A Regionally Based Energy End-Use Strategy: Case Studies from Centre County, Pennsylvania∗

∗I would like to thank Lakshman Yapa and Greg Knight for their guidance with this research. I would also like to acknowledge Bill Lloyd, Jonathan Taylor, and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions.

Abstract

The production and use of fossil fuels and nonrenewable electricity creates many forms of environmental degradation. To reduce degradation, this research suggests an energy strategy based on energy end-use analysis and regional geography. Energy end-use analysis and regional geography are used to match renewable energy resources with site-specific, end-use needs. Fieldwork conducted within Centre County, Pennsylvania, demonstrates that small-scale solar, wind, and micro-hydropower resources could displace a proportion of household electricity use. Such an approach meets energy end-use needs, while conserving fossil fuels and reducing environmental degradation.

Key Words:

• renewable energy
• regional geography
• end-use analysis

Notes

Source: Riordan, personal communication.

Source: Adapted from Feder (2001), 282.

Source: Adapted from Feder (2001), 285.

Source: Feder (2001), 292.

¹Nuclear and fossil fuel steam-electric units typically have large capacities, over 1,000 megawatts, while gas turbines, combustion turbines, and combined-cycle units are typically less than 200 megawatts (EIA 2000). Under competitive utility restructuring legislation there has been an unbundling of generation from transmission and distribution, and it is no longer necessary to build 1,000-megawatt generating plants to exploit economies of scale. High-cost generating plants, for example, nuclear, may be retired in favor of more efficient, low-cost technologies, and decisions about capacity additions are based on assumptions about capital investment, cost of capital, operating efficiency, and fuel expenditures over the life of the plant (EIA 1998, 93).

²In the United States, generating capacity is 52% coal, 20% nuclear, 16% natural gas, and 3% oil, and it is estimated that 90% of new plant capacity will come from natural gas (National Energy Policy 2001). By contrast, in the Appalachian region, more than 70% of the generation capacity is coal-fired steam, 12% is from nuclear capacity, and 2% comes from fuel oil and natural gas (Considine and Kleit 2002).

³The environmental cost of coal electricity is 7.1 cents/kilowatt-hour; oil electricity 3.3 cents/kilowatt-hour; natural gas 1.3 cents/kilowatt-hour; solar .4 cents/kilowatt-hour; wind .1 cents/kilowatt-hour; and biomass .7 cents/kilowatt-hour (OTA 1994, 24). Moreover, for each kilowatt of solar electric-generating capacity, the pollution avoided by not using fossil fuels to produce electricity amounts to 9 kilograms of nitrous oxide and 600-2,300 kilograms of carbon dioxide per year (NREL 2003a). The annual amount of carbon dioxide offset by a 2.5-kilowatt rooftop residential solar electric system is equal to that emitted by a typical car during that same year (NREL 2003a).

⁴High-quality energy resources have a high degree of concentration, controllability, and are easily converted to other forms, whereas lower-quality resources are more diffuse and harder to control and convert to other energy forms. Despite the obvious advantages of high-quality sources (e.g., oil, gas, electricity, coal), high-quality energy is not required for all end-use needs. If a high-quality resource is utilized for a task that can be accomplished with a lower-quality form, that extra quality is degraded into heat and byproducts that cannot be recaptured to conduct high-quality work (Mills and Toke 1985).

⁵Each step of the systems efficiency equation is a first law efficiency that compares the amount of energy output to the amount of energy input.

⁶The simple solar model refers to: K↓=K_o↓∗ CCF, of Kimura and Stephenson (1980) where K↓ is cloudless sky intensity and CCF is cloud cover factor.

⁷The calculations done for the Saltbox 38 account for beam radiation, not diffuse radiation, and are a conservative estimate of radiation. This means there is a risk that this passive home could overheat. Design modifications such as more ventilation, a greenhouse, etc., could resolve this issue.

⁸Water density is 1,000 kilograms per cubic meter, and gravity is 9.8 meters per second, cubed. Friction losses in the turbine, generator, and transmission system decrease gross power output, and consumers receive between 40% and 60% of the gross power capacity of the site (Harvey 2000). The efficiency of most micro-hydro systems is 53% (EERE 2001, 4).

⁹Pumped storage plants are feasible when low-cost pumping is available from power generation plants.

¹⁰The rebound effect is the difference between projected and actual savings due to increased efficiency (Gottron 2001). Energy-efficient devices reduce the marginal price of services, and it has been empirically shown that such price reductions result in smaller energy savings than engineering techniques generally project (Birol and Keppler 2001; Dubin, Miedema, and Chandran 1986, 310). The rebound effect consists of direct, indirect, and macroeconomic effects (Gottron 2001; Berkhout, Muskens, and Velthuijsen 2000; Greening, Greene, and Difigilio 2000). Direct effects occur when a consumer chooses to use more of a resource because of lower price instead of realizing the energy cost savings. Indirect effects occur when a consumer chooses to spend the money saved from efficiency improvements on other goods that use the same resource. Macroeconomic effects occur when decreased demand for a resource leads to a lower resource price, making new uses of the resource economically viable (Gottron 2001).

∗I would like to thank Lakshman Yapa and Greg Knight for their guidance with this research. I would also like to acknowledge Bill Lloyd, Jonathan Taylor, and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions.