from Kelly in Eau Claire, WI:
#459
The electrical distribution losses for energy generation is about 50%, (source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/sep_sum/html/sum_btu_res.html). It would seem that an improvement in the distribution system would be significantly more cost effective than throwing billions of dollars at alternative energy and more efficient products.
This is a complex question to answer.
This is a complex question to answer. There are many issues with how information in this particular EIA table is presented that may be somewhat misleading or difficult to understand. One issue is the comparison of primary fuel BTUs (British Thermal Units) to other residential tasks, such as heating, lighting, cooling, etc. Primary fuel represents the actual fossil fuel resources that are converted into electricity. It is not possible to convert all of the energy in a fuel to electricity when utilizing fossils fuels such as coal or gas. As such, primary fuel cannot so easily or accurately be compared to end-use electricity. However, the EIA table treats the two as equivalent. On the generation side, newer coal plants have an efficiency rate of approximately 37.5%, while older coal plants typically have an efficiency rate of 30-35%. The efficiency of a natural gas combined cycle plant is approximately 50%.
The table also bundles together “losses” for transmission, distribution, and generation. The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSCW) finds that total electric transmission losses are approximately 2.5% and distribution losses are around 3% for a total of 5.5% in electrical losses that occurs after the conversion to electricity is made. Recently, New York State said that their T&D losses were 8.4%; slightly higher than the Wisconsin estimates. There are also new performance standards for distribution transformers which will lower the voltage distribution losses even more.
Further improvements to transmission, distribution, and generation of energy will likely occur but they must be compared to the cost of distributed generation options such as the solar collaborative effort now underway at the PSCW. Customer end-use of electricity remains an important priority. Through 2008, Focus on Energy has helped Wisconsin residents and businesses save $239 million and a total of 1,729,990,576 kilowatt hours. These projects remain a very cost-effective way to save energy and money, and to offset the need for new distributed or centralized generation in the future. For every dollar spent by Focus on Energy, third-party evaluators find that at least $2.4 are created in benefits.
Published Friday, October 16, 2009