Dear Readers,
The severity of the economic crisis has waned. A new and more energetic era has begun, renewing our hope for a better year ahead. As Thanksgiving approaches, it's also time to say 'thank you' to those who have influenced EnergyBiz Insider, and me.
The rocky year has never eroded the faith that Energy Central has in its core products and staff. Indeed, top management's determination to succeed during this difficult time is critical, as is its confidence in its staff. Its confidence is the cornerstone of this publication and the reason it continues to thrive. Even though they are extremely modest, Steve Drazga and Mark Johnson must be singled out.
And if you write in, then you are, of course, familiar with our content and letter's editor Jim Vess. Let me assure you that the publication looks far better than it otherwise would because of his efforts. Besides being a good and decent guy, he's extremely competent and I appreciate all of his work. I'd also like to thank Bill Opalka and Kate Rowland who have served as co-editors of the column.
We work harder because the marketplace appreciates our efforts. Our readers are fervently loyal and tremendously intelligent. It is your feedback and constructive criticism that allows me to grow. Our advertisers, most of all, make it all possible. And I can say unequivocally that they more than anyone are interested in editorial integrity, understanding implicitly that our intellectual honesty makes us stand out.
I'd furthermore like to thank those organizations that have had me as their invited guest speaker and to express how much I enjoyed their events and their hospitality.
Thanks to all of you. And from all of us at Energy Central, we wish you prosperity for the upcoming year as well as the happiest and safest of holiday seasons.
Ken Silverstein
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.
________________________________________
The Drive Behind Plug-Ins - November 04, 2009
The plug-in hybrid car has a real market except for a few minor problems. First, U.S. manufacturers are far behind in using the technology. GM, for instance, announced a plug-in hybrid for its smaller sized SUV and then a short time after the announcement cancelled plans for the hybrid vehicle. That's exactly what we need from U.S. manufacturers, but it was mysteriously cancelled. Ford has to buy the technology from Toyota because apparently they can't develop it on their own.
Finally, instead of trying to get real gasoline economy out of plug-ins or hybrids, the manufacturers are putting the technology in behemoth SUVs and V8 sedans. What is that all about? People want a reasonably sized vehicle at an affordable price. The direction of the manufacturers doesn't address that need. You have to wonder what they are thinking?
Ron Corso
The term "electric vehicle charging infrastructure" is so inflated. What they're referring to is "electrical receptacles". Let's not make it a bigger deal than it really is. Electrical contractors are already very competent at installing receptacles in parking lots and garages.
We don't need fancy "charging stations", where you have to somehow pay for the few cents of electricity your vehicle might take. Just as retail stores today don't charge for use of amenities like parking lots or restrooms, they will not charge for use of receptacles conveniently located for their customers' benefit. It's much simpler and cheaper, overall, to roll the cost into the overhead, rather than install expensive equipment to collect what should be a rather small fee. Plus, it's a marketing advantage; customers will go to where they can plug in, just as WiFi is for coffee shops. Those who dare not to provide "free" electricity will go out of business.
Same story with commercial office buildings and manufacturing facilities; it's more practical to absorb the small cost into the building operating costs, as is the case for parking lot lighting. Receptacles for their vehicles will be a standard expectation on the part of tenants, employees, and visitors. Here in the northern states, many parking spots at office buildings, hotels, dorms, etc. already have receptacles for patrons to plug in their vehicles' engine block heaters. So, the good news is that we don't need to reinvent what we already know how to do, and we don't need fancy terms like "charging infrastructure" to make it sound like it's really a big deal; it's actually quite trivial.
Richard (Rick) Gonzalez, P.E.
Chief Engineer, Transmission Planning
Excel Engineering, Inc.
Coal Ash Reconsidered - November 09, 2009
I just read your November 9 story "Coal Ash Revisited." Besides cherry picking the facts and selectively taking information from EPA reports and reinforcing the misinformation shared by some environmental groups, I am irritated that you quoted me as the former Executive Director of the American Coal Ash Association without the courtesy of actually calling me to obtain my input. The quote that you attribute to me I made, but more than a year ago when discussing sustainability in another interview, not an interview for this article.
In that I have retired from ACAA it would have been much more appropriate to have contacted the current Executive Director, Mr. Thomas H. Adams and given him the opportunity to provide you the association's perspective. I am certain that Tom would agree with the conclusion of your article that a hazardous designation, even if just for the purposes of disposal, would have a dramatic negative impact on this multi-billion dollar industry. Today's arguments on coal ash are based more on political science than genuine science. The definition of hazardousness is derived from the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and coal ash does not meet the criteria of "hazardousness" as measured by corrosivity, ignitability, reactivity or toxicity. It is convenient for anti-coal critics of the utility industry to throw the terms "toxic" and "hazardous" around, when the facts do not support these conclusions. The EPA's own test results of the Kingston ash spill do not show significant adverse impact on air or water quality.
The statement from the Sierra Club says that "scrubber sludge is filled with heavy metals" just perpetuates an irresponsible parroting of critics whose facts, again, do not substantiate such coverage. To say these materials are "too often dumped into rivers without treatment" is completely inaccurate. Scrubber residues are managed at power plant sites under specific management permits, including NPDES permits that do not allow untreated materials to be released into rivers. What may be the Sierra Club's opinion is not what actual power plant operations reflect. A release into a river would be an operational abnormality or accident, not an intentional action. One would think that EnergyBiz Insider would at least check with a utility representative to see if that critical statement has validity.
