DOCSLIB.ORG

Biopower Technical Assessment: State of the Industry and Technology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biopower Technical Assessment: State of the Industry and Technology March 2003 • NREL/TP-510-33123 Biopower Technical Assessment: State of the Industry and Technology R.L. Bain and W.A. Amos National Renewable Energy Laboratory M. Downing and R.L. Perlack Oak Ridge National Laboratory National Renewable Energy Laboratory 1617 Cole Boulevard Golden, Colorado 80401-3393 NREL is a U.S. Department of Energy Laboratory Operated by Midwest Research Institute • Battelle • Bechtel Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337 NREL/TP-510-33123 BIOPOWER TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT State of the Industry and the Technology March 2003 Richard L. Bain and Wade A. Amos National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado Mark Downing and Robert L. Perlack Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee Prepared under Task No. BBB3.6110 NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof. Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy and its contractors, in paper, from: U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information P.O. Box 62 Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062 phone: 865.576.8401 fax: 865.576.5728 email: [email protected] Available for sale to the public, in paper, from: U.S. Department of Commerce National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 phone: 800.553.6847 fax: 703.605.6900 email: [email protected] online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste Acknowledgments A significant portion of this study is excerpted from studies previously funded by the Department of Energy. The authors wish acknowledge the efforts of the authors of these studies in performing background research and preparing the reports that are so useful in this technical assessment. Chapter Source Authors 2: Barriers “2001 EERE Strategic Program Review” Raymond Costello, DOE Paul Grabowski, DOE Other? 4: Lessons Learned “Biomass Energy Production in California: The Gregory Morris, Future Resources Case for a Biomass Policy Initiative” Associates, Inc. 4: Lessons Learned “Lessons Learned from Existing Biomass George Wiltsee, Appel Consultants, Power Plants” Inc. 5: Technology “ Renewable Energy Technology Kevin Craig, NREL Characterizations Characterizations” Kevin Comer, Antares Group 6: Environmental “Green Power Fact Sheets” Ask MM Performance 6: Environmental “ A Comparison of the Environmental Margaret Mann, NREL Performance Consequences of Power from Biomass, Coal, Pamela Spath, NREL and Natural Gas” 7: Policy “Biomass and Bioenergy in the United States” Helena Chum, NREL Ralph P. Overend, NREL 7: Policy “ Incentives, Mandates, and Government Mark Gielecki, DOE-EIA Programs for Promoting Renewable Energy” Fred Mayes, DOE-EIA Lawrence Prete, DOE-EIA -iii- CONTENTS List of Figures .....................................................................vii List of Tables .....................................................................ix Executive Summary ................................................................E-1 Chapter 1 Situation Analysis .....................................................1-1 Chapter 2 Barriers Technology Barriers ..........................................................2-1 Combustion/Cofiring .........................................................2-1 Gasification.................................................................2-2 Small Systems...............................................................2-2 Feedstock Production Harvest and Preparation .....................................2-2 Institutional .................................................................2-3 Regulatory..................................................................2-3 Financial...................................................................2-4 Infrastructural...............................................................2-5 Perceptual..................................................................2-5 Chapter 3 Feedstock Supply Biomass resources - characteristics and availability ..................................3-1 Urban Wastes.........................................................3-1 Mill residues ..........................................................3-2 Forest residues........................................................3-2 Agricultural residues ...................................................3-3 Dedicated energy crops .................................................3-4 Regional availability ..........................................................3-4 References..................................................................3-7 Chapter 4 Lessons Learned The California Biomass Energy Industry ..........................................4-1 Development of the California Biomass Energy Industry .......................4-1 The 1980s: Decade of Growth ............................................4-1 The 1990s: Maturity and Consolidation ....................................4-4 Characteristics of California’s Biomass Power Plants ..........................4-9 Fuel Use and Alternative Disposal Options For Biomass Residues in California .....4-9 Wood Processing Residues .............................................4-10 In-Forest Residues....................................................4-11 Agricultural Residues..................................................4-12 Urban Wood Residues .................................................4-13 The California Biomass Fuels Market ...........................................4-14 Biomass Fuel Market Price Trends .......................................4-16 Summary of California Situation in 2000 ..................................4-19 2002 Update on California Biomass Power Industry ..........................4-20 Lessons Learned-Existing Industry ..............................................4-25 Electricity Generation and Fuel Consumption...............................4-25 Capacity Factors......................................................4-25 -iv- Heat Rates ..........................................................4-25 Cogeneration ........................................................4-25 Fuels...............................................................4-28 Lessons Learned......................................................4-28 DOE Hawaii Project-Lessons Learned...........................................4-33 Project Chronology ...................................................4-33 Project Overview.....................................................4-34 PICHTR - Phase I ....................................................4-35 Westinghouse Electric Corporation Technology Validation Phase ...............4-37 Status..............................................................4-41 Summary of Lessons Learned ...........................................4-41 Minnesota Alfalfa Project.....................................................4-43 Summary of Lessons Learned : Minnesota Agri-Power Project.................4-44 Success Factors .............................................................4-45 References.................................................................4-50 Chapter 5 Technology Case Studies Technology Alternatives .......................................................5-2 Direct-fired Biomass..........................................................5-4 Gasification................................................................5-12 Cofiring...................................................................5-20 Case Studies ...............................................................5-29 Feed Cost...........................................................5-31 Plant Size...........................................................5-32 Capital Cost.........................................................5-32 Discount Rate ........................................................5-32 Debt Sensitivity ......................................................5-33 Carbon Allowances ...................................................5-33 Tax Credits..........................................................5-33 Steam Only..........................................................5-34 Site and Incentives Impact..............................................5-34 Capital Requirements and Required Cash Flow .............................5-34 Recommendations for Further Work......................................5-34 References.................................................................5-51 Chapter 6 Environmental Performance Air Pollution................................................................6-1 Life Cycle Analysis...........................................................6-8 System Energy Balance.................................................6-8
Load more

Recommended publications
  • U.S. Energy in the 21St Century: a Primer
    U.S. Energy in the 21st Century: A Primer March 16, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R46723 SUMMARY R46723 U.S. Energy in the 21st Century: A Primer March 16, 2021 Since the start of the 21st century, the U.S. energy system has changed tremendously. Technological advances in energy production have driven changes in energy consumption, and Melissa N. Diaz, the United States has moved from being a net importer of most forms of energy to a declining Coordinator importer—and a net exporter in 2019. The United States remains the second largest producer and Analyst in Energy Policy consumer of energy in the world, behind China. Overall energy consumption in the United States has held relatively steady since 2000, while the mix of energy sources has changed. Between 2000 and 2019, consumption of natural gas and renewable energy increased, while oil and nuclear power were relatively flat and coal decreased. In the same period, production of oil, natural gas, and renewables increased, while nuclear power was relatively flat and coal decreased. Overall energy production increased by 42% over the same period. Increases in the production of oil and natural gas are due in part to technological improvements in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling that have facilitated access to resources in unconventional formations (e.g., shale). U.S. oil production (including natural gas liquids and crude oil) and natural gas production hit record highs in 2019. The United States is the largest producer of natural gas, a net exporter, and the largest consumer. Oil, natural gas, and other liquid fuels depend on a network of over three million miles of pipeline infrastructure.
    [Show full text]
  • BEYOND PUBLIC CHOICE and PUBLIC INTEREST: a STUDY of the LEGISLATIVE PROCESS AS ILLUSTRATED by TAX LEGISLATION in the 1980S
    University of Pennsylvania Law Review FOUNDED 1852 Formerly American Law Register VOL. 139 NOVEMBER 1990 No. 1 ARTICLES BEYOND PUBLIC CHOICE AND PUBLIC INTEREST: A STUDY OF THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS AS ILLUSTRATED BY TAX LEGISLATION IN THE 1980s DANIEL SHAVIRO" TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................. 3 II. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF CYCLICAL TAX LEGISLATION ... 11 A. Legislation From the Beginning of the Income Tax Through the 1970s: The Evolution of Tax Instrumentalism and Tax Reform ..................................... 11 t Assistant Professor, University of Chicago Law School. The author was a Legislation Attorney with theJoint Committee of Taxation during the enactment of the 1986 tax bill discussed in this Article. He is grateful to Walter Blum, Richard Posner, Cass Sunstein, and the participants in a Harvard Law School seminar on Current Research in Taxation, held in Chatham, Massachusetts on August 23-26, 1990, for helpful comments on earlier drafts, to Joanne Fay and Michael Bonarti for research assistance, and to the WalterJ. Blum Faculty Research Fund and the Kirkland & Ellis Faculty Fund for financial support. 2 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 139: 1 B. The 1981 Act and Its Aftermath ................... 19 C. The 1986 Act ............................... 23 D. Aftermath of the 198.6 Act ......................... 29 E. Summary .................................. 30 III. THE PUBLIC INTEREST THEORY OF LEGISLATION ........ 31 A. The Various Strands of Public Interest Theory .......... 31 1. Public Interest Theory in Economics ............ 31 2. The Pluralist School in Political Science .......... 33 3. Ideological Views of the Public Interest .......... 35 B. Criticisms of PublicInterest Theory .................. 36 1. (Largely Theoretical) Criticisms by Economists ... 36 a. When Everyone "Wins," Everyone May Lose ..
