Wry Heat

On Tuesday, Oct. 27, my westside neighborhood experienced approximately 30 short power outages during the very windy day and evening. Each would last from 30 seconds to five minutes. That made work on a desktop computer very difficult. By the way, my neighborhood has all underground utilities.

I inquired of TEP to see what was happening and what they were doing about it.

This morning I received a call from TEP spokesman Joseph Barrios. He said that overhead lines leading into the neighborhood carry both high-voltage transmission lines and lower-voltage distribution lines. Slack in the lines caused them to touch and short out, tripping circuit breakers. The breakers would automatically reset.

Barrios said that if this happens more than four times, the TEP crews search out the cause. Apparently over time, the lines stretch, resulting in too much slack. Barrios said that crews have now tightened the lines and installed “separators” which hopefully will prevent future problems, at least for a while.

Although the power outages were inconvenient, I appreciate that TEP crews got to work to identify the problem and that Mr. Barrios telephoned me with an explanation.

President Obama says he favors “Clean Coal.” Coal produces 49% of the electricity generated in the United States. But burning coal puts carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and that scares the politically correct and the carbon cultists, including Barack Obama and John McCain. Their solution is to capture carbon dioxide, transport it to a storage site, and bury it. That comes at considerable cost in both dollars and in additional coal burned to produce the energy needed for the process. But “clean coal” is now the political panacea, even though there is no evidence that CO₂ emissions significantly affect temperature. In fact, additional atmospheric CO₂ would be beneficial by making plant life more robust.

Coal-fired plants are much cleaner than they were in 1970 when Congress passed the Clean Air Act Amendments. Since that time, coal-fired electrical generation increased by 180% while SO₂ emissions decreased by 80% and NO_x decreased by 70% (in pounds per megawatt-hour) according to the EPA. According to the Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory, a new pulverized coal plant (operating at lower, “subcritical” temperatures and pressures) reduces the emission of NO_x by 86 percent, SO₂ by 98 percent, and particulate matter by 99.8 percent, as compared with a similar plant having no pollution controls.

Carbon Capture Technology

The most promising technology for CO₂ capture is called Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle. But the cost of building a power plant with this technology to capture 90% of the CO₂ generated is 47% higher than that for a traditional power plant, according to a 2006 study by the EPA.

According to the Department of Energy (DOE), existing capture technologies are not cost-effective when considered in the context of sequestering CO₂ from power plants. Most power plants and other large point sources use air-fired combustors, a process that exhausts CO₂ diluted with nitrogen. Flue gas from coal-fired power plants contains 10%-12% CO₂ by volume, while flue gas from natural gas combined cycle plants contains only 3%-6% CO₂. For effective carbon sequestration, the CO₂ in these exhaust gases must be concentrated and separated.

CO₂ is currently recovered from combustion exhaust by using amine absorbers and cryogenic coolers. The cost of CO₂ capture using current technology is on the order of $150 per ton of carbon – much too high for carbon emissions reduction applications according to DOE. Analysis performed by SFA Pacific, Inc. indicates that adding existing technologies for CO₂ capture to an electricity generation process could increase the cost of electricity by 2.5 cents- to 4 cents/kWh depending on the type of process. That would about double the cost of natural gas and coal produced electricity, making it almost as expensive as electricity produced from wind energy.

The EPA, which usually underestimates costs, says that capturing CO₂ imposes a cost of about $24 per ton, much less than DOE. Even at that lower estimate, however, the largest U.S. power plant which emits about 25 million tons of CO₂ annually, would incur an extra cost of $600 million per year. For all U.S. coal-fired power plants, which emit a total of more than 2.2 billion tons annually, the cost would be $52 billion per year. Passing along the capital and operating costs to consumers would raise electricity prices by almost 40% according to the EPA.

Carbon Storage

The capture cost is only part of the story. The gas must be compressed, transported, and buried.

Where would it be stored? Several types of geological reservoirs theoretically provide sufficient storage capacity. According to the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), “more than 88 billion metric tons of geologic storage potential exists in 9,667 oil and gas reservoirs distributed over 27 states and 3 Canadian provinces.”

Unmineable coal seams can be drilled to collect the methane for use in energy applications. Once the methane is recovered, CO₂ could be pumped into the wells, where it is preferentially stored in the coal, releasing additional methane. “More than 180 billion metric tons of CO₂ sequestration potential exists in unmineable coal seams…distributed over 24 states and 3 provinces,” according to NETL.

Deep saline formations could provide another storage option. An analysis by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2006 showed that wells deep underground consisting of porous rock, such as limestone or sandstone, saturated with saltwater, would form an effective trap for injected CO₂. Geologically, over time, some CO₂ would react with rock minerals to form solid carbonates, further immobilizing it. Deep saline aquifers could potentially store between 3,300 to more than 12,200 billion metric tons of CO₂, according to NETL.

Pipe Dreams

In theory, there appears to be plenty of potential underground storage for captured carbon dioxide, but the theoretical is different from the practical. Location relative to the power plants makes much of these reservoirs impractical to actually use.

Getting the carbon dioxide from the power plants to the storage areas is problematic and expensive. And, of course, Greenie extremists are likely to oppose construction of the many high-pressure pipelines that would be required. A report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS), entitled “Pipelines for Carbon Dioxide (CO₂) Control: Network Needs and Cost Uncertainties” (Jan. 10, 2008) shows several hypothetical examples of CO₂ pipelines running from the 11 largest CO₂ emitters in Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia — all coal-fired electric power plants emitting over 9 million metric tons of CO₂ annually — to potential regional sequestration sites.

In the least expensive scenario, it would take an estimated $66 million to build pipelines each with a capacity of 10 million tons of CO₂ annually from the 11 plants to a nearby geological formation called Rose Run. Unfortunately, as the CRS points out, Rose Run may not have the capacity to accept all the CO₂ produced, and injecting pressurized CO₂ may cause minor earthquakes. While the earthquakes may create additional capacity for CO₂, they may also produce permanent conduits for leakage.

Unmineable coal beds in the same general area as Rose Run are another option but their capacity falls far short of Rose Run’s.

The 10 largest local depleted oil and gas fields have an average capacity of 251 million tons of CO₂, but the 30-year CO₂ output of the 11 plants is estimated to range from 270 million tons to 491 million tons at current emission levels. Not only is their capacity lacking, but the oil and gas fields pose a significant risk of leaking.

A final option considered by CRS is piping the CO₂ hundreds of miles west to a geological area in Michigan, Indiana and western Ohio known as the Mt. Simon formation. The average cost of building each pipeline would be $150 million.

That’s a bargain, however, compared to a geographically disadvantaged area like North Carolina. A Duke University study estimated it would cost $5 billion to transport CO₂ from North Carolina’s electric utilities to sequestration sites in other states.

The CRS report emphasized an August 2007 decision by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission to reject a 450-mile pipeline to a Canadian oil field costing over $635 million as “not in the public interest.”

According to the Business & Media Institute, Stanford Professor Ken Caldeira, an IPCC Report Author, estimates that the annual cost to capture carbon from power plants worldwide, will be $800 billion.

Another study by Xina Xie, University of Wyoming, and Michael Economides, University of Texus, The Impact of Carbon Geological Sequestration, says that carbon capture sequestration for just Kyoto Protocol-type CO₂ cuts in the U.S. would require the drilling of 161,429 injection wells by 2030 at a cost of 1.61 trillion dollars — and there’s no guarantee that the CO₂ would stay sequestered, much less accomplish anything for the climate.

Boon or Boondoggle

While carbon capture and storage may be technologically possible, it makes no sense either economically or scientifically. It is a solution seeking a problem; it is utter wastefulness. But bureaucrats, politically correct and stupid politicians, and industry, will suck up to the trough of public money to promote these wasteful schemes in an attempt to quell the phantom menace of carbon dioxide. Raising the cost of electricity 50% to 100% should make us feel all warm and fuzzy since “clean coal” will assuage our carbon guilt.

And just to make it interesting, the Center for Biological Diversity has just formed a new law institute in San Francisco with the goal of stopping all electrical generation from use of fossil fuels. I hope they will not be hypocrites and actually use fossil-fuel-produced electricity during their campaign.

President Obama is a proponent of a “smart grid” to better distribute electricity between producers (including all those windmills he wants to build) and consumers. I agree that we need to update our infrastructure with more power plants and transmission lines. However, the following excerpt from a press release of a Maryland utility seems ominous.

BALTIMORE, Jul 13, 2009 (BUSINESS WIRE) — Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE) today announced it has filed with the Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC) a comprehensive and advanced Smart Grid initiative, including the planned installation of 2 million residential and commercial smart meters, that could potentially save BGE electric and gas customers in excess of $2.6 billion over the life of the project. In an extensive pilot program that began in 2008, smart meters and a new pricing plan proved that customers can reduce peak electricity usage by about a third and enjoy significant savings. BGE is seeking prompt action by the Maryland PSC and federal approval of stimulus dollars to position the utility to move to the next phase of this potential smart grid investment.

BGE claims benefits to consumers of about $5 per month.

I have a time-of-use electric meter on my house. I can choose when to run appliances, such as the washer or drier, to make sure it is in off-peak times, and thus save money. The operative phrase here is “I can choose.”

However, the “smart meters” used by BGE operate “through a robust…two-way communications network…” That means the utility company can decide when and how much gas and electricity you can use at any given time. The ultimate purpose of the meters is to allow local utilities to ration electricity as demand rises faster than supply, a situation caused in part by enviros blocking construction of new power plants and transmission lines.

To find out more about U.S. electricity generation, see: Obama clueless on energy, part 1.

According to the White House website, one of the goals of the Obama administration is to: Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025. 

How feasible is it to generate 10% to 25% of our electricity from renewable resources? According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), electricity generation (in 2007) was as follows (numbers rounded): Coal 49%, natural gas 22%, nuclear 19%, hydroelectric 6%, petroleum 2%, and other renewables 2%.

Total renewable energy consumption (2007), including transportation fuels, represents just 7% of our energy use. According to EIA, renewables break down as follows: Hydroelectric 36%, geothermal 5%, solar 1%, wind 4.6%, biofuels 15%, wood burning 31%, waste 6.5%.

EIA tables show that “other renewables” produced 2.8% of our electricity in 2008. EIA defines “other renewables” as “wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, agriculture byproducts, other biomass, geothermal, solar thermal, photovoltaic energy, and wind.”

How much electricity is produced just by wind and just by solar has proven a difficult number to find since it is not explicitly stated. I have made an estimate, by subtracting hydro and transportation fuels from the 2007 data. I estimate that solar constitutes 2% of “other renewables” and wind constitutes 9% of “other renewables.” That means for the politically correct favorite methods of electrical generation: solar produces (0.02 x 0.028) = 0.056% of our electricity and wind produces (0.09 x 0.028) = 0.25% of our electricity. Together, wind and solar currently produce about 0.3% (three-tenths of one percent) of our electricity. Within just four years, Obama is going to increase that to 10%? I’m waiting to see the magic.

Of course, that magic will require massive federal subsidies because these renewables can’t compete economically with coal, natural gas, or nuclear generation. According to a Cato Institute study (Policy Analysis 280), wind generation costs are 6-7¢ per KWh vs. 3¢ for natural gas, 2.2¢ for coal, 1.7¢ for nuclear, and triple the spot market price for surplus electricity.

A wind farm uses about 85 times the area required by a gas-fired plant, often 10 to 80 acres per megawatt capacity. Greens argue that although the turbines are spread out over a large area, the area actually occupied is much smaller, something like 1%, but Greens reject that same argument if they are talking about drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.

Solar is not benign either. The Cato report says, “A 1978 study found that the materials required for thermal-solar projects were 1,000 times greater than for a similarly sized fossil-fuel facility, creating substantial incremental energy consumption and industrial pollution. A major environmental cost of photovoltaic solar energy is toxic chemical pollution (arsenic, gallium, and cadmium) and energy consumption associated with the large-scale manufacture of photovoltaic panels. The installation phase has distinct environmental consequences, given the large land masses required for such solar farms–some 5 to 10 acres per MW of installed capacity.”

Since wind and solar generation plants can produce electricity only intermittently, they need a backup, usually a fossil fuel generating plant.

Michael J. Trebilcock, reports in the National Post, Canada, that “Denmark, the world’s most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power’s unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone).”

In Germany, Der Spiegel reports that “Germany’s CO₂ emissions haven’t been reduced by even a single gram [by building wind turbines],” and additional coal- and gas-fired plants have been constructed to ensure reliable delivery.

According to EIA, the U.S. government subsidizes wind at $23.34 per Mwh capacity, compared to reliable energy sources: natural gas at 25¢; coal at 44¢; hydro at 67¢; and nuclear at $1.59.

Bottom Line

: Wind and solar electricity generation can never be viable alternatives to fossil fuel and nuclear generation of electricity. The “alternatives” can only be supplements.