Kwh cost for diesel generator,electrical power supply distribution jobs,check vin number on new car key,home generator battery heater - PDF Review

A new electric start-up, Nikola Motor Company emerged from the stealth mode on May 10, 2016. According to the press release, Nikola One will be capable of pulling a total gross weight of 80,000 pounds and offering up to 1,200 miles between stops. On the drivetrain side, there will be 6 electric motors for AWD (6×6) with torque vectoring. Nikola expects that the One will cost between $350,000 – $415,000 depending on options.
Reservations are only $1,500, and there is good news that the first 5,000 orders qualify to receive free CNG fuel for first million miles.
An interesting concept is that Nikola Motor Company plans to have network of its own CNG stations. The Nikola One’s electric motors are powered by a liquid cooled 320 kWh, lithium-ion battery pack (over 30,000 lithium cells), which is charged by a proprietary onboard Nikola Motor Company turbine. Of course, I’ll reserve my judgement until I see a working prototype deliver realworld numbers. Of course there is very little chance that this ever moves beyond some (very pretty…) CAD drawings. If you double the fuel economy, and run 120,000 miles a year, you’re saving close to $25,000 a year in fuel alone. I initially thought that too, but they may have chosen not to because of the added hardware needed for charging balanced against the infrequent use?
However, given mandatory rest requirements for drivers, it would seem that time available to charge exists. According to the Nikola website the trucks drive-train is set up similar to a diesel-electric train where an old V-10 or V-12 diesel just cranks along at about 800-1200 rpm making electricity for the traction motors without actually being connected to the train’s wheels.
Since they clearly hadn’t put much thought in the Tweet, exactly where will they find this type of power?
Seriously, those are some nice renders, and a really beautiful design for a semi tractor, but let’s see an actual prototype before we get all excited about what this company might actually produce. But I will withheld my final judgement until we see a real world production model and comparison with existing diesel models.
Make a version without the sleeper on it and I bet you could remove the range extender and have a nice local delivery version of the same truck.
Our entire economy rests upon the efficient, economical transport of goods across large areas.
This could be the game-changer that gets Peterbilt, Kenworth, Freightliner and Volvo’s attention. Another way to solve the trucking problem is to get rid of long haul trucks and build hyper loops for transporting goods and trucks are only used within 200 miles radius. That being said, it also have to be pointed out that even great micro-turbines have an efficiency of under 30%, while modern diesels have efficiency of over 40%. Will someone make a mobile home of that size with solar panels on it which will make it free to charge and go forever for free? Even if this isn’t fully electric, should Tesla ever pick up startups under their wing? This can be very a very interesting concept for Europe where distances are smaller, populations denser and CNG filling stations are becoming abundant. Petroleum & Other LiquidsCrude oil, gasoline, heating oil, diesel, propane, and other liquids including biofuels and natural gas liquids. Natural GasExploration and reserves, storage, imports and exports, production, prices, sales. ElectricitySales, revenue and prices, power plants, fuel use, stocks, generation, trade, demand & emissions. Consumption & EfficiencyEnergy use in homes, commercial buildings, manufacturing, and transportation.
CoalReserves, production, prices, employ- ment and productivity, distribution, stocks, imports and exports. Renewable &Alternative FuelsIncludes hydropower, solar, wind, geothermal, biomass and ethanol. Total EnergyComprehensive data summaries, comparisons, analysis, and projections integrated across all energy sources. Analysis & ProjectionsMonthly and yearly energy forecasts, analysis of energy topics, financial analysis, Congressional reports. Markets & FinanceFinancial market analysis and financial data for major energy companies. InternationalInternational energy information, including overviews, rankings, data, and analyses. A CES is a policy that requires covered electricity retailers to supply a specified share of their electricity sales from qualifying clean energy resources. The impact of a CES will be sensitive to its design details and to assumptions made regarding the cost of the different fuels and technologies that can be used for electricity generation.
Eligible resources to meet the HCES target include: hydroelectric, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass power, municipal solid waste, landfill gas, nuclear, coal-fired plants with carbon capture and sequestration, and natural gas-fired plants with either carbon capture and sequestration or utilizing combined cycle technology.
Generation using qualified resources from either new or existing plants in any economic sector can receive HCES credits. The HCES target starts from an initial share of 44.8 percent (qualified generation as a percent of sales) in 2013 and rises linearly to 80 percent in 2035.
The HCES will apply to utilities in the aggregate; utilities may trade compliance credits with other utilities. All electricity retailers are covered by the requirement, regardless of ownership type or size. Like other EIA analyses of energy and environmental policy proposals, this report focuses on the impacts of those proposals on energy choices in all sectors and the implications of those decisions for emissions and the economy.
