More on the War on Coal

Avatar

Michael Cain

Michael is a systems analyst, with a taste for obscure applied math. He's interested in energy supplies, the urban/rural divide, regional political differences in the US, and map-like things. Bicycling, and fencing (with swords, that is) act as stress relief.

Related Post Roulette

60 Responses

  1. Avatar Sam Wilkinson
    Ignored
    says:

    As somebody who lives in the heart of “war on coal” country, I have to say that few terms are as utterly infuriating to encounter.Report

  2. Avatar Damon
    Ignored
    says:

    “Generating companies are going to have to make tough decisions about how to spend – or not spend – their money. ”

    Nope. Generating companies are going to hit rate payers up for this. The end user is going to pay, along with possible brown outs and the like.Report

    • Avatar noptme in reply to Damon
      Ignored
      says:

      Them Dems will complain about the high cost of electricity and why the fed gov doesn’t subsidize it the masses.Report

      • Avatar Michael Cain in reply to noptme
        Ignored
        says:

        The highest retail electric rates in the country (excluding Alaska and Hawaii, which are their own special cases) are in CA and the NJ/NY/CT/MA cluster. Both heavily Democratic. Both opting for cleaner supplies over lower prices. TTBOMK, neither making any noises about federal subsidies.Report

        • Avatar Kolohe in reply to Michael Cain
          Ignored
          says:

          Do those two coastal areas have expensive retail electricity because they are switching the cleaner supplies? Or is electricity expensive because they are high cost of living areas with dense concentrations of population?

          Lots of people should push up electrical prices on the demand side. High cost of living should push up prices on the supply side (higher production costs due to cost of living) but lots of people may also do this (need to locate production facilities away from where all those people are)

          Then in turn, doesn’t higher retail prices (which are heavily regulated everywhere in the US) *allow* those regions more flexibility to switch to alternatives, because they won’t change the economic bottom line of the producers as much?

          (the characterization got me thinking this way because “rich areas are heavily Democratic” somewhat confuses cause and effect.)Report

          • Avatar Michael Cain in reply to Kolohe
            Ignored
            says:

            Historical cause-and-effect is always an interesting game. Certainly I am as guilty as anyone from time to time in picking an interpretation of the facts that match what I want.

            Southern California, at least, is an interesting case. Over a ten year interval from 50-60 years ago, California imposed its own heavy clean air statutes and started construction of San Onefre and Diablo Canyon. Nuclear electricity turned out to be much more expensive than thought. 15 years later, needing more power, they built the Intermountain power station — huge, coal-fired, and located in Utah where it wouldn’t affect Southern California’s air quality. As a philosophical matter — LA’s decision to be coal-free — they are spending something north of $500M to convert the Intermountain plant to natural gas. I interpret that as a decision to favor clean air over cheap electricity — some of it by accident, some of it on purpose. YMMV.Report

            • Avatar Burt Likko in reply to Michael Cain
              Ignored
              says:

              I think that’s about right — in the recent past, the political priority was to have substantially cleaner air in and around the urban areas of Southern California. That goal was achieved by essentially outsourcing the generation of pollutants to Utah. A new generation of subject matter experts and political officials now in power sees the environmental question a little bit differently than did the previous generation, and the prevention of pollutants from entering the atmosphere at all, rather than contaminating populated areas, is the priority.

              Whether that’s because it’s now possible to see the ocean from a downtown office tower where a generation ago that would have been difficult to do even in a Santa Ana wind condition, or because there’s just plain better science out there, I don’t pretend to know. It’s simply the advance of time and the framing of issues has changed. That is the way of things and perhaps it is a good reminder that we shouldn’t try to solve too many of tomorrow’s problems today.

              Keeping consumer prices down has not a been a political priority for that entire time. Part of that is because the state subsidizes consumer prices for people of moderate incomes. Whether a state with a less robust economy and a less robust tax base than California could do that without Federal assistance, I don’t know.

              But it is a function of setting political priorities largely by a combination of elected officials in relatively obscure offices and subject matter experts, and the voters not disputing the priorities set by these people in any serious way.Report

          • Avatar J_A in reply to Kolohe
            Ignored
            says:

            Personnel costs are a rounding error on the cost of generating electricity.

            Offshore wind plants with several hundred MWs of installed capacity run remotely with zero on site personnel.

            Most other plants have one to three operators per shift and a couple more people around: a chemist or similar for environmental and fuel testing, a secretary to pick up calls, a couple of guys scheduling maintenance and another couple keeping up the purchase, receipt and warehousing of spare parts.

            Plants run themselves these days. Another example of blue collar jobs that have disappeared never to come back.Report

        • Avatar noptme in reply to Michael Cain
          Ignored
          says:

          This situation in this discussion is, I think, different from what you are referring to.Report

    • Avatar J_A in reply to Damon
      Ignored
      says:

      At the end of the day, rate payers are the only source of revenue for the whole electrical grid, from Hoover Dam to the plug where you plug your computer (not counting taxpayers subsidies).Report

  3. Avatar DensityDuck
    Ignored
    says:

    Five years on: ” ‘We’re running the stove to keep the house wam’ Detroit family’s experience shows racial bias in electrical-power charges”Report

  4. Avatar Oscar Gordon
    Ignored
    says:

    Michigan can just start building solar plants and wind turbines, right?

