The Great Electric Energy Obscenity

40.04 QBtu spent… 25.22 QBtu lost… 13.16 QBtu usable to customers (Source: EIA)

Environmentalists are justifiably concerned about the vast amounts of CO2 coming from generating electricity in the United States. Electric power plants, mostly coal-fired ones, produce 40-45% of all U.S. atmospheric CO2 emissions.

The odd looking EIA graph above contains one of the most sobering realizations about U.S. electricity production you could possibly imagine!

In 2011, U.S. electric power plants spent 40.04 QBtu of energy to produce electricity. A QBtu is a ‘Quadrillion British Thermal Units’ of energy. A quadrillion is 1X1015th power. For simplicity’s sake, let’s just say that is one S#*% load of energy!

Here is the sobering part. 25.22 QBtu of all that juice was LOST in conversion!! Only 13.16 QBtu made it out to end users!

For the calculator challenged, that works out to 67% of all the energy used to produce electricity got lost before it ever reached an outlet!

That’s obscene. That’s scandalous.

We get all the costly negatives with only 1/3rd of the benefits!

It begs this question:
Can the efficiency of electric energy production and delivery be improved?

Surely it must be.

Most certainly there are theoretical limits of physics that cannot be overcome.

But if we put the best scientific minds up against this engineering problem, it is unimaginable that great strides in efficiency couldn’t be achieved.

It would reduce the price of electricity for all American consumers, cut CO2 emissions and help save the planet from the ravages of global warming, ta boot!

Somebody needs to start thinking outside the box and do something about it.


About azleader

Learning to see life more clearly... one image at a time!

Posted on Sep 9, 2013, in Business, Climate, economics, Energy, environment, Government, news, Politics, science, technology. Bookmark the permalink. 2 Comments.

  1. There is no convincing evidence of CO2 induced global warming.

    Climategate was the first public exposure of deception designed in 1945 to hide experimental evidence neutron repulsion in cores of heavy atoms, stars and galaxies cause:

    Fission, fragmentation, and neutron emission that becomes H-generation after n-decay.

    To save the world from nuclear annihilation after 1945, two falsehoods became standard, settled, 97%-consensus science:

    1. Neutrons attract, rather than repel, other neutrons.

    2. Stars consume, rather than generate, hydrogen.

    Both statements are empirically FALSE, ie falsified by observations.

    With kind regards,
    – Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Princial
    Investigator for Apollo

    • I agree the evidence for 100% human-caused global warming theory (as the IPCC claims) is weak, at best… but there is some.

      The warmist thinkers have suddenly resorted to heat absorption directly into the deep oceans. That is proof of the weakness of the theory. That was never mentioned before until “the pause” which, itself, was never predicted by AGW theory.

      I happen to agree with Svendsmark and others that solar influences on earth climate have been underestimated. That probably comes from my physics and astronomy background studying at the U of Arizona when Bart J. Bok was director of the astronomy department.

      It’s hard for me to believe that even the most subtle changes on the sun (the source of all heat and light on Earth) can’t have direct effects on our climate.

      That belief will be put to the test over at least the next few decades as the sun slides into another so-called “grand minimum”. History suggests the earth should cool.

      #1 is false…
      I’ll say it again… except for gravity that affects every object with mass, neutrons don’t attract or repel anything. That is why they are called neutrons – they are electromagnetically neutral. 😉

      #2, however, is 100% true…
      Every shred of astrophysical data ever measured supports that hydrogen/helium fusion is the main power source of stars. The observed 70% hydrogen, 29% helium ratio of the universe is the combined effect of the big bang and well understood stellar evolution.

      Unless that ratio and all the other known physical properties of the universe can be explained with a simpler more elegant theory then I’m sticking with the big bang. 🙂

Comments and questions are welcomed!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: