Bill Chameides is the Dean of Duke University Nicholas School of the Environment and he says:
"Coal is the dirtiest fossil fuel we’ve got. BTU to BTU, we get more pollution from coal than from petroleum and way more than from natural gas.
Most of the pollution goes up in smoke, so to speak. It’s emitted as
gas (carbon dioxide, mercury, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides) or as
fine particles that find their way up through the smokestack and into
the atmosphere."
http://blogs.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/an-update-on-coal-ash-in-words-and-on-film/.
Chameides has previously written about the impacts from gas development. And he is not, nor am I, suggesting that gas production has no impacts. It does and must be strongly regulated to reduce its impacts on air, land, and water.
Yet, Chameides knows that the comparative impacts of coal, oil, and gas on land, air, and water are not equal. Those seeking truth cannot ignore these energy facts.
Monday, August 5, 2013
The Biggest Consumer Ripoff Of 2013: Florida Forces Consumers To Pay $1.5 Billion For Cancelled Nuke
Ripoff. Theft. No single word captures adequately this injustice. It is the biggest consumer ripoff in at least 2013!
Last week, Duke Energy quietly pulled the plug on its Levy nuclear plant in Florida. The plant had been in development for years, and ratepayers have already paid $1.5 billion. That's a lot of money paid in utility bills by small businesses and social security retirees. For their $1.5 billion dollars, these consumers got exactly nothing--not one kilowatt-hour of production.
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2013/08/01/fla-rep-duke-energy-wont-build-florida-nuclear-plant/
http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/energy/thank-you-tallahassee-for-making-us-pay-so-much-for-nothing/2134390
But you may think refunds will be paid to make things right. The utility itself would want to do that to protect its reputation. And if the utility would not refund, then surely utility regulators would compel the utility to do so.
Actually no. Not in this game of monopoly!
In this game of monopoly, the utility executives, the state regulators, and the legislators are all on the same side and they wrote the rules. Under Florida monopoly rules, customers are compelled to pay billions even before the plant runs and no refunds are paid if the plant does not run. While customers scream, aided and abetted by state officials, the Sunshine state utility executives laugh all the way to the bank and to their paychecks and stock options.
To make matters worse, these monopoly rules are found not just in Florida but also in Georgia but not in Pennsylvania. In Pennsylvania, I led the successful effort in 1996 to end the generation monopoly and replace that rip-off law with competition.
In Pennsylvania, any company or individual can build a power plant, connect to the grid, and sell its electricity to any electricity customer. Investors in power plants take the risks and rewards from their generation investment successes and failures.
In Pennsylvania, if an investor invests $1.5 billion in a plant that does not run, the investor loses. And the investor does not get that $1.5 billion in the first place by taking that money from utility customers for years even before the plant produces its first kilowatt-hour.
Florida and Georgia should scrap their monopoly rip-off rules and follow Pennsylvania's lead! But the utility elites in those states know that competition is hard, and they got their lawmakers well trained. Shamefully lawmakers in the Sunshine and Peach states are willing to protect those elites, even to the point of stealing from the bill-paying public.
Last week, Duke Energy quietly pulled the plug on its Levy nuclear plant in Florida. The plant had been in development for years, and ratepayers have already paid $1.5 billion. That's a lot of money paid in utility bills by small businesses and social security retirees. For their $1.5 billion dollars, these consumers got exactly nothing--not one kilowatt-hour of production.
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2013/08/01/fla-rep-duke-energy-wont-build-florida-nuclear-plant/
http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/energy/thank-you-tallahassee-for-making-us-pay-so-much-for-nothing/2134390
But you may think refunds will be paid to make things right. The utility itself would want to do that to protect its reputation. And if the utility would not refund, then surely utility regulators would compel the utility to do so.
Actually no. Not in this game of monopoly!
In this game of monopoly, the utility executives, the state regulators, and the legislators are all on the same side and they wrote the rules. Under Florida monopoly rules, customers are compelled to pay billions even before the plant runs and no refunds are paid if the plant does not run. While customers scream, aided and abetted by state officials, the Sunshine state utility executives laugh all the way to the bank and to their paychecks and stock options.
