Carbon Capture and Sequestration is a Waste

Lost a bit of respect for CBO due to this report

Fri, 24 May 2013 09:22:00 -0600

CBO Releases Important Carbon Tax Report - Today the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released an analysis of the policy implications of enactment of a carbon tax. The CBO report makes a compelling case for inclusion of a carbon tax in any legislation to reduce the deficit or reform the tax code.

The statement that it will "...stop the big polluters from dumping the costs on their pollution on the American public..." is so naive as to be idiotic. A carbon tax will raise costs on all energy. Raise the costs on all energy, you raise the costs on all products from electricity to milk. Raise the costs on all products, you raise the cost of living for all Americans. Raise the costs of energy, you raise the costs of manufacturing goods and supplying services. Raise the costs of manufacturing goods and supplying services, you make American goods and services less competitive in the world market. Make American goods and services less competitive in the world market, America loses jobs, market share, and foreign income while simultaneously increasing imports thereby increasing national debt.

This report is only trying to justify the government getting deeper into our pockets.

Things to consider as EV range increases

Tue, 14 May 2013 06:17:00 -0600

Batteries could fuel solar, wind growth - On an arid mountain in Eureka County, Nev., a mining company believes it's struck the 21st-century equivalent of gold.

As the range of an EV increases, primarily a result of battery energy density increasing--more KWh in the same size package--it takes more energy to charge them. This means one must either increase the charge time at a given charge power level or increase the charge power level for the same charge time. This means special charging systems for home owners since common household receptacles are limited in amperage to relatively low values. If a new, faster charging receptacle is added, one then has to consider the breaker box and the size of the service to the household and dissipating the heat from the charging process.

Questionable Report

Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:54:00 -0600

Report: U.S. Electrical Grid Could Be Reliable With Much Higher Level Of Renewables - If the U.S. ceases to burn coal, shuts down a quarter of existing nuclear reactors, and trims its use of natural gas by 2050, the resulting increased reliance on wind, solar and other renewables will not result in a less reliable electricity grid, according to a major new report prepared by Synapse Energy Economics, Inc., for the nonprofit Civil Society Institute (CSI).

Let's see. You have wind sources that tend to generate power when least needed and even then the generation is highly variable and averages 30% output because the wind is not available 24/7. Then you have solar PV which can also be highly variable on days with clouds or practically non-existant during heavy overcast days that has an availability equal to a roughly 15% average output for non-tracking and 19% for tracking arrays. One will have to add massive quantities of energy storage and long distance transmission between regions. Long distance transmission will cross broad reaches of undeveloped lands--forests, grass lands, brush lands--and will be subject to wildfires, wind storms, ice storms while also difficult to maintain.

By definition of the resources and the long distance transmission, the reliability is decreased.

To replace the coal plants, nuclear plants and gas fired plants will require major investment in still quite high priced wind turbines, still quite high priced solar power, still quite high priced storage, and high priced transmission. How are we going to pay for it?

This report is just as prone to bias as the green energy proponents accuse reports out of the Heartland Institute and other conservative think tanks of being.

No consideration for the application of light bulbs

Fri, 05 Apr 2013 09:48:00 -0600

A brighter day for LED bulbs - If consumers are willing to spend $5 for a cup of coffee, how about $25 for a light bulb?

The problem I see with regulating out incandescent bulbs is there was absolutely no consideration for the application. Why would one want to spend $25 for a light bulb used in a pantry or closet or some other such use where one generally turns the light on for a few seconds to a minute then back off again? What about the poor working stiff on minimum wage--does he just do without light until he can scrape up enough to buy a bulb? There will probablyt be a program for the non-working folks on welfare to have their light bulbs purchased by the taxpayers but the people in the middle will get stiffed as usual.

SMRs--Aren't those about the size of ship board reactors?

Fri, 01 Mar 2013 08:18:00 -0600

U.S. offering $450M to support fledgling nuclear technology - A federal program intended to kickstart the much-anticipated development of bite-sized nuclear reactors at Westinghouse Electric Co. and other energy firms faced heat from a budget watchdog group Wednesday, which called the technology untested and unworthy of taxpayer dollars.

Maybe I am being a bit naive but I could well understand the watchdog group being a bit sceptical. Afterall, the nuclear navy is decades old, not just in this country. Russia has nuclear powered icebreakers with smaller size reactors.

Sacrificing good farmland to solar power makes as much sense as spitting into the wind.

Thu, 31 Jan 2013 07:34:00 -0600

Meeting on proposed solar farm gets heated - During a meeting last week, about 40 Zebulon residents grilled executives of a Charlotte-based energy company that's hoping to build a solar farm on Pearces Road.

What is more important--food or part time power that costs more than conventional power? These people want to sacrifice 8 acres of food growing land to solar panels that will generate maybe 3500MWh per year when one could put a natural gas engine generator on less than one acre and potentially generate 17,000MWh per year. A dual engine could also run on digester gas, landfill gas, and other biofuels and supply heat that can be used for crop drying, climate control, etc.

Don't spit into the wind and not expect to get it back on you.

Wind and solar on "public" lands--What about States' Rights?

Fri, 18 Jan 2013 07:22:00 -0600

Statement by CEO of NextEra Energy Resources on Interior Secretary Salazar's announcement that he is leaving the Obama administration - NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, President and CEO Armando Pimentel issued the following statement on the announcement that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is leaving the Obama administration: "Secretary Salazar has been a key advocate of the 'all-of-the- above' energy strategy advocated by the Obama administration.

Maybe I am off base but it seems to me the federal government took land from the States to preserve the lands in their natural state by preventing development which may have enhanced the financial situation of the States. Now, they are allowing installation of wind farms and solar farms to their green energy buddies completely ignoring the fact that they effectively stole these lands.

Revenue neutral tax?

Tue, 15 Jan 2013 09:29:00 -0600

Group supports revenue-neutral carbon tax - The Save Our Climate Act of 2011 would have amended the federal tax code to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by imposing a tax on primary fossil fuels based on their carbon content.

I love the choice of words. The net effect will be to increase the cost of everything from the energy we purchase to the food and goods we purchase. These folks are wanting to inject government regulation by hook or by crook with complete disregard to the impact on those who can least afford it. It is a hidden agenda to keep anyone in government from getting the blame. Meanwhile China is kicking our butts in the world marketplace because they are pursuing a pretty effective policy according to a person who worked in the power generation industry there. In order to build a new coal-fired powerplant, the developer must install either a super-critical or ultra-super-critical facility. The new facility must be sized to not only meet projected demand increases but to replace the power from a conventional coal-fired plant and must include sulfur-oxide mitigation and be designed for later retrofit of NOx mitigation. When the new SC or USC plant is started up, the conventional facility is shutdown and demolished. The effect is to reduce SOx emissions (and later NOx emissions) while reducing the CO2/MWh by about 40%.

Maybe--wouldn't count on it--but at what cost?

Tue, 11 Dec 2012 07:14:00 -0600

Study: Renewable energy can meet demand - Renewable energy has the potential to power a large electric grid fully 99.9 percent of the time economically by 2030, U.S. researchers say.

Large scale solar costs roughly $3,000/KW peak nameplate. Offshore wind will be at least $4,000/KW peak nameplate. Onshore wind is roughly $2,000/KW peak. Energy storage is roughly $1,000/KW for one hour duration + $670/KW/hr additional storage. If one has 200GW installed to produce 72GW steady state, the capacity factor is only 0.36. That means that some 15.4 hours of the time, the storage unit is producing the output so we need a battery storage unit capable of 72GW for 15.4 hours. The total cost of the system would be $1.12 trillion dollars. 72GW of gas turbine combined cycle would cost roughly $79.2 bn. Add 15% for reserve capacity and the total is $91.1bn to deliver power. That leaves $1.03tn to pay for O&M for 25 years (if the wind turbines and solar PV can achieve those useful lives). At 7,000BTU/KWh HHV (which is a little high for a modern, advanced GTCC) the total fuel bill will be roughly $441.5bn at $4/MMBTU or $662.3bn at $6/MMBTU. The O&M will be roughly $78.8bn at $5/MWh. Adding it all up, the total for a GTCC is roughly $820.3 bn spread over 25 years while the total for the dubious renewables is $1,120 bn right now.

I did not factor in the use of fuel cells because the cost of fuel cells is way up there plus the cost of electrolysis, compression, and storage for hydrogen added on top is out of sight.

The study's conclusion that a combination of renewables as listed could produce 72GW continuously and economically is flat out wrong.

Record breaking heat waves and unprecidented catastrophic weather events

Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:56:00 -0600

Study: Nearly too late to cap warming - It may be too late to cap global warming at 3.6 degrees, scientists allied with an Australian research group say, as heat-trapping emissions hit a record high.

Frequently cited as evidence of manmade CO2 being the PRIMARY cause of global climate change are the two subjects in the title. Yet, when one goes to the NOAA site that lists the record high temperatures in each state, quite a number of the highest temperatures ever recorded in each state occured well before the "record-breaking" 2011. In fact many of the highest recorded temperatures occured in the 1910's and 30's. As for Hurricane Sandy, when it hit shore it was not technically a hurricane anymore. In the 1954-55 time frame 5 major hurricanes hit the East Coast of the United States--just not New York's metropolitan area where so many news organizations are located. The population in the United States is increasing along the coastal areas at 4 times the rate it is increasing inland, which puts more people and structures in harm's way.

I agree the climate is changing, but then it has changed ever since the Earth formed and long before man existed let alone started burning fossil fuels. I agree that manmade CO2 impacts the climate--I just question the panicked calls for immediate cessation of fossil fuel consumption at all costs. Use measured approaches and work with what we know instead of funneling taxpayer funds into the corporate coffers of GE, BP, Google and the like with production tax credits and cash grants then hollering about the need to tax the rich more because they are not paying their fair share. What a freaking joke! Let's tax the privately wealthy more so we can give it to the wealthy corporate interests/investors.

Let's say one owns a small business with say 25 employees. What is the likelihood the small business has revenues in excess of $1,000,000. One has to have revenues over $1,000,000 to support a business employing 25 people just to make payrolls, payroll taxes, insurance costs, advertising etc. So we want to burden these small businesses with more taxes so that GE can avoid paying any and so that Google can continue to enjoy profit margins of 25%+?

I wonder what the effects will be on textile and food crop prices

Fri, 09 Nov 2012 07:09:00 -0600

Some farmers growing profit with new row crop: solar panels - Just off a country road is a sight few people ever imagined in this corner of southeastern North Carolina. Solar farms dot the landscape from the Blue Ridge mountains to the sandy coastal plain -- the result of an emerging renewable energy industry.

The title pretty much states my concern. One cannot eat electricity.

President's rewards to green energy misplaced?

Tue, 30 Oct 2012 09:46:00 -0600

Obama, Romney Differ on Energy Policy - President Obama and Governor Romney agree that the U.S. is too dependent on foreign oil. But their views differ significantly on how to reduce or even end that dependence to make the country energy self-sufficient.

From what I have been reading on the costs of "green technologies" the costs of an installed wind turbine are now about $1,800 to $2,000 per kilowatt, not including the cost of long distance transmission. The installed cost of solar PV is running roughly $4,000 per kilowatt. The installed cost of combined cycle gas turbine facilities is about $1,000 to $1,100 per kilowatt. That does not tell the whole story though. Due to wind limitations, the achievable capacity factor of wind is 32% if land-based in a prime wind area. The achievable capacity factor of fixed solar PV is about 15% or so in the best areas and tracking PV achieves about 19 to 20%. Neither wind nor solar peak at the time of day coincident with the demand peak, although solar PV is a lot closer to it than wind. Thus, to meet the demand peak still requires fossil-fueled generating facilities--facilities that are frequently idle or spinning at low loads while wind is generating and solar PV is peaking. A CCGT plant has an achievable capacity factor of 96% or slightly more and an achievable efficiency of close to 55% (HHV) but no PTCs or cash in lieu grants. So, why would an investor build one if there are already (older, dirtier running and less efficient) fossil-fuel plants to provide backup that may even be already fully paid for? The answer is there is little investment in newer fossil-fueled power compared to renewables. The majority of these older, dirtier, and lower efficiency plants have efficiencies in the range of 36% down to 26% HHV. It is very arguable that the $90bn would have been better left in the hands of the investors to put into the newer fossil-fueled plants while more R&D was done on wind, solar PV and energy storage to get those costs down into a competitive range.

We may very well have reduced toxic emissions and CO2 emissions much more than renewables have contributed, particularly since the low cost of natural gas combined with the high efficiency of CCGT may have driven some coal-fired units into shutdown by dent of purely market forces rather than production tax credits and cash grants that not only cost the taxpayers money but also result in decreased federal tax revenues from corporate interests.

Wasting gas

Wed, 03 Oct 2012 07:06:00 -0600

Pa. plant under study for natural gas conversion by FirstEnergy - FirstEnergy Corp. is looking at burning natural gas to produce electricity at one of its largest coal-burning power plants.

This plan is not conducive to good practice. When one burns gas directly to make steam, it is a waste of a prime fuel. If one is going to use gas, always do so in a combined cycle unit. Never burn gas to make steam!

This is not new

Thu, 06 Sep 2012 09:14:00 -0600

Durham entrepreneurs developing 'emissions-free' power plant - The first reaction is always the same: It's too good to be true. The disbelief is directed at a next-generation power plant under development in Durham by NET Power.

There is a California-based company that has been in this same field for a number of years--Clean Energy Systems. I have no doubt NET will run into the same economics issue as CES, the cost and energy consumption of making pure oxygen. Air separation is not cheap and consumes a lot of energy.

"The people who have gotten it are educated..."

Wed, 05 Sep 2012 08:30:00 -0600

City to showcase climate action plan - Some people still deny climate change because there are always people who deny the tough stuff of science. Others don't deny it but think people don't cause it.

The words in the title of this blog appear in the article. So I guess people like myself and a number of others with better credentials than my miserable BSME degree and who do not agree that manmade CO2 is the principle cause of global climate change are all uneducated. Let us not let the mere fact that the Earth's climate has changed for millions of years prior to mankind's existence confuse the issue. And obviously man has much more impact than solar flares etc. I, for one, have no doubt that mankind's combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation of vast areas of the planet have had an impact and have read no papers by reputable "deniers"--as they are frequently labeled--who insist man has absolutely nothing to with climate change. They do however question the science that ignores all other factors in the rush to blame anthropogenic CO2 as the principle cause and claim that we must cease burning fossil fuels at all costs--especially when it means destruction of economies of OECD countries just so the "developing" countries can burn coal in completed uncontrolled (from an emissions standpoint) coal-fired plants.

I am sure the plans to set up carbon exchanges and other such emissions trading firms has nothing to do with the emphasis on manmade CO2 as the principle cause of global climate change (or was it global warming; no, no, it was global cooling).

Maybe the line should have said "The people who have gotten it are brainwashed..."?