By John Lawrence
In a huge victory for the environmental movement, New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo has banned fracking. I guess President Obama is not the only one that can get things accomplished by executive order. Experts have made analyses that identified contamination threats to water, soil and air, the absence of reliable health studies or proof that drillers can protect the public, as well as diminishing economic prospects. All good reasons for the public to demand a fracking ban.
Fracking is also being delivered a death knell by market forces. Since it costs more to access oil by fracking than it does by conventionsl drilling, if the price per barrel falls below a certain point, fracking becomes uneconomical. Lo and behold, thanks to the Saudis who have been keeping production up, the cost per barrel has fallen to around $60. It has to be higher than $80. for fracking to be profitable.
Hooray and Halleluja! Who would have thought that market forces, the Saudis and the environmental movement would all have combined with remarkable synergy to put an end to fracking? The movie Gasland also helped as well as high profile celebrities like Mark Ruffalo.
None other than Yoko Ono and her son Sean Lennon, son of Beatles’ legend John Lennon, called for Governor Cuomo to ban fracking. It seems like high powered celebrities may have been listened to in high places where the hoi polloi had little success. Their group Artists against Fracking included such notables as Lady Gaga, Jimmy Fallon, Paul McCartney and Alec Baldwin, all of whom added their voices and names to the group along with some 200 others.
Huffington Post reported:
Conservation Commissioner Joe Martens said he’ll issue the ban early next year. He said 63 percent of the state’s 12 million acres with these possible gas deposits would already be off-limits because of protections for the New York City and Syracuse watersheds, other drinking water sources and certain other areas, while court rulings have recognized towns’ authority to individually ban hydrofracking through zoning, further limiting financial prospects.
Acting Health Commissioner Dr. Howard Zucker said 4,500 staff hours were spent reviewing health studies about the drilling method of extracting oil and gas from deep underground by pumping huge amounts of water, sand and chemicals at high pressures to break up rock formations. It’s being done in many other states, including neighboring Pennsylvania.
Zucker said his counterparts in several other states told him they were not consulted before their high-volume hydraulic fracturing began. He said he wouldn’t want his family to live near it, and suggested it could be like secondhand smoke, which studies eventually identified as harmful.
…
“If the state health commissioner doesn’t want his kids living there, I don’t want my kids living there and I don’t want any New Yorker’s kids living there,” [Cuomo] said. “I am not going to put health at risk for jobs. I’m not going to make that choice.”
Chesapeake Energy, once one of the biggest leaseholders in New York, last year gave up a legal battle to retain thousands of acres in the state. Norse Energy went bankrupt in 2012 after more than 100,000 acres in the state it leased were deemed off-limits to drilling. Towns and municipalities are getting into the act of banning fracking as well.
Mora County, a conservative ranching community in New Mexico, is the first U.S. county to ban the practice of fracking, according to reports from the Los Angeles Times. Wells are the only source of water in Mora, which is why last month officials announced a countywide ban on fracking citing water safety concerns.
Will California Follow New York and Ban Fracking?
California is the fourth largest state producer of oil and gas. The Central Valley is also America’s breadbasket. Fracking and farming are on a collision course.
The battle being fought there gives new meaning to the sentiment that oil and water don’t mix. Kern County is ag and oil country in California. More than 80% of the state’s oil and gas is produced here. About 600 new wells are fracked each year using millions of gallons of water. This is water farmers say they need in order to produce their crops.
Almond farming is an $11 billion industry. Almonds are dependent on what’s in the soil and what’s in the water to grow the trees. If the groundwater is contaminated by illegal dumping of fracking contaminants, that’s what goes into the almonds that you eat. Both fracking and farming are water intensive.
Almonds, for example, use about 10% of the state’s water supply each year. The farmers’ primary concern is with the underground water suppply being contaminated. This summer the state shut down nine disposal wells in Kern County for illegally dumping almost 3 billion gallons of wastewater.
Fracking requires a huge amount of water which is why California with its water supplies in jeopardy may soon ban fracking. It takes between 100,000 and 1 million gallons of water to frack just one well. While consumers are having limits placed on their water usage, fracking companies can consume as much water as they want.
It just doesn’t make any sense. California is going through its worst drought in decades. Fracking not only uses up potable water supplies, it contaminates ground water in the areas in which it fracks.
Water is a dwindling precious resource. Why should Big Oil get a free pass to use millions of gallons of water to frack while California residents are being squeezed on their water usage? In 2013 and 2014 approximately 1600 wells were fracked in California, according to the Department of Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), the state agency in charge of regulating the oil and gas industry.
Jason Marshall, Chief Deputy Director of DOGGR, said “Water rights in the State of California are not regulated by the state.” When asked by Jennifer London, a reporter for Al Jazeera, “Shouldn’t the regulatory agency be regulating and have oversight over that?” The response was, “We can’t tell somebody that they can’t purchase water without some form of statutory construct.” So DOGGR spouts the doggerel that they can’t regulate because the legislature has not authorized them to do so. Jennifer shot back, “Then you’re not regulating!”
In Sacramento the oil lobby has prevailed over the agricultural lobby with the result that frackers are taking water away from farmers. Farmers are letting their fields lie fallow for lack of water and almond trees are dying while oil corporations are fracking away.
The California Water Resources Control Board is another agency charged with protecting California’s water supply. John Borkovich is the chief of groundwater monitoring, but he is clueless when Jennifer London asks him “Is Big Oil poisoning millions of gallons of water each day?” Obviously, he, as well as other politicians in California’s bureaucracy, have been bought off by the oil lobby. Otherwise, he wouldn’t have given such a blase answer to Jennifer’s question. What me, John Borkovich, worry?
The Center for Biological Diversity is working to ban fracking in California. Fracking is taking water away from farmers who are going bankrupt since they have to leave their fields unplanted because of lack of water.
The State Water Resources Control Board issued orders to seven oil production companies last July to immediately shut down 11 waste water disposal wells “to avoid potential harm to a limited number of groundwater aquifers in Kern County.” Two of the wells have since been reinstated.
But the Center for Biological Diversity said that its own analysis of records from California’s Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources shows that the nine injection wells that remain closed have been illegally dumping oil industry wastewater into clean-water aquifers in Kern County.
In California’s 2013, 2014 legistlative session 11 fracking bills were proposed. Eight called for a moratorium or ban on the practice. One was passed which will go into effect in 2015. Even though it calls for some increased oversight on fracking, it will not limit how much water fracking companies can use.
Parents in California and elsewhere are concerned over the effects of fracking on the health of their children. A new report finds more than 350,000 children attend school near fracking wells. Jennifer London reports that most of the children affected are Hispanic. Most states regulate how far from schools fracking wells have to be located but California does not. No set-back rules put children at risk. In Shafter, CA children are getting sick.
California is supposedly a leader in the environmental movement, but when it comes to fracking, they are way behind other states. Governor Jerry Brown needs to get on the ball and follow the advice of his colleague in New York State, Andrew Cuomo, and ban fracking altogether.
Governor Moonbeam needs to get together with Linda Ronstadt, his former main squeeze, and other Hollywood celebrities, and get on the ‘ban fracking’ bandwagon.
In fact they are already saying “What the frack, Governor Brown”.
John Lawrence
Latest posts by John Lawrence (see all)
- Economist Kenneth Arrow, Nobel Laureate, Dead at 95 - March 22, 2017
- Container Ships Burn Dirtiest Fuel: the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Could Change That - March 15, 2017
- Cities and States Prefer Public Banks To Wall Street - March 7, 2017
Flacking should put a smile not only on the faces of free-market economists, but liberals and progressives, too. As America becomes a net exporter of energy, shale could help topple some of the world’s worst regimes.
The relationship between oil wealth and autocracy is well-established, with a number of studies showing that democracy is less likely in oil-rich nations. Oil wealth helps keep dictators in their palaces by allowing vast military expenditure to repress dissent and providing a ready pool of money with which to co-opt their populations through generous welfare stipends. Consider Russia and Venezuela. At least some voters in both countries have tolerated the emaciation of civil society while the Putinist and Chavista regimes have learned to use oil money to fend off unrest and buy off loyal cronies. Meanwhile, the armed forces in both nations have been placated with high-tech toys and rising salaries.
Despite legitimate environmental concerns about fracking and horizontal drilling, the long-term impact of shale on the global oil price means that regimes that have long relied on a single export for their survival are facing a potentially ruinous economic future. Russia’s economic woes are well-documented, largely due to the fact that oil revenues make up 45% of the government budget. But elites in Iran and Venezuela also have the jitters and have been pleading with OPEC, the world’s largest oil cartel, to cut production to prevent the price of oil from falling any lower. Venezuela needs a price of $151 a barrel next year to balance its budget while Iran requires around $131.