    [Show full text]
  • The Illusory Distinction Between Equality of Opportunity and Equality of Result
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 1992 The Illusory Distinction between Equality of Opportunity and Equality of Result David A. Strauss Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation David A. Strauss, "The Illusory Distinction between Equality of Opportunity and Equality of Result," 34 William and Mary Law Review 171 (1992). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE ILLUSORY DISTINCTION BETWEEN EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY AND EQUALITY OF RESULT DAVID A. STRAUSS* I. INTRODUCTION "Our society should guarantee equality of opportunity, but not equality of result." One hears that refrain or its equivalent with increasing frequency. Usually it is part of a general attack on gov- ernment measures that redistribute wealth, or specifically on af- firmative action, that is, race- and gender-conscious efforts to im- prove the status of minorities and women. The idea appears to be that the government's role is to ensure that everyone starts off from the same point, not that everyone ends up in the same condi- tion. If people have equal opportunities, what they make of those opportunities is their responsibility. If they end up worse off, the government should not intervene to help them.1 In this Article, I challenge the usefulness of the distinction be- tween equality of opportunity and equality of result.
    [Show full text]
  • Speaking “Truth” to Biopower
    4.BLOOM.MACRO.12.29.11 (DO NOT DELETE) 1/20/2012 11:46 AM SPEAKING “TRUTH” TO BIOPOWER Anne Bloom* INTRODUCTION Left-leaning plaintiffs‟ lawyers sometimes describe their work as “Speaking Truth to Power.”1 The “Truth” they speak usually involves tales of government or corporate wrongdoing, while the power they confront is usually institutional.2 I am a long-time supporter of the plaintiffs‟ bar and believe that the work that they are doing is important. At the same time, I would like to propose an alternative way of “Speaking Truth to Power” that involves somewhat different understandings of both truth and power. I call this strategy “Speaking „Truth‟ to Biopower.” “Speaking „Truth‟ to Biopower” is a pragmatic strategy for legal activism that incorporates postmodern insights regarding the nature of both “truth” and “power.” “Truth” is in quotes to emphasize its contingency – the impossibility of understanding what truth means outside of a particular political and social context. “Biopower” replaces “Power” to highlight the ways in which the body is a key site of contestation in contemporary political struggles.3 While these insights are postmodern,4 the strategy I propose is not. Instead of rejecting legal arguments that rely upon foundational beliefs or “truths” (as would be characteristic of a postmodern approach),5 I argue it is more useful to strategically deploy legal “truths” in * Professor of Law, the University of the Pacific/McGeorge School of Law. Thanks to Danielle Hart for her efforts in putting together this symposium and for her comments on earlier versions of this essay.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydroelectric Power -- What Is It? It=S a Form of Energy … a Renewable Resource
    INTRODUCTION Hydroelectric Power -- what is it? It=s a form of energy … a renewable resource. Hydropower provides about 96 percent of the renewable energy in the United States. Other renewable resources include geothermal, wave power, tidal power, wind power, and solar power. Hydroelectric powerplants do not use up resources to create electricity nor do they pollute the air, land, or water, as other powerplants may. Hydroelectric power has played an important part in the development of this Nation's electric power industry. Both small and large hydroelectric power developments were instrumental in the early expansion of the electric power industry. Hydroelectric power comes from flowing water … winter and spring runoff from mountain streams and clear lakes. Water, when it is falling by the force of gravity, can be used to turn turbines and generators that produce electricity. Hydroelectric power is important to our Nation. Growing populations and modern technologies require vast amounts of electricity for creating, building, and expanding. In the 1920's, hydroelectric plants supplied as much as 40 percent of the electric energy produced. Although the amount of energy produced by this means has steadily increased, the amount produced by other types of powerplants has increased at a faster rate and hydroelectric power presently supplies about 10 percent of the electrical generating capacity of the United States. Hydropower is an essential contributor in the national power grid because of its ability to respond quickly to rapidly varying loads or system disturbances, which base load plants with steam systems powered by combustion or nuclear processes cannot accommodate. Reclamation=s 58 powerplants throughout the Western United States produce an average of 42 billion kWh (kilowatt-hours) per year, enough to meet the residential needs of more than 14 million people.
    [Show full text]
  • Power Electronics for Distributed Energy Systems and Transmission and Distribution Applications
    ORNL/TM-2005/230 POWER ELECTRONICS FOR DISTRIBUTED ENERGY SYSTEMS AND TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION APPLICATIONS L. M. Tolbert T. J. King B. Ozpineci J. B. Campbell G. Muralidharan D. T. Rizy A. S. Sabau H. Zhang* W. Zhang* Y. Xu* H. F. Huq* H. Liu* December 2005 *The University of Tennessee-Knoxville ORNL/TM-2005/230 Engineering Science and Technology Division POWER ELECTRONICS FOR DISTRIBUTED ENERGY SYSTEMS AND TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION APPLICATIONS L. M. Tolbert T. J. King B. Ozpineci J. B. Campbell G. Muralidharan D. T. Rizy A. S. Sabau H. Zhang W. Zhang Y. Xu H. F. Huq H. Liu Publication Date: December 2005 Prepared by the OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831 managed by UT-BATTELLE, LLC for the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725 DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY Reports produced after January 1, 1996, are generally available free via the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Information Bridge. Web site http://www.osti.gov/bridge Not available externally. Reports are available to DOE employees, DOE contractors, Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDE) representatives, and International Nuclear Information System (INIS) representatives from the following source. Office of Scientific and Technical Information P.O. Box 62 Oak Ridge, TN 37831 Telephone 865-576-8401 Fax 865-576-5728 E-mail [email protected] Web site http://www.osti.gov/contact.html This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Post-EPIRA Impacts of Electric Power Industry Competition Policies
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Navarro, Adoracion M.; Detros, Keith C.; Dela Cruz, Kirsten J. Working Paper Post-EPIRA impacts of electric power industry competition policies PIDS Discussion Paper Series, No. 2016-15 Provided in Cooperation with: Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS), Philippines Suggested Citation: Navarro, Adoracion M.; Detros, Keith C.; Dela Cruz, Kirsten J. (2016) : Post-EPIRA impacts of electric power industry competition policies, PIDS Discussion Paper Series, No. 2016-15, Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS), Quezon City This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/173536 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. www.econstor.eu Philippine Institute for Development Studies Surian sa mga Pag-aaral Pangkaunlaran ng Pilipinas Post-EPIRA Impacts of Electric Power Industry Competition Policies Adoracion M.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Creative Workers' Attitudes May Reinforce Social Inequality
    This is a repository copy of ‘Culture is a meritocracy’: Why creative workers’ attitudes may reinforce social inequality. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/121610/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Taylor, M.R. orcid.org/0000-0001-5943-9796 and O'Brien, D. (2017) ‘Culture is a meritocracy’: Why creative workers’ attitudes may reinforce social inequality. Sociological Research Online. ISSN 1360-7804 https://doi.org/10.1177/1360780417726732 Reuse Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record for the item. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Culture is a meritocracy: Why Abstract The attitudes and values of cultural and creative workers are an important element of explaining current academic interest in inequality and culture. To date, quantitative approaches to this element of cultural and creative inequality has been overlooked, particularly in British research. This paper investigates the attitudes of those working in creative jobs with a unique dataset, a web survey of creative Using principal components analysis and regression, we have three main findings.
    [Show full text]
  • Nathan Glazer—Merit Before Meritocracy - the American Interest
    Nathan Glazer—Merit Before Meritocracy - The American Interest https://www.the-american-interest.com/2019/04/03/nathan-glazer-... https://www.the-american-interest.com/2019/04/03/nathan-glazer-merit-before-meritocracy/ WHAT ONCE WAS Nathan Glazer—Merit Before Meritocracy PETER SKERRY The perambulating path of this son of humble Jewish immigrants into America’s intellectual and political elites points to how much we have overcome—and lost—over the past century. The death of Nathan Glazer in January, a month before his 96th birthday, has been rightly noted as the end of an era in American political and intellectual life. Nat Glazer was the last exemplar of what historian Christopher Lasch would refer to as a “social type”: the New York intellectuals, the sons and daughters of impoverished, almost exclusively Jewish immigrants who took advantage of the city’s public education system and then thrived in the cultural and political ferment that from the 1930’s into the 1960’s made New York the leading metropolis of the free world. As Glazer once noted, the Marxist polemics that he and his fellow students at City College engaged in afforded them unique insights into, and unanticipated opportunities to interpret, Soviet communism to the rest of America during the Cold War. Over time, postwar economic growth and political change resulted in the relative decline of New York and the emergence of Washington as the center of power and even glamor in American life. Nevertheless, Glazer and his fellow New York intellectuals, relocated either to major universities around the country or to Washington think tanks, continued to exert remarkable influence over both domestic and foreign affairs.
    [Show full text]
  • Plutocracy: the Marketising of ‘Equality’ Within Neoliberalism
    City Research Online City, University of London Institutional Repository Citation: Littler, J. (2013). Meritocracy as plutocracy: the marketising of ‘equality’ within neoliberalism. New Formations: a journal of culture/theory/politics, 80-81, pp. 52-72. doi: 10.3898/NewF.80/81.03.2013 This is the published version of the paper. This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link: https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/4167/ Link to published version: http://dx.doi.org/10.3898/NewF.80/81.03.2013 Copyright: City Research Online aims to make research outputs of City, University of London available to a wider audience. Copyright and Moral Rights remain with the author(s) and/or copyright holders. URLs from City Research Online may be freely distributed and linked to. Reuse: Copies of full items can be used for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge. Provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. City Research Online: http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/ [email protected] MERITOCRACY AS PLUTOCRACY: THE MARKETISING OF ‘EQUALITY’ UNDER NEOLIBERALISM Jo Littler Abstract Meritocracy, in contemporary parlance, refers to the idea that whatever our social position at birth, society ought to facilitate the means for ‘talent’ to ‘rise to the top’. This article argues that the ideology of ‘meritocracy’ has become a key means through which plutocracy is endorsed by stealth within contemporary neoliberal culture.
    [Show full text]
  • Solar Electric Power -- the U.S. Photovoltaic Industry Roadmap
    CONTRIBUTORS U.S. Photovoltaic Industry Roadmap Steering Committee • Allen Barnett, AstroPower, Inc. • Larry Crowley (retired), formerly with Idaho Power • J. Michael Davis, Avista Labs • Chet Farris, Siemens Solar Industries • Harvey Forest (retired), formerly with Solarex Corp. • Glenn Hamer, Solar Energy Industries Association • Lionel Kimerling, Massachusetts Institute of Technology • Roger Little, Spire Corporation • Michael Paranzino, Solar Energy Industries Association • William Roppenecker (retired), formerly with Trace Engineering • Richard Schwartz, Purdue University • Harry Shimp, BP Solar • Scott Sklar, The Stella Group, Ltd.; formerly with SEIA Roadmap Workshop Participants • National Center for Photovoltaics: Workshop on PV Program Strategic Direction, July 14-15, 1997 (Golden, Colorado) • U.S. Photovoltaics Industry PV Technology Roadmap Workshop, June 23-25, 1999 (Chicago, Illinois) • PV Roadmap Conference, December 13-14, 2000 (Dallas, Texas) SOLAR-ELECTRIC POWER THE U.S. PHOTOVOLTAIC INDUSTRY ROADMAP “…providing the electricity consumer with competitive and environmentally friendly energy products and services from a thriving United States-based solar-electric power industry.” Reprinted January 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................1 Chapter 1. Introducing the Photovoltaic Industry Roadmap … Full Speed Ahead........................5 Chapter 2. PV's Value to Customers and the Nation … Why Travel the
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Electric Power Industry - Context and Structure
    U.S. Electric Power Industry - Context and Structure Authored by Analysis Group for Advanced Energy Economy November 2011 Industry Organization The electric industry across the United States contains Figure 1 significant variations from the perspectives of structure, A History of the U.S. Electric Industry organization, physical infrastructure characteristics, 1870 cost/price drivers, and regulatory oversight. The variation stems from a mix of geographical influences, population Thomas Edison demonstrates the electric light bulb and generator and industry make up, and the evolution of federal and 1880 state energy law and policy. Edison launches Pearl Street station, the first modern electricity generation station th In the early part of the 20 century, the electric industry 1890 evolved quickly through the creation, growth and Development begins on the Niagra Falls hydroelectric project consolidation of vertically-integrated utilities – that is, Samuel Insull suggests the utility industry is a natural companies that own and operate all of the power plants, 1900 monopoly - electric industry starts to become vertically transmission lines, and distribution systems that generate integrated and deliver power to ultimate customers. At the same Wisconsin enacts first private utility regulation and 30 states time, efficiency of electricity generation dramatically follow suit shortly thereafter 1910 improved, encouraging growth, consolidation of the industry, and expansion into more and more cities, and The Federal Power Act created the Federal Power Commission across a wider geographic area. Over time, consolidated (now FERC) utilities were granted monopoly franchises with exclusive 1920 service territories by states, in exchange for an obligation to serve customers within that territory at rates for service 1 1930 based on state-regulated, cost-of-service ratemaking.
    [Show full text]