A look ahead
Tuesday, Aug 4, 2015 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Michael Hawthorne looks at the president’s new power plant emission rules…
State plans are due in September 2016, though states that need more time can ask for a two-year extension. In Illinois, overall emissions will need to drop by about 31 percent from 2012 levels to 66.5 million tons — equivalent to taking 5.6 million cars off the roads.
Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner declined to comment on the new rules pending a more detailed review. Unlike many of his fellow Republican governors, Rauner is not expected to join in the legal challenges, in part because Exelon’s carbon-free nuclear plants account for nearly half of the state’s energy mix. Illinois also is home to the corporate headquarters of more than a dozen wind companies.
Last month, Rauner’s top environmental regulator told an industry forum that Illinois is taking a “no-regrets approach” to complying with the climate rules. State officials have been meeting throughout the past year with officials from other states and various industries to discuss how to meet the EPA targets without disrupting the economy.
“Illinois is well positioned to meet the challenge with targeted policy initiatives that harness the state’s energy efficiency and renewable energy resources to complement our nuclear and coal resources,” said Illinois EPA Director Lisa Bonnett, a longtime agency official retained by the Rauner administration.
Coal and gas plants in Illinois emitted 2,208 pounds of carbon dioxide for every megawatt-hour of electricity generated in 2012, according to updated EPA data. The new rules will require the state to reduce that rate to 1,245 pounds per megawatt-hour — a decline of nearly 44 percent — by 2030.
* The coal-mining industry is super-efficient in this country. Despite Illinois being the fifth largest producer of coal, and producing more coal in this state last year than at any time since 1992, the industry only employs about 4,200 workers here.
One way to partially meet the president’s goals might be to use more Illinois coal, because it burns so hot and can therefore produce more electricity per ton than western coal. But that’s gonna be expensive because of scrubbers.
* Another way is to increase the use of natural gas…
It’s a little amazing to me that natural gas trails renewables by so much here. But perhaps with some government incentives, we could kickstart the nonexistent fracking industry here by tying new or converted plants to Illinois natural gas production.
But converting coal-fired plants to gas or building new ones won’t be cheap, either.
Even so, we’re in a much better position than other states, like Indiana, because we have our nukes and significant renewable sources.
- mcb - Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 1:51 pm:
The existing gas plants in the state are largely made up of existing “peaker” generators, used by coal plants to cover peaks and spikes in electricity because coal and nukes can’t throttle up and down as fast. Now they’re using those turbines for more primary generation because the fuel is cheap.
I think we haven’t seen new gas plants built much because of a fear that cheap natural gas may not be long term, plus the simple costs and our weird power market. We’ve seen proposals looking for state help, such as the one that failed for Taylorville. I believe one near Chicago passed. I’m not sure why we can’t build power plants anymore without government help.
- He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint - Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 1:53 pm:
Ask the City of Springfield about the Wind Energy contract they have. It has cost them nearly 75 million dollars more than just using their own power.
This is going to cause the cost of electricity to go way up, and will really devastate the coal industry. It will do little to cut the “Footprint”.
- mcb - Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 1:55 pm:
This is a well-meaning move from the president, but it isn’t grounded in reality. Wind is simply not a viable primary source (needs wind which is not controlled by humans, plus when the wind blows, it’s typically at times of low power usage). Solar is better (still relies on mother nature, but generally sunshine coincides with peak use) but the tech is still a little way out. Nuclear is the best carbon free power that we have. But an anti-science movement has made it nearly impossible to build new plants.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 1:57 pm:
===But an anti-science movement has made it nearly impossible to build new plants. ===
It’s more of a fear of bad science, or, more specifically, poorly constructed nuke plants. If a coal plant burns down, people will die but you don’t have to evacuate the entire region for thousands of years.
- Thunder Fred - Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 2:00 pm:
Natural Gas companies gave environmental groups hundreds of millions of dollars to stick it to coal.
Middle East companies gave environmental groups hundreds of millions of dollars to stick it to hydraulic fracturing.
Who’s paying them to attempt to shift markets in their favor this time?
- mcb - Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 2:01 pm:
http://gizmodo.com/5782238/giz-explains-is-it-possible-to-build-a-disaster-proof-nuclear-power-plant
http://energy.gov/ne/nuclear-reactor-technologies/small-modular-nuclear-reactors
The technology is there to survive earthquakes. No one here wants to invest because of anti-science fear-mongering.
- mcb - Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 2:08 pm:
- He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint -
CWLP’s woes have more to do with a perfect storm of terrible decision making. Such as locking in sky-high wind prices right before the power market and especially renewable prices drops, then building another coal fired plant right before the market drops. Those decisions were based on all the money CWLP could make by selling surplus, power on the market. Except then wholesale power prices dropped to what it costs CWLP to generate (and here and there less). Meaning now CWLP buys power it doesn’t need for way above market prices while sitting on a nearly idling coal plant that it can’t profitably sell power from.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 2:09 pm:
Who knew there’d be so many coal trolls here?
lol
- Qui Tam - Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 2:12 pm:
“Ask the City of Springfield about the Wind Energy contract they have. It has cost them nearly 75 million dollars more than just using their own power.”
Ask the City of Springfield who borrowed a half-billion dollars to build a coal plant for power marketing. The wind contract is a rounding error compared to its losing power market gambles of 1997 and 2003.
- mcb - Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 2:15 pm:
coal trolls?
- Wordslinger - Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 2:19 pm:
Thunder Fred, hundreds of millions, really?
I wouldn’t count on new tracking any time soon. Oil has tanked again to $46 a barrel. It had been steady at $100 for about for years until a year ago.
That’s meant about 100,000 layoffs across Texas, ND and other spots out West, according to WSJ, with more to come (strangely, state “business climates” have nothing to do with that).
But the drop in gasoline prices have been sweet for everyone else.
- kimaye - Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 2:19 pm:
don’t worry mcb, he isn’t calling you a coal troll. you are actually a nuclear troll.
lol
- mcb - Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 2:24 pm:
I’d add that the “coal caucus” has a proposal to help using Illinois coal. They want to eliminate the provision where generators can pass the cost of coal shipping on to consumers.
Currently generators don’t have to deal with the cost of scrubbers or shipping Wyoming coal. Because they are allowed to buy what’s cheapest for them, which is Wyoming coal, and make us pay to ship it. Terrible law. Huge giveaway to the generators. Would have been better to just stick the consumers with the cost of scrubbers, then the efficiency of Illinois coal would have been the cheaper option for generators.
Coal lawmakers want to put an end to this.
- okgo - Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 2:26 pm:
We have to reduce our rate by 44%, or our total tons by 31%.
Burning Illinois coal will get us heat rate improvements worth 2-4% of our rate.
Switching half of our coal plants to Natural Gas will get us 20% of our tons.
Losing any nuclear means nothing (since they eliminated the 6% credit for at-risk nuclear in the final rule).
We can build new nuclear to cover the gap.
We can build new wind or new solar to cover the gap, along with energy efficiency to reduce the growth of load.
Which do you think is cheapest out of all of the above?
- A guy - Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 2:29 pm:
===If a coal plant burns down, people will die but you don’t have to evacuate the entire region for thousands of years.===
True. Not to mention how many simply leave on their own. /s.
- CPP - Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 2:31 pm:
Compliance for Illinois should not be costly or even that hard from a policy point of view. If we invest in all cost-effective energy efficiency, fix the existing RPS, and improve the heat rates/convert to nat. gas just a couple of coal plants that’s pretty much it. The politics complicate this - so, e.g., ComEd will insist on some policy changes if EE potential will be maximized; and, of course, there’s Exelon - but should be doable.
- JackD - Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 2:46 pm:
Funny noone’s mentioned the little problem of waste with nuclear.
- Mittuns - Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 2:47 pm:
You gotta pay the coal troll to get into the state’s energy portfolio, you gotta pay the coal troll to get in…
I thought CWLP was pretty great in Springfield, usually cheaper than Ameren from what I recall.
- okgo - Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 3:08 pm:
Who says nuclear is emission-free?
