I walked into a grocery store in Bozeman Montana with my daughter several years ago and came face to face with a large man wearing a large cowboy hat. He was standing behind a large table filled with large plates of sausage. Yep, you guessed it – large sausage.
He poked a smoky looking link in my daughter’s face and said, ‘try some of the best sausage in the west”. My daughter responded in an icy monotone, “no thanks, I’m a vegetarian”. The large man tipped his large hat politely and said, “I heard there was a vegetarian in Montana, I’m really glad to meet you ma’am”.
While beef’s for dinner in Montana, coal is still king. I have no idea if, Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer is a vegetarian, but I know for sure he likes coal. It’s fine to like coal. I like coal. Without it many of us in the USA would be paying lots more for our electricity today. Over fifty percent of our electricity comes from coal. If you live in the Midwest or West it’s more like sixty percent. Yet, the cost of electricity may not accurately reflect the true cost to the planet as we all now know from listening to the climate change debate.
Yet, as any smoker knows, old habits are hard to break and Governor Schweitzer doesn’t seem to understand the addiction. In a recent Christian Science Monitor article (12/29/08) the Governor said. " ..unless you are willing to live naked in a tree and eat nuts for the next thirty years, coal's going to be part of the portfolio”.
So much for Al Gore’s Repower America with “100% clean electricity within 10 years”.
The wide gap between the Governor’s assertion and Al’s cheerful optimism can’t help but make you feel like turning on the TV to another mind numbing program. What’s the point any way, either Brian or Al is crazy. They both could be crazy, it’s a sure bet that one of them can’t be sane.
Meanwhile thousands, yes thousands of people are living fully clothed in nice homes, eating beef and sausage off the grid. A quick scan of off the grid systems finds thousands of single family homes across the USA with normal people, fully clothed and well feed that have jsut decided to delare thier own energy independance.
Find a Solar professional to get started and we’ll make Governor’s, Ex-senators and electric distribution companies irrelevant.
I know you have heard it from me before, but I am going to keep saying it for the rest of my life; or until the opposing sides in the climate change and energy generation debates stop calling each other names; and get down to the business of agreeing on facts, plans and actions that we can all get behind. If this is the moral equivalent of war as some argue, we have at least got to agree on which enemy we are fighting and stop shooting each other.
We must learn to play nicely in the sand box and quit calling each other names. I think every policy-maker, every politician and every business executive in the world should read, understand and pledge to follow Adam Kahane’s steps for Changing the World by Changing How We Talk and Listen. If we don’t stop downloading, we will continue to waste valuable time and resources shooting at each other and dying from friendly fire. It doesn’t matter what you wear or what you eat, you have got to see the wasteful stupidity in continuing that way.
© 2009 Mark R. Daily
Showing posts with label coal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label coal. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Air Permit Denial Threatens to Cost Consumers
Like the old Chinese curse, " may you live in interesting times", recent events could be on track for a perfect storm for electric utility generation, with electricity consumers caught in the middle and footing the bill as usual.
The convergence of recent US Supreme Court decisions, pending State and Federal government climate change legislation and citizen discussions about global warming put consumers at risk for a deluge of electric rate increases. Add a cold winter, or higher transportation and maintenance costs and the writing is on the wall. For those consumers that believe that current electricity rates are too low and do not reflect the external costs of air pollution created during electricity generation, the recent decision to deny power plant air quality permits in Kansas is a good decision. For those consumers struggling on fixed incomes or tight budgets, the decision may mean electric rates will continue to climb. That could be bad for everyone.
The Background
Tri-State G&T proposed the joint construction of the largest coal-fired power plant in the United States, to be built at the cost of $3.6 billion. The power plant with its two 700-megawatt generators was to be built and financed by several utilities including, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Sunflower Electric Association, Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc, and Midwest Energy.All four companies are member owned, non-profit cooperative corporations. The first three companies are wholesale power suppliers. Sunflower, organized in 1957, serves six rural electric distribution cooperatives in 34 western Kansas counties. Tri-State, started in 1952, is owned by and serves 44 electric cooperatives across portions of Colorado, Nebraska, New Mexico and Wyoming. Golden Spread Electric Cooperative was founded in 1984 and serves 16 distribution cooperatives in Oklahoma and Texas. Midwest Energy serves customers in central and western Kansas.
The new power plants are planned as an expansion to existing power generation facilities owned by Sunflower on their 10,000-acre, 360-megawatt Holcomb Station site. This is located approximately four miles south of Holcomb, Kansas.
The original plan was for Golden Spread, Sunflower, Tri-State and other investors to jointly own the first new 700-megawatt unit. Construction of the first unit was planned to begin in 2007 and be operational in 2012. Golden Spread planed to own 400 megawatts of the unit’s output for supply to its member systems. Sunflower expected to provide up to 150 megawatts to its member systems, and Midwest Energy was in for 75 megawatts. Tri-State planned to own the second 700-megawatt unit, to supply power to its member systems. This unit was projected to be online in 2013, but recent proposals before the denial show Tri-State postponing construction and tying the construction schedule to future load growth.
The Denial
According to an October 18, 2007 Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), press release concern over carbon dioxide production was the key factor in permit denial. Bolstered by the recent US Supreme Court decision (Massachusetts v. EPA), KHDE Secretary Roderick L. Bremby, stated, "I believe it would be irresponsible to ignore emerging information about the contribution of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to climate change and the potential harm to our environment and health if we do nothing".
Massachusetts v. EPA defined carbon dioxide ( CO2) as an air quality pollutant that should be regulated by the EPA. The 66 page Supreme Court Opinion refers to specific scientific studies and reports documenting the existing and predicted negative impacts from global climate change and ties these changes directly to human activity; specifically the accelerated production of green house gases. Carbon dioxide heads the list of these green house gas emissions.
The EPA defines coal fired electricity generation as the single largest source of CO2 emissions in the USA. Coal fired electricity generation exceeds CO2 emissions from the entire transportation sector.
This permit denial is the first such denial in the nation."We are disappointed with the Secretary's arbitrary and capricious action," said Earl Watkins, Sunflower's president and chief executive officer. Those disappointed with the denial point out the neither the EPA or the State of Kansas include CO2 as a regulated air pollutant. Project partners felt that they had met all environmental and regulatory requirements with their proposal.
This action also changes Sunflower's plans to invest in and advance algae technology that would use carbon dioxide from the power plants. Attempting to address carbon emissions, the project partners completed initial testing for an innovative algae reactor that would use a portion of the carbon dioxide emissions from Holcomb Station to produce biofuels, including ethanol and biodiesel. Funds that would have been earned from the power plant expansion project were expected to be used to finance Sunflower's investment in the commercial algae reactor.
The Next Step
Tri-State's general counsel Ken Reif reported to the G&T's employees, "Naturally we are all disappointed in this action and we are in the process of evaluating our options with Sunflower and our board."
Sunflower’s President and CEO Watkins said, "Politics aside, the 1.5 million cooperative customers still need reliable, low- cost power. We will endeavor to fulfill that mission in the appropriate way, but those customers will be harmed and the economy damaged by the Secretary's decision. Sunflower expects to pursue legal and legislative remedies to this denial."
Talk about Denial
Wholesale power utilities still do not get it. They continue to promote misleading statements regarding global warming or climate change and insist that decisions are being made based on emotion and "politics" rather than science. If it wasn’t for "politics", utilities and consumers would have been paying higher generation rates for decades to account for externalities - pollution etc., caused by fossil fuel electricity generation. Some argue that as soon as electricity becomes expensive enough to be worth saving, energy conservation will finally kick in and become a serious part of demand side management, instead of the token savings that it is inmost homes today.
In any case the Kansas Department of Health and Environment took one of the first steps toward new thinking and new energy solutions. In these interesting times it will be very interesting to see the impact that this permit decision has on other coal fired power plant construction plans across the nation. It will be even be more interesting to see how utilities meet the growing national demand for electricity with limited generation resources and a growing demand for climate change action.
