A lousy trade
Consumers will pay if two coal plants are replaced by gas unit
Rocky Mountain News
Published June 24, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Over the next few years, Xcel Energy hopes to retire two coal-fired power plants - one in Denver, the other near Grand Junction - and replace them with a single natural gas facility on the Denver site that would generate twice as much energy as the two coal plants combined.
Cleaner energy and more of it. Who could object to that?
The state's Office of Consumer Counsel does, and we agree. The estimated cost of the new plant has surged, from $436 million in November to more than $600 million currently. And the consumer counsel believes that Xcel's projections of natural gas costs over the next four decades are way too low.
As a result, consumers would be socked with much higher utility bills than necessary. So we hope that Xcel will reconsider closing the plants - or at least postpone any decision for another couple of years, as the consumer counsel recommends.
A three-week public hearing at the Public Utilities Commission opened Monday. And while the hearing will cover Xcel's overall production plans through 2015, the debate over gas vs. coal is likely to provide much of the drama.
The proposal pits the consumer counsel against environmentalists and even divides the green community.
For instance, Western Resource Advocates is pushing for the natural gas plant in part because it considers emissions from coal - which produces half the electricity in the United States - to be a serious health risk if not downright lethal.
In testimony prepared for the PUC, economist Leland Deck claimed that replacing the two coal plants with natural gas generation would prevent between 17 and 39 premature deaths nationally, "11 new cases of chronic bronchitis, 23 hospital admissions and emergency room visits, 32 myocardial infarctions (heart attacks), 580 cases of respiratory illnesses, and 2,150 work-loss days, among other health effects."
Such estimates amount to little more than conjecture. There are more than 300 million Americans. Blaming emissions from two coal plants in Colorado for 23 additional hospital admissions or 32 heart attacks is statistical noise.
Meantime, Leslie Glustrom of Clean Energy Action opposes both the coal plants and the natural-gas plant - and, presumably, any move to replace one fossil fuel with another. She told the Rocky that Xcel should fully compensate for energy lost from closing the coal plants with renewable energy and conservation measures. And her views are quite common among environmental activists.
For its part, the consumer counsel agrees that renewables and "demand-side management" (meaning conservation) may at some point make up for the coal plants' output. Yet even if that were the case, energy demand in Colorado is going to continue to grow for years. It's hard to see how it could be wise to reduce the utility's reliable base-load power capacity without an equally reliable, reasonably priced alternative already in the wings.
However, the counsel does make a good case that replacing functioning coal plants with a new natural gas generator is not in the best interest of consumers. Speaking for the consumer counsel in April, Richard Rosen of the Tellus Group told the PUC that Xcel "assumes that inflation will average 1.99 percent per year during its planning period from 2007Â?2046" and "that natural gas prices will not escalate at all in real dollars from 2008 until 2046."
That estimate is, shall we say, optimistic. Last week, Xcel requested a hike in residential electricity rates for the third quarter that would result in a 38 percent increase over the same period a year ago. The reason? Higher natural gas prices. The natural gas futures price for January 2009 is nearly $14, double the price in January of this year.
Perhaps renewable energy will be able to provide substantial base-load power in relatively few years, but that doesn't appear likely at the moment. It would be reckless, in other words, to abandon a proven, reasonably priced power source until alternatives emerge. Keep the coal fires burning.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Denver turns 150
Read about the city's history, look at old photos and see a list of influential Denverites.
-
Mount Crushmore
Which four Broncos greats should be immortalized on Mount Crushmore? Vote here.
-
Winter Escapes
Your insider’s guide to the copious joys of the coolest season.
-
Rocky Multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Weekend plans?
Figure out things to do this weekend with the help of our entertainment calendar.
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's pregame rant on the Raiders.
-
Season To Share
The Post-News Season To Share campaign provides grants to area nonprofits.
-
The Rocky @ 150 Years
The Rocky was there when Colorado became a state in 1876. Read our coverage.
-
A Dozen on Denver
And the winner is... Robert Ziegler! See the whole fiction series by clicking here.
June 24, 2008
5:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
roger44 writes:
So nukes are out of the question? France does it right, all plants of the same design so if something is amiss at one plant, others can be inspected to see if same problem exists at others. I think the bigger problem with coal is the number of states that have mercury warnings in our waterways, well over half the states have them. The economic impact on food supply, sport fishing, would be a larger concern to me. The USA has fallen way behind in energy programs, our Congress has sat on their duffs way too long, energy companies to blame also. We can all discuss it in 40 years in the dark by candlelight
June 24, 2008
5:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
cfarmer writes:
Why is it that the state and the nation can't come to the realization that we need to use all fossil fuels and work on renewable energy. With out clean burning coal and gas plants, along with nuclear, this nation will not be able to make the conversion to renewable energy.
June 24, 2008
6:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
If carbon taxes or Cap and Trade come into play, as many say is likely, the ratepayers could really get taken to the cleaners by those coal plants. Less so for the NG plants, and not at all for renewable + conservation.
June 24, 2008
6:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
a_watcher writes:
The ONLY way that carbon taxes or Cap and Trade will come into play is if the public tolerates it. In the current environment of escalating energy costs, why would the public want a system that makes them escalate even more?
June 24, 2008
7:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
a_watcher - wishful thinking. Hey, false hope is better than no hope at all....
June 24, 2008
7:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
Agree. I am stunned that Xcel has a coal power plant in the middle of Denver.
Where is all the pollution it's been generating? Where are the neighbors outcries, where are the deformed children and old people on oxygen who are forced to live next to this pillar of the devil because they don't earn a living wage?
I would have thought that with Denver's brown cloud, Xcel would be the vile villan who has cause us to have National Jewish just to cover for the lung health needs of the population we have sacrificed in the name of electricity.
June 24, 2008
7:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
FlyfishDude52 writes:
Leslie Glustrum - You need to live with candles & cook your food over a fire for a while!
We need all energy, as was stated previously, to help us usher in the coming age of renewable energy. Without the resources we are presently dependent on we cannot obtain that goal.
And yes, why not nuclear power? If the french can do it successfully why can't we?
Renewable sources do not provide 24/7 operating power generation. This is a valid reason for other facilities.
Now the real catch - Are they really renewable resources?
What happens when world-wide we have photovoltaic arrays, literally, soaking up the solar insolation without that heat energy being redirected into the atmosphere as it is now? If you aren't aware the BTU's striking the PV's will not reflect the heat, as now happens when the suns rays strike the Earth, a signifigant portion will be converted to electricity. Will this create "global cooling"?
And what happens when the prevailing winds dissipate from a saturation of wind turbines world-wide? I ask again, are these really renewable resources?
I, unquestionably, am a proponent of alternate and renewable energy resources but believe that they will not come without a price, much like all other things man has learned to exploit in the course of our short history.
June 24, 2008
8:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
VVVV writes:
I am one that would prefer to have the ignorant environmentalists make the calls as to what to use for capacity growth. Cries for demand side management or renewable energy, both costly, unreliable, and very limited in capacity, to take the place of base load generation (which means full load 24/7), and the legal grandstanding that goes along with it will flush our system into a political limbo, causing no generation to be installed, rolling blackouts, unreliable service, and all for ever increasing prices. I can't wait until we are slapped back to the bronze age by idealistic stagnation, because then all we'll have to live on is our dreams, since reality is such a bother. Dreams are all we are being given to power the future, so enjoy the warmth of your dreams, because the daytime is going to be pitiful and cold.
June 24, 2008
8:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
pak writes:
Renewables work only 33% of the time and have to be backed up by dispatchable gas. To see where gas prices are heading, look at the price of imported LNG, which is 50% higher than domestic gas. As we are fast approaching 20% imported gas, bought on the world wide spot market, prices are going to sky rocket. A gas plant will be an incredible mistake! We also import 95.5% of the uranium we need to run our current nuclear plants. If we build more nukes, we will be importing more foreign energy, not less.
The answer is american coal... cheap, abundant and reliable base load power!!!
June 24, 2008
9:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
HankRearden writes:
The Office of Consumer Cousel is doing what the PUC should be doing, namely preventing a regulated utility forcing higher cost energy resources on to consumers. Look for Ritter replaces the people in Office of Consumer Cousel, with more progressive, like minded people. The Sierra Club may be able to provide a few of their people.
