Total electricity production in the USA barely changed, climbing just 1%, the first two months of 2013, compared to the same period in 2012. But the stability in total power production conceals tremendous changes in the fortunes of the industries that generate electricity.
Coal generation is up 8%, while gas generation is down 8%. That alone is big change.
http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec7_5.pdf.
Though coal and natural gas remain the heavyweights of electricity generation locked in near mortal combat, solar power is now on the scoreboard. To be sure it is but a tadpole today. Yet, it is growing at a stupendous rate.
Solar production is up 228% in 2013, compared to 2012. Amazing.
If that growth rate continues, solar will be providing 1% of America's electricity generation within 2 years. In the electricity generation battles, solar is becoming a contender!
Already a contender, wind power production is up so far a solid 10% in 2013 and continues to close on hydro power, the long-reigning, renewable energy electricity generation champion. In 2013, wind will produce about 60% of the power generated by hydro.
As for nuclear, America's third leading source of electricity generation, 2013 has seen a 2.5% drop so far in power production.
How electricity is generated in the USA is undergoing enormous change that is being driven by the comparative prices of coal and natural gas and the gathering renewable energy revolution.
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Monday, June 10, 2013
Sobering Fact: California Closure Of 2 Nukes Means More Gas Power & Carbon Emissions Rise By Equivalent of 1.6 Million Cars
A regular theme of this blog is that closing or stopping one energy source means that more of something else immediately will take its place. Today, we are finding out what is the answer in California to the question: If not nukes, then what?
The owners of two nuclear stations in California threw in the towel last week and announced that they would close more than 2,000 megawatts of nuclear generation that supplied about 10% of the power of California. The plants have been crippled by massive repair problems on which already $700 million have been lost in a vain effort to fix.
Putting aside the economics, the environmental consequences of this decision--at least for carbon emissions and the climate--are not going to be pretty. The nukes are being replaced by mainly new natural gas plants and some renewable energy capacity. This trade puts another 8 million tons annually of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, an amount equal to adding 1.6 million cars to the road.
http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/san-onofre-nuclear-closure-to-boost-state-carbon-emissions-by-8-million-tons/.
While the above is bad enough, the full story is actually even worse. Most likely the annual increase in carbon emissions of 8 million tons, as a result of closing the 2 nukes, will last for 20 years. And so the nuclear closure will raise carbon emissions by a massive 160 million tons over the next 20 years, compared to what would have happened had the plants remained open. That's an environmental disaster!
While wind and solar are growing rapidly and can be accelerated further, the plain truth is that, even in California, where renewable energy will supply 30% of all energy by 2020, they cannot replace fully or even mostly the loss of big plants that operate around the clock.
If not nukes, then what? If not gas, then what? Today, the answer to those questions don't have great environmental answers.
The owners of two nuclear stations in California threw in the towel last week and announced that they would close more than 2,000 megawatts of nuclear generation that supplied about 10% of the power of California. The plants have been crippled by massive repair problems on which already $700 million have been lost in a vain effort to fix.
Putting aside the economics, the environmental consequences of this decision--at least for carbon emissions and the climate--are not going to be pretty. The nukes are being replaced by mainly new natural gas plants and some renewable energy capacity. This trade puts another 8 million tons annually of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, an amount equal to adding 1.6 million cars to the road.
http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/san-onofre-nuclear-closure-to-boost-state-carbon-emissions-by-8-million-tons/.
While the above is bad enough, the full story is actually even worse. Most likely the annual increase in carbon emissions of 8 million tons, as a result of closing the 2 nukes, will last for 20 years. And so the nuclear closure will raise carbon emissions by a massive 160 million tons over the next 20 years, compared to what would have happened had the plants remained open. That's an environmental disaster!
While wind and solar are growing rapidly and can be accelerated further, the plain truth is that, even in California, where renewable energy will supply 30% of all energy by 2020, they cannot replace fully or even mostly the loss of big plants that operate around the clock.
If not nukes, then what? If not gas, then what? Today, the answer to those questions don't have great environmental answers.
America Is Awash In Excess Generating Capacity: Reserve Margins Typically Are 40% to 100% Above Reliability Requirements
Though the US economy is now bigger than in 2007 and our population is larger than ever, the US electric system is awash with excess generating capacity for the summer of 2013. The North American Electricity Reliability Corporation's 2013 Summer Report shows that reserve margins that normally must be 15% are typically 22% to 30%.
In other words, the 2013 summer anticipated reserve margins are 40% to 100% higher than required. That is the case in the massive PJM area, where the anticipated reserve margin this summer is 29%.
http://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/ra/Reliability%20Assessments%20DL/2013SRA_Final.pdf at page 7.
Of course, Texas remains determined to be different. Only Texas faces an anticipated 2013 reserve margin below required levels. America's energy capital is once more and uniquely short of electricity.
In other words, the 2013 summer anticipated reserve margins are 40% to 100% higher than required. That is the case in the massive PJM area, where the anticipated reserve margin this summer is 29%.
http://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/ra/Reliability%20Assessments%20DL/2013SRA_Final.pdf at page 7.
Of course, Texas remains determined to be different. Only Texas faces an anticipated 2013 reserve margin below required levels. America's energy capital is once more and uniquely short of electricity.
Friday, June 7, 2013
In Two States, 80% Of Drilling Companies File Frac Focus Reports On Time But 20% File Late: What's The Right Response?
Many states have made reporting to Frac Focus part of their chemical disclosure requirements, and a new analysis finds that 20% of the required reports were late in Pennsylvania and Colorado.
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059982441.
So what's the right response from regulators, when 80% of the industry complies with an important regulatory rule, but 20% fail to do so? Is it effectively to treat the same those companies who comply and those who do not?
Regulators in Pennsylvania and Colorado imposed no penalties against those companies reporting late. By taking no action, regulators do send a message to those who did comply and those who did not.
It is a message, however, that undermines excellence in operations and public confidence.
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059982441.
So what's the right response from regulators, when 80% of the industry complies with an important regulatory rule, but 20% fail to do so? Is it effectively to treat the same those companies who comply and those who do not?
Regulators in Pennsylvania and Colorado imposed no penalties against those companies reporting late. By taking no action, regulators do send a message to those who did comply and those who did not.
It is a message, however, that undermines excellence in operations and public confidence.
Stunning Fact: Shale Gas Now 40% Of US Natural Gas Supply, According To Yergin
A decade ago shale gas accounted for 2% of US gas supply, and now it is 40%. Amazing.
http://www.rferl.org/content/yergin-oil-boom-fracking-consequences/25004829.html.
With all that gas coming from shale drilled mostly on private lands, the gas industry could exercise self-restraint about drilling in sensitive places like the Loyalsock State Forest.
http://www.rferl.org/content/yergin-oil-boom-fracking-consequences/25004829.html.
With all that gas coming from shale drilled mostly on private lands, the gas industry could exercise self-restraint about drilling in sensitive places like the Loyalsock State Forest.
Astonishing Facts: Global Coal Consumption Booms Nearly 60% & China Consumes 47% Of Total
While the USA has been dashing to natural gas and renewable energy since 2000, China has been consuming growing and huge amounts of coal. Chinese coal demand has been so strong that the world's consumption of coal has jumped from 5.3 billion tons in 2000 to 8.1 billion tons in 2011. Again nearly all of that growth is a result of exploding Chinese coal demand. See table below from linked to story.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-guay/the-chinese-coal-bubble_b_3355508.html
Measured anyway China's reliance on coal is astonishing. While the USA largely runs on oil and natural gas that together provide about 60% of our total energy, China is powered by coal. Coal alone provides approximately 70% of China's total energy but just 19% of US energy.
Indeed, Chinese coal consumption is an astonishing 47% of the entire world's consumption.
By comparison, US coal consumption is approximately 11% of the world's 8.1 billion tons.
On a per capita basis, Americans and Chinese use roughly equal amounts of coal, but China's coal usage continues to climb, while America's has been falling.
Shale gas is a fundamental reason why coal consumption in the US has been falling but skyrocketing in China, more than doubling in 10 years. Shale gas has boomed in the USA but not to date in China. And I am skeptical that China's hunger for coal will diminish without natural gas to take its place.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-guay/the-chinese-coal-bubble_b_3355508.html
Measured anyway China's reliance on coal is astonishing. While the USA largely runs on oil and natural gas that together provide about 60% of our total energy, China is powered by coal. Coal alone provides approximately 70% of China's total energy but just 19% of US energy.