To make matters worse, these monopoly rules are found not just in Florida but also in Georgia but not in Pennsylvania. In Pennsylvania, I led the successful effort in 1996 to end the generation monopoly and replace that rip-off law with competition.
In Pennsylvania, any company or individual can build a power plant, connect to the grid, and sell its electricity to any electricity customer. Investors in power plants take the risks and rewards from their generation investment successes and failures.
In Pennsylvania, if an investor invests $1.5 billion in a plant that does not run, the investor loses. And the investor does not get that $1.5 billion in the first place by taking that money from utility customers for years even before the plant produces its first kilowatt-hour.
Florida and Georgia should scrap their monopoly rip-off rules and follow Pennsylvania's lead! But the utility elites in those states know that competition is hard, and they got their lawmakers well trained. Shamefully lawmakers in the Sunshine and Peach states are willing to protect those elites, even to the point of stealing from the bill-paying public.
Friday, August 2, 2013
Stunning Video: Detroit Pet Coke Pile Billows Into Air And Reminds How Awful Soot Is
For long periods the residents living near a pile of pet coke piled up in Detroit have complained about soot invading homes. Take a look at the video in this stunning video to see what they breathe.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/08/01/2392481/kochs-coke-cloud/.
The Pet Coke from this pile is also being combusted to make electricity at a power plant in Canada. Soot from the burning of mostly coal and diesel causes 34,000 premature deaths per year just in the USA and 2 million around the world.
Natural gas has impacts on the environment, but it emits no soot when combusted and saves lives when it displaces coal and diesel or pet coke. Coming to grips with the strengths and weaknesses of our energy choices is an uncomfortable exercise.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/08/01/2392481/kochs-coke-cloud/.
The Pet Coke from this pile is also being combusted to make electricity at a power plant in Canada. Soot from the burning of mostly coal and diesel causes 34,000 premature deaths per year just in the USA and 2 million around the world.
Natural gas has impacts on the environment, but it emits no soot when combusted and saves lives when it displaces coal and diesel or pet coke. Coming to grips with the strengths and weaknesses of our energy choices is an uncomfortable exercise.
Senator Wyden Embraces 1% Methane Leakage Standard, Testing Gas Industry And Climate Activists
Reducing methane leakage should be an objective about which climate hawks and the natural gas industry should agree. Climate hawks and the gas industry, therefore, should pay attention to an announcement made last week by Senator Wyden, the Chairman of the Senate's Energy and Natural Resources.
Wyden announced support for legislation reducing methane leakage rates from the gas industry to 1%.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/ron-wyden-calls-for-speeding-up-pipeline-development-20130725.
Here is why climate hawks should embrace the Wyden effort.
Using gas instead of coal to make electricity has substantial immediate and long-term carbon reduction benefits when emissions are below 3.2%. Using natural gas instead of gasoline to power cars has immediate and long-term carbon benefits when methane leakage rates are below 1.6%. Using gas instead of diesel in heavy duty trucks has immediate and long-term climate benefits when methane leakage rates are below 1%.
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/17/6435.full.
The nuance in the data in the linked to study is the difference between immediate and long-term climate benefits. Because the potency of methane as a heat trapping gas degrades substantially within 15 years, leakage rates can be considerably higher than the above percentages and still produce a long-term (100 years) climate benefit. But to have both an immediate and long-term climate benefit, leakage rates must meet the levels stated in the proceeding paragraph.
In its 2013 report, EPA places current leakage rates at approximately 1.5%. Consequently, burning gas instead of coal to generate electricity produces substantial immediate and long-term climate benefits. Using CNG in most vehicles does the same. But further reductions in leakage rate will be needed for gas in heavy duty trucks to produce carbon benefits in all time periods.
The reaction by the gas industry to the Wyden initiative will be interesting, even telling. For multiple reasons, including the need to improve its public standing, the industry should genuinely and completely embrace it. Those concerned about climate change should do the same.