    PS that article does start to explain the reality of running on pure solar/wind power.Report

    • Avatar David Parsons in reply to Oscar Gordon
      Ignored
      says:

      The article goes off the rails when it starts talking about batteries for storage. Pity.Report

      • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to David Parsons
        Ignored
        says:

        @david-parsons

        Curious: Why?Report

        • Avatar David Parsons in reply to Oscar Gordon
          Ignored
          says:

          Batteries don’t scale very well. If you’re not going to baseline the grid on nuclear, pumped storage is a far better way to go (the argument against it is that you need to place reservoirs on mountaintops, but thanks(?) to mountaintop removal in the east there are plenty of locations where you’re not going to further destroy scenic vistas.)Report

          • Avatar J_A in reply to David Parsons
            Ignored
            says:

            You are right in everything, but batteries have a great role to play in distributed generation.Report

          • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to David Parsons
            Ignored
            says:

            @david-parsons

            Gotcha. I agree that if someone is talking about electrochemical energy storage for large scale needs, as opposed to potential energy storage, then they aren’t being very serious.

            And @j_a is right, electrochemical is a necessary component of home or business scale distributed storage. It has a role, just not the role mentioned.

            Anyway, my main point was that, much like @north, I have a hard time taking certain renewable energy advocates seriously because they think the only reason we aren’t swimming along on solar & wind power is because of Big Fossil, without trying to understand the economics, or infrastructure, requirements.Report

            • Avatar J_A in reply to Oscar Gordon
              Ignored
              says:

              You are right in general, but the particulars of the economics on wind have changed dramatically in the last 15 years.

              Given that wind costs is basically repaying the initial investment, the drop in $/MWh from 2000 to 2015 is about 1/3 or more, making wind competitive in the generation pool without subsidies.

              There are already places, not only in the USA, with more wind than what the grid stability can manage. And more keeps coming on line.Report

              • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to J_A
                Ignored
                says:

                @j_a

                More wind potential, or more deployed generating capacity?

                Because I can believe that we (the US) have mapped out a lot of potential, but I’d be surprised that we have more capacity than the grid can handle.

                Additionally, if the grid can’t handle it, then we still have the problem that the infrastructure isn’t in place yet to allow us to shutdown fossil fuel or nuclear generation as quickly as some would like.Report

              • Avatar Michael Cain in reply to Oscar Gordon
                Ignored
                says:

                There have been cases in the last couple of years where a combination of grid limits and dispatching rules have resulted in an excess of wind power. Western Oregon/Washington, for example. BPA’s dispatching rules give priority to power generated when their dams are releasing water for other purposes. At times, the combination of that dam power plus what the Columbia Gorge wind farms can produce exceeded the ability of the grid to move power to demand centers. Expansion of the ties to population centers in Northern and Southern California would help. I believe Texas has also had some odd combinations of dispatching and transmission that led to wind turbines being shut down ( @j_a probably knows those in painful detail). This has not been a problem in Colorado because Xcel’s dispatching rules prioritize wind over most everything else.Report

              • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to Michael Cain
                Ignored
                says:

                Well, the west is, as you’ve said before, well positioned to enjoy wind & solar power. Too bad the east is not so lucky (although I bet if they built some stuff offshore… but naw, can’t disrupt the view (-; )Report

              • Avatar Michael Cain in reply to Oscar Gordon
                Ignored
                says:

                Don’t forget hydro. Conventional hydro is the Western Interconnect’s nuclear — a bit over 30% of generation in wet years, a bit over 20% in dry years. According to NREL, the Western could double that — not a big deal on a national scale, but definitely big for those states. Unconventional hydro like run-of-river stuff is an even bigger potential source.Report

              • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to Michael Cain
                Ignored
                says:

                I never forget hydro, and run of the river is cool (thanks again, @j_a ). Taking Bug to see the dams is fun.Report

              • Avatar J_A in reply to Oscar Gordon
                Ignored
                says:

                Existing wind generation indeed

                I was also thinking Jilin in (far NE) China, Nicaragua, and, recently, the central area of ChileReport

              • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to J_A
                Ignored
                says:

                Good to hear, but not much help in the USReport

              • Avatar J_A in reply to Oscar Gordon
                Ignored
                says:

                Particularly, with wind, large wind facilities should probably be paired with fast on line open cycle gas turbines, quite inefficient but very fast to ramp up and down. Probably regulations should require developers to add such fast reserve on a ratio of X to Y when developing wing above a certain levelReport

              • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to J_A
                Ignored
                says:

                Turbines, or some manner of potential energy storage (pumped hydro, etc.). How much water do you need to make X MW of power?Report

              • Avatar J_A in reply to Oscar Gordon
                Ignored
                says:

                Totally dependent on head.

