Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by CaddoKid on December 8, 2009 at 7:36

Displacing filthy coal with CH4 for electric generation has long been an excellent option for the atmosphere, utilities, and natural gas lease holders. And it's a shame that a man-made construct- like market economics- has held back this transition, trumping the natural economics of natural resoruces. For far too long, the coal industry has succeeded in passing off the real costs of burning this fuel onto other sectors of society- healthcare, forestry, fisheries, water utilities, etc.

The market growth potential for CH4 is much larger as a generation fuel than as a transportation fuel, as Pickens envisions. Nevertheless, an "energized" generation market for natural gas also paves the way for plug-in hybrid-electric vehicles to use NG as a source transportation fuel for electric driving, reducing the need for dirtier hydrocarbon fuels like oil. Currently, coal is the fuel source for 49% of our electrical gen mix, natural gas only 22%. So a rapid expansion of natural gas into the generation business, displacing coal-fired power plants, not only slows the dangerous trend of pumping the Carboniferous Period into the atmosphere of the present; it also buys us time to reduce the cost and increase the efficiency of renewable energy. And we are getting our butts kicked in the development and deployment of renewables by Germany, Sweden, and Denmark. Unless we get serious and get in this game, the world will buy its energy technology from them, not us.
CK

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by CaddoKid on December 9, 2009 at 12:56

>The only problem with utilizing natural gas as a sole source of fuel for baseload generation of electricity is the volatile nature of NG prices. Unless there can be some long term stability to the price of NG you will see the cost of electricity fluctuate just as gasoline does at the pump. Are consumers ready for that? I would think not.br />
But it's not a real problem... it's a man-made problem. And it could be fixed by ending the subsidy for coal by accounting for all the lifecycle (environmental) costs of burning it. In other words, coal's price stability is attributable to its false economy and to its lion's share of the gen mix. With it's increased reserve capacity, If NG had 49% of the electric market, it would enjoy price stability too. And if the price of coal had to cover its environmental impact, the cost would be consistently high, at least with today's technology. Anyway, prices should fluctuate in a natural (resource based) economy... all commodies naturally fluctuate in price. While price stability is nice for human planning purposes, if you force price stability on a commodity that should be fluctuating, you'll pay for it down the line. Ready or not.

>It is not an accurate assumption to believe that US electric utilities can model their operations and fuel sources after countries like Germany, Sweden and Denmark. The load is totally different as well as the entire electrical grid.br />
What? What I said is that these countries are outpacing us in developement and deployment. I didn't mention research, production, and sales, but they're whipping us in those areas too. If anything, the US is better positioned to use renewables than any of these countries, particularly solar. Solar thermal is so cost effective right now that it's absolutely nuts that every home and commercial building with sun exposure in the US isn't preheating water with ST. If you think it's a better idea to burn coal and dump CO2, mercury, selenium, soot particulates, NOx, SOx, etc. into the environment, and pump the electrons dozens of miles thru friction-loss wires to heat your water, go ahead. But don't you at least agree that as the world inevitably moves to renewable energy, it would be nice if it bought the technology from us?

>It is also unfair to continue to blame US utilities that burn coal for transgressions they have made in the past. They are also being considered as being some of the biggest contributors to global warming. How could that be when countries like China and Mexico are pouring millions of tons of pollutants into the air daily from manufacturers supplying cheap goods to spoiled Americans.br />
They are considered some of the biggest contributors to global warming because they are some of the biggest contributors. The coal industry has spent decades and billons on lobbists and vest-pocket politicians fighting clean energy and efficiency regulations instead of putting that $ into best available control technology or research. They routinely skirt the intent of the New Source Review (NSR) requirements of the Clean Air Act by pretending that plant capacity increases and modifications that will generate (and release) significant increases in regulated pollutants are really just "routine maintenance", which is exempted from the rule. Sins of the past? These sins are very current. China and Mexico? Not much control over what they do, but stop driving the 10 extra miles to Malwart to buy a piece of cheap plastic crap for 2 cents less than you could get it at Target. Pouring less gasoline on a fire than the next guy is no justification for not calling the fire department.

>The strides made in clean coal technology is far beyond what could be imagined 15 or even 5 years ago here in the US. To totally eliminate coal as a sourch of fuel for utilities would be like the old saying goes...cutting your nose off to spite your face. If the American people want to do this now, then we better get ready to pay the price for it.br />
Oh really?? I've worked in the power industry for 30 years and I have no idea what you're talking about. It would be great if you would give us some specifics. And please, don't thow up IGCC. IGCC is at best a pilot project scale technology, and the reason is this: in the gassification process, all sorts of nasties are generated, nasties that can't be put up the stack as in conventional coal combustion. So they must be stored, scrubbed, separated, stabilized, reported, record-kept, and hauled off to hazardous waste landfills, incinerated, ect. All of which costs plenty, as it should. So IGCC gets much closer to genuine lifecycle costs of using coal as a fuel, but it's damned expensive, so it's not really being done. And it ultimately produces a fuel about like NG... methane.

>That 49% of coal as a fuel source for electrical production in our country is why the price of electricity is as stable as it is. That 22% that is natural gas is why your bill can fluctuate wildly during peak times of electrical use such as winter in the north and summer in the south. It doesn't take rocket science to see what your electric bill would do if NG was the only fuel source!br />
Again, false economics. Policies like time-based pricing...sometimes called time of use (TOU pricing) are coming, and in fact are already here. Commodities should naturally fluctate in price, depending on myriad conditions. Ready or not.


>The bottom line is, the solution to our self created problems as a whole can only be solved by taking responsibility for our own individual contributions to the problem......we are ultimately the end user of most everything that is manufactured or produced. How we use it determines the impact made to our environment by producing it.br />
I completely agree with this last paragraph. 100 %. But the ultimate in "taking responsibility" is pricing a commodity based on its true lifecycle cost. This means figuring in the entire costs (as completely as they can be known) to anything for sale. People can't use any resource or commodity responsibly if the don't know the true cost.

Please invest 20 minutes in the following video:
http://www.storyofstuff.com/

CK

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by CaddoKid on December 10, 2009 at 10:05

>LOL.... I have 37 years in the electric utility industry. I guess that extra 7 years is the difference in why you don't have an idea what I am talking about and it also explains why you don't necessarily know what you are talking about in some of your opinions...lol.br />
Oh, I get it... you started working in the electric utility industry 7 years before I did, so assuming you're still working today, those strides must have been made in 1973. I'm still waiting to hear of this magic technology that has cleaned up coal "far beyond what could have been imagined"... more likely it's the imagination that's far beyond reality. So how about less lol, and more actual data... show me the technology. As it stands today, "clean coal" is an oxymoron, a misinformation/advertising campaign from the coal industry. As I said before, we are going to need coal, so let's stop sweeping its problems under the carpet and get the carpet cleaned.

>When NG becomes the base fuel for power plants we will see prices for electricity go out the roof. READY or NOT.br />
I work for a state owned (non-profit) NG electric/steam combined cycle co-gen plant. Our efficiency is in the high 70% range. Even paying $7.52/MMBTU for gas (bought on contract before gas went to $13.56), our base rate for electricity is currently $.066/Kwh. Does that sound high to you?

The price for coal based electricity is already thru the roof. We're just not paying for it now. We're pushing the cost off on other industries, on taxpayers, on future generations. The fact that you're not paying for it now doesn't mean the cost isn't going to be born by somebody, someday. Look ED, I'm not trying to be mean, but you're not acknowledging this hidden cost. If the cost of electricity is higher than we're paying, let's figure out what it really is, and pay it now. It will be cheaper to pay it now than push it down the road. We will have to pay for it. The true high cost will incentivize innovation, efficiency, renewables and conservation, all of which we need now, not later.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Avatar on December 10, 2009 at 14:53

The real costs of buning coal as a source for power generation are in the hundreds of billions of dollars as is shown by the following articles and studies:
http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2009/06/20/weighing-coals-cos... and http://www.articlexi.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=8EDBE087404B4AEB9D...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Red Fuller on December 9, 2009 at 15:03

I agree coal has come a long way in cleaning up it's emissions. We have more than any country so far that they have discovered. NG is a good partner along side of coal at peak times but can't replace it at the cost we pay now or in the future unless they listen to the Al Bore's of this world and tax it to the point it cost more than anything else. As far as solar and wind they are a dead source useless as tit's on a boar hog. Maybe in 20 or 30 years they maybe a great source but right now they can't keep up with demand, to many varibles.

• ▶ Reply