“METROPOLIS, Illinois — A southern Illinois uranium-conversion plant is undergoing a special inspection after a weekend leak of uranium hexafluoride, a gas used to produce enriched uranium for nuclear power plants, Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials said.”
http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/c27810be884345e39bb0457b4fe313b6/IL–Honeywell-Plant-NRC-Inspection
- dupage dan - Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 3:31 pm:
NIMBY rules. Good luck building any new power plants anywhere, no matter what fuel is used. There is a reason no new oil refineries have been built in this country in a generation. Nuclear power plants can be built safe and the waste product can be minimized if the right plant is used. Breeder reactors are such a plant. That can’t be done because of an inordinate fear of nuclear power. 50 years of energy production and not one death.
Coal ash is a problem. Highly radioactive waste is a problem. Carbon is not a pollutant.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 3:34 pm:
===Breeder reactors are such a plant===
Some in the industry have been pushing those for a long time, and from my understanding of it (admittedly many years ago) those were the least safe.
- Wordslinger - Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 3:46 pm:
– There’s a reason no new oil refineries have been built in this country in a generation.–
New simple refineries went into operation this year in North Dakota and Houston. A number of others have been built in the last 30 years and complex refineries have added capacity.
Is there a reason to pretend otherwise?
Refineries in the U.S. are net exporters of petroleum products.
- Beaner - Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 3:54 pm:
We have peak electrical demand in the Summer for air conditioning. If State’s would mandate in their building codes all roofs be energy efficient, we would be much closer to reaching our goals through efficiency. If you are replacing a roof, get the Energy Star rated white shingles, and enjoy the 10% federal tax credit. White is an okay house color regardless of the color of the rest of the place. Do not pay high air conditioning bills…go on vacation instead.
- Senator Clay Davis - Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 3:55 pm:
“You gotta pay the coal troll to get into the state’s energy portfolio”
Great reference there. Should we call you Kittun Mittuns?
And remember folks: the debate in Illinois is not whether climate change is real, or if nuclear waste is dangerous, but how can we cost-effectively reduce the amount of carbon we emit from power plants (yes, carbon IS a pollutant).
- Odysseus - Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 4:57 pm:
The problem with saying “we have our nukes” is that we won’t have them for too much longer. All Illinois nuke plants were built 30 years ago, and are nearing the end of their design lifetimes.
So we need to replace nearly half of Illinois generation capacity over the next decade or so. And we know that coal has no part of that future.
- mcb - Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 5:09 pm:
The reason breeder reactors haven’t moved forward is because uranium has remained cheap. The idea of breeder reactors is they produce more fuel energy than they use.
From wikipedia:
“Adherents claim that with seawater uranium extraction, there would be enough fuel for breeder reactors to satisfy our energy needs for 5 billion years at 1983’s total energy consumption rate, thus making nuclear energy effectively a renewable energy.”
Notice the billion with a B. No worries about “peak uranium”
- Going nuclear - Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 5:11 pm:
== One way to partially meet the president’s goals might be to use more Illinois coal, because it burns so hot and can therefore produce more electricity per ton than western coal. But that’s gonna be expensive because of scrubbers. ==
Most of the low-sulfur western coal plants in the state have been equipped with dry scrubbers to help meet EPA’s sulfur, mercury and haze regulations. It’s too late to turn back the clock; you would have to tear out the dry scrubbers and replace them with wet systems if you wanted to convert back to Illinois coal. These plants are also now owned by merchant power producers, not the utilities. They are going to be much more cautious with their investment dollars.
== Another way is to increase the use of natural gas… ==
We have several high efficiency gas plants that could be ramped up to produce more output, but I wouldn’t put too many eggs in the natural gas bucket.
Let’s utilize our existing assets to reduce carbon emissions. Keep the nukes running longer (except perhaps for the Clinton station) and fix the RPS to increase renewables modestly. Put most of the emphasis on working with the utilities to expand their energy efficiency programs, which is the lowest-cost option for reducing carbon emissions.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 5:11 pm:
===seawater uranium extraction===
The folks pushing breeder reactors have usually been connected to the atomic weapons industry - plutonium.