June 24, 2008
9:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Pak,
SOME renewables currently work only 33% of the time. Geothermal works 100% of the time, hydro works almost 100% of the time except in drought. Wave action also works 100% of the time. It is also misleading to indicate that wind and solar work only 33% of the time. First of all, it often isn't the same 33% of the time ( the wind does blow at night). More importantly, concentrating solar plants with on site storage allowing them to work at least 6 hours after sundown are being developed and a number of them are already on line in Spain and the U.S. According to TryThinking, a power engineer whose opinion I respect, wind has the potential for pumped storage as well. Turbines would store compressed air in old wells, mine shafts and caverns for usage at times of peak need. To be fair, he is also a fan of coal as it remains our cheapest energy source if you don't consider health and environmental costs associated with it's extraction, transport and burning. More coal fired plants means more strip mining, mountaintop removal,and more diesel consumption by trains. If you believe in global warming as thousands of the world's scientists and millions of the rest of us do, the last thing you want is more coal fired plants. CO2 sequestering might be the answer to that problem but it will make coal far more expensive. Personally, I would prefer greater and faster development of renewable technology with some new nuclear thrown in. We should retire the oldest least efficient, most polluting coal plants with plants using new technology. Coal, oil, nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, wave action and conservation need to be part of our energy mix well into the future.
June 24, 2008
9:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
HankRearden writes:
From FERC Form 1
Arapahoe Book Value =$109 million
Annual Production = 986,495 MWhrs
Annual Production Costs = $32,083 Million
Xcel makes 10% on investment or $10.9 Million per year
Consumers pay $10.9 + 32.08 Million per year or Approximately $43 million per year for 986,495 MWhr or $43.57/MWhr.
Cameo Book Value =$42.7million
Annual Production = 411,037 MWhrs
Annual Production Costs = $16,697 Million
Xcel makes 10% on investment or $4.27 Million per year
Consumers pay $4.27 + 16.7 Million per year or approximately $21 million per year for 986,495 MWhr or $51.02/MWhr.
The average cost for both plants is $45.76/ MWhr. The fuel cost alone for the proposed new gas fired plant is $98.00/ MWhr ($14.00/mmBTU Gas).
Xcel wants to retire Arapahoe and Cameo, but consumers still pay the return on investment plus we get to pay an additional $60,000,000 (10% of the proposed $600 million plant) for the next 20 years or so.
Someone needs to wake up.
BTW the gas plant will emit 50% of the CO2 as the coal plant. So more than twice the price for energy to reduce the CO2 by half.
Of course even this sacrifice is not enough for Leslie Glustrom of Clean Energy Action.
June 24, 2008
10:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
bxwatso writes:
The reason Xcel is retiring the coal plant is because the law requires them to do so. That is the law voters passed 2 years ago. That is the law the folks on the 16th street mall wearing "environment Colorado" got signatures for.
If you thought the alternative energy law would be free to implement, you are a fool. Not only will the law raise energy costs, it will replace the stable cost of coal with the unstable cost of gas. Not only that, but the extra demand for gas will drive up your heating bill too.
Colorado asked for this, voted for this, and will have it. Don't complain about the price.
June 24, 2008
10:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
HankRearden writes:
bxwatso,
The drafter of the "solar" power section of amendment 37 is now an executive of SunEdison here in Colorado. They, oddly enough, make the solar energy systems that Xcel is required to buy. But please don't read antything into that, it's not about the money. It's about saving the planet.
June 24, 2008
10:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
RainbowWarrior writes:
Hello from Sunny Pagosa Springs! My solar PV panels recieved 335 days of sunshine last year, that means they worked 91.7% of the time! This 24/7 need for base load power is bung chow... most of us grown ups sleep all night and don't need a night light any more, short of a refrigerator running once or twice at night what do you need all that power for in the wee hours?. For security, get a motion detector on your outside lights to save energy and it's a far more effective way to be safe because you know when something is moving around out there. Most of the solar garden lights available now are cheap, store solar all day and then last all night if your afraid of the dark. Sure seems like a lot of people don't know what they are talking about. There needs to be more examples of complete working systems out there so all this bogus "it doesn't work and it's too expensive" daily BS rant can be thrown out of the debate once and for all. Once you own a decentralized renewable energy system you are in control, not some profit driven corporation. If some of the oppostion would be truely honest, this is why the don't like the renewable alternatives, it has the potential to take away centralized control systems that are more concerned about profit than the well being of the people and communities they claim to serve. Why do so called conservatives hate freedom and free energy so much? There are many working homes and businesses out there that have alternative renewable systems that work and in many cases, they have been working for years now! Once more, I suggest a challenge or a competetion to show the capacity and performance of the renewable alternatives vs. the status quo that so many of the regulars here promote. Come on you chicken **** possers, I double dog dare ya!