© 2007Mark Daily
The convergence of recent US Supreme Court decisions, pending State and Federal government climate change legislation and citizen discussions about global warming put consumers at risk for a deluge of electric rate increases. Add a cold winter, or higher transportation and maintenance costs and the writing is on the wall. For those consumers that believe that current electricity rates are too low and do not reflect the external costs of air pollution created during electricity generation, the recent decision to deny power plant air quality permits in Kansas is a good decision. For those consumers struggling on fixed incomes or tight budgets, the decision may mean electric rates will continue to climb. That could be bad for everyone.
The Background
Tri-State G&T proposed the joint construction of the largest coal-fired power plant in the United States, to be built at the cost of $3.6 billion. The power plant with its two 700-megawatt generators was to be built and financed by several utilities including, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Sunflower Electric Association, Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc, and Midwest Energy.All four companies are member owned, non-profit cooperative corporations. The first three companies are wholesale power suppliers. Sunflower, organized in 1957, serves six rural electric distribution cooperatives in 34 western Kansas counties. Tri-State, started in 1952, is owned by and serves 44 electric cooperatives across portions of Colorado, Nebraska, New Mexico and Wyoming. Golden Spread Electric Cooperative was founded in 1984 and serves 16 distribution cooperatives in Oklahoma and Texas. Midwest Energy serves customers in central and western Kansas.
The new power plants are planned as an expansion to existing power generation facilities owned by Sunflower on their 10,000-acre, 360-megawatt Holcomb Station site. This is located approximately four miles south of Holcomb, Kansas.
The original plan was for Golden Spread, Sunflower, Tri-State and other investors to jointly own the first new 700-megawatt unit. Construction of the first unit was planned to begin in 2007 and be operational in 2012. Golden Spread planed to own 400 megawatts of the unit’s output for supply to its member systems. Sunflower expected to provide up to 150 megawatts to its member systems, and Midwest Energy was in for 75 megawatts. Tri-State planned to own the second 700-megawatt unit, to supply power to its member systems. This unit was projected to be online in 2013, but recent proposals before the denial show Tri-State postponing construction and tying the construction schedule to future load growth.
The Denial
According to an October 18, 2007 Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), press release concern over carbon dioxide production was the key factor in permit denial. Bolstered by the recent US Supreme Court decision (Massachusetts v. EPA), KHDE Secretary Roderick L. Bremby, stated, "I believe it would be irresponsible to ignore emerging information about the contribution of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to climate change and the potential harm to our environment and health if we do nothing".
Massachusetts v. EPA defined carbon dioxide ( CO2) as an air quality pollutant that should be regulated by the EPA. The 66 page Supreme Court Opinion refers to specific scientific studies and reports documenting the existing and predicted negative impacts from global climate change and ties these changes directly to human activity; specifically the accelerated production of green house gases. Carbon dioxide heads the list of these green house gas emissions.
The EPA defines coal fired electricity generation as the single largest source of CO2 emissions in the USA. Coal fired electricity generation exceeds CO2 emissions from the entire transportation sector.
This permit denial is the first such denial in the nation."We are disappointed with the Secretary's arbitrary and capricious action," said Earl Watkins, Sunflower's president and chief executive officer. Those disappointed with the denial point out the neither the EPA or the State of Kansas include CO2 as a regulated air pollutant. Project partners felt that they had met all environmental and regulatory requirements with their proposal.
This action also changes Sunflower's plans to invest in and advance algae technology that would use carbon dioxide from the power plants. Attempting to address carbon emissions, the project partners completed initial testing for an innovative algae reactor that would use a portion of the carbon dioxide emissions from Holcomb Station to produce biofuels, including ethanol and biodiesel. Funds that would have been earned from the power plant expansion project were expected to be used to finance Sunflower's investment in the commercial algae reactor.
The Next Step
Tri-State's general counsel Ken Reif reported to the G&T's employees, "Naturally we are all disappointed in this action and we are in the process of evaluating our options with Sunflower and our board."
