any facts on trigeneration

[PhilipA]

I was discussing alternate energies recently with a zealot, who told me that trigeneration was the next big thing.

So I googled and really couldn't find anything except PR stuff from either the city of Sydney or promoters continually saying it was 85% efficient vs 45% for coal fired power stations. Maybe so but what is the cost of utilizing that 85% of the energy /gas input?

What I couldn't find is how much a KWH it costs vs good old mains electricity even using their estimate of 83% price rise by 2030.

From what I saw on the site for a North Sydney Building, the capital cost seems enormous AFAIR 1.8million for 477KW and 265 KW of airconditioning plus a small amount of heat. I did an in head calculation and 700 1Kw Chinese generators would be cheaper LOL.( though not as good for the environment methinks.)

Does anyone have some balanced information on the pros and cons and what the actual costs are?

It seems to me that Power stations became big and remote for good reasons and that is why Pyrmont and other small power stations closed.

It seems to me that plugging a heap of internal combustion engines attached to waste heat airconditioners in buildings could be retrograde vs say energy conservation (via LED lights , auto switching , and low current draw modular air conditioners with zone control)ie intelligent buildings using distributed power either from dirty or clean sources.

BTW, as long as I don't have to subsidise them, I have no opinion one way or another, but I guess it pains me to see energy conservation possibly go away on yet another tangent.

Regards Philip A

[Blknight.aus]

Nothing new, they've been doing it in antarctica since they first put diesel engine generators in.

[bee utey]

Plenty of comment on it, eg here:

Sydney trigen? Try again with renewables : Renew Economy (http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/sydney-trigen-try-again-with-renewables-77169)

One comment


It’s great greenwashing PR for the gas industry, though.

[WhiteD3]

We have some involvement with trigen in our business. Yet to hear about one that works as advertised, for reasons technical, design or operating cost.

One reason they are popular on new buildings is that their inclusion goes a long way to upping the NABERS rating.

[Blknight.aus]

Just had a flick through the NABERS site and decided...

What a load of snot.

they've upped their scale to 6 stars because

"it lets us identify market leading building" but "a 6 star rating produces less than 50% greenhouse emissions"

so what is it? A clearly defined number set OR a relatively graded set?

Whose going to handle the Admin on re-issuing everyone new certificates it if its a relatively graded set and someone does something new and better?

If its a clearly defined number why aren't there more? what happens when someone exceeds the definition required for 6 stars?

Dont get me wrong Its a great idea but I'll be paying about as much attention to the NABERS scale when it comes to selecting a building as I would to the logie accolades list when it comes time to pick a partner for surviving the zombie apocalypse

[WhiteD3]

NABERS is big business these days Dave, and a boon for us in building controls. The move to six stars is to make it harder for buildings to achieve the top rating. Technology and design has improved a hell of a lot since this started just a few years ago so I suppose its just pushing the boundaries.

Bit like economy and emmission targets for cars I suppose.

[Blknight.aus]

ahh yes much like ancap.

smart cars rate higher than landies on ancap yet more people survive accidents in landies than do smart cars.

[jakeslouw]

As far as I know, there hasn't been a proper carbon cost breakdown on the production of the Defender versus something like the Prius.

My opinion is the jury is still out regarding whether new tech cars are in fact cheaper top produce carbon-wise than old tech cars.

[Pinelli]

ahh yes much like ancap.

smart cars rate higher than landies on ancap yet more people survive accidents in landies than do smart cars.

I gotta say that my driving style changes a little when I hop out of the old Disco and into the wife's V6 Camry. :p

Perhaps if more small hatches were built with heavier chassis, had diesel engines and weighed 2.5 tonne, we'd have less accidents all round.

[superquag]

Arnie ("I'll be ba-a-a-ck") the Govern-ator was supposed to have commissioned a study that showed his Hummer as having a lower carbon foot-print to manufacture, than a Prius.

It must be true 'cos I read it on the internet... :p

[Mick_Marsh]

As far as I know, there hasn't been a proper carbon cost breakdown on the production of the Defender versus something like the Prius.

My opinion is the jury is still out regarding whether new tech cars are in fact cheaper top produce carbon-wise than old tech cars.
I thought they had done that with a Jeep as well as a Prius.
The Jeep killed the Prius when it got to diposal. IIRC, the only part of a Jeep that is not recyclable is the seat squabs.
What worked against the Prius was all the nasty toxic stuff in the batteries.


http://www.motortorque.com/expert-columns/as-green-as-they-get---the-4x4-jeep-wrangler-17818.aspx


Just found this

Which cars are the greenest? You'd be surprised
Neil Reynolds

Friday, July 27, 2007

OTTAWA ? Could it really be so - that GM's Hummer is more than 40 per cent
greener than Toyota's Prius? That Ford's F-Series pickup is greener? That
GM's Silverado pickup is greener? That Dodge's Ram pickup is greener? That
Cadillac's DTS, a full-sized luxury sedan with a V8 engine, is greener?
Could it be, in fact, that seven different luxury-class automobiles are all
greener - and that three of them are Cadillac models?

Well, indeed, it really could be. And, if so, Finance Minister Jim
Flaherty's new-car incentive program is a huge environmental mistake.

Oregon-based CNW Marketing Research Inc. has conducted the world's most
comprehensive analysis of the "life cycle" energy requirements of more than
100 makes and models of cars and trucks. Given the thousands of parts and
processes in the manufacturing and operation of cars, it was a complex task
and took the company two years to complete. Volvo once tried to do it - and
gave up in frustration (though it does publish "life cycle" analysis for its
own makes).

CNW identified 4,000 "data points" for each car, ranging from the energy
consumed in research and development to energy consumed in junkyard
disposal. It calculated the electrical energy needed to produce each pound
of parts. It calculated greenhouse gas emissions. It calculated mileage,
too - adjusting for the differences between rush-hour Tokyo and rural
America.

The company describes this exercise as "dust to dust" analysis. CNW has now
published its second annual report, a 400-page production.

To keep it relatively free of technical jargon, the company expresses energy
requirement as the dollar cost of energy for every mile across a vehicle's
anticipated years of use - "U.S. dollars per lifetime mile." Thus it reports
the lifetime energy requirement of a Hummer as $1.90 a mile; the lifetime
energy requirement of a Prius as $2.86 a mile.

It reports by model name and by category. For 22 models of economy cars, the
average lifetime energy cost is $0.85. For six models of pickup trucks, it's
$2.58. For 14 models of smaller-sized sports utility vehicles, it's $2.07;
for nine models of larger-sized SUVs, it's $3.98. For 10 models of
gas-electric hybrids, it's $3.65.

Compare the SUVs against the hybrids and you get a sweep in favour of
conventional technology. The best-rated smaller SUVs are more than twice as
eco-friendly as the hybrids: Dodge's Durango, $1.57; Ford's Explorer, $1.61;
Chevrolet's TrailBlazer, $1.61; Jeep's Grand Cherokee, $1.80.

More remarkably, one of the larger SUVs, Ford's Expedition, beats the
hybrids with an eco-cost of $3.54.

CNW found wide differences, however, within classes of vehicles. For 18
models of luxury cars, the average energy cost is $4.45. Yet the best of
these luxury cars are superior, in lifetime energy use, to hybrids.

The luxury cars that rival hybrids: Lincoln's Town Car, $2.66; Acura's RL,
$2.80; Cadillac's CTS, $3.19; BMW's 5 Series, $3.19; Mercedes-Benz's
E-Class, $3.48; Toyota Land Cruiser 80 series, $3.49; Cadillac's STS
(Seville), $3.56; Cadillac's DTS (DeVille), $3.65.

CNW's assessment of the hybrids has irritated some of the car companies.

Toyota says that CNW credited Prius with only half its 200,000 lifetime
miles. CNW says that Prius owners drive less than 7,500 miles a year -
meaning that these cars will be scrapped long before they use their expected
lifetime mileage (in 26 years). CNW says that hybrids fare poorly because of
increased complexity. Honda's conventional Accord gets rated at $2.18; its
Accord Hybrid gets rated at $3.29 - an environmental cost 50 per cent
higher.

Take the batteries, for example. Toyota buys 1,000 tonnes of nickel a year
from Ontario (mined and smelted in Sudbury). This nickel gets shipped to
Wales for refining, then to China, for further processing, and then to
Toyota's battery plant in Tokyo - a 10,000-mile trip, mostly by
petrol-gulping container ships and diesel-powered locomotives.

Toyota, however, still has some of the greenest vehicles on earth. The Scion
has the lowest energy cost of all at 48 cents a mile. The Corolla, at 72
cents, and the Echo (Yaris), at 77 cents, are also in the best-on-earth
class. Low-energy competitors include Dodge's Neon (64 cents) and Saturn's
Ion (67 cents). Cars with the highest energy requirement include the Rolls
Royce ($10.97) and the equally elegant German-made Maybach ($15.83).

In his March budget, Mr. Flaherty made fuel efficiency - gas mileage alone -
the sole basis for the environmental rating of new cars. He will reward
high-mileage cars (with rebates from $1,000 to $2,000) and punish
low-mileage cars (with surcharges from $1,000 to $4,000). The program could
well be a phenomenal waste of energy. Junk it, Mr. Flaherty. It's not fit
for the road.