The analysis presented in this report starts from the Annual Energy Outlook 2011 (AEO2011) Reference case1 (REF), which is compared to a case that reflects the HCES requirements outlined in the previous section.
Nuclear Low Cost (LC-Nuc): Capital and operating costs for new nuclear capacity start 20 percent lower than in the Reference case and fall to 40 percent lower in 2035. Nuclear High Cost (HC-Nuc): Costs for new nuclear technology do not improve from 2011 levels in the Reference case through 2035.
Renewable Low Cost (LC-Ren): Costs of non-hydropower renewable generating technologies start 20 percent lower in 2011 and decline to 40 percent lower than Reference case levels in 2035. Renewable High Cost (HC-Ren): Costs of non-hydropower renewable generating technologies remain constant at 2011 levels through 2035.
Natural Gas Low Cost (LC-Gas) (corresponds with High Shale Recovery case in the AEO2011): The estimated undeveloped technically recoverable shale gas resource base is 50 percent higher than in the Reference case with the per well recovery rate unchanged from the Reference case, resulting in more wells needed to fully recover the resource.
Natural Gas High Cost (HC-Gas) (corresponds with Low Shale Recovery case in the AEO2011): The estimated undeveloped technically recoverable shale gas resource base is 50 percent lower than in the Reference case with the per well recovery rate unchanged from the Reference case, resulting in fewer wells needed to fully recover the resource. Among renewable sources, wind and biomass have the largest generation increases under the HCES (Figure 2 and Table B1). Annual electricity sector carbon dioxide emissions decrease by more than 50 percent between 2009 and 2035 under the HCES (Figure 3 and Table B1). The HCES has an increasing impact on average electricity prices from 2015 through 2035 (Figure 4 and Table B1). Natural gas prices increase under the HCES, particularly in the earlier part of the projection.
Electricity expenditures increase under the HCES as a result of higher electricity prices (Figure 5 and Table B1). Higher natural gas prices lead to increased natural gas expenditures outside the electricity sector under the HCES (Figure 6 and Table B1). The HCES reduces real GDP relative to the Reference case, though this effect moderates toward the end of the projection period (Figures 7 and 8 and Table B1).
The HCES negatively affects non-farm employment from 2015 through the mid-2020's, but employment recovers toward the end of the projection period, following the trend of GDP.
The HCES could have a different effect when resource or technology costs diverge from the assumptions used in the Reference case. The HCES causes coal-based generation to decline significantly in all sensitivity cases (Figure 9). In contrast to the situation for coal, natural gas generation and non-hydroelectric renewable generation each increase significantly in the HCES sensitivity cases.

Natural gas is the leading source of generation by 2035 under the HCES in most of the HCES sensitivity cases.
Carbon dioxide emissions in the electric power sector fall significantly as a result of the HCES in all sensitivity cases (Figure 10). The HCES policy leads to higher electricity prices in all of the sensitivity cases (Figure 11). Electricity prices under the high-cost renewables scenario exhibit greater sensitivity to the HCES than in the other cases. Natural gas prices generally increase under the HCES; however, the magnitude of this impact decreases toward the end of the projection horizon as other compliance options are increasingly available and attractive (Figure 12). The negative effect on cumulative discounted GDP between 2009 and 2035 is less than 0.3 percent in all scenarios (Figure 14). 3The baseline scenarios are: the Reference case, high-cost nuclear, low-cost nuclear, high-cost renewables, low-cost renewables, high-cost gas, low-cost gas, high-cost coal and low-cost coal. As said above, for a preliminary LCC assessment, standard cost curves and rough data may be valid, although it is highly recommended to try to obtain updated information according to local parameters and market state of the art. Usually the information needed for a good LCC assessment is not available at early stages of project development.
Likewise, operating costs also depends on the ownership structure, distance to the closest service center, system sizing and design, fuel prices, etc.
According to the above, a proper LCC analysis should incorporate as many variables and potential scenenarios as possible.
This is an open space to share ideas and knowledge, so please feel free to comment any of the entries or simply post a new theme.Your contribution is very welcomed! Research and development applied to Lithium-ion batteries (increasingly used as 'energy storage banks' in hybrid marine powered propulsion systems in workboats and leisure craft due to their high energy density) has recently revealed ways to make these batteries safer, cheaper yet with better performance. Inexpensive Sensor Warns of Lithium-ion Battery FailureBattery malfunctions (and occasionally fires) occur in all Lithium-ion powered applications ranging in size from the cellphone right through to large hybrid or electrically powered plant and present a safety challenge to manufacturers.
The target of the research conducted at AIST in Japan has been to reduce the cost of Lithium-ion batteries (rare-earth metal Lithium is expensive) not only without loss of performance, but also to improve upon it.
2014 nissan leaf review, ratings, specs, prices, and, Get the latest reviews of the 2014 nissan leaf. New and used nissan leaf: prices, photos, reviews, specs, Get nissan leaf expert reviews, new and used leaf prices and ratings.
After the appearance of the new V60 D6 Plug in Hybrid in the Motor Show at Geneva held last March, Volvo has presented with more information and pricing in some countries which also include Britain, where it is available for order from early 2012 with the first deliveries that is expected to begin from November.
The plug in hybrid model has received much attention and now another step is taken while presenting the production model with a distinctive profile characterised by a spectacular silver colour, standard equipment and an exclusive exterior.
The turbine automatically charges the batteries when needed and eliminates the need to ever “plug-in”.
A lease deal that reflects the projected cost savings might appeal to this industry that’s all about calculating cost to the last penny though.
Big rigs are already very much optimized for fuel effciency and achieve quite amazing relative gas mileage, considering the performance they actually deliver. I hated nothing more as a child than to be jarred awake by someone jake braking down the road outside.
Battery technology was PbA, but a micro turbine capable of being fueled by a variety was initially tested.
Diesel needs to die, and this is the way to go until batteries energy density gets where it needs to be too eliminate the range extender. After all if it is going to be a mobile home and will be stationary for most of the time, then the panels will charge it given enough time! To fill up NG tanks with the amount of NG needed for that 800-1200 miles of range takes a very long time, probably hours. Nikola would have to come with a more compact rig however because of the length limitations within the EU.
Under a CES, electric generators would be granted clean energy credits for every megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity they produce using qualifying clean energy sources. Chairman Hall's request asks for an evaluation of a particular CES under a variety of alternative assumptions regarding the costs of generation fuels and technologies. All credits must be used for compliance in the year that the underlying generation was produced. There is no provision for excluding any electricity sales from a seller'ss baseline based on resources used to produce the electricity or type of customer purchasing the electricity. The same underlying generation can be used to simultaneously comply with the HCES and any State generation requirements, if otherwise allowed for by both Federal and State law.
The same comparison is repeated under a series of alternative assumptions regarding the costs of generation fuels and technologies. Capital costs of renewable liquid fuel technologies start 20 percent lower in 2011 and decline to approximately 40 percent lower than Reference case levels in 2035. Coal-fired generation, which grows by nearly 23 percent between 2009 and 2035 in the Reference case, decreases by 46 percent between 2009 and 2035 in the HCES case. Compliance through 2020 is attained primarily from existing nuclear and renewable capacity, renewable capacity projected to be built with or without the HCES policy, increasing dispatch of existing qualified natural gas plants, and increasing co-firing of biomass. In the Reference case scenario, however, electricity-sector carbon dioxide emissions increase over the forecast period to reach 2,500 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (MMTCO2) by 2035. The impacts on electricity prices prior to 2015 are negligible, because the Reference case projects sufficient eligible generation to nearly meet the HCES requirement. However, because electricity sales decrease slightly, the impact is smaller than the impact on electricity prices.  In 2035, total electricity expenditures under the HCES policy are 18 percent above the projected Reference case level.
In 2025, non-electric natural gas expenditures under the HCES exceed Reference case expenditures by 8 percent. The change in overall energy prices peaks in 2025 and then begins to return to Reference case levels.
The following section considers the effect of the HCES when applied to different baseline scenarios. However, there is significant variation in their share of total generation, depending on the underlying assumptions about their costs and the costs of other technologies.
However, the magnitude of the effect is extremely sensitive to the underlying baseline scenario. Significant effects on nuclear generation are primarily concentrated in the latter part of the projection period (2025 and after).
The notable exception to this trend is in the low-cost nuclear scenario, where relatively affordable nuclear capacity displaces natural gas as HCES-qualified baseload generation. In each sensitivity case, the HCES results in emissions that are 33 percent to 40 percent lower than the associated base case levels in 2025, and 60 percent to 64 percent lower than the associated base case levels in 2035. All alternative side cases exhibit higher average electricity prices under the HCES compared to the corresponding baseline.
This temporal pattern is generally consistent when the HCES is applied to alternative baseline scenarios. However, consistent with the main case results, the impact on the growth rate of GDP is small. In most sensitivity cases, annual GDP exhibits a recovery relative to the corresponding base case in the latter part of the projection (recall Figure 8). The primary changes include an improved representation of interregional capacity transfers for reliability pricing and reserve margins.