Wyden announced support for legislation reducing methane leakage rates from the gas industry to 1%.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/ron-wyden-calls-for-speeding-up-pipeline-development-20130725.
Here is why climate hawks should embrace the Wyden effort.
Using gas instead of coal to make electricity has substantial immediate and long-term carbon reduction benefits when emissions are below 3.2%. Using natural gas instead of gasoline to power cars has immediate and long-term carbon benefits when methane leakage rates are below 1.6%. Using gas instead of diesel in heavy duty trucks has immediate and long-term climate benefits when methane leakage rates are below 1%.
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/17/6435.full.
The nuance in the data in the linked to study is the difference between immediate and long-term climate benefits. Because the potency of methane as a heat trapping gas degrades substantially within 15 years, leakage rates can be considerably higher than the above percentages and still produce a long-term (100 years) climate benefit. But to have both an immediate and long-term climate benefit, leakage rates must meet the levels stated in the proceeding paragraph.
In its 2013 report, EPA places current leakage rates at approximately 1.5%. Consequently, burning gas instead of coal to generate electricity produces substantial immediate and long-term climate benefits. Using CNG in most vehicles does the same. But further reductions in leakage rate will be needed for gas in heavy duty trucks to produce carbon benefits in all time periods.
The reaction by the gas industry to the Wyden initiative will be interesting, even telling. For multiple reasons, including the need to improve its public standing, the industry should genuinely and completely embrace it. Those concerned about climate change should do the same.
Key Fact: Natural Gas Price Increase Jumps Wholesale Electricity Prices By Up To 101%
The price of natural gas impacts heavily the 51% of households who use gas to heat homes and the many businesses that use natural gas as a feed stock. But even if consumers do not directly buy and use natural gas, consumers energy costs are substantially determined by the price of natural gas. Why?
In most markets, the price of natural gas determines the wholesale price of electricity, and all consumers use electricity. The EIA says about the main cause of the recent, big jump in wholesale electricity prices:
In most markets, the price of natural gas determines the wholesale price of electricity, and all consumers use electricity. The EIA says about the main cause of the recent, big jump in wholesale electricity prices:
"Average on-peak, day-ahead wholesale electricity prices rose in every region of the Lower 48 states in first-half 2013 compared to first-half 2012. The most important factor was the rise in the price of natural gas (the marginal fuel for generation in much of the nation) in 2013 compared to 10-year lows in April 2012. However, the increase in power prices was not uniform across electric markets as regional natural gas supply issues drove larger increases in the Northeast and Pacific Northwest."
In just about every market, the marginal power plant that establishes the market clearing price in most hours of every day is a natural gas power plant. And that natural gas power plant bids a price into the market that is based on its fuel cost. When the price of gas goes up, the plant submits a higher bid into the power market, and market clearing prices typically reflect that higher bid.
As a result of the key role natural gas plants play in wholesale electricity markets, whether consumers use gas directly or not, the pocket books of all consumers are significantly impacted by the price of natural gas. Like it or not, that is an energy fact.
Thursday, August 1, 2013
Surprise Fact: New Coal Plants Built In First Half Of 2013 Will Generate More Power Than New Wind And Solar Combined
The report of coal-fired electricity generation's death remains exaggerated.
Coal produces 40% of America's power, has gained market share at the expense of natural gas in 2013, and 3 new coal plants opened in the first half of 2013 that totaled 1,569 megawatts.
http://www.ferc.gov/legal/staff-reports/2013/jun-energy-infrastructure.pdf.
Though the new coal capacity is considerably less than all the additional wind and solar of all types built in the first half of 2013, the coal plants will generate more electricity as a result of their higher capacity factor. The coal plants will operate in most hours of the year near maximum output. While wind farms produce some electricity in most hours of the year, they rarely operate at maximum output.
For wind to produce as much electricity as the 1,569 megawatts of new coal, about 4,500 megawatts of wind would be required. Wind has often installed that much or more in the course of a year, but had a soft first 6 months of 2013, when 959 megawatts was installed.