Indeed, Chinese coal consumption is an astonishing 47% of the entire world's consumption.
By comparison, US coal consumption is approximately 11% of the world's 8.1 billion tons.
On a per capita basis, Americans and Chinese use roughly equal amounts of coal, but China's coal usage continues to climb, while America's has been falling.
Shale gas is a fundamental reason why coal consumption in the US has been falling but skyrocketing in China, more than doubling in 10 years. Shale gas has boomed in the USA but not to date in China. And I am skeptical that China's hunger for coal will diminish without natural gas to take its place.
Thursday, June 6, 2013
New Study Finds Natural Gas Can Help To Cut Carbon Emissions But Raises Cautions: I highly Recommend Study
The Center for Climate and Energy Solutions gets two thumbs up for its report entitled "Leveraging Natural Gas To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions. It is an objective analysis from start to finish.
http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/leveraging-natural-gas-reduce-ghg-emissions-summary.pdf.
The report has a careful, accurate discussion of the methane leakage rate issue at page 3. The report notes that new EPA regulations will cut substantially methane leakage in the gas production phase, and 37% of all methane leakage in the lifecycle of gas takes place in the gas production phase. Continuing to cut methane leakage remains an important activity for regulators and companies.
The report further points out that gas cuts carbon emissions, when it displaces coal, or oil but does not do so were it to displace nuclear or renewables. And gas has been displacing coal and oil in the USA from 2000 to 2012, while wind and solar have boomed and are now significant energy sources in the USA and around the world.
The main purpose of the report is to recommend ways to maximize the carbon reducing opportunities presented by gas, while avoiding the displacement of renewables or nuclear by gas. In the USA, currently gas and renewables are growing at the expense of coal and oil, though the most recent few months have seen coal actually regain from gas some lost generation market share.
To its credit, the report also states that natural gas alone is not a sufficient answer to our climate challenge. It can help, especially in the next 20 years, if used smartly but is far from a complete answer. Moreover, maximizing the benefits of gas requires adding carbon capture and storage to at least gas-fired power plants in the decades ahead.
Hopefully, the passions over climate, fracking, and renewables won't crowd out reason and objective analysis. At any rate, this report is great factual analysis and devoid of polemics. I strongly recommend it.
My former colleague, John Quigley, also likes this report and writes about it at his blog:
http://johnhquigley.blogspot.com/2013/06/natgas-and-climate-its-all-about.html.
http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/leveraging-natural-gas-reduce-ghg-emissions-summary.pdf.
The report has a careful, accurate discussion of the methane leakage rate issue at page 3. The report notes that new EPA regulations will cut substantially methane leakage in the gas production phase, and 37% of all methane leakage in the lifecycle of gas takes place in the gas production phase. Continuing to cut methane leakage remains an important activity for regulators and companies.
The report further points out that gas cuts carbon emissions, when it displaces coal, or oil but does not do so were it to displace nuclear or renewables. And gas has been displacing coal and oil in the USA from 2000 to 2012, while wind and solar have boomed and are now significant energy sources in the USA and around the world.
The main purpose of the report is to recommend ways to maximize the carbon reducing opportunities presented by gas, while avoiding the displacement of renewables or nuclear by gas. In the USA, currently gas and renewables are growing at the expense of coal and oil, though the most recent few months have seen coal actually regain from gas some lost generation market share.
To its credit, the report also states that natural gas alone is not a sufficient answer to our climate challenge. It can help, especially in the next 20 years, if used smartly but is far from a complete answer. Moreover, maximizing the benefits of gas requires adding carbon capture and storage to at least gas-fired power plants in the decades ahead.
Hopefully, the passions over climate, fracking, and renewables won't crowd out reason and objective analysis. At any rate, this report is great factual analysis and devoid of polemics. I strongly recommend it.
My former colleague, John Quigley, also likes this report and writes about it at his blog:
http://johnhquigley.blogspot.com/2013/06/natgas-and-climate-its-all-about.html.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)