22.0 energy tradeoffs frank r. leslie, b. s. e. e., m. s. space technology, ls ieee 4/15/2010, rev....
TRANSCRIPT
22.0 Energy Tradeoffs
Frank R. Leslie, B. S. E. E., M. S. Space Technology, LS IEEE
4/15/2010, Rev. 2.0
fleslie @fit.edu; (321) 674-7377
www.fit.edu/~fleslie
In Other News . . .
Crude oil continues at ~$86/bblSouthwest Windpower will use 3Tier wind
mapping below
100415
22 Overview: Trade Studies
Trade studies provide decision-making information as to selection of choices
The selection of parameters with which to make the choice requires thought and a source of reliable data
There is often a tendency to judge the answer as “wrong” if it disagrees with the prejudged answer!
Following are a few examples, but there are many more approaches not covered here; search for “systems engineering methodologies” to find others
090414
22.0 Generic Trades in Energy
Energy trade-offs are required to make rational large-dollar decisions
PV is expensive (~$3.00 per watt for hardware + ~$5 per watt for shipping and installation = ~$8 per watt) compared to wind energy ($1.50 per watt for hardware + $5 per watt for installation = $6.50 per watt total)
Are Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs) better to use?
Ref.: www.freefoto.com/pictures/general/ windfarm/index.asp?i=2
Ref.: www.energy.ca.gov/edu
cation/story/story-images/solar.jpeg
Photo of FPL’s Cape Canaveral Plant by F. Leslie, 2001
100416
22.1 How do we trade off choices?
Usually, we want the “best” result for the least cost
So “all” we have to do is define a “best” score and then compute $/score points! Oh . . . . sometimes that’s hard!
What does “best” mean anyway?What is “good”? What is “good
enough”?What is “nonpolluting”?What is “clean”? What is “green”?
090414
22.1 How do we decide on “best”? If it’s a simple choice like buying gasoline
The usual or typical price is known for stationsOur car should run “without complaint”, and the
gasoline shouldn’t cause noticeable service problems
Gasoline is “almost” a commodity (“special” additives/ dyes!)
Price per gallon is the comparison for most of us There may be other nongasoline factors
Where the station is located (don’t drive far away)Convenience of paying at the pump (slide that
card!)Traffic and getting back on the roadCompany is accused of ignoring social justice in
South America or Africa (Nigerian Ken Sara-Wiwa) If any of these items are too inconvenient or troubling,
we may buy more expensive gasoline elsewhere
070417
22.1 Leslie’s “Best” Restaurant Rule
The food is tasty, and the prices are low (or at least not “high” --- a reference to artificial intelligence fuzzy logic)
Look for a police car, fire truck, or ambulance outsideUsually means they’re eating there (as
opposed to business --- if flashing red lights are off!)
They know all the restaurants around town that they like and don’t like, and they eat out daily
The food is usually good and doesn’t cost much
The marginal utility between a “fine cuisine” restaurant and a local “family” restaurant is small
Presence of “locals” there indicates they believe they usually get good value for their money
(This gratuitous aside brought to you without extra charge)
100415
22.2 Tradeoff Matrices
Tradeoff matrices describe key attributes for various choices; a common systems engineering tool
There are four main attribute categories: performance, cost, schedule, and riskThere should be approximately equal numbers of
each attributeThese scores are also known as “Figures of Merit”The attributes should be measured so higher
numbers indicate “better” --- high scorers wantedA combination of these FOMs is necessary to get the
“one juicy number” that summarizes/ranks the results
A spreadsheet is nearly perfect for this work
090414
Trade-off ComparisonWind vs. Solar Choices
4/14/2003Frank R. Leslie
Constraints:1000 watts/day on average, wind under 15 mph 70% of time, bright sun <50 of time, etc
Attributes
Relative Importance Weighting,
%
Wind Power
Parameter
Wind Power Scaling
Wind Power Option Score
Solar Power
Parameter
Solar Power Scaling
Solar Power Option Score Comments
A 15 40 1.50 897.2 30 2.00 900.0B 20 15 4.00 1200.0 14 4.29 1200.2C 30 10 6.00 1800.0 9 6.67 1800.0D 10 9 6.63 597.0 10 6.00 600.2E 15 190 0.32 899.3 210 0.29 900.0F 10 30 2.00 600.0 25 2.39 597.7
0 20 10.00 0.0 0.00.0 0.0
Total Weighted Score 100 5993.5 5998.2
Cost [dollars] 5,000$ 20,000$ -0.08% % Difference re average
Choose either
Cost/Score [$/point] 0.834 3.33-119.95% % Difference re average
Choose Wind Power
Wind Power Solar Power
22.2.1 Weighted Scoring Technique
030417
22.2.2 Trade Matrix Formula
Attributes
Relative Importance
Weighting, %
Wind Power
ParameterWind Power
ScalingWind Power Option
ScoreSolar Power Parameter Solar Power Scaling
Solar Power Option Score
A 15 40 =1.6*10/10.7 =$B12*C12*D12 30 2 =$B12*F12*G12B 20 15 4 =$B13*C13*D13 14 =14/2.3*10/14.2 =$B13*F13*G13C 30 10 6 =$B14*C14*D14 9 =9/1.5*10/9 =$B14*F14*G14D 10 9 =6.7*10/10.1 =$B15*C15*D15 10 =10/1.7*10/9.8 =$B15*F15*G15E 15 190 =0.325*10/10.3 =$B16*C16*D16 210 =210/35/21 =$B16*F16*G16F 10 30 2 =$B17*C17*D17 25 =25/16.7/6.2*10*10/10.2*1.01=$B17*F17*G17
0 20 10 =$B18*C18*D18 =$B18*F18*G18=$B19*C19*D19 =$B19*F19*G19
Total Weighted Score=SUM(B12:B19) =SUM(E12:E19) =SUM(H12:H19)
Cost [dollars] 5000 20000=(E20-H20)/AVERAGE(E20,H20)
Choose
Cost/Score [$/point] =E21/E20 =H21/H20=(E24-H24)/AVERAGE(E24,H24)
Choose
Wind Power Solar Power
Comments
% Difference re average
=+IF(ABS(H22)<0.05,"either",IF(H22>0,C10,F10))