Some of the most vociferous opponents of fracking are liberals, yet the shale revolution has the potential to undermine some of the world’s most illiberal regimes, in the process freeing the U.S. from its bondage to Saudi Arabia, as demanded by progressives for decades. Thuggish governments in Caracas, Moscow and Tehran don’t much like shale either, which ought to endear it still further to democrats.
This is not to dismiss the environmental concerns regarding shale extraction in urban areas, nor to call for the abandonment of a long-term strategy in the West for the development of green renewables. Yet it is to recognize that American shale producers are engaged in a price war with some of the world’s vilest regimes. In that respect, the left should get on board the fracking revolution.
“The left should get on board the fracking revolution.” Unless fossil fuels are left in the ground, price wars and dictators won’t matter compared to the havoc wreaked by the continued use of fossil fuels. As the planet becomes uninhabitable, the left and the right won’t matter either. In fact none of the issues/concerns you raise will matter as the seas rise and wipe out London, New York City, Miami, San Francisco and most South Sea Islands. The price of oil won’t matter. Oil independence won’t matter. Saudi princes won’t matter. Environmental concerns override political or economic concerns. Civilization as we know it is on a collision course with conditions compatible with sustaining human life on this planet.
The MA legislature has a bill before it to ban fracking for 10 years.
Great article and reply to first comment, John! This should be published widely so the general populace is more informed.
Sandy Long
That’s simply great news from New York, John! A rare ‘Thumbs Up’ for democratic processes working in the public’s general interest!
Besides the huge water and air contamination risk of hydraulic drilling near drinking water sources for millions of people, fracking water use is indeed threatening food supplies and the survival of farmers . The agricultural community is in a losing game of competing with the well-endowed oil and gas giants for limited water resources almost everywhere, but especially in arid, low-rainfall, drought-stricken areas.
In some regions, fracking has affected a significant share of the local water supply – drying up wells and supplies for agricultural and residential use, which can force water prices up. And fracking does not return water to the water cycle. Instead, it takes billions of gallons of clean water out of the water cycle and turns it into toxic waste-water, most of which must be permanently disposed of in other risky ways.
And then there’s the effect on global warming from highly toxic methane leaks from fracked natural gas estimated to be 6.2 to 11.7% of gas production. In fact, some studies are indicating that electricity produced from natural gas has a more serious pollution effect than electricity from coal (see research by Professor Robert Howarth at Cornell, among others ).
Great article, John. We need to put all energy monies into renewable energies! We need to switch to electric cars…all of us. And the destructiveness of not doing long term studies about the effects of what we are doing is starkly stupid. Something like fracking should be studied in small pilot studies for years before it is approved….{I just lost my partner whose health was ruined by exposure to
Agent Orange in Vietnam which was never studied for its effects on humans} Guess many truly do not care at all. Greed should be seen for what it is: an addictive disorder which need to be treated!
There is both good and bad recent news regarding fossil fuels. First the good news. Not many people know that electricity from power generating plants is consumed in real time. That means that generating plants which by and large use fossil fuels have to be built to render electricity at peak usage rates. That means that when there is less than peak demand, which is most of the time, these generating plants remain idle. The good news is that several companies are working on storage systems (otherwise known as batteries) for this electricity. When they are commercially successful at scale, many fewer generating plants need be built, and those will be working full time rather than only at peak demand. Thus electricity will be generated more efficiently which should bring the price per kilowatt hour down.
The bad news: Russia has plans to start drilling for oil in the Arctic as the Arctic ice sheet melts away. Russia’s economy is largely dependent on the sale of oil and gas so they are seizing on the opportunity to “drill, baby, drill.” It’s a matter of economic survival for Russia which is becoming an economic basket case due to the falling price of oil and economic sanctions which bar access to credit from Western banks. It’s a shame that the economic survival of whole nations (Venezuela and others are similarly affected) is dependent on the very fossil fuels which are causing the melting of the Arctic ice sheets which is caused by fossil fuels in the first place. This is a human generated feedback cycle in which economics is causing more fossil fuels to be generated and consumed which is causing more global warming which is causing more fossil fuel extraction etc etc.