June 24, 2008
10:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
HankRearden writes:
Thank you Rainbow,
You are doing your part. Are you off grid? You don't rely on the utility for any energy? Well done. Your grocery stores, hospitals and schools are they also off grid? That is amazing, I had not heard that Alamosa is not only totaly off grid, but that everyone rises and sleeps with the sun. PV is supplying 100% of your need and you have no use for outside power of any type. Well done.
The discussion however is a about utility energy choices, such as retire low cost energy sources and replacing them with plants that have 2-3 times the capital cost and more than double the energy cost.
June 24, 2008
10:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
HankRearden writes:
Rainbow,
Sorry Pagaso Springs, not Alamosa. Alamosa has the best solar resource in the state.
June 24, 2008
10:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Rainbow,
You have to admit TryThinking makes some good points. Take it from a fellow "sun dog", when it comes to power he knows what he is talking about. Excellent use of sarcasm too don't you think:>)?
June 24, 2008
10:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
HankRearden writes:
Greenleaf,
I don't joke about beer. Newcastle Browne Ale is my prefered choice. The fact that is also the name of a coal producing region in England (a fact that I didn't know that before your post) just makes it better. ;-) Thanks
June 24, 2008
12:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
R8R_H8R writes:
NewCastle is THE premier beer. I agree.
What is with the idiocy of keep the coal, OR replace them with a natural gas? Where's the common sense. Why put all our eggs into one basket? Why not keep the coal plants, AND build the natural gas one? How about a balance? That way if coal or natural gas skyrockets in price, it wont have such a tremendous impact.
Lets COVER Wyoming with Solar Wind Power and photocells. I DONT CARE IF IT COST MORE than coal, natural gas, and or gas from the middle east. It is the RIGHT THING TO DO.
June 24, 2008
12:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
VVVV writes:
Wow. It is so sunny that it even shines during the night!?!?! I hope you mean 97% of the 50% of the time the sun is actually shining. And of course you are out there every snowy day shoveling your solar cells at dawn.
Never mind that people in some places work night shifts. Like at manufacturing plants. Nevermind that you still burn gas to heat your house through the cold night. Just keep spouting off with nonsense like "so all this bogus "it doesn't work and it's too expensive" daily BS rant can be thrown out of the debate once and for all" and keep your mouth shut when everyone comes knocking at your door with pitchforks and torches, because your empty promises about free unlimited energy really are nothing but hot air that can do no useful work. The reason this bogus rant is still there is because it is real, it will hurt immensely, and idiots like yourself think when you sleep the world shuts off. That egotism is the foundation of the problem, and will be the cause of all of our pain.
June 24, 2008
12:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
HankRearden writes:
If we can agree on beer we can agree on energy policy. All sources have value and fit a particular need. "Can't we all just git along?"
June 24, 2008
12:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
HankRearden writes:
You are wise Forward69. Fat Tire is a good choice. There is lots of good wind power in Fort Collins. Have you tried Butthead from Tommyknockers, in Idaho Springs? My hydropower plant is near by and I hoisted a few of those along with their greenmountain burger.
June 24, 2008
1:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
ScienceGuy writes:
No input on the energy debate, but have you had Racer 5 from Bear Empire? It tastes like cannabis smells! I had it at GABF, but can't find it locally. Their distributor here doen't reurn my calls.
June 24, 2008
2:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Trythinking writes:
"If we can agree on beer we can agree on energy policy. All sources have value and fit a particular need. "Can't we all just git along?"
Actually, I have noticed I do get along better with almost everybody after a beer or three! My favorite brew is Blackjack Porter(not for the faint-hearted) with Guinness Stout as a close second. I won't turn my nose up at a Newcastle Brown or a Fat Tire either.
