You can mark down Oct. 10, 2007 as an interesting turning point in the history of the late United States. Two significant events took place, both of them heralded on Energy Central Professional’s on-line news service. They were the lead two items on the listing.
First, TXU Corp., Dallas, TX, announced completion of acquisition by investors led by KKR and TPG. And the second, entitled “Coal’s Future Fading to Black,” was reprint of an article that appeared in the Tampa (FL) Tribune.
The TXU deal, which basically represents the first capture of a large U.S. utility by environmentalists, will result in the immediate withdrawal of air permit applications for eight proposed coal-fired generating plants. The permit applications already had been suspended.
The lead of the Tampa Tribune story said: “Florida, a state that has fought hard to preserve the ban on oil production off its shores, has effectively closed the door on another traditional source of energy.” It went on to say that five planned coal-fired power plants have been scrapped “in the wake of Gov. Charlie Crist’s crusade against coal. Two coal plants were rejected by state regulators while three other coal projects were dropped as Crist’s opposition to coal resonated across the state.”
No one particularly likes coal; it is dirty, although modern technology cleans it up quite a bit. But it also generates carbon dioxide when it burns, as do most other things when they burn. Human beings exhale carbon dioxide after inhaling oxygen. But because of the “Global Warming” propaganda campaign—and it is a massive campaign based upon computer modeling which may or may not be valid—carbon dioxide is “out.”
The problem with all of this is that nothing much is “in” these days with environmentalists and “the sky is falling” global warming crowd. Nuclear is out (storing spent fuel not acceptable), natural gas is out (no drilling allowed), hydroelectric from dams is out (you want to kill snail darters?), fuel oil is out (who wants to buy oil from Arabs, and they can refuse to sell whenever they want, and drilling for more around the U.S. is out). The only things that are “in” are unproven technologies that currently, according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency currently produce about 2.3% of U.S. electricity—wind, solar, biomass, etc.
California already has banned everything, but that’s normal for la-la land and bankrupting utilities is no big deal. However, with Texas and Florida now acting more and more like California, the handwriting definitely is on the wall. As the Tampa Tribune put it, “The need for … power has not disappeared and if coal is no longer an option, electric utilities will be forced to turn to more expensive, less reliable and riskier forms of energy. But without coal, keeping the lights on in Florida will be almost impossible. Demand for electricity is expected to rise 76 percent by 2030, almost twice as fast as U.S. demand, according to the Department of Energy.”
Right now, I would be prepared to drop the “almost” from the Tribune’s comment about keeping the lights on, and just say impossible. A wise utility CIO told me recently that the U.S. had reached social and political “tipping points” on these issues, and I believe he is right.
I’m willing to believe that some day it will be possible to generate enough power to keep the lights on in a country the size of the United States--with our demand for electricity--through alternative energy. But that day is a long way in the future. Baring some unforeseen technological breakthrough (a science fiction-like magic cube) there is going to be a massive shortfall between demand and supply nationwide between now and 2030. The euphemistic “pubic policy” now is to phase out coal long before windmills and solar panels (or some realistic alternative) can make up the massive gap between supply and demand. The sky really is falling and it’s going to land very hard on this country. Unfortunately, it won’t land just on the Al Gores of the world, it will land on all of us.
I'm going to mark down Oct. 10, 2007 as a major turning point for the book I will write some day about this national suicide--and start looking for an old, manual typewriter to write it on.
1) Your offhand / backhand references to CO2 sources entirely ignore the obvious distinction between fossil-carbon-source CO2 and non-fossil source CO2. I find it very difficult to imagine any way that animal respiration can possibly contribute in any way to an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. The same is NOT true regarding burning of coal or other fossil fuels.
2) Your casual ruling out of "absolutely any method of generating electricity" completely ignored any means of using coal with CO2 sequestration. If TXU had proposed building the coal plants with IGCC and CO2 sequestration, would the public uprising against them have still occurred?
Overall, a very poorly done piece.
The power industry traditional approach - the vertically integrated utilities (VIUs) paradigm and its incremental extensions - is centered in the development of the resources of the supply side. EWPC is a balanced approach paradigm which will concentrate initially on the development of the resources of the demand side, as the supply side is already well developed.
A transformation of the industry is required reduce the increase in demand to economic levels at the meter, while customers receive the same energy services. That means taking down the barriers against energy efficiency, which is the other side environmentalist are missing in Texas.
You write the supply side problem that "Demand for electricity is expected to rise 76 percent by 2030, almost twice as fast as U.S. demand, according to the Department of Energy." The demand side opportunity with EWPC is a strong reduction in demand well above the 2.3% mentioned for renewable sources can be implemented in a few years, once the proper market architecture and design is in place.
For details on the paradigm shift to EWPC please take a look at the EWPC blog in http://www.energyblogs.com/ewpc
Regards,
José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Hitler immediately declared war on the U.S., commenting to the Nazi leadership that given the distance we could hardly be a threat to Germany. He got a surprise. Within 36 months, 2,000 bombers a day were hitting targets - flying aircraft that did not exist when the war broke out.
The revolutionary new energy technology, mentioned in my blogs, can turn cars into power plants. If development goes forward, as it should, on a 24/7 basis, utilities can supersede any need for new coal or nuclear power plants.