Sunflower’s President and CEO Watkins said, "Politics aside, the 1.5 million cooperative customers still need reliable, low- cost power. We will endeavor to fulfill that mission in the appropriate way, but those customers will be harmed and the economy damaged by the Secretary's decision. Sunflower expects to pursue legal and legislative remedies to this denial."
Talk about Denial
Wholesale power utilities still do not get it. They continue to promote misleading statements regarding global warming or climate change and insist that decisions are being made based on emotion and "politics" rather than science. If it wasn’t for "politics", utilities and consumers would have been paying higher generation rates for decades to account for externalities - pollution etc., caused by fossil fuel electricity generation. Some argue that as soon as electricity becomes expensive enough to be worth saving, energy conservation will finally kick in and become a serious part of demand side management, instead of the token savings that it is inmost homes today.
In any case the Kansas Department of Health and Environment took one of the first steps toward new thinking and new energy solutions. In these interesting times it will be very interesting to see the impact that this permit decision has on other coal fired power plant construction plans across the nation. It will be even be more interesting to see how utilities meet the growing national demand for electricity with limited generation resources and a growing demand for climate change action.
© 2007Mark Daily
Tuesday, December 5, 2006
Environmental Kooks and Electric Utility Public Service Commission Obstructionists
One big challenge facing anyone debating technical issues is the challenge of facts. Finding facts in this day and age seems so easy with inter-net resources yet if we use our personal bias blindfolds we will never see the whole problem or the whole solution. If you only find the fact that describes the elephant’s trunk and I find only the fact that describes the elephant’s toe nail, we might never get to agreement on the fact that we are talking about elephants until we remove the blindfolds.
So it is with the debate about how to power the United States economy. There are many different "facts" to be evaluated. It presents a daunting challenge but as citizens we have two choices. Either we agree with the facts and choices used by our utility companies or we don’t.
I prefer not to get bogged down in a greenhouse gas (GHG) debate at this point although, for many this is the only reason to debate "what powers the U.S.A".Yet, the issue of "we will run out of it someday" is also a good reason to tackle this challenge. To me they are intertwined motives. "Running out" won’t matter much if the planet’s ability to support life is compromised. Thinkers far more advanced than I have already coined plenty of slogans for this: "There is no business to be made on a dead planet"; "We must protect the environment as well as the economy or some day we will have neither". Quotes like that.
For more about those GHG details please read Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. If you agree with Al, you can feel smug about having such a nice guy to agree with. If you disagree with Mr. Gore, you will at least find out how "those people" think. So, it’s a good thing to read it no matter what opinion you hold on the impacts of Greenhouse Gases (GHG). Some day I think we will all agree that the only people confused about the science of global climate change are the people pretending to be scientists. The real scientists all seem to agree we have a problem.
Fact:"The United States relies on electricity to meet a significant portion of its energy demands, especially for lighting, electric motors, heating and air conditioning. Electricity generators consumed 34 percent of U.S. energy from fossil fuel combustion in 2004. The type of fuel combusted by electricity generators has a significant effect on their emissions. For example, some electricity is generated with low CO2 emitting energy technologies, particularly non-fossil options such as nuclear, hydroelectric or geothermal energy. However, electricity generators rely on coal for over half of their total energy requirements and accounted fo 94 percent of all coal consumed in the Unites States in 2004. Consequently, changes in electricity demand have a significant impact on coal consumption and associated CO2 emissions." (pg 7 of 18 Executive Summary , Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2004 (April 2006) USEPA #430-R-06-002
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads06/06ES.pdf 12/05/06)
On June 19 2006, the 2006 Energy Biz summit gathered eight leading electric utility executives together to discuss issues relating to electricity generation in the US. Energy Biz Magazine recently made pod-casts available providing summaries of some of the material.
http://www.energycentral.com/centers/energybiz/eb_summit_list.cfm
Several striking conclusions come from listening to these presentations. The main one that I agree with says that citizens in the USA are not really aware of the growing "base load" crisis. Rolling brown outs in the north east, cascading power outages in the Midwest and billing shenanigans in California are symptoms of a larger problem. While experts on both sides may effectively argue that "pilot error" or "pilot greed" caused these problems, the fact that human problems can trigger these repercussions points to one fact. The demand for electricity is rising faster than construction for new sources of electric generation.