As for energy, my favorite electrons are Conservation Pale, followed by Rocky Mountain Sun Dog with Windy Ridge a close second. For dependable, full bodied energy, I go with Hot Springs. Lately I've been learning to like Glow in the Dark, originally "brewed" in Los Alamos, but I have to say its an acquired taste. What a Gas is good but it sometimes has a bitter after taste as its source comes from too many places all over(and I do mean all over) the west. Finally, if I'm really feeling old and just can't bring myself to care, there's nothing like Coal Train served hot in a dirty glass:>)!
Sorry guys, I couldn't help myself.
June 24, 2008
2:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
HankRearden writes:
I kinda steered the subject away from energy to beer. Sorry. As I keep saying all resources have there place in the mix. I love a good Guiness, but not on a hot day after cutting the grass.
Coal is not going way any time soon. Nuke may make a comeback and we can't get enough renewables. We should all be a little concerned that the current high prices and rapid escalation in prices may cause un-intended consequences. The average person that doesn't really look into the issue may blame it on "Big Oil" or the "Radical Environmantalist". Either way once you find a scape goat, but don't really solve the problem.
June 24, 2008
2:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Trythinking,
Beer was invented for times such as these!
On a serious note, unintended consequences are a concern for me too. We may all need a beer to cry in if the politicians on both sides give us any more knee jerk "solutions" such as corn ethanol.
June 24, 2008
2:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Froward69,
Enron wasn't a utility, it was an energy wholesaler selling electricity to utilities, as well as trading heavily in electricity and natural gas futures.
Interestingly enough, it was the bright guys at Enron, large contributors to Clinton-Gore, that pioneered the concept of "cap and trade."
RainbowWarrior,
Your dedication to energy autonomy is laudable. However, how many perfect off-the-grid days to offset one trip to Durango or Farmington, let alone Denver or Grand Junction, to get the stuff that you can't get in Pagosa. Everything you could buy in town is trucked in. So, unless your're subsisting on local indoor hydroponic bean sprouts, your carbon footprint is a lot bigger than you think.
June 24, 2008
3:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
HankRearden writes:
Konyok,
Enron was also one of the biggest wind turbine producers. The ashes of their wind business have become GE's wind turbine division.
Greenleaf,
I'm all for an informed public making informed choices. As an energy supplier, there is no wrong way to produce power. The price of that power needs to be completely transparent. I think I've shown that Cameo and Arapahoe are both low cost producers compared to a new gas fired plant. Whatever pollution they emit is in the "back ground" as they are not new sources. A new plant would be much cleaner. If the public wants them closed down and replaced with natural gas, they should know the whole story. Gas is at $13 and climbing. If the only type of fossil plant that is acceptable is natural gas fired, know that the price of that gas will rise. The easiest calculation that can be made is fuel cost on a gas plant. The term heat rate is the efficiency of a gas fired plant. The very best gas fired plant has a 7000 kW/BTU heat rate. When gas is at $13/mmBTU the result is $91.00/ MWhr price for fuel alone. (7 x $13 with a lot of 0s moving around) No smoke and mirrors. If that is the informed decision, I can supply you with gas fired power. Just don't complain when the prices goes up. Natural gas is a very valuable highly concentrated form of fuel.. We shouldn’t be producing power with it. It should be fueling our cars.
June 24, 2008
3:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Now, to bring in one of my favorite pet peeves and take this conversation way off track ...
Imagine if instead of the light rail elephant the tax payers had approved a biofuel facility to process Denver's waste stream into methane and ethanol. Powering a larger fleet of buses would be an obvious application, but, could it also provide at least a portion of the NG for an additional gas powered plant? (Entirely guilt free carbon ... )
June 24, 2008
3:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Hello Brother Konyok,
I have had this conversation with many others who call themselves environmentalists. Everything we eat, drive, wear, watch, listen to and in anyway consume requires energy to make, grow, transport, maintain and, at the end of its cycle, dispose of. I don't know if our society has hard wired many of us to have a narrow perspective, but too many do (I'm not singling you out Rainbow). Our training as scientists and Trythinking's as an engineer seem to give us a longer, broader view of the big picture than some have. It all speaks to education at every teachable moment to counteract this tendency humans have for disassociation from some of the most important and seemingly obvious parts of this particular problem. Even as a determined American conservationist, my " carbon footprint " is far larger than that of an African or Asian living in an underdeveloped country
June 24, 2008
3:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Trythinking,
If using natural gas for electrical power is wasting its potential, what about squandering it as our preferred source for heating homes, businesses and water for that matter?