John,
I am a licensed electrician who has been installing electric thermal storage heating systems for 30 years. These systems use “off-peak” electricity (which is nothing more than the practice of using electricity when most others are not using it (ie, when demand on the grid is low and electricity is plentiful). The leading manufacturer of electric thermal storage heating equipment in the US is the Steffes Corporation in Dickinson, North Dakota. Since it is well-known that the wind blows most strongly and consistently at night and in the winter, Steffes has been expounding for several years on the synergy between wind generation and ETS, which uses electricity at night to heat ceramic bricks to high temperatures, which store the heat for use the following day during times of “peak” electricity use. This technology for using electricity to make and store heat was developed in Europe 50 years ago where it has been in continuous use for all that time. It is environmentally much friendlier than any chemical battery will ever be, and FAR less expensive to manufacture and install as well. AND IT HAS ALREADY BEEN THOROUGHLY FIELD-TESTED AND IS AVAILABLE NOW!
So, given my knowledge of ETS, your “good news” comment in which you cite the development of chemical batteries to store electricity really grates on me I must say! You should look into this because IT IS AN ANSWER TO THE PROBLEM YOU POSE.
Paul, Sorry if I grated on your nerves. Not being an expert myself in this field, I relied totally on a report on 12/26 on Ali Velshi, Real Money on Al Jazeera. It was titled “The Great Battery Race.” They said there are 12 companies vying to come up with the best battery including Ambri (a liquid battery made up of 2 liquid metals and a salt solution). Investors are seeding the industry with big money and looking for which technology proves to be the best. Supposedly a multi-trillion market opportunity annually. Bill Gates is backing Ambri. According to Donald Sadoway, professor of Materials Chemistry at MIT, you can draw energy from wind and solar and store it. Other companies mentioned were Aquion, Exergenics and Urban Electric Power. You can look up the report on Al Jazeera’s website. It is available on youtube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Czgu7ASc_vE
Hi John,
“Grate” is probably too strong a word. It just makes me a little crazy when I keep seeing so much attention being focused on such a risky proposition while an obvious solution to the problem that is far safer and far less expensive is right under our noses, commercially available today! Concerned and thoughtful folk such as yourself should be aware of it.
ETS (electric thermal storage heating) uses electricity at the time it is produced. It is being synchronized (I can cite specifics.) with the variable output of a wind farm, for example, to use wind output as it’s generated to heat ceramic bricks, which because they are insulated remain hot for hours during which time, their heat is available to be drawn from for any use for which heat is needed. Storage heat is indeed limited in this way: it cannot be used to store electricity as electricity. Storage cooling is commercially available also, but no single unit that provides both storage heating and storage cooling is commercially available today in the same unit, to the best of my knowledge.
Despite this limitation, here is a 50 year old technology commercially available today (1) whose storage medium is ubiquitous and environmentally safe: the principle components of ceramic brick are clay and silica (sand). The bricks can be safely disposed of when one has ceased using the them by simply digging a hole in the ground and burying them! It does require intense heat to fire the clay into a hardened brick, the same heat as is required to fire any ceramic object. (I’m sure data is available on this cost, although I don’t have it myself.), and (2) costs a mere fraction to implement as compared to any battery storage system.
YET IS HAS BEEN WIDELY IGNORED FOR YEARS!
My point is that heat is used to one degree or another to heat occupancies (homes and buildings) nearly everywhere in the world during the cold seasons, not to mention the fact that heat has many uses most of which are suitable applications for existing ETS equipment, and the equipment is commercially available now.
So, why do risky pie-in-the-sky experiments with expensive and environmentally risky battery storage systems get all the attention not only of the public and the media, but huge sums from the investment community as well when ETS, a relatively simple technology that has been under our noses for 50 years and is commercially available now at a fraction of the cost and environmental risk of battery storage systems, gets little attention?
It’s frustrating, that’s all! Why aren’t venture capitalists more eager to sink their money into the installation of ETS heating systems that are tied to the output of wind farms, for example, that heat their storage bricks when the wind blows? I can cite examples where this exact strategy is being deployed today, not only here in the US, but in Canada and Europe as well! Go to for more detailed information on ETS.
Yes, so ETS can only store heat, not electricity. So what? There are PLENTY of uses for heat, everywhere and at all times and in all seasons! Yet the public continues to overlook this very useful technology that is sitting right under our noses!
Paul, I think the kinds of batteries being developed can put electricity back on the grid. Can ETS do that? Is it scalable to large scale levels? Can ETS be used to generate steam to turn turbines?
Another method of storing energy that I’ve heard of is to pump water uphill when off peak and then use it to generate hydroelectric at peak times.
Also molten salt is being used in conjunction with solar farms to store heat. It would be interesting to compare the various ETS methods with the batteries being developed with huge investor money by Ambri, Aquion etc.
Maybe Steffes should go after some of this investor money.
Your thoughts.
John, thanks and to your questions…
Rather than put stored energy back into the grid, ETS uses electricity when it is being generated to make heat which is what is stored and used later. It stores heat for later use rather than storing electricity for later use as a battery does. It’s a different concept and one that is much less expensive or environmentally risky than batteries.
As far as scalability is concerned, ETS is what is called a “distributed” technology. Each ETS installation is sized according to the amount of stored heat that is required by the application being served. It doesn’t typically feed into the grid; it draws electricity from the grid to make heat for later use by the application in which it operates. The beauty of it is that it operates like a “thermal battery” in that because it has a reserve of stored heat (a mass of hot bricks) this reserve enables ETS equipment to draw electricity only when it is desirable top do so maintain its bank of stored heat.
Yes, ETS can make steam if the ETS equipment is designed to make steam. The steam can be used for any purpose steam is used, including to drive a steam-driven turbine.
Northeast Electric, an electric utility in MA, has been pumping water up hill at night using off-peak power to run the pumps into a reservoir that supplies a hydro-electric dam during the day. It has been doing this for 30 + years.
Haven’t heard of the molten salt idea. Don’t know if it’s being used today or not.
Would you mind if I sent a link to this blog to Jim Deichert, Director of Marketing for Steffes?
Please send link.
Regarding molten salt (from Wikipedia):
Solar power towers use thousands of individual sun-tracking mirrors (called heliostats) to reflect solar energy onto a central receiver located on top of a tall tower. The receiver collects the sun’s heat in a heat-transfer fluid that flows through the receiver. The U.S. Department of Energy, with a consortium of utilities and industry, built the first two large-scale, demonstration solar power towers in the desert near Barstow, California.[5]
Solar One operated successfully from 1982 to 1988, proving that solar power towers work efficiently to produce utility-scale power from sunlight. The Solar One plant used water/steam as the heat-transfer fluid in the receiver; this presented several problems in terms of storage and continuous turbine operation. To address these problems, Solar One was upgraded to Solar Two, which operated from 1996 to 1999. Both systems had a 10 MW power capacity.[5]
The unique feature of Solar Two was its use of molten salt to capture and store the sun’s heat. The very hot salt was stored and used when needed to produce steam to drive a turbine/generator that produces electricity. The system operated smoothly through intermittent clouds and continued generating electricity long into the night.[8] Solar Two was decommissioned in 1999, and was converted by the University of California, Davis, into an Air Cherenkov Telescope in 2001, measuring gamma rays hitting the atmosphere.
I’ve seen pix of sun-tracking solar panels arranged in a circle around a tower and set so they continuously aim directly at the top of a tower. It would appear from your description that the role of the salt is analogous to the role of ceramic brick: it is the storage medium. I’ve seen heat storage systems that use a tank (or multiple tanks) of water as the storage medium.
John and Paul,
Yes, concentrated solar power technology or CSP is now making a rather strong comeback as a result of technical innovations and much improved thermal storage solutions that counter solar energy’s perennial problem of intermittent supply. While U.S. and Spain are the world’s leaders in this technology, a number of CSP plants are now under development globally. I think the main customers are industrial firms and commercial buildings, perhaps large apartment complexes.
Our studies show that the growth in CO2 emission levels is dangerously far outpacing the global conversion to sustainable, non-polluting energy sources as a % of total energy consumption – making it impossible to avoid a 2C temperature increase by 2050. This means all proven green solutions, semi-proven solutions, and promising break-though solutions must be on the table. CSP plants are certainly an example of a promising intermediate 8-10 year large-scale green energy storage solution – both for heat and electricity.
ETS or electric thermal storage heating systems technology are certainly a prime example of a practical, proven wind or solar heat storage solution. There’s indeed a significant residential market potential as homeowner electricity and heat generation from wind and solar PV takes off from its current minuscule stage of global use, particularly in the U.S., China, India, etc. ETS can also play a productive part in stimulating locally installed and decentralized renewable energy systems – including small wind farms and residential solar PV installations that feed-in to smart power grids.
Germany is democratizing and incentivizing this process at an astonishing speed and scale. Today, well over 50% of Germany’s renewable solar and wind energy capacity is owned by individuals and communities vs. less than 3% in the U.S. This is an impressive performance by Germany if there ever was one in transitioning to broad-based local control of renewable energy supply and energy efficiency. Progressive storage measures have also been a key factor. Little wonder Germany’s 2010 renewable energy targets of 30% of primary energy and 50% of electricity from renewables by 2030 are already on a path of being considerably exceeded.