For exmple, depending on the type of batteries chosen these may last up to 8-10 years or need to be replaced every three years. The relevant research findings come from John Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) and from Japan's National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST).
In the UK, this model will cost from ?45,000 and ?50,000 which does not include the plug-in Car Grant government subsidy. The standard specifications include a 17 inch alloy wheels, exhaust pipes and a plug-in hybrid logo in the front wings and the tailgate. The turbine produces nearly 400 kW of clean energy, which provides ample battery power to allow the Nikola One to climb a six percent grade at max imum weight at 65 mph.
Tried and true diesel generator sets were chosen by the railroads that were brave enough to try them.
During that time the 320KWh battery could also be charged, adding another 150 or so low cost miles to the range.

The request, as outlined in the letter included in Appendix A, sets out specific assumptions and scenarios for the study. Utilities that serve retail customers would use some combination of credits granted to their own generation or credits acquired from other generators to meet their CES obligations.
The study does not account for any possible health or environmental benefits that might be associated with the HCES policy.
The assumptions used in the eight alternative cases, each of which is run with and without the HCES policy, are briefly summarized below and are more fully explained in Appendix E of the AEO2011. Coal is primarily displaced by increased natural gas generation, which in the HCES case is 38 percent greater than the Reference case level in 2025 and 30 percent greater in 2035.  Nuclear and renewable generation also exceed the Reference case projection in the HCES case, though the HCES effect on nuclear generation occurs primarily after 2025. Additional biomass generation is met primarily through increased co-firing of biomass in existing coal plants, which decreases in the latter part of the projection as new nuclear generation capacity comes online and existing coal capacity is retired. After 2020, an increasing amount of incremental credits are achieved by generation from wind and nuclear capacity additions in excess of the Reference case, as well as coal-firedgeneration from existing plants retrofitted with sequestration technology. In 2025, the electric power sector accounts for 1,525 MMTCO2 under the HCES, which is 35 percent less than in the Reference case. Beyond 2015, electricity prices under the HCES rise above the Reference case level, and the difference grows steadily through 2035.
Regions that are more dependent on generation fuels that are not HCES-eligible, primarily coal, in general experience a stronger price impact. Unlike in the case of electricity, the HCES impact on natural gas prices does not increase throughout the entire projection.
In the latter part of the projection, however, GDP under the HCES converges back toward the Reference case. In addition, the amount of diverted energy investment peaks in the mid-2020's, resulting in fewer diverted resources and productivity impacts later in the projection period. However, by 2025 the share of generation from coal ranges from 22 percent to 27 percent in the HCES sensitivity cases, versus 41 percent to 46 percent in the base cases. The share of generation coming from natural gas in the HCES sensitivity cases in 2035 varies from 32 percent to 44 percent, compared to 23 percent to 29 percent in the base cases. In the high-cost nuclear scenario, nuclear generation under the HCES is only 0.8 percent greater in 2035 than the associated low-cost nuclear baseline.
In the high-cost renewables scenario, utilities still install significantly more non-hydroelectric renewable electricity than in the baseline high-cost renewable scenario. Interestingly, in the low-cost nuclear scenario, natural gas prices under the HCES in 2035 are actually lower than without the HCES policy, due to the much greater amount of nuclear generation capacity that is built in the latter part of this scenario.
The nearer-term (2025) impact is strongest in the low-cost gas, high-cost nuclear, and low-cost coal scenarios.
Also, capacity expansion decisions incorporate better foresight of future capital cost trends by including expectations of the commodity price index. Two distances are considered for the option "grid extension", since distance to the facilities to be powered is a determining factor that must be considered.
Grid distance and its cost is considered merely as distance to point of required energy - in rural Africa, the grid is often less then 100m away and access to that electricity is still a lifetime away due to high cost to the consumer2.
The interior modifications include contrasting stitches, blue green wood inlays, power steering depending on speed, driver’s seat electrically adjustable and many more things. A typical class 8 diesel truck under similar conditions would have a hard time reaching 35 mph. Generators without retail customers or utilities that generated more clean energy credits than needed to meet their own obligations could sell CES credits to other companies. In earlier years of the legislation, natural gas accounts for much of the incremental HCES compliance, which results in a surge in natural gas prices. In comparison to non-electric natural gas expenditures, natural gas expenditures in the electric power sector experience a dual upward pressure, from both higher prices and higher consumption. Service-sector employment leads the employment recovery, as services use relatively less energy than the manufacturing sector.