Following the same logic, I have heard some scientists say that burning oil is not its highest, best usage. It is ultimately far more valuable as a source for plastics and fertilizers. All of this assumes of course that viable alternatives exist. Obviously they do already exist for natural gas and they soon will for petroleum ( I hope!).
June 24, 2008
4:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
HankRearden writes:
An alternative to natural gas is, in a word "Coal". Sorry. Natural gas is now $13/mmBTU. Coal with it's 200 year plus supply goes for less than $1.00/ mmBTU at the mine mouth. Either we use it to our benefit or China will use it to theirs. Either way it will be used.
http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2008...
June 24, 2008
4:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Hey Greenleaf,
It's an argument that I've had with friends of mine for more than 25 years. Their notion is that living out in the country, off the grid and growing most of their own food is the proper way to be in harmony. I certainly like the peace and quiet. But, everytime that you drive your rig into town you leave your mark. As my friends get older, those trips get more frequent all of the time.
The path that I chose was urban minimalism. Sure, there's a big infrastructure of gas wells and power plants to provide my million neighbors and me with energy, but the impact per capita is considerably smaller than those million people all going out into the woods to cut firewood and discharging their gray water out into the watershed.
Personally, I don't drive. Just about the only time that I ride in a car is when I'm visiting, yeah, out in the country. The automobile is the single largest source of human disruption on the environment. I do worry about how all of the stuff that I consume arrives to me, and all of the elaborate packaging makes me sick.
But, as a free person I have to respect the freedom of my neighbors to make their choices. As an honest person, I have to admit that I really like the comforts of the modern American city and am willing to make environmental sacrifices to have them.
It's impossible to be perfect. Entropy haunts every system.
June 24, 2008
4:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Trythinking,
Are you saying that biogenic methane is mostly "vaporware?"
I haven't crunched the numbers, so I defer to your knowledge.
June 24, 2008
4:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
HankRearden writes:
Konyok,
Sorry I'm slow on the uptake. Biogenic methane is mostly vaporware? I don't get it.
I do know that GM announced that they are giving an all electric car another look. (They stubbed there toes a bit on the corn ethanol thing.) We should first figure out how to produce those additonal MWhrs. If you are going to use natural gas to make power to charge batteries to run a car, you would be better off using the natural gas to run the car (hybrid preffered). There is a much higher effientcy running the car on natural gas directly. All electric cars with a grid comprised of nuclear, clear coal and renewables would be a very good thing.
June 24, 2008
5:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Trythinking,
Actually, I understand your feelings for coal versus natural gas for power generation. Personally, I am willing to pay the cost difference for NG, Solar or wind. I know that everyone won't be. My point was in response to your comment that NG should be powering our cars, Personally, I would think its best use would be as a heating source for homes. We wouldn't want to go back to the days of millions of small inefficient coal burning furnaces would we? We think that we have air pollution now, can you imagine. Plus we would have to retrofit our houses with coal chutes. I can just see all the coal trucks making their deliveries in their natural gas powered trucks. I doubt we have natural gas for both transportation and home heating do we?
June 24, 2008
5:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
p_myers661 writes:
You guys are all violating the "my way or the highway" attitude that is mandatory for most of these discussions.
Add me to the coal lovers. We can use it, with very minor adjustments, to fuel automobiles, run power plants and if we burn it in a confined space it produces a burnable, and fairly clean, gas. The residue is coke which can be used as a fuel. How much more energy will we be able to derive from coal if we concentrate more technology on it? Nuclear is also good.
Geothermal is practical in New Zealand and, probably, Wyoming. Elsewhere we need to find out what is available and where we need to establish our plants. I'd also like to look into hydroelectric on many of the new dams. I remember the enviros taking a large number of plants offline in the eighties or nineties to "save" some fish. We should look into this.
My favorite beer? Sam Adams Amber Bock. Been so long since I've had one I don't really remember. I have to settle for unsweetened mint tea. Otherwise my doctors have a real fit. Don't ask about wine...I have to test it for the cooking.