Thank you Frank for recognizing the potential of ETS to assist in a successful transition to renewable forms of energy. A large-scale off-shore wind farms known as “Cape Wind” is planned for the waters off Cape Cod. The project has been in the permitting stages for years, but has not yet been formally approved for construction. An excellent application for ETS would have hundreds of ETS units installed near the point where the output of this farm touches the grid.
Siemens has estimated the total cost of meeting Germany’s 2030 renewable energy, energy efficiency and CO2 emissions targets at about euros 1.7 trillion ($2.2 trillion), rising to euros 4.5 trillion ($5.4 trillion) by 2050. This estimate includes: build-outs of renewables, increased energy efficiency; electric, thermal and hydro energy storage; decommissioning of nuclear plants by 2023); no natural gas/oil fracking; CO2 sequestering systems; natural gas and coal as primary backup fuels during transition to renewables. (see: http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/69710/will-germany-make-global-warming-difference). But Germany’s going to reach 70-80% dependency from fossil fuels by 2050 mainly with wind and solar PV.
Similar transition costs for U.S. are estimated to be 3-4 times higher with its huge geographical land mass and outdated electrical systems. Germany’s land territory of 357,000 sq. kilometers for 82.5 million people matches Montana’s 377,000 sq. kilometers for 1 million people. This makes it much easier for Germany to use smart grid systems, metering systems, and connections to manage effectively electricity generation into and out of the system – even with bordering countries eventually. With an investment of over $100 billion annually in renewables infrastructure the next 36 years, jobs and knowhow already created are significant and will continue to grow significantly for some time to come.
At same time, Germany realizes conventional fuels are a must as a baseload backup for long-term supply-demand balancing and energy security and for offsetting phasing out of nuclear by 2023. Besides natural gas and coal as interim backup fuels, converting biomass to synthetic fuels with a lower carbon content will be an important likely alternative in replacing oil completely and reducing coal substantially by 2050. Also, Germany is well aware that progressive storage measures for intermittent sun and wind energy will play a critical role in meeting stringent renewable energy, energy efficiency and CO2 reduction targets.
Most of this discussion has focused around ramping up the pace of conversion to renewables while the title of the piece is “New York State Bans Fracking: California Next?”…. oh well!
Meanwhile, Steffes offers the following thus far (“We” below in Steffes):
-We’ve been doing a lot of work with officials from the energy storage industry regarding ETS. Their thoughts in the past have been that energy storage is only electricity in and electricity out. We’ve been successful on several levels with code officials and even with work the DOE is doing to have them recognize storage such as ETS that has electricity in and thermal out is equally and even in some cases more beneficial than conventional battery storage. But as you indicated, there are still many folks out there that default to electricity storage (charge and discharge).
-Our largest ETS units (ThermElect) stores about 500kWh of energy. Certainly there can be a series of units ganged up to make a very large storage system. Today’s units aren’t designed to generate steam but conceptually this is achievable. The conversion efficiencies would need to be looked at.
-Conversion losses – When we deal with applications using ETS today and relate this to the Electric Grid, we feel ETS has very high round trip efficiency (90+%), especially when comparing to battery storage, and can have many years of deep cycling. Since ETS units are nearly always installed in the space where heat is needed, any heat lost from the unit is going into the space where heat is needed….so there really isn’t a loss. In contrast, we would hear of alternative energy storage options such as batteries that would have round trip efficiencies between 50-80% with comparatively a much shorter life span. In the case of storing energy in an ETS unit as heat and then converting to steam to regenerate electricity, it seems there could be a pretty significant efficiency hit. Our posture in the past has been to recommend getting grid scale storage with ETS by installing many units at point of use (i.e. – residential homes, commercial buildings) and aggregating these loads for control. Essentially, you end up with a huge “thermal battery” that has super high round trip efficiency and has the ability to impact the electric grid like any electric/electric storage system….and can do so at a significantly lower cost and with a longer life expectancy.”
There may be more specific information coming as regards steam conversion losses…
And yesterday I spoke with a local farmer I know pretty well. He had to scratch plans to build a utility-scale solar PV field because the local electric distribution company, National Grid, (a British-owned world-wide investor owned conglomerate) refused to install the lines needed to connect the field to the grid and their existing lines were not up to the task. It’s this kind of thing that slows progress the most.