For the purpose of presenting the material in a digestible format, most of the discussion and Figures 10, 11, 12, and 14 below focus on the impact of the HCES, which is always described in reference to a specific corresponding baseline scenario.
The fall continues after 2025, when the share ranges from 10 percent to 20 percent in 2035 in the HCES sensitivity cases, versus 37 percent  to 44 percent in the base cases. Among the HCES sensitivity cases, the highest share for natural gas occurs in the high-cost coal HCES case, while the lowest share occurs in the low-cost nuclear HCES case. Conversely, reductions in the high-cost coal scenario appear to be relatively modest – however, this is somewhat misleading, because the absolute level of emissions is actually lowest in the high-cost coal sensitivity case.
Because this technology is relatively more expensive to build, this additional cost translates into higher HCES credit prices (that is, compliance costs), which, in turn, increases electricity prices.
In 2035, annual GDP ranges from $25,623 billion to $25,710 billion in the base case scenarios, versus a range of $25,514 billion to $25,705 billion under the HCES legislation (Figure 13). In the latter case, the differential is large because utilities cannot fully take advantage of the low-cost coal while still complying with the HCES.
As a rule of the thumb, these are usually estimated as a fixed proportion of investment costs. The durability of a generator is limited by the number of operating hours and also linked to the load curve at which the generator is usually operating.
The cost of carbon emissions and environmental impact of the system type HAS to be factored in as such otherwise the cost analysis is just not reflective of true costs.
APL has applied for patents for their invention and is on the lookout for licensing opportunities. And going downhill, the Nikola One’s six electric motors absorb the braking energy normally lost and deliver it back to the batteries, increasing component life, miles per gallon, safety, and freight efficiencies while eliminating noisy engine brakes and reducing the potential for runaway trucks.
As other compliance options are built, however, the differential between natural gas prices with and without the HCES remains between about 5 percent and 10 percent from 2025 to 2035. Particularly in early years, when increasing natural gas use at existing plants accounts for the greatest share of HCES compliance, the expenditure effect is quite large.
For example, the impact of the HCES on electricity prices in the low-cost nuclear case compares electricity prices under the HCES in the low-cost nuclear scenario to electricity prices in the low-cost nuclear case without the HCES.
Of the HCES sensitivity cases, the highest share for coal occurs in the high-cost natural gas HCES case, while the lowest occurs in the high-cost coal HCES case.
Natural gas generation is most significantly impacted by the HCES in the high-cost nuclear case, where natural gas generation under the HCES exceeds the base case by 51 percent. The high cost of coal drives a reduction in coal-fired generation regardless of the HCES policy, and, therefore, the HCES policy has a lesser impact.
In the low-cost nuclear scenario, the HCES has a relatively minimal impact over time, because a larger portion of overall HCES compliance can be met through generation from new nuclear capacity, the cost of which this scenario sets to be 40 percent less than the Reference case in 2035. On a per capita basis, this translates to base case ranges between $65,686 per person and $65,909 per person, compared to a range of $65,406 per person to $65,897 per person under the HCES. This forces retirement of plants that would be able to produce electricity relatively cheaply, and diverts investment from lower cost alternatives. In this mode both the motors work together giving an output of 215HP +70HP and 440+200 Nm torque respectively.
The share of generation coming from non-hydroelectric renewables in the HCES sensitivity cases in 2035 varies from 11 percent to 26 percent – again, well above the 8 percent to 11 percent range of the base cases.
Total and average household electricity expenditures follow a similar pattern, increasing across various sensitivity cases with the HCES. For this reason, the HCES cases with the highest or lowest impact on a given indicator do not necessarily reflect the cases that yield the highest or lowest level of that indicator. The highest share occurs in the low-cost renewable HCES case and the lowest shares occur in the high-cost renewables and low-cost nuclear HCES cases. However, the impact of the HCES on the non-hydroelectric renewable generation is greatest in the low-cost renewable sensitivity case, in which non-hydroelectric renewable generation under the HCES exceeds the base case level by 118 percent.
The impact of the HCES on average household electricity expenditures ranges from increases of $131 to $279 per year in 2035 – or 11 percent to 23 percent above baseline expenditures.

Verify motorcycle vin identification
Blue air check in online espa?ol

Comments to «Kwh cost for diesel generator»

  1. Adrenalin writes:
    Another web site specializing in survival kits gasoline consumption, for others to follow.
  2. Azeri_GiZ writes:
    Survival kit with emergency they have.
  3. miss_x writes:
    SCORPION Car Jump Starter will provide you with simply cover.