As the "objective source of energy insight and analysis," as stated in your banner on-line, I would say that for this article you stumbled and fell. In fact, this article calls into question in my mind the type of reporting that you are using on topics for which I have little experience.
I urge you to try to provide a more "objective" treatment of this subject in the future and when quoting your sources, consider checking with the persons directly involved rather than using an historical quote in lieu of checking with the current experts.
Dave Goss
DCGoss LLC
One of the world's largest power generating companies caused horrendous birth defects, lung injuries, and other acute and chronic medical problems from illegally dumping 100 million pounds of toxic coal ash onto a pristine Caribbean beachfront, according to a groundbreaking mass tort lawsuit filed late November 4th against Arlington, Virginia-based AES Corporation. The eight-count lawsuit on behalf of 11 plaintiffs, living and dead, from the small rural village of Arroyo Barril in the Dominican Republic was filed in Delaware Superior Court.
Classification of CCBs as Hazardous would open the flood gates to similar lawsuits -- increasing the cost of such regulations to electric utility industry by several hundreds of millions of dollars.
Dr. Richard W. Goodwin, P.E.
Environmental Engineering
Consultant
I am a power professional in India. I have been operating large thermal power stations in India for a long time. I have retired as chief engineer and during service faced the problem of ash leakage from the ash pond of an 800MW thermal power station.
Ash and oil generally spill into the river and the public has been alarmed and they complained. In order to satisfy them that the ash going into the river is harmless, it was decided to get water samples tested in the laboratory. The results of the tests were showing that the ash has no harmful contents.
D. B. Arora
Fly ash is often suitable for use as a cement additive. It does improve the quality of cement, but it also depends on the fixed carbon content. There are technologies available to reduce fixed carbon in coal fly ash. Other coal combustion byproducts, such as sludge or bottom ash, are not similarly recyclable.
Some environmentalists are concerned that the contaminants contained in the fly ash, if recycled into cement, might still contaminate the ground water, albeit more gradually. I was told of long-term studies looking at this subject which have shown no measurable contamination, but I have not had an opportunity to read this paper or even obtain a copy (although I have not asked for it either).
Albert Pope
Principal
XTnrgy, LLC
Curbing Construction Costs - November 13, 2009
I wonder what consideration of the weakening dollar went into the Cambridge Energy Research Associates evaluation. Of course the weakening dollar affects the price of items traded in the world market, e.g. iron and stainless steel alloying metals, more than those traded on local markets, e.g. concrete and gravel. And specific to nuclear power where much of the specialized manufacturing to make reactor vessels, control rod drives, etc. is now in Canada or overseas, the issue of a weak dollar is potentially very important to cost escalating during construction.
David Dixon
Energy Commentator
New Markets for Coal - November 16, 2009
Just a quick note to express my ongoing appreciation for your insightful editorials at EnergyBiz Insider. I always take time to read your comments, and have been meaning to send this email for quite a while. Thanks again, and keep up the good work!
Jim Wimberly
BioEnergy Systems LLC
Another good article. One item: the market is not just to convert coal and other dirtier fossil fuels via gasification to motor fuels, but also to a range of value added products such as pipeline quality gas (a la Great Plains in ND), fertilizers (in KS) chemicals (along the Gulf Coast). This is being done today, and many proposals for new plants in the U.S. are focused on this. Also, in China, the overwhelming majority of plants operating today using coal gasification are producing chemicals, which had been reliant on petroleum based feedstocks. India provides a similar case where coal gasification is being used in the steel industry to back out more expensive natural gas.
James Childress
Executive Director
Gasification Technologies Council
What you are saying in this article I have said many times in letters to you. Technology is and has been available for a long time. Perhaps federal assistance may be necessary if private enterprise investors are afraid of making the investment. Besides, it may be a whole lot less expensive and a whole lot safer to gasify coal than to provide another generation of nuclear energy at this time.
Joseph Langenberg
A couple of years ago we visited Sasol's Secunda operations.
I was struck by the vastness and complexity of the operation required to produce 130,000 barrels per day. Of note were the two 1200 MW coal-fired power plants, three of the world's largest oxygen separation units, and the 350 million ton ash pile. Marketing of the refinery byproducts appears to be 9/10ths of Sasol's business.
We can't get an efficient 500MW coal plant up and running in this country without immense outcry. Once people understand the air, water, land and energy resources that are required, I doubt that CTL has a viable future on a large commercial scale.
Mick Gavrilovic
Executive Director
E3 Consulting LLC
I must be on a different planet. A $3 billion investment to produce 18,000 barrels of oil per day. How is that going to make a dent in the current 20 Million bpd the U.S. consumes? I guess purchasing $3 billion of Prius hybrid cars and giving them away will displace more oil and also eliminate the greenhouse gas byproducts. No wonder it is difficult to get financing. Coal to liquid fuel just does not make economic sense. The only two countries to employ this strategy to date are Nazi Germany (End of World War II) and South Africa.
Conservation and fuel efficient cars are the answer to the issue of energy independence. Not business as usual.
Scott Greenbaum
Respond to the editor.