- mcb - Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 5:11 pm:
I’d love to see someone estimate how many windmills it would take to power this state at noon in the middle of August(when power usage is high and the wind doesn’t blow). I’m guessing there would be space left for anything else.
- mcb - Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 5:12 pm:
sorry, meant “no space”
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 5:12 pm:
mcb, has anyone suggested that Illinois go all-wind?
I didn’t think so.
Strawman arguments are not cool.
- Anonymous Redux - Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 5:13 pm:
The Clinton plant was designed to last twenty years.
Probably lots of better ways to boil water?…than by nuclear power…Japan?…still melting.
No sucha thing as “clean coal”.
- RNUG - Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 5:18 pm:
Ask the City of Springfield about the Wind Energy contract they were blackmailed into. It has cost them nearly 75 million dollars more than just using their own power.
There, it’s fixed.
- sal-says - Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 5:18 pm:
== we could kickstart the nonexistent fracking industry here ==
Understanding that there has been a continuing pro-fracking theme here, it is still real early in the fracking game.
There have been reports/studies about increased earthquakes and water quality affects which may not be all that reversible in a short time. And could have significant negative impacts on a lot of folks.
Not sure that IL needs to be the guinea pig here; IL will still win if the negative impacts are proven minimal in the future.
- sss - Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 6:48 pm:
Since you asked, mcg,
Covering all of Illinois’ August load would require about 37,000 turbines (new 2 MW towers operating at a 35-40% capacity factor).
That would require 1.1-1.2 million acres.
Our state is about 37 million acres.
- Striketoo - Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 6:49 pm:
“Carbon is not a pollutant.”
Carbon is the worst pollutant facing humanity today.
- sss - Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 6:53 pm:
And for clarity, that number includes the clearance around the turbine, which is farmable land.
The actual space taken up by the towers themselves would be 18,000 acres.
- dr. reason a. goodwin - Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 9:01 pm:
What if we helped (to a very large degree) every Illinois household to retrofit with energy efficient HVAC? It would cost a lot of money, but wouldn’t it still be less than the multi billions we would spend on scrubbers or new nuclear plants? And heating and air contractors in each Illinois community could add jobs.
- Lynn S, - Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 11:16 pm:
@- dupage dan - Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 3:31 pm:
Nuclear power plants can be built safe and the waste product can be minimized if the right plant is used. Breeder reactors are such a plant. That can’t be done because of an inordinate fear of nuclear power. 50 years of energy production and not one death.================
Um, what about Chernobyl or Fukushima?
Coal ash is a problem.=========== Agree, but before my landlord retired from the U of I his department was doing research on turning coal ash into cinder block building material.
Highly radioactive waste is a problem.==== Agree!!
Carbon is not a pollutant.===========Carbon may be beneficial, but when it comes out as carbon dioxide, we start the global warming cycle. That’s why these regulations strive to reduce carbon emissions.
- See the forest - Wednesday, Aug 5, 15 @ 7:57 am:
Why in God’s name would you want to “kickstart the nonexistent fracking industry” in Illinois?
Time to wean ourselves off of nuclear, gas, oil and coal. Here’s how it can be done: http://thesolutionsproject.org/
- mcb - Wednesday, Aug 5, 15 @ 9:54 am:
-sss-
“operating at a 35-40% capacity factor” is the problem. At noon in the summer there tends to not be much wind. That’s the problem with wind and solar, you can’t pull a lever and generate more power when demand spikes. Unless maybe you overbuild your windfarms to a point they can run the state at 5-10% production. That means roughly 8-10 times the amount of space you estimated.
Until someone puts serious research and testing money into STORING electricity, then wind and solar are both terrible choices for primary power production.
- Lynn S, - Wednesday, Aug 5, 15 @ 10:01 am:
Folks ARE doing research on batteries to store wind and solar power, but it takes time, and there’s a scale issue when you go from a cell phone battery to a battery that’s probably going to be the size of your 40 gallon water heater or an average furnace.
If you read the Wall Street Journal, mcb, when Tesla announced its “gigafactory” in Nevada, there was lots of ink used talking about how this factory was oversized, and would Tesla use the excess space to produce batteries for wind and solar power storage? Not such a jump from producing electric car batteries to home power batteries.