2020 Energy Consumption flowchart


Jim Duncan
 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has issued it's latest Estimated US Energy Consumption series of flowcharts. Included is the same estimated flowchart for all the US states.

https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/commodities/energy

-- 
Jim Duncan
Solar Acres Farm
817.917.0527
solarguy2004@...


Eric Johnson
 

The phrase "rejected energy" which is about 62% of the total energy produced from various sources is used to signify energy that is somehow lost in transmission, or lost in exhaust heat, up the chimney or out the tailpipe, or radiated away from a building with poor insulation.  That is how I interpret this terminology.  Please correct me if this is not accurate.

On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 9:20 PM Jim Duncan <solarguy2004@...> wrote:

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has issued it's latest Estimated US Energy Consumption series of flowcharts. Included is the same estimated flowchart for all the US states.

https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/commodities/energy

-- 
Jim Duncan
Solar Acres Farm
817.917.0527
solarguy2004@...


Dan Lepinski, P.E.
 

Eric,

In my instructional contract work with the US Department of Energy, your understanding of "lost energy" is generally how the DOE asked us to explain it. It appears the DOE has updated their terminology in recent years, perhaps to be more politically correct (or less harsh). Their previous descriptive was "inefficiency".

If the 62% value is accurate, overall grid efficiency has improved by 4 to 5 percent in the past decade. The value we used in our national training programs was 67%, which was given to us by the DOE.

62% is still a great deal of loss from the source to the point of consumption. This is one of the reasons it makes sense to generate "local" power, at the loads. Every local megawatt-hour generated saves another 2 megawatt-hours (or more) originating at a power plant, not to mention the fractional load reduction on the grid. Decreased total power carried by the grid means lower loss in the grid.


Dan

On 12/22/21 9:26 AM, Eric Johnson wrote:
The phrase "rejected energy" which is about 62% of the total energy produced from various sources is used to signify energy that is somehow lost in transmission, or lost in exhaust heat, up the chimney or out the tailpipe, or radiated away from a building with poor insulation.  That is how I interpret this terminology.  Please correct me if this is not accurate.

On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 9:20 PM Jim Duncan <solarguy2004@gmail.com <mailto:solarguy2004@gmail.com>> wrote:

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has issued it's latest */Estimated US Energy Consumption/* series of flowcharts. Included is the same estimated flowchart for all the US states.

https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/commodities/energy

-- Jim Duncan Solar Acres Farm 817.917.0527 solarguy2004@gmail.com <mailto:solarguy2004@gmail.com>


R. Michael Martin
 

These are high-impact and strategic facts that can help everyone understand the efficient value of on-site 
(“local”) power generation and usage in our overall power strategy and as a way to relieve total reliance on the highly inefficient, “remote" and increasingly less reliable big grid.  All users of power benefit.

THANKS y’all for sharing these specific insights!

With care and healthy regards,

Michael

MM Solar Advisory

R. Michael Martin
214.826.0636 (o)
214.755.6384 (m)
*340,000+ solar jobs in USA
*$84B impact on USA economy
mmsolaradvisory.com


On Dec 22, 2021, at 09:56, Dan Lepinski, P.E. via groups.io <Dan@...> wrote:

Eric,

In my instructional contract work with the US Department of Energy, your understanding of "lost energy" is generally how the DOE asked us to explain it.  It appears the DOE has updated their terminology in recent years, perhaps to be more politically correct (or less harsh).  Their previous descriptive was "inefficiency".

If the 62% value is accurate, overall grid efficiency has improved by 4 to 5 percent in the past decade.  The value we used in our national training programs was 67%, which was given to us by the DOE.

62% is still a great deal of loss from the source to the point of consumption.  This is one of the reasons it makes sense to generate "local" power, at the loads.  Every local megawatt-hour generated saves another 2 megawatt-hours (or more) originating at a power plant, not to mention the fractional load reduction on the grid.  Decreased total power carried by the grid means lower loss in the grid.


Dan



On 12/22/21 9:26 AM, Eric Johnson wrote:
The phrase "rejected energy" which is about 62% of the total energy produced from various sources is used to signify energy that is somehow lost in transmission, or lost in exhaust heat, up the chimney or out the tailpipe, or radiated away from a building with poor insulation.  That is how I interpret this terminology.  Please correct me if this is not accurate.

On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 9:20 PM Jim Duncan <solarguy2004@... <mailto:solarguy2004@...>> wrote:

   Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has issued it's latest */Estimated US Energy Consumption/* series of flowcharts. Included is the same estimated flowchart for all the US states.

   https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/commodities/energy

   -- Jim Duncan Solar Acres Farm 817.917.0527 solarguy2004@... <mailto:solarguy2004@...>








Philip Timmons
 

They do not have 2021 up yet, do they?

Interesting to compare 2020 and 2019 side-by-side.

Overall, things (energy use) were down -- largely due to Covid, generally.

From around 100 quad to 92.9, or say 93 quad.  7% or so drop.  Shows we really can/could cut back.

Solar was UP from 1.04 to 1.25 -- 20% INCREASE  even while the overall was down.  Impressive.

Coal fell from 11.4 to 9.2  -- Big Drop.  Around 20% drop.  Nice.  

Big move down on the input (left) side was Oil.  Yeah.  Remember Oil prices went NEGATIVE for a while?  Still laughing about that.  So Oil had an overall year drop.  Oil dropped from near 37 to around 32.   13% Drop.  

So look at the split further along Oil -- Industry stayed about the same, but Transportation Oil.  Drops from 25.8 to 21.9.    That is where the big drop on this entire sheet is.  Sort of lets US know in advance what is going to happen as things shift towards EVs.  

But in all of this -- the part that still catches my attention is the far Right Side.  Rejected (waste) 66% of all,  compared to about 33% being used as "Energy Services" -- That ratio stays about the same -- Year after Year  . . . .   and most of that Rejected "waste" is Heat.  Heat from Refineries, Heat from Coal, Gas, Nukes, Heat from ICE cars.    

Under renewable -- typically Sun, Wind, Hydro -- most of that Reject Heat Waste  . . . .  goes away.    Means half or more of the overall US Energy Market --  a major industry  in the US . . . .  goes away.  







On Tuesday, December 21, 2021, 09:20:02 PM CST, Jim Duncan <solarguy2004@...> wrote:


Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has issued it's latest Estimated US Energy Consumption series of flowcharts. Included is the same estimated flowchart for all the US states.

https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/commodities/energy

-- 
Jim Duncan
Solar Acres Farm
817.917.0527
solarguy2004@...


Paul Westbrook
 

Good to see that energy waste has gone from 66.7% in 2017 to the lower 60's. Still a lot of opportunity there. The first section of my book (https://joyofefficiency.com) covers this under The Power of Efficiency. Here's that section:

"This book will focus on energy more than any other topic, because energy is fundamental to almost every aspect of our modern society. Fossil fuel energy extraction and trading is also a source of major conflicts around the globe. Consider the U.S. energy consumption for a typical year. Over 60% of the energy produced here is wasted. Our fossil-fuel-driven power plants lose most of their fuel’s energy content to waste heat, which is dumped into the atmosphere or local water supplies. Gasoline-powered vehicles waste more than 70% of the fuel’s energy content. The majority of the energy we’ve drilled for, dug up, mined, and otherwise extracted over the past few hundred years has been wasted. We either didn’t know how to get more use from our energy source or didn’t bother to figure it out. A study by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory indicates about 67% of the energy input into the U.S. economy is rejected as waste heat, which means we didn’t get any useful work from it. This acceptance of inefficiency is a voluntary tax on our collective prosperity—at a tax rate of about 67%. We would revolt if our income tax rate was that high, but we continue to accept that level of waste in our energy system.

As Amory Lovins at the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) has pointed out for decades, saving energy is cheaper than buying energy; energy efficiency costs less than the fuel it saves. And there are many cascading benefits: our finances, our air quality, our water quality and availability, our health…

We have made some progress, but efficiency is still probably the greatest business opportunity of our time. But it is more than a business opportunity. It is a chance to do well by doing good. When we, as a society, become more efficient, everyone wins. A more efficient food supply chain could feed more people with what we already grow. More efficient transportation systems could move more people with even less energy.

Efficiency wins might manifest as cost savings, clean air, clean water—or even just access to water. Efficiency won’t solve all our challenges, but it’s the fundamental baseline that all other solutions could build from. If there were a Maslow’s hierarchy of energy, efficiency would be the broad base of the pyramid.

Efficiency is so powerful and applicable to so many things, I’m surprised Stan Lee never created a character whose superpower was efficiency."

Happy Festivus,

Paul


Mark Witte
 

Paul,

You are absolutely correct.

But let me provide a quick story about how difficult it can be to convince people or companies to improve their energy efficiency. My father was an engineer who always believed very strongly in efficiency - especially energy efficiency. In the 1980s, he teamed up with a couple of other engineers active in energy efficiency to offer a energy efficiency improvement deal to companies. They would assess the energy usage of the companies and design and install energy efficiency improvements, at no cost to the company. They would be compensated by splitting the energy cost savings with the company for one (1) year. After one year, the company would keep all the energy cost savings for perpetuity.  No investment required on the part of the company. Just split the savings for one year. Note: the companies would be making the same size energy-related payments whether or not they did the energy efficiency deal.  

A vanishingly small number of companies actually agreed to the deal. I've never understood why the companies were so reluctant to do the deal. What was the perceived downside? How could they lose on that deal?

Mark  

On Thursday, December 23, 2021, 07:10:39 AM CST, Paul Westbrook <pwestbrook@...> wrote:


Good to see that energy waste has gone from 66.7% in 2017 to the lower 60's. Still a lot of opportunity there. The first section of my book (https://joyofefficiency.com) covers this under The Power of Efficiency. Here's that section:

"This book will focus on energy more than any other topic, because energy is fundamental to almost every aspect of our modern society. Fossil fuel energy extraction and trading is also a source of major conflicts around the globe. Consider the U.S. energy consumption for a typical year. Over 60% of the energy produced here is wasted. Our fossil-fuel-driven power plants lose most of their fuel’s energy content to waste heat, which is dumped into the atmosphere or local water supplies. Gasoline-powered vehicles waste more than 70% of the fuel’s energy content. The majority of the energy we’ve drilled for, dug up, mined, and otherwise extracted over the past few hundred years has been wasted. We either didn’t know how to get more use from our energy source or didn’t bother to figure it out. A study by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory indicates about 67% of the energy input into the U.S. economy is rejected as waste heat, which means we didn’t get any useful work from it. This acceptance of inefficiency is a voluntary tax on our collective prosperity—at a tax rate of about 67%. We would revolt if our income tax rate was that high, but we continue to accept that level of waste in our energy system.

As Amory Lovins at the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) has pointed out for decades, saving energy is cheaper than buying energy; energy efficiency costs less than the fuel it saves. And there are many cascading benefits: our finances, our air quality, our water quality and availability, our health…

We have made some progress, but efficiency is still probably the greatest business opportunity of our time. But it is more than a business opportunity. It is a chance to do well by doing good. When we, as a society, become more efficient, everyone wins. A more efficient food supply chain could feed more people with what we already grow. More efficient transportation systems could move more people with even less energy.

Efficiency wins might manifest as cost savings, clean air, clean water—or even just access to water. Efficiency won’t solve all our challenges, but it’s the fundamental baseline that all other solutions could build from. If there were a Maslow’s hierarchy of energy, efficiency would be the broad base of the pyramid.

Efficiency is so powerful and applicable to so many things, I’m surprised Stan Lee never created a character whose superpower was efficiency."

Happy Festivus,

Paul


axisdesign@...
 

I first encountered the Estimated US Energy Consumption flowchart from LLNL in 2011 when I began teaching Environmental Sustainability at SMU. I have kept an eye on it ever since. For purposes of comparison, take a look at the flowchart from 2009:



Since the total # of Quads is close to 100, we can treat the numbers like percentages, to get reasonably close estimates. We’re using fewer Quads of Energy than 10 years ago: GOOD. Solar and Wind are up, but not alot: PRETTY GOOD. Coal & Petroleum are down but Natural Gas is up: NOT SO GOOD. The percentage of Energy produced which is Rejected is higher (62% vs. 54%): NOT GOOD AT ALL. Rejected Energy means energy that is wasted either through emission or inefficiency in the process. This means that we waste more than 60% of the energy we produce, a huge number!

SOME UNKNOWNS:

[1] What are the relative inefficiencies of the respective energy sources?

[2] Does Rejected Energy include the entire cycle of energy use?:

          ACQUISITION        

TRANSPORT

          PROCESSING

          TRANSMISSION

          CONSUMPTION

          DISPOSAL


Joel
 

Probably because they couldn't get the contract approved through their legal department in under a year.


Paul Westbrook
 

I suspect the measurement quality and definitions have varied a bit over the years, but it's interesting to look at the archive of all the annual energy charts: https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/archive.html. You can go back to a 1950 US flowchart.

Paul


axisdesign@...
 

Thanks for the link Paul. 


axisdesign@...
 

Another consideration:

Does, for example, the Natural Gas number in the LLNL FlowChart include the trillions of cubic feet of Natural Gas flared off into the atmosphere every year? I doubt it.