For solar to match the production of 1,569 megawatts of new coal, approximately 7,500 megawatts of new solar would be needed. Solar has never done that in one year but will soon. At this point, a total of 10,000 megawatts of solar operates across America after 5 years of booming solar installations.
Through 2020, three variables will determine substantially whether or not coal maintain's an electricity generation market share near 40% and not one of them is the EPA air toxic rule. The most important single factor will be the price of natural gas. Low-priced gas cut coal's market share to 32% in April 2012. It could do it again. The second and third variables are the wholesale price of electricity that again is largely a function of the price of gas and whether coal plants win or lose annual capacity auctions in the PJM power pool.
While coal is under competitive threat from natural gas, higher gas prices lessen that threat. And though the stress is real on coal, new coal plants came on line in 2012 and continue to so in 2013.
Coal produces 40% of America's power, has gained market share at the expense of natural gas in 2013, and 3 new coal plants opened in the first half of 2013 that totaled 1,569 megawatts.
http://www.ferc.gov/legal/staff-reports/2013/jun-energy-infrastructure.pdf.
Though the new coal capacity is considerably less than all the additional wind and solar of all types built in the first half of 2013, the coal plants will generate more electricity as a result of their higher capacity factor. The coal plants will operate in most hours of the year near maximum output. While wind farms produce some electricity in most hours of the year, they rarely operate at maximum output.
For wind to produce as much electricity as the 1,569 megawatts of new coal, about 4,500 megawatts of wind would be required. Wind has often installed that much or more in the course of a year, but had a soft first 6 months of 2013, when 959 megawatts was installed.
For solar to match the production of 1,569 megawatts of new coal, approximately 7,500 megawatts of new solar would be needed. Solar has never done that in one year but will soon. At this point, a total of 10,000 megawatts of solar operates across America after 5 years of booming solar installations.
Through 2020, three variables will determine substantially whether or not coal maintain's an electricity generation market share near 40% and not one of them is the EPA air toxic rule. The most important single factor will be the price of natural gas. Low-priced gas cut coal's market share to 32% in April 2012. It could do it again. The second and third variables are the wholesale price of electricity that again is largely a function of the price of gas and whether coal plants win or lose annual capacity auctions in the PJM power pool.
While coal is under competitive threat from natural gas, higher gas prices lessen that threat. And though the stress is real on coal, new coal plants came on line in 2012 and continue to so in 2013.
New England Uses Virtually No Coal And Little Renewable Energy For Power
While America gets 40% of its electricity from coal, the 6 New England states use coal for just 3%.
http://twitpic.com/d56dvc.
While nearly off coal entirely, New England is not leading the way with renewables. All renewables provide it just 9% of its power, compared to 14% nationally. So since its not coal or renewables, what is powering New England?
New England relies on gas for about 50% and nuclear for 35% of its electricity, or about two times more than America relies on gas and nukes. New England is a natural gas and nuclear power region, while California is a natural gas and renewable energy powerhouse.
The combination of nuclear, hydro, and renewable energy means that New England gets about 45% of its power from zero carbon sources. By comparison, America gets about 33% of its power from zero carbon power. New England's larger zero carbon power percentage is because it gets 35% of its electricity from nuclear power, while America gets just 19%.
Thanks to Seth Kaplan for the New England power facts in the link.
http://twitpic.com/d56dvc.
While nearly off coal entirely, New England is not leading the way with renewables. All renewables provide it just 9% of its power, compared to 14% nationally. So since its not coal or renewables, what is powering New England?
New England relies on gas for about 50% and nuclear for 35% of its electricity, or about two times more than America relies on gas and nukes. New England is a natural gas and nuclear power region, while California is a natural gas and renewable energy powerhouse.
The combination of nuclear, hydro, and renewable energy means that New England gets about 45% of its power from zero carbon sources. By comparison, America gets about 33% of its power from zero carbon power. New England's larger zero carbon power percentage is because it gets 35% of its electricity from nuclear power, while America gets just 19%.
Thanks to Seth Kaplan for the New England power facts in the link.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)