So much soot belched from the old power plant here that Mike Zeleny would personally warn the neighbors.
“If the wind was blowing in a certain direction,” Mr. Zeleny said, “we’d call Mrs. Robinson down the street and tell her not to put out her laundry.”
That coal plant is long gone, replaced by a much larger and cleaner one along the vast Saskatchewan prairie. Sooty shirts and socks are a thing of the past.
But as with even the most modern coal plants, its smokestacks still emit enormous amounts of carbon dioxide, the invisible heat-trapping gas that is the main contributor to global warming. So this fall, a gleaming new maze of pipes and tanks ”” topped with what looks like the Tin Man’s hat ”” will suck up 90 percent of the carbon dioxide from one of the boilers so it can be shipped out for burial, deep underground.
“its smokestacks still emit enormous amounts of carbon dioxide, the invisible heat-trapping gas that is the main contributor to global warming”
Sort of akin to the English Reformation: once you legislate what the foundational premise is, it becomes easier to justify the steps you want to take going forward in order to feel better.
Take away the “feel good” justification for this generation plant and the massive investment looks as ridiculous as it is.
As for the plant being built here in Mississippi: it is going to help tremendously in reducing economic incentives for industries to come into the the state, while it is making the citizens of the state even poorer. Excellent legacy to the Obama led EPA.
Hi Captain Warren
What is impacting the cost of electricity in Mississippi is not what may be spent on lowering carbon emissions there, but the fact that Mississippi utilities are operating an electric grid system with a Load Factor (efficiency level) in the low 30% range, one of the lowest in the nation. Load Factor is the percentage of energy generated from all power plants vs. the total that could be generated if they were operating 24 hours per day seven days per week (in other words full capacity). Low load factors mean that the cost of electricity must be higher per unit volume then they would otherwise be for a higher Load Factor. Vermont proved that raising Load Factor from 55% (where they were in the late 1980’s to 70% (where they ended up at the turn of the century) produced 4% savings on the electric grid. Mississippi is at 33%.
In other words Mississippi power companies are operating at an efficiency level that would put them out of business if they were operating in a competitive environment. But instead of them going out of business, they simply pass on the costs to you, because you have no choice. And this low load factor, does, in fact, also drive up emission rates. So the fix in Mississippi on lowering electric rates will also lower emissions through investment in peak Demand-Side Management energy efficiency and renewable solar to increase Load Factor, which is an allowable option open to Mississippi under the proposed EPA Clean Power Rule.
I am not necessarily a fan of the President, but in this case, you need to leave the blame for high electric rates at the feet of the folks operating your in-efficient electric grid.
Aldenjr, that is an elegant analysis but what it applies to I know not what. I think the load factor you are referring to applies to the numerous natural gas “topping plants” that smooth out power demand surges. Their overall impact on costs is probably not significant because Mississippi is a net importer of electricity from neighboring states. The fact of the matter is, about 25-30% of our electricity is coal derived and as tighter emissions standards drive up costs, that is passed along to us. In addition MS Power’s Kemper coal plant, built to anticipate the EPA standards and built to capture CO2 is billions of dollars over cost and those costs are being absorbed by customers today in double digit rate increases [http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304795804579099220332096960].
So, we can wave the wand of load factors and depreciation of unused assets and all that stuff, but where the rubber hits the road, electricity bills, there is no mystery. The trail leads back to the EPA, Obama’s EPA. Like all good socialists, he told us what he was going to do, they are so proud of it they can’t hold it in. “Costs are going to rise, and I wouldn’t invest in coal, we will put that out of business.” They seem to be making good on that promise. Ask a coal mine worker.
Would you like me to explain? The point about Load Factor being low is that you already have way more power plants than you need, and yet you are building another one. No wonder your rates are going up. Electric Companies live for the opportunity to build another power plant saying this regulation, that customer load and, Oh yes, peak load keeps going up, so we need more power plants to meet the peak, and then pass the costs onto you. The result is higher emissions and, yes, higher electric rates.
With a low Load Factor, like 33% someone should have stood up long ago in Mississippi and said we don’t need any more power plants. What we need is investment in peak load reduction technologies, like energy efficiency, energy storage and, yes, solar. You could have halted your imports and saved money to boot all while lowering emissions.
