Below are a few letters received at EnergyBiz Insider on topics that appeared in the past few weeks. They capture the essence of how many readers say they feel.
________________________________________
Crafting National Standards - February 03, 2010
Let's be careful in making statements relating to costs.
The statement "Wind turbine and solar panel prices ... have fallen dramatically" is easily misleading. Compared to 5 or 10 years ago, the cost of wind turbines is substantially higher today. True, prices may have fallen in the last year or two due to overall economic conditions, but that doesn't change the big-picture situation. If you do some research, I think you'll find that power purchase agreements being signed today for wind energy are at rates substantially higher than those of 5 years ago. This is hardly the scenario that the "fallen dramatically" statement leads the reader to expect.
The statement "[w]ith subsidies, the resulting energy sources are becoming more and more competitive" is laughable. It's rather obvious that if you subsidize something that is uncompetitive, it will appear to be less costly. That hardly makes it competitive. This is like putting a fresh coat of paint on rotting wood; the underlying wood is still lousy.
Finally, it should be noted that the matter of renewables' "competitiveness" is rather irrelevant when renewable energy mandates are enacted. Relative prices will determine which renewable sources get implemented, but their cost compared to conventional sources is not relevant. That's why it makes no sense to subsidize certain forms of energy production when mandates exist. The subsidies do not increase the amount of production; rather, they just reduce the apparent cost of complying with the mandates. That reduction in apparent cost is of course just a cost shift onto another party -- typically the taxpayer.
Richard (Rick) Gonzalez, P.E.
Chief Engineer, Transmission Planning
Excel Engineering, Inc.
The problem with both a national RPS and those in the various states is a) they overheat demand and drive prices UP (counter to their stated goals) and b) there is no offering of proof (for projects) that they achieve any of the policy goals that justify market intervention to begin with. Increasingly, technical analysis shows (some or many) renewable projects INCREASE costs and fuel consumption and emissions.
Thomas Tanton
President, T2 & Associates
Sr. Fellow, Energy Studies, Pacific Research Institute
Growing the Green Evolution - February 05, 2010
Thanks to all who have written in to express their views for today's Growing the Green Evolution. Sorry for the impersonal response . too many to notes to do so. The responses are constructive with about half concluding the story makes real sense and the other half telling us that we are off base. I've asked Jim Vess to sort through and pick those that add value to the discussion. As always, we try to be fair and honest -- and appreciate very much your participation in our forum, particularly if the responses are able to give us all even greater insights. - Ken
Your article is very timely.
Just yesterday, while doing some research for a course module on electric power economics, I found the attached EIA report on the levelized cost of various generation resources. It appears that gas combined cycle generation is the least cost. From the numbers, it appears that several renewable generation resources have a long way to go to compete with gas.
Having worked in the energy industry for many years, I strongly support the need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and gas imports, to promote domestic clean energy (nuclear, coal, and gas) production, to increase energy conservation and energy efficiency efforts, and to increase renewable energy production.
Merlin C. Chip Stansbury, P.E. (TX, LA)
Stansbury Consulting LLC
In your article you state, "In fact, much of the growth so far in the renewable energy sector is because of government-sponsored tax breaks and state renewable mandates. But that's exactly how to foster technologies that are in their infancy."
I would disagree. Government-sponsored tax breaks and state renewable mandates are certainly a way to foster activity, but if companies are making money by erecting inefficient and ineffective power generating facilities, where is the drive to improve? Grants of money or tax credits to private entities seem more like a way to payoff lobby groups, appease non-governmental organizations and generate positive publicity. And the money will only be used to purchase products manufactured in the Far East. Where are the "Green Jobs" in that solution? Trucking? And temporary construction jobs?
A more appropriate way to foster a technology in its infancy would be to provide funds for fundamental research at universities, the results of which could then be shared with private industry in academic/private partnerships. There is no point to putting up windmill after windmill when there is no adequate storage mechanism. Engineers have known the basic efficiency or wind generated power, as well as its theoretical maximum efficiency for 40 years or more. There is no magic solution to turbine generated wind power unless you discover some fundamental changes in construction or storage technologies. That won't be achieved without basic research which is probably better fostered in university research labs.
The side benefit to this is a strong scientific and educational infrastructure. If North America isn't interested in an industrial manufacturing base it better start improving its educational and science foundations.
Paul Stevens
Senior Technical Officer
Fire Protection
Your comments on the state of our energy initiatives are correct. But given the slow political movement that permeates our system, there are numerous initiatives that can be done by individual commercial & industrial facility property owners, their facility managers and their tenants to begin the very important task of reducing daily energy consumption, peak demand loads and ultimately reducing electricity costs for everyone.
This initiative is simply using Smart Metering Systems, or more commonly known as "smart submetering". Although submetering will not reduce electricity costs, what it does do is it allows and gives the property owners, facility engineers and the tenants the up-to-date electricity data or usage that tells them what they are using and if analyzed, ways and real solid reasons to adjust their energy or electric consumption.
In cases all around the country, in multi-high rise and mixed commercial buildings and industrial facilities where submetering has been utilized, facts are available that prove (using human nature) there is an immediate reducing of energy consumption of up to 20 percent. These savings have been written about in The BOMA Magazine, regarding a number of GSA and Federal buildings, for example the Chicago FBI Headquarters; but there are many, many more reported instances.
Yes, our government needs to stop pushing dates out causing these delays and release the stimulus funding as quickly as possible to fund our Green Evolution. But the funding must be drilled down to the major market of the millions of existing buildings, both commercial and industrial and NOT the more exciting but dormant new building construction that is basically non-existent today.
Mitchell Stein
Director
Electrical Distribution Sales
Quadlogic Controls Corporation
Growth Spurt Expected - February 10, 2010
Billions spent on transmission lines do not add a single MWh of electricity supply without the construction of new generating plants, which will cost additional billions. New supply-side solutions supplied via these lines will cost at least 6 cents per kWh; probably more. Demand-side solutions that cost half as much can be made equally reliable. The problem with accepting at face value the analyses put forth by PJM and NERC is that they are (a) only -- or perhaps mainly -- concerned with reliability; not with exploring with equal vigor all possible solutions and recommending the least-cost one, and (b) governed by representatives from corporations who stand to profit from the construction of new transmission and generation facilities, and hence they avoid challenging load forecasts prepared by utilities.
The NERC forecasts during the 6 years following the 1974 oil embargo displayed what should be an embarrassing consistent bias toward a high prediction of load growth. The predicted "Growth Spurt" never happened!
William Steigelmann
Energy Consultant
The two EnergyBiz Insider articles dated February 8 and 10, describing transmission line concerns, illustrate the reason the U.S. will never become energy independent under the current paradigm. While the "green" energy advocates espouse renewable energy, the same groups vehemently oppose any way to get the power generated to where it is needed. The constant lawsuits over transmission line siting and changes in routing serve to ensure that the lines will be overly expensive and will take years to complete. There will always be some critter or view that must be protected, and if there isn't a real one, one will be invented. The fact that utilities are putting construction on hold, due to money concerns, guarantees that when we need more energy delivered, we won't have it.
We need to either get serious about ensuring our energy future or continue on our present course, which will ensure that we will not have a very favorable energy and economic future.
Michael Z. Lowenstein
FutureGen's Restoration - February 15, 2010
"The technology converts coal to a vapor before the toxins are filtered out and the carbon dioxide would be separated from the hydrogen, which could be used to produce transportation fuel."
The gasifier reacts oxygen with carbon (coal) to produce carbon monoxide, which is a gas, not a "vapor". The carbon monoxide is then reacted with steam, which is a vapor, in the shift converter to produce carbon dioxide and hydrogen. The hydrogen is the product stream from these reactions. The hydrogen can then be combusted in air to power the gas turbine. The gas turbine exhaust then flows through a heat recovery steam generator, which generates the steam which powers the steam generator. The hydrogen product stream could also be compressed for use as vehicle fuel.
One advantage of this process is that the hydrogen product stream could be used for power generation when required and compressed for use as vehicle fuel when power generation is not required. This allows the "process" end of the plant (gasifier and shift converter) to operate continuously, while varying the use of the hydrogen process stream.
Please note that the only components in an existing coal-fired power plant which could potentially be used in an IGCC power plant using the FutureGen process are the steam turbine and the particulate filtration equipment.
Edward A. Reid, Jr.
President
Fire to Ice, Inc.
I just wanted to make a personal comment. In my opinion, burying carbon dioxide is like throwing kitchen waste into your backyard. It doesn't really solve anything, and perhaps creates other problems. I have been around the energy industry for a while and know there aren't any silver bullets. We need coal, oil and nuclear at this time to keep our society alive. Trying to turn the CO2 into useful solid products, growing algae, etc. should be developed to the extent possible. Ultimately, we will need new energy sources.
Dr. Tama Copeman
CEO
Alcyone*7
Earliest expected operational date for revamped FutureGen is 2014. Assuming this date viable operating data should be available by 2016. Given an expected economic upturn by 2012 with concomitant increased energy demands, FutureGen as a useful reference may be questioned. Many electric utilities still view Carbon Capture and Sequestration (geological burial) as undemonstrated technology; although Enhanced Oil Recovery using CO2 has been practiced by the oil industry for decades.
Tenaska's 590-megawatt Taylorville project was proposed more than six years ago. Plans call for the project to capture at least half of the carbon dioxide that's produced. Eventually, the carbon dioxide could be piped to the Gulf Coast and used to enhance oil recovery. This project could be online before FutureGen and would serve a reference.
Dr. Richard W. Goodwin, P.E.
Environmental Engineering
Consultant
You make a good point regarding reserving judgment on CCS technology as "... the reality is that coal provides about half of the nation's electric generation and about 250 years worth of reserves now exists."
That 250 years worth of reserves number has been around for at least 10 years and in the meantime coal consumption has increased and quality of the coal (heating value) in some areas (Appalachia) is starting to decrease so that more coal is needed to produce the same number of Btu's.
I have read that actual coal reserves data is not as definitive as one might think and that we are already in a peak coal scenario.
Chad Freckmann
Blue Ridge Clean Fuels
Respond to the editor.