The second interesting item from Energy Biz summit, points to the current reality that renewables will not soon take the place of base load generation. It is not a simple matter of sticking up more wind turbines and solar panels to harvest free and non-polluting energy. New renewable energy industries simply cannot bring enough reliable power on line soon enough to meet the need. One executive even added his belief that no single technology will be able to keep up with the growing demand for electricity.
If you don’t believe this, try a simple sample problem with your house. Find an old electric bill. Pick a shoulder month so it won’t be a real high or real low bill. Find the total kilowatt hours used (kWh). Its on your bill somewhere. Now, go to the GAIAM web site and order a copy of the Real Goods Solar Living Sourcebook. If you are really into alternative energy and really hate your utility company, this will be the best $35 (plus shipping) that you ever spend. In that book find the Solar Energy Worksheet. You can use it to figure out how to size your equipment to deliver the kWh amount you got off your electric bill. Then you can go to the product pages and figure out the cost for that equipment. If your house is like mine, it will be many years before your electric rates get high enough to make the purchase of that equipment a good idea for your wallet. Making use of most alternative energy fuels will require a lot more fundamental changes in our lifestyles then simply changing the source of power generation fuels.
Let’s move on to "interesting item number three". Amory and Hunter Lovins (http://www.rmi.org/) must have gotten tuckered out lately because you rarely hear about "Negawatts" any more. The concept of "demand side management" was mentioned in these summary pod-casts, but the phrase, "energy conservation" was once again noticeably absent from the discussion. Regional groups like Western Resource Advocates, still argue that conservation could effectively cut the growing electricity demand in half in some western states. (http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/energy/clenergy.php)Yet, eight utility executives gloss over this "resource" without much comment, and here is why.
Interesting item number four: These guys like to build big power plants and coal is currently the cheapest fuel to buy for running them. Sadly, the tone of the Final Remarks show an attitude that makes the normal uninformed citizen like me, angry at utility companies. Their collective feeling seems to be that if the environmental crazies and the damn ivory tower regulators would just get out of the way, they could provide all the electric power generation the world will ever need. "We can build these things". "This is great stuff", they proclaim. This is a great solution. They get to take action and the costs for these huge multi-billion dollar projects get passed on to us, the rate payers.
Its too bad, in an exciting world where so many options could be used to solve our energy problems and improve environmental health; a world where we could all be working together to solve our energy problems; we still have major utility businesses run by men using the same thinking that got us into this mess. The time has come. We can no longer afford to confuse size with imagination.
So it is with the debate about how to power the United States economy. There are many different "facts" to be evaluated. It presents a daunting challenge but as citizens we have two choices. Either we agree with the facts and choices used by our utility companies or we don’t.
I prefer not to get bogged down in a greenhouse gas (GHG) debate at this point although, for many this is the only reason to debate "what powers the U.S.A".Yet, the issue of "we will run out of it someday" is also a good reason to tackle this challenge. To me they are intertwined motives. "Running out" won’t matter much if the planet’s ability to support life is compromised. Thinkers far more advanced than I have already coined plenty of slogans for this: "There is no business to be made on a dead planet"; "We must protect the environment as well as the economy or some day we will have neither". Quotes like that.
For more about those GHG details please read Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. If you agree with Al, you can feel smug about having such a nice guy to agree with. If you disagree with Mr. Gore, you will at least find out how "those people" think. So, it’s a good thing to read it no matter what opinion you hold on the impacts of Greenhouse Gases (GHG). Some day I think we will all agree that the only people confused about the science of global climate change are the people pretending to be scientists. The real scientists all seem to agree we have a problem.