But the power companies know, as long as no one is complaining, that they can blame the EPA for why they have to build you another plant.
You should read the proposed EPA Clean Power Rule to see that it gives you, the state of Mississippi, the option to reduce emissions any way you want. Here I’ll list them for you:
A. Demand-Side Energy Efficiency Programs
B. Renewable Energy Standards
C. Efficiency Improvements at Plants
D. Co-firing or switching to Natural Gas
E. Transmission Efficiency Improvements
F. Energy Storage Technology
G. Retirements
H. Expanding Renewables or Nuclear
I. Market-Based Trading Programs
J. Energy Conservation Programs
I’ve mentioned three or four of those above that would reduce electric costs by raising your system Load Factor, but in ignorance, Mississippi let the utility make the decision for all of you. So are you really going to blame the EPA who rightfully is attempting to get carbon emissions under control?
Solar won’t, in general, help the load factor, because it cannot yet be stored, which means that when the sun doesn’t shine, some other source must produce the power. This calls for spinning reserve, since you can’t just turn power plants off at dawn and start them up again at dusk.
Yes solar does work because it peaks near when the utiltiy is peaking. And the utility almost always reaches a peak when the sun is shinging, because the peak is driven by air conditioning laod.
But notice I did not say solar alone. You would use solar with energy storage (batteries, ice, other thermal, etc) and peak demand energy efficiency. All these technologies exist and should be used by utilities to “level their load” – in essence raise the Load Factor, but they don’t because they can make a killing off the building of new expensive power plants.
As a nation we have a 45% Load Factor, which means we could squeeze twice the energy out of our exisitng inventory of power plants if we raised Load Factor to 90%. But lets not push it that far. Vermont proved 70% was attainable and with dramtically lower electric costs, and no wonder. As a result of their focus on Load Factor – they were able to avoid building new power plants for decades.
This discussion seems to represent the real world vs the world as seen from the DOE or maybe the EPA or perhaps even NASA [I wonder which?].
In the real world in Mississippi our power companies invested in numerous natural gas topping plants to handle power surges that might not be able to be handled by purchasing more out of state power. These plants by their very nature have low load factors because they sit idle until needed. They will never run at 90% for long periods of time because they were never designed to.
We have a nuclear plant that provides about 20-25% of our electricity. The rest more or less is imported.
Solar is just laughable. The “clean energy” source. Just ignore all the rare earth metals used in the manufacture of panels. Ignore all the heavy metals or alkali metals used in battery production along with the attendant recycling issues. Ignore all the maintenance issues, even the grubby ones like keeping panels clean so they actually produce near design rates of electricity. And then, bet the energy stability of a whole state on that shaky three-legged stool. We may not have the smartest reglulatory apparatus here in Mississippi, but at least they knew enough not to bet on that one.
Again, MS Power customers are seeing double digit rate increases because MS Power is encountering huge cost overruns in the Kemper power plant. You’d think they would know how to build a power plant. The generation part isn’t the problem; it’s the capture technology to satisfy the EPA and their very public vendetta against coal.
It doesn’t matter how many options the EPA was so generous in offering the State. The Kemper coal deposit is there, the case for a proper power plant was made, now to build it under every tightening restrictions gets more expensive all the time.
And for what? To reduce CO2 emissions. Why? Because that fits the prevailing political agenda.
The peaker gas plants you mentioned were/are for meeting peak load conditions, which, had your state invested in peak load reducing technologies like energy efficiency, energy storage and, yes , solar you would not have needed. The fact that they are only used at all, as you say, less than 10% of the time, underscores my very point. You paid for them, they are barely used, and now you are building yet another plant, and one, I might add, is not on the list of suggested items that a state could/should consider as part of its carbon reduction plan.
Then you bash solar, even as it is the number one energy-growth technology in the US, but I guess just not in Mississippi where the enlightened ones are betting on coal. I wonder why it is the fastest growing technology in the US, but not Mississippi. Does Mississippi know something the rest of us don’t? So you say, that you don’t want to bet on the wobbly stool of solar and other energy technologies to keep the lights on. Well, thanks to Vermont, you don’t have to, they have already built the road map for your state to follow. And I haven’t heard of any blackouts up there with their high Load Factor.
As far as carbon issues. Maybe you should travel with me to Maine and see how high the tides are getting or watch how fast the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Shelves are collapsing. Or come to Africa one last summer to see the snows on Klimanjaro disappear completely.
We know we have a carbon problem. That is no longer debated. What is debated is whether we can afford to do anything about it. With broad thinking like that in Mississippi on energy policy, I really worry that you may be right. But your state’s unwillingness to even consider common sense reminds me of the stubborn old Generals of WWI leading cavalry charge after cavalry charge in the face of German machine gun fire.
C’mon, technology has advanced, we have advanced. The deregulated phone companies don’t even use wires anymore. In Africa, we provide power to whole villages without stringing wire or using coal. Coal is something out of the 18th and 19th century., that’s where it belongs.
Even the Germans are beginning to abandon their solar power experimentation because it’s just too expensive. My husband is a recently-retired executive with decades of experience in the power generation and distribution industry. He says solar panels are a wonderful option for hot water heaters. For power generation, it’s simply not practical; and as an aside, it’s killing birds out West by the millions.
From one ex-Utility Executive to another, please extend my best wishes to your husband. Unlike your husband, I am still very active in the energy industry, not retired. I suspect your husband has been retired for at least five years now perhaps even ten years and has missed the great transformation solar has made, price wise, in this country (and Germany) which began in 2010.
The acceleration of solar in Germany really began in 2006-2008 time frame when rapidly falling prices coupled with government incentives combined in a perfect storm to propel solar into a position of supplying 7% of the country’s total electricity supply in 2014. To say Germany has abandoned solar is quite inaccurate. Yes it’s true that the growth has dropped off by nearly half from the peak of 2011, but I liken that to solar finding a sort of equilibrium with other energy sources as solar prices stopped falling, leveling out a bit. Growth continues and Germany has hardly abandoned their goal of 35% renewable energy supply by the end of this decade (they are at 31% now).
In the US, price reductions were slower to kick-in the rapid solar growth that began in 2011 and continued through today. There have been some surprises in the regions suddenly experiencing solar growth, such as Georgia where I now live. Georgia Power committed to allow solar built as long as the cost was below their avoided costs. Now that the Nuclear Plant in Georgia has driven up the avoided electric costs above that of solar and suddenly demand for solar in Georgia is out-stripping the ability for Georgia Power to keep up.
In the US, solar produces a little more than 1/3 of 1 % of electricity, but Germany proves that (at 7%) solar is practical for power generation.
Finally, as far as birds, if you care about them, get rid of your cat, the number one bird killer, get rid of your car the number 3 killer, and finally, don’t patronize buildings with glass sides, the number two killer. Solar bird killing is way down the list, behind cell towers for your cell phone, and utility towers for the old-style utility wires bringing you electricity from that coal fired power plant.
Nope, he retired at the beginning of this year from a senior position with a very large multinational manufacturer of electrical generation and distribution equipment, with worldwide experience including Europe.
He still does consulting in the field, and your former employer no doubt used equipment manufactured by his former employer.
Undoubtedly, my former employer did use equipment from your husband’s former employer, as it was the Southern Company for whom I worked.
But surely your husband, as a senior executive at a company like General Electric or Siemens, has seen the rapid rise of solar in the past few years, now the fastest growing power source in the US, increasing by almost 50% per year as of 2013. And this is not at the hands of individual solar home systems, as at least a quarter of the nations utilities are actively developing solar for major power generation including my former company.
He has seen solar rise, and he has seen it begin to decline in use in Germany, for instance, because it is not economically viable unless it’s heavily subsidized. The large installations are one thing (and they produce very expensive power), but the rooftop systems tied to the grid can be destabilizing in distribution networks because of the voltage variations and the lack of electronic tap changers. If I understand the discussion we had last evening, if our neighbor has a rooftop solar generation system feeding into the power lines, the voltage coming into our appliances can vary enough to cause trouble.
By the way, #13, if you are who I think you may be, both my engineer husband and I heartily approve of and endorse the effort to bring electricity to African villages with small solar plants. This is an excellent and admirable use of the technology.
For the larger picture, the energy storage problem needs to be solved. With a lot of bright engineers working on it, perhaps it will be.