% Difference re average
=+IF(ABS(H25)<0.05,"either",IF(H22>0,F10,C10))
22.3 Difficulties of Selection
Some specifications are available to provide necessary informationThese “specs” can be entered in the
spreadsheet, and a conversion factor developed to change the spec to a score
The various scores are then weighted to indicate the relative importance
The sum of the weighted scores yields a score that indicates the relative worth of the choice
The relative difference of the scores may be trivial, indicating that one is not really better than the other choice; take your pick
A significant difference (at the 95% confidence level) may point to selecting one choice over the other
070417
22.3 Value of a Recounted Vote
From www.sie.arizona.edu/syseng
22.4 Ranking by “Somehow”
Ranking from the best option down to worst sometimes produces focus without specific quantification
This approach can suggest two or three choices for extensive examination by the priority thus given
The ranking may be done by majority voting of a panel of “experts”Each person may vote for one to all of the projects
If a person likes only one, s/he votes for only that one
If s/he likes two of them, s/he votes for bothThe total of the votes for each alternative then
immediately indicates the preferred ranking by the group as a whole without the expense of re-voting (IEEE elects its next president this way)
080414
22.4 Ranking through Pairing
Compare pair-wise to find a predominance; point to the best of each pair choice; add/subtract to find net preference for each
090414
Option A: 3-2 = +1 (for orange area)
Option B: 3-2 = +2
Option C: +2+3 = +5
Option D: 2-3 = -1
Option E: 3-2 = +1
Option F: 0-5 = -5
22.5 Social Factors and Optimization
There are often difficult-to-quantify aspects like beauty of the site, attractiveness, pure “viewscape”, or sound levels that are personal impressions, philosophy
The optimization of the site to make it attractive to the public can be a major factor in gaining approval
Involving the public in preliminary stages in meetings (charrettes) often can assist in final decisions and provide data to advocate your position
Those strongly concerned one way or the other will have come there, thus their opinions outweigh those who didn’t show up (just like in election voting)Should presidential elections be simplified to simply
getting donations to go to the treasury? Most $ wins!
090414
22 Conclusion: Trades
Renewable energy faces the same types of problems that affect other areas of daily livingNecessary to get permission to do something
different than what is codified in law or local ordinances
Requires convincing the public or government officials that the project is not a public nuisance and will be beneficial to the community
Trade studies that produce a well-written report documenting the situation, goals, choices, and selections may help to sway those with the power to approve or disapprove your proposal Example: Campus Sustainability
Practice these trade studies on small projects to be prepared to do the large projects well
100415
Olin Engineering Complex 4.7 kW Solar PV Roof Array
080116
Questions?
References: Books
Boyle, Godfrey. Renewable Energy, Second Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004, ISBN 0-19-26178-4. (my preferred text)
Brower, Michael. Cool Energy. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press, 1992. 0-262-02349-0, TJ807.9.U6B76, 333.79’4’0973.
Duffie, John and William A. Beckman. Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes. NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 920 pp., 1991
Gipe, Paul. Wind Energy for Home & Business. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Pub. Co., 1993. 0-930031-64-4, TJ820.G57, 621.4’5
Patel, Mukund R. Wind and Solar Power Systems. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 1999, 351 pp. ISBN 0-8493-1605-7, TK1541.P38 1999, 621.31’2136
Sørensen, Bent. Renewable Energy, Second Edition. San Diego: Academic Press, 2000, 911 pp. ISBN 0-12-656152-4.
Tester, Jefferson W. , Elisabeth M. Drake, Michael J. Driscoll, Michael W. Golay and William A. PetersSustainable Energy Choosing Among Options. Boston: MIT Press, 870 pp. July 2005 ISBN-10:0-262-20153-4
090416
References: Websites, etc.
http://www.ite.org/traffic/seminar/htmlseminar/session7/sld021.htm The charrette process of public involvementhttp://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/documents/02.reports/02tn010/02tn010.html#chap03http://www.incose.org.uk/incose99/tutt05.htm Tradeoff analyseshttp://tucson.sie.arizona.edu/sysengr/slides/tradeoff.ppt
http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/1285/syspaper.html Systems Engineering and Life: Designing, Developing, and Maintaining a Permanent Relationship
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
[email protected]. Wind Energy [email protected]. Wind energy home powersite elistgeothermal.marin.org/ on geothermal energymailto:[email protected] rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/maps/chap2/2-01m.html PNNL wind energy map of CONUS
[email protected]. Elist for wind energy experimenterswww.dieoff.org. Site devoted to the decline of energy and effects upon populationwww.ferc.gov/ Federal Energy Regulatory Commissionwww.hawaii.gov/dbedt/ert/otec_hi.html#anchor349152 on OTEC systemstelosnet.com/wind/20th.htmlwww.google.com/search?q=%22renewable+energy+course%22solstice.crest.org/dataweb.usbr.gov/html/powerplant_selection.html
050421