One large utility is already evaluating this breakthrough technology. So is a huge steel company, which makes the steel for Detroit and is interested in helping us to accelerate development of replacements for car engines. Their VP for R&D has a total of 1,600 people working for him. They are also interested in megawatt and multimegawatt generators for their own use.
Household 1 kW GENIE generators can be in the market by the end of 2008 and a major domestic firm has expressed a serious interest in joint-venturing production. They will be cost-effective from the get go. Far less expensive than PV.
Rapid change is tough at any time. But, this nation has shown in the past that it has the capability to accomplish it in the past. I believe we can and will meet this new challenge.
In reference to your article, please see also "How TXU Can Take the Lead," on the Electricity Without Price Controls Blog.
Regards,
José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
We can produce steam with what is often referred to as "sunlight and mirrors" and the price is falling very nicely.
More information is avialable at www.ausra.com. If Ausra is not the company that succeeds in bringing the cost of CSP down, then there will be others that are also working on this. It is already very close to cost competitive. Since it is Solar Thermal Electric technology you can store the heat and produce electricity when the sun isn't shining.
When we combine this with two other paradigm shifts--i.e. shipping electrrons instead of shipping coal and moving to electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles then we can start to decarbonize this country very rapidly, keep the economy doing nicely and make a lot of money in the process.
China and India also have strong solar resources so the same concepts can be used to help those countries move away from carbon based fuels--and then we'll be well on our way into the Solar Age--and you won't have to write your book about the death of the American economy.
All the best. Leslie Glustrom (Boulder, Colorado)
It's all very possible with REnewable energy. I make extra clean solar energy everyday at my home, all year long.
is in regard to the delivery system we now have in place for the
transportation of coal from the source to the point of use. No place in the industry press for either the railroads or the power
producers do we see any concern for the total strategic vulnerability of the rail or barge transportation system regarding the future availability of Diesel fuel. Anything
that would interrupt the supply of crude oil or our ability
to process it would cause an immediate halt to all forms of
transportation. None of the approximately 300 coal trains
that leave the mines each week to feed 55% of the power
plants in this country would turn a wheel without Diesel fuel.
The only viable secondary fuel - coal - is totally dependent
on the strategically vulnerable primary fuel - oil - for its production, transportation and distribution. Doesn't that
fact concern anyone in the power industry? Our secondary
concern is the cost of the petroleum based transportation fuel in comparison to the cost of the product being hauled.
All of the power producers know that coal costs about 25%
of the cost of Diesel fuel, that is why they use coal to generate power. The railroads, bless their little hearts, have never considered such a thing. And so, when faced with the
reality of needing a contingency plan for the scenario when
Diesel fuel may not be available at any price, their natural
reaction is to consider making Diesel fuel from coal through
the Fischer-Tropsch process. That will result in synthetic
Diesel fuel costing about 25% more than petroleum based
Diesel fuel. All of this ignores the fact that in this country
the railroads used coal as a motive power fuel for over 150
years without having to process it in any way.
Our third concern for "The Sky is Really Falling" is the
notionthat coal is a dirty fuel. It is not dirty if you know how
to combust it properly. Oxygen enhanced combustion can be employed to eliminate NOx and insure that anything that will burn will burn in the combustion chamber. Any particles that
will not combust can be taken out downstream by the proper
scrubbers. But our fourth concern is the "chicken little" herd reaction of the power industry to CO2 emissions. CO2 is a
natural and desirable product of proper combustion (versus
the alternate end product of CO.) The problem that has been
invented by opponents to coal power generation is that it has
been allowed to escape into the atmosphere. We have found
existing technologies that will allow us to make a liquid fuel from the CO2. We can spray this liquid fuel over the top of the incoming coal. This will eliminate (or at least minimize)
CO2 emissions and let us reduce the quantity of coal required
for steam production. By placing this obstacle in front of us as an additional hurdle to jump, our friends in the "global warming" camp have provided us with a means of reducing the amount of solid fuel used which can only improve the efficiency and viability of solid fuels for power generation.
A typical human requires about 1 kg of O2 per day (from NASA studies). Since it is converted to CO2 on a 1:1 (molar) basis,
that means 32 grams of O2 -> 44 grams of CO2, or 1000 grams (1 kg) of O2 results in 1375 grams (1.375 kg) of CO2.
So a typical human produces 1.375 kg of CO2 per day.
If you burn a single kilogram of coal (1 kg), you produce about 1.83 kg of CO2.
Coal has an energy density of 24 MJ/kg. Assuming 40% efficiency of generation (a bit generous)
that means that about 10 MJ of electricity comes out of that 1 kg of coal. That's about 2.7 kilowatt-hours
of electricity. Not that much.
Equating to human respiration, that means a "human daily equivalent of CO2 from electricity (using coal)"
is just about exactly 2 kilowatt-hours.
The U.S generated about 2000 TW-hrs of electricity from coal last year (a rough estimate). From a respiration standpoint,
that's equivalent to about 1000 Giga-person days or 1000 Billion people breathing for a day, or 2.75 Billion people breathing for a year.
So just from coal-fired electricity alone, in the U.S. our "industrial respiration" is about 10 times or own personal metabolic rate.