Fact:"The United States relies on electricity to meet a significant portion of its energy demands, especially for lighting, electric motors, heating and air conditioning. Electricity generators consumed 34 percent of U.S. energy from fossil fuel combustion in 2004. The type of fuel combusted by electricity generators has a significant effect on their emissions. For example, some electricity is generated with low CO2 emitting energy technologies, particularly non-fossil options such as nuclear, hydroelectric or geothermal energy. However, electricity generators rely on coal for over half of their total energy requirements and accounted fo 94 percent of all coal consumed in the Unites States in 2004. Consequently, changes in electricity demand have a significant impact on coal consumption and associated CO2 emissions." (pg 7 of 18 Executive Summary , Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2004 (April 2006) USEPA #430-R-06-002
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads06/06ES.pdf 12/05/06)
On June 19 2006, the 2006 Energy Biz summit gathered eight leading electric utility executives together to discuss issues relating to electricity generation in the US. Energy Biz Magazine recently made pod-casts available providing summaries of some of the material.
http://www.energycentral.com/centers/energybiz/eb_summit_list.cfm
Several striking conclusions come from listening to these presentations. The main one that I agree with says that citizens in the USA are not really aware of the growing "base load" crisis. Rolling brown outs in the north east, cascading power outages in the Midwest and billing shenanigans in California are symptoms of a larger problem. While experts on both sides may effectively argue that "pilot error" or "pilot greed" caused these problems, the fact that human problems can trigger these repercussions points to one fact. The demand for electricity is rising faster than construction for new sources of electric generation.
The second interesting item from Energy Biz summit, points to the current reality that renewables will not soon take the place of base load generation. It is not a simple matter of sticking up more wind turbines and solar panels to harvest free and non-polluting energy. New renewable energy industries simply cannot bring enough reliable power on line soon enough to meet the need. One executive even added his belief that no single technology will be able to keep up with the growing demand for electricity.
If you don’t believe this, try a simple sample problem with your house. Find an old electric bill. Pick a shoulder month so it won’t be a real high or real low bill. Find the total kilowatt hours used (kWh). Its on your bill somewhere. Now, go to the GAIAM web site and order a copy of the Real Goods Solar Living Sourcebook. If you are really into alternative energy and really hate your utility company, this will be the best $35 (plus shipping) that you ever spend. In that book find the Solar Energy Worksheet. You can use it to figure out how to size your equipment to deliver the kWh amount you got off your electric bill. Then you can go to the product pages and figure out the cost for that equipment. If your house is like mine, it will be many years before your electric rates get high enough to make the purchase of that equipment a good idea for your wallet. Making use of most alternative energy fuels will require a lot more fundamental changes in our lifestyles then simply changing the source of power generation fuels.
Let’s move on to "interesting item number three". Amory and Hunter Lovins (http://www.rmi.org/) must have gotten tuckered out lately because you rarely hear about "Negawatts" any more. The concept of "demand side management" was mentioned in these summary pod-casts, but the phrase, "energy conservation" was once again noticeably absent from the discussion. Regional groups like Western Resource Advocates, still argue that conservation could effectively cut the growing electricity demand in half in some western states. (http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/energy/clenergy.php)Yet, eight utility executives gloss over this "resource" without much comment, and here is why.
Interesting item number four: These guys like to build big power plants and coal is currently the cheapest fuel to buy for running them. Sadly, the tone of the Final Remarks show an attitude that makes the normal uninformed citizen like me, angry at utility companies. Their collective feeling seems to be that if the environmental crazies and the damn ivory tower regulators would just get out of the way, they could provide all the electric power generation the world will ever need. "We can build these things". "This is great stuff", they proclaim. This is a great solution. They get to take action and the costs for these huge multi-billion dollar projects get passed on to us, the rate payers.
Its too bad, in an exciting world where so many options could be used to solve our energy problems and improve environmental health; a world where we could all be working together to solve our energy problems; we still have major utility businesses run by men using the same thinking that got us into this mess. The time has come. We can no longer afford to confuse size with imagination.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