Good to see all of you. Probably offline for the next two weeks. Making spice rubs and menus for the family picnic over the fourth. Going to have a lot of brisket, ribs, chicken, brats, potato salad, roasted corn and twenty pounds of shrimp made into Cajun shrimp salad. I used to do the cooking but, since the last heart attack, I just supervise. I do prep the onions. Only person in the family who can slice fifty pounds of onions and not shed a tear. Onions never have bothered me. I'm trying to convince the family to let me invite a few extra people. We go up on the roof after supper and watch the fireworks. Last year had about a hundred people here. Three bushels of corn will be delivered next Friday so we can roast them. Fifty pounds of potatoes and fifteen dozen eggs in borrowed fridge so far. Have A freezer full of roasting chickens * briskets and ribs. Five boxes of ribs, fifty pounds. By the time they leave, there won't be much left. A lot of the guests are twenty something males. Good week to you all.
June 24, 2008
7:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
p_myers,
Your July 4th family gathering sounds better than anything my wife and I have planned. We're newly empty nesters and available. How about an invitation. We'll bring the sparklers!
"You guys are all violating the "my way or the highway" attitude that is mandatory for most of these discussions."
Well, what can I say, some of us are in these discussions to learn where we can, to teach where we can and to gently influence and even be influenced where the opportunity presents itself. Its only fair that it goes a little both ways and if we're lucky we have it sometimes settle in the middle. I have learned in my advancing age that there are actually people on the other side of the argument who almost know as much about everything as I do;>).
Konyok and Trythinking are two of my favorite posters in these forums and I learn a lot from both of them. I enjoy your posts as well although I don't always totally agree.
Of the 4 of us, I believe that I am the only one who believes in anthropogenic global warming. That is my major problem with coal. Secondary problems with mercury and SO2 are being addressed. Surface disruption really isn't. I don't like square topped mountains covered with grasses where trees once existed or stream beds buried in coal extraction waste. I also don't like strip mines either to look at or for the near total inability of man to adequately reclaim them. As a realist, I am forced to accept that the original fuel of the industrial revolution will continue to supply us for many years to come, but for so many heartfelt reasons, I hope that its long life is nearing an end.
Have a happy and safe 4th with your family my friend.
June 24, 2008
7:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Konyok,
I congratulate your determination to reduce you carbon footprint. Living in America with no car! That alone is impressive. Have you seen the documentary "Death of Suburbia " ? It presents the scenario of high gas cost turning our far flung suburbs into the new ghost towns. I think it might be happening. People are finding their homes harder to sell, their commutes far more expensive and the savings they initially enjoyed for moving away from the city core evaporating. Sad but true. In a year or two many may wish they were as well positioned in life as you are. That includes any friends you may have in the country and a few of my own as well.
June 24, 2008
7:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Trythinking, i hope that you aren't tiring of my questions, but I think you can see that I am a sponge.
How expensive will carbon sequestering actually be and what will be involved? Are we talking about thousands of tank trucks hauling CO2 great distances to storage sites or are we talking about pipelines?
June 24, 2008
9:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
p_myers661 writes:
Thanks Greenleaf
Our party is a family tradition. Since we are the poor part of the family we don't supply anything but labor and fresh herbs from my garden and a deep pit for a whole hog one year (total disaster.)
I used to do all the cooking. A third heart attack stopped that.
As for coal, I know that we can use a simple "catalytic converter" system to reduce or eliminate the mercury completely. Gold grid instead of platinum. Coke recovery and using it for auto fuel would immediately raise the price of coal and increase the responsibility of the coal mining companies along with their risk. I'd not object to strict recovery standards. As for the loss of trees, look at the Yellowstone fire zones. They are back in full force and with a new beauty.
I love coal. At Mines we played with it and the gassification can be enclosed which allows recovery of other fuels and resources in the coal. We had a lot of lab fun with it. Recombinant HCL is another energy source that is still waiting on materials that can not only contain the energy and the elements of the reaction, but also transmit the energy via a piston system which is inefficient but necessary because of the different automakers inability to make the changes for another engine system.
Good luck. We were empty nesters until my step son's wife came by and left our grand daughter here so she could get a break from being a single mother. She called back six months later and came over for Christmas. We now have full custody of the little one. She came to us five years ago and had the development of a one year old. Now her favorite thing is to write math problems over and over and play "How Much Is" math questions with anyone. She is wonderful but has eliminated our retirement savings. They weren't a lot anyway. We'll just have to make it anyway. If they really up the GI Bill my husband will give her his benefit and that will take a real burden off.
I just answered the door. Sixteen roasting chickens and three big charcoal smokers with six bags of charcoal. If I get permission, I'll invite you and several others. I love opposing ideas. I learn more. Good Luck.
June 25, 2008
8:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
HankRearden writes:
Greenleaf,
Pipelines mainly. Wyoming is not only the coal capital of the country, but it has massive "carbon sinks". Enhanced oil recovery and enhanced coal bead methane are sinks that will pay for the privlege of taking CO2. CO2 at high pressure (1500 psi) stripes out oil that cannot be remove otherwise. The CO2 acts as a solvent. Deep saline aquifiers and deep unminable coal seams are non-beneficial sinks.
Costs for CO2 capture and sequestration are still coming in. The debate is to capture it pre combustion (gasification) or post combustion traditional boiler technology. I'm leaning towards post combustion, because the same technology can be retrofit to the existing coal fleet. One promising technology (chilled ammonia) produces CO2 at about 700 psi, so the compression costs (up to 1500 psi) are lower.
June 25, 2008
9:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Trythinking,
Sorry if it seemed I was dodging - I had to run and catch my bus and never got on-line at home.
What I mean by biogenic methane is harvesting the methane produced by the decomposition of garbage. In traditional landfills methane is a nuisance that must be vented to prevent dangerous concentrations. If the waste stream were to be cultured and processed with ethanol and methane production in mind, it might just possibly be economic.
Here's one link:
http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/...
Of course, the fact that no major metropolitan area has committed itself to this concept is itself strong anecdotal evidence that it is not viable ...
Myeself, I strongly believe that such an investment, if it could be shown to be economic, would serve a sprawling metroplex like Denver much better than an expensive fixed rail transit system.
June 25, 2008
9:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Brother Greenleaf,
Don't forget I'm a AGW skeptic. I'm not worried about my carbon footprint, per se. That's one of my concerns about the fixation on climate change, it distracts attention from severe known and documented environmental problems. Everything goes downstream and oceanic dead zones around the deltas of major rivers are growing at a breathtaking rate. (Mostly nitrates and heavy metals.) The water disposal of antibiotics and hormones promises chaotic effects throughout the biosphere. If we devote the resources necessary to reduce CO2 to 1980 levels we will not be able to address these water issues and, ethanol in mind, we will very likely exacerbate them.
No, I live on Capitol Hill, in the middle of the mess and try to walk as softly as possible ...
Regarding geothermal energy - very dicey indeed. At geologic hotspots like Iceland or Yellowstone, where magma bodies are relatively close to the surface it is possible. Near Yellowstone it would mean sacrificing the geysers - I'm not sure if people would go for that. In more marginal areas it requires drilling very deep wells and releasing incredibly toxic water. Coal bed methane has problems for the same reason - depressurizing the coal by pumping out incredible amounts of formation waters saturated with sodium and heavy metals. Where to dispose of this water?
June 25, 2008
9:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
HankRearden writes:
Konyok,
Thanks; I was not familiar with the term biogenic methane. I'm a power guy, we call that "land fill gas". It has promise, but as with everything in power size matters. Most landfill gas projects are relatively small. Gasification of waste can convert more waste into syngas faster and in a more controller manner. Gasification doesn’t do much for existing landfills.
Considering our dwindling natural resources, I believe that our landfills will someday be mined for resources. Not in a post-apocalyptic “Madd Max” world, but in a reasonable search for resources. Think about a 30-year old landfill (pre recycling) and the steel, aluminum, copper etc that it contains. Based on a pounds per ton basis, it probably would be considered a high-grade ore site for these metals. Why not gasifier the organic material while you are at it?
June 25, 2008
10:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Trythinking,
Just the geologic bias showing - biogenic gas is distinguished from thermogenic gas - the standard natural gas resource.
I think that *the solution* to our resource needs is "Let a thousand flowers bloom." Little bits and pieces here with a lot of ingenuity, just like they did in the old days.
We seem to have become so attached to this notion of *comprehensive* solutions to every problem, when the real world is actually a non-stop series of ad hoc fixes.