                You are converting massxheadxg to electricity at an efficiency factor of 40% or so (been years since I cared). You can get enough for a small village with a creek and the head of a small hill. You can do a city with a not too big river and 1,000 mts head

                Full run of river with no head whatsoever (Danube River style) is a matter of water flow. Bulb turbines are just boat propellers running in the other direction.Report

              • Avatar J_A in reply to J_A
                Ignored
                says:

                And yes, water is very fast to be brought on line, but might not be in the right location. You can have the gas turbines in site with compressed natural gas, if piped gas is not available. A 20′ container with give you almost 20 MWh of generation. A similar container of LNG would do about 50 MWh.

                Several containers on site can allow for fast ramping of a small gas facility to take over under sudden wind drop conditions without affecting the grid stabilityReport

              • Avatar Michael Cain in reply to J_A
                Ignored
                says:

                You can have the gas turbines in site with compressed natural gas, if piped gas is not available.

                As I understand it, Xcel Energy does a much more centralized version of this along Front Range Colorado. Coal and/or base load natural gas plants spaced north and south along the strip. The big wind farms are mostly far north along the Wyoming border or well off to the SE of Denver. Xcel’s now standard deal is to sign long-term contracts and take every watt the farms produce. Their own centralized gas- and coal-fired plants spin up and down to adjust for the vagaries of wind. I understand that they’re getting to be very good at wind predictions, so the adjustments aren’t that big a deal.

                It’s a peculiar situation in many ways. Expanding to cover the Western Interconnect is feasible, given a large (but topologically fairly simple) HVDC system. Elsewhere, yeah, local pairing is probably much more important.Report

              • Avatar J_A in reply to Michael Cain
                Ignored
                says:

                I didn’t know that Xcel did that, but that’s exactly the same I was proposing, X eat for the coal. Coal is very slow to ramp up/downReport

    • Avatar Michael Cain in reply to Oscar Gordon
      Ignored
      says:

      Michigan can just start building solar plants and wind turbines, right?

      In theory, sure. In practice? In 2015, 46% of Michigan’s in-state generation was coal-fired. If you believe my interpretation of the Court’s action, Michigan has six years to clean that up or replace it. The owners don’t seem inclined to clean up most of the small plants (which is true nationally, not just in Michigan). From 2008 to 2015, with a specific target in statute, Michigan increased the share of wood/hydro/wind/solar in-state generation from 3.4% to 7.7%, most of the increase due to wind. A state-wide referendum to increase the renewable share went down in flames. To compound things, the NRC has already said that the smallest of Michigan’s three nuclear plants (800 MW capacity) has to shut down in 2030 — its operating license will not be renewed. Sort those into any order you want, but I don’t see how there aren’t significant supply issues down the road.Report

      • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to Michael Cain
        Ignored
        says:

        You know I’m being facetious, right?

        Michigan is a bad place for solar, and probably only middling good for wind.Report

      • Avatar North in reply to Michael Cain
        Ignored
        says:

        It seems to me that Michigan is tailor made for nuclear power. Tons and tons of water, cool climate, extremely stable; no earthquakes of any significance, no tidal waves, no major storms, a huge market for waste heat.Report

        • Avatar Michael Cain in reply to North
          Ignored
          says:

          Personal opinions here, entirely… Michigan will opt for nuclear power if and only if they are provided a means of burying their reactors’ spent fuel far away. The choice of Yucca Mountain was a political decision that put the spent fuel far enough away to provide political cover for the eastern US, which desperately needs nuclear — but can’t overcome the political problem unless the spent fuel is buried in what is, for practical purposes, a foreign country.Report

          • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to Michael Cain
            Ignored
            says:

            Or the political problem of not being allowed to recycle spent fuel.Report

          • Avatar North in reply to Michael Cain
            Ignored
            says:

            Yeah, perish the thought we just reprocess the fishing stuff, but no, the environmentalists get the fear and collectively collapse on their fainting couches.Report

            • Avatar J_A in reply to North
              Ignored
              says:

              The funny thing is that the prohibition on recycling spent nuclear fuel is not based on environmental concerns, but on “minimizing” the risk that processed fuel gets in the hands of terrorists or rogue actors.

              I think most environmentalists would support raising the ban, in order to reduce the risk of the spent fuel seeping out and polluting the area.Report

              • Avatar North in reply to J_A
                Ignored
                says:

                For sure, as if the US was ever at serious risk of reprocessed fuel getting stolen by terrorists of rogue actors (eyeroll).

                One would -think- environmentalists would be in favor of that but unfortunately anti-nuclear everything was baked into mainstream environmentalisms bones during the formation of modern environmentalism and it’s sunk in deep.Report

              • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to J_A
                Ignored
                says:

                This. I know the radiological compounds tracking system isn’t perfect, but it does work.

                Question: Anyone know if there is a technical reason to not have a reprocessing facility at the power station? Is it a scaling issue (better to have a handful of reprocessing plants that can handle large amounts all at once, rather than tons of little ones)?Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *