agree on this one as you do not agree with the premise of Climate Change. Pres. Obama does and, IMO, sees it in the same manner as FDR did with Europe.

            For those who agree on Climate Change, the irrationality of damaging one’s only ecosystem rises to the level of intense political conflict. Pres. Obama is fulfilling his role as the chief executive.

            • psi2u2

              However, just to demonstrate how complicated politics can be, I probably agree more with Iggy about “climate change,” an utterly unscientific and infinitely malleable label that is the replacement for the failed idea of “global warming” — since there has been by most common agreement almost no “global warming for fifteen years now, and the signals between rising H2O and flat temperatures are diverging markedly.

              • Quiet Wine Guy

                Fair enough . . . that’s democracy.

          • Ophelia Rump

            War on poverty, war on drugs, war on Obama, which war are we not in?
            Why are half our wars always against the American public?

      • atanguy

        I think that if Obama did not have a blocking majority in congress,he wouldn’t be using Executive Orders.

      • Ophelia Rump

        Who needs the other 2 branches of government, indeed.

        I agree, the other two branches have become worse than useless. Reform is long past due.

    • psi2u2

      JousterUSA, I prefer your interpretation, I must say. I don’t really think that the EO forces any individual to use CHP. Someone please correct me if that is incorrect. I would think it would just set some standards and inducements for private industry or public organizations to adopt the new standards. Is is really any more coercive than that?

      • Ophelia Rump

        By building momentum for CHP the entire market is motivated to make the change, in order to compete and survive. In a sense, yes it does force people to do the right thing. And there is nothing wrong with that.

  • Daniel Maris

    Well we’re definitely running before walking here!

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      You’re right. Just produce a product. The market can figure out how to use it.

    • Steve H

      Think BIG, then work back from there!

  • GreenWin

    A successful example of this technology is the CCHP system at One Bryant Park in New York City (aka The BofA Tower) – a LEED Platinum sky scraper. They use a gas-fired 5.1MW cogen system to produce 80% of their electrical energy. They use excess electric capacity at night to make ice which cools the building during hot months – without traditional air conditioning units. Excess heat is used for space heating in winter and to make steam for a chiller unit for additional cooling.

    Were this CCHP system powered by five – 1MW E-Cat units, the heat energy cost would likely drop by 80%.
    http://local.alfalaval.com/en-us/key-industries/hvac/Documents/Bank%20of%20America%20case%20story%20-%20ECF00236EN.pdf

    • atanguy

      It seems that NY City needs more of these,I was surprise to learn that the cost of transporting/managing electricity there is greater than producing it…

      • Omega Z

        It’s a Large City…
        Lots of Palms to Grease.

  • fritz194

    I agree with the author that new Micro(<15kW) and Mini(<50kW) CHP would be the ideal application.
    Otherwise – I think the needed certifications for Micro CHP would be similar to a "consumer" e-cat – with the drawbacks we know already.
    If I was talking about retrofitting plants – I never thought of _LARGE_ plants, I thought about nominal CHP operating around 10MW (thermal+electrical).
    I think there is the need for few installed 10MW units – until there is confidence to upscale that technology.

    • Ophelia Rump

      A generation system from two to ten times household need would still be industrial.
      It would also be a mom and pop scale of finance and degree of difficulty. They would sell like hotcakes.

      But it would require having an open industrial certification. Meaning approved, not an experimental status requiring expert supervision. Is the Hot-Cat fully certified for industrial use or is it provisional, pending safety data?

      • psi2u2

        I don’t remember hearing anything definite on the certification stage for the Hot-Cat, although Rossi has said many times that the certification for the hot-cat was going to be much easier than the certification for the home units. My sense of what happened is that Rossi started off with the idea of home units, a move that showed to me his fierce independence from the powers that be in the energy sector. He was going to take it straight to el pueblo. I think he probably really hadn’t even thought through from the beginning how hard, for various reasons, it was going to be to get the basic basement e-cat certified. Eventually he realized the problem and at the same time was continuing to experiment to improve it and got the hot cat, and then a whole different avenue of development was open to him. At least, that’s how I read the tea leaves. Some might view it as a cynical sell-out. Not me. Rossi has to negotiate some terms with the energy giants. They get to be first at the feeding trough as it were. Maybe someone else can fill in the vagueness of my answer with better data. My feeling is that the hot cat either is or is very close to whatever certification it would need to begin being installed industrially. But whether this has been positively confirmed I do not know.

        • Fortyniner

          There is obviously the ‘cart and horse’ issue here, i.e., small reactors will not be certified for use by unskilled users in an open environment until there is a ton of safety data from industrial use (and then some). This is likely to mean years, perhaps decades, rather than months, even in the absence of political interference or patent wars

          The standards required for various levels of industrial certification depend on the skill levels required of operators, built-in safety features, specified operating procedures and paper control and recording systems, security and similar factors. Taken together, the fences are set pretty high for anything with harmful potential (e.g., nuclear facilities, but also other large generator sets).

          It would not be feasible to set up such conditions from scratch just to test a pilot unit, but it it were to be installed in a place where the conditions already exist, there should not be too many problems. To my mind this means that the first test unit MUST be installed in an existing working power station, where the skilled workers, operating systems, site security etc. are in place, along with necessary permits, fuel/power supplies, output connections and even measuring equipment.

          I think this probably rules out new local (DPS) power or CHP installations, unless a number of changes were made at an existing small facility to meet all necessary criteria. Once a pilot has been run without issue for say 6 months, other similar units will be permitted, followed by gradual proliferation of fully commercial units, again under secure, high-skill conditions. It could be many years before any significant relaxation of operating conditions is allowed, but it will take at least that long to replace all existing fossil and nuclear generating capacity anyway.

          • psi2u2

            Thanks for the further elaboration and detail on the question, Fortyniner.

      • fritz194

        For his system he would need proof-in-use operating hours – means permanent human control and maintenance for few plants. Thats costly and doesnt pay off with such tiny systems. And even if he sells a lot of them there is a high financial risk of needed upgrades due to failures in service.
        In the end – these scenarios are determined by his business plan and available resources.