The Energy Blog

EPRI Analysis Finds Utility Based Energy Efficiency Programs Could Cut Energy Consumption 7-11 %

Energy efficiency improvements in the U.S. electric power sector could reduce electric consumption by 7 to 11 percent more than currently projected over the next two decades if key barriers can be addressed, according to a preliminary analysis of potential energy savings released recently by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) during an Edison Foundation conference which examined strategies to meet the growing demand for electricity which is expected to soar 30 percent by 2030, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

“This study demonstrates the potential of energy efficiency to offset some of the projected need for new electric generation as cutting-edge technologies become available and are adopted. We think a 7-percent efficiency improvement is realistic – and gains of 11 percent or more are technologically feasible – depending on the degree to which various obstacles can be overcome.”

-- Dr. Michael Howard, senior vice president at EPRI

That demand growth projection would be even higher without the implementation of existing building codes, appliance standards and market-driven consumer incentives, which will shave electricity consumption by 23 percent, according to the EPRI-EEI study. However, additional efficiency gains could be achieved only by overcoming major market, regulatory and consumer barriers, the analysis found.  . . .

Essential steps include increased consumer education; adoption and enforcement of aggressive building codes and appliance standards; creation of utility business models that promote increased efficiency within the power sector; and adoption of electricity pricing policies that more accurately reflect the cost of providing electricity to consumers – and give them the information they need to use it wisely.  . . .

At the same time, consumers’ ever-increasing appetite for electricity-hungry devices – even with continuing efficiency improvements – will keep electricity demand on a steady upward trajectory. A 42-inch plasma television consumes two and a half times more energy (250 watts) than a standard 27-inch TV (100 watts). And while many large household appliances have become more efficient over the years, many smaller devices have not. Two 30-watt set-top television boxes, for example, may consume as much electricity as a large refrigerator.

FYI: Nanomaterial Turns Radiation Directly into Electricity

According to an article in New Scientist, materials that directly convert radiation into electricity could produce a new era of spacecraft and even Earth-based vehicles powered by high-powered nuclear batteries, say US researchers.  . . .

The materials they are testing would extract up to 20 times more power from radioactive decay than thermoelectric materials, they calculate.  . . .

Tests of layered tiles of carbon nanotubes packed with gold and surrounded by lithium hydride are under way.  . . .

The tiles would be best used to create electricity using a radioactive material, says Liviu Popa-Simil, former Los Alamos National Laboratory nuclear engineer and founder of private research and development company LAVM , because they could be embedded directly where radiation is greatest. But they could also harvest power directly from a fission reactor's radiation.

Devices based on the material could be small enough to power anything from interplanetary probes to aircraft and land vehicles, he adds.

Chilled Ammonia Carbon Capture Process to be Demonstrated

A pilot plant that uses chilled ammonia to capture carbon dioxide (CO2) from coal-fueled power plants was launched by Alstom, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and We Energies, at We Energies’ Pleasant Prairie Power Plant in Wisconsin. Alstom designed, constructed and will operate the 1.7 MW system that captures CO2 from a portion of coal-fired boiler flue gas at the power plant, a 1,224 MW coal-fired generating station.

Alstom’s process uses chilled ammonia to capture CO2 and isolates it in a highly concentrated, high-pressure form. In laboratory testing it has demonstrated the potential to capture more than 90 percent of CO2 at a cost that is far less than other carbon capture technologies. Once captured, the CO2 can be used commercially or sequestered in suitable underground geologic sites.

“Developing cost-effective carbon capture technology is one of the most important environmental challenges facing the utility industry in the 21st century and it’s important that we take steps now to achieve a long-term technology solution”

-- Gale Klappa, Chairman, President and CEO of Wisconsin Energy, parent company of We Energies

This process sounds like one that could be fairly easily integrated into existing power plants and lead the way towards the government requiring carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) at all coal fired power plants.  Note that this project is being done with no government financing. Other technologies that are being developed and that have been reported on by TEB, include: ones using ZIFs, sodium hydroxide, or amine based solvents, another, I believe ambient temperature ammonia system, algae systems, and an e.coli system.  These processes are aimed at conventional coal fired plants.  IGCC and Oxyfuel plants isolate the CO2 as part of the processes so carbon capture is a much simpler process, but these plants cost more than conventional coal plants.  There is disagreement whether conventional plants with CCS or IGCC plants with just sequestration are the most economical and which plants will dominate the industry in the future.  In any case there is a huge number of existing conventional coal plants that need CCS, once legislation is passed requiring it.

Leading Wall Street Banks Establish The Carbon Principles

Guidelines to strengthen environmental and economic risk management in the financing and construction of electricity generation.

Three of the world's leading financial institutions announced the formation of The Carbon Principles, climate change guidelines for advisors and lenders to power companies in the United States. The need for these Principles is driven by the risks faced by the power industry as utilities, independent producers, regulators, lenders and investors deal with the uncertainties around regional and national climate change policy.

The Principles were developed in partnership by Citi, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley, and in consultation with leading power companies American Electric Power, CMS Energy, DTE Energy, NRG Energy, PSEG, Sempra and Southern Company. Environmental Defense and the Natural Resources Defense Council, environmental non-governmental organizations, also advised on the creation of the Principles.

Citi, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley have pledged their commitment to the Principles to use as a framework when talking about these issues with clients. This effort creates a consistent approach among major lenders and advisors in evaluating climate change risks and opportunities in the US electric power industry. The Principles and associated Enhanced Diligence represent a first step in a process aimed at providing banks and their power industry clients with a consistent roadmap for reducing the regulatory and financial risks associated with greenhouse gas emissions.

The Principles are:

FutureGen Scrapped, CCS to be Demonstrated on Multiple Clean Coal Power Plants

From a DOE announcement:

DOE announced a restructured approach to its FutureGen project that aims to demonstrate cutting-edge carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology at multiple commercial-scale Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) clean coal power plants.

Under this strategy, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) will join industry in its efforts to build IGCC plants by providing funding for the addition of CCS technology to multiple plants that will be operational by 2015.  This approach builds on technological research and development advancements in IGCC and CCS technology achieved over the past five years and is expected to at least double the amount of carbon dioxide sequestered compared to the concept announced in 2003.  . . .

The Department today issued a Request for Information (RFI) that seeks industry’s input by March 3, 2008, on the costs and feasibility associated with building clean coal facilities that achieve the intended goals of FutureGen.  Following this period and consideration of industry comment, DOE intends to issue a Funding Opportunity Announcement – or competitive solicitation – to provide federal funding under cooperative agreements to equip IGCC (or other clean coal technology) commercial power plants that generate at least 300 megawatts, with CCS technology aimed at accelerating near-term technology deployment.  . . .

Under this plan, DOE’s investment would provide funding for no more than the CCS component of the power plant – not the entire plant construction, compared with the FutureGen concept announced in 2003 where the federal government would incur 74% of rising costs.  This would allow for commercial operation of IGCC power plants equipped with CCS technology to begin as soon as the plants are commissioned, between 2015 and 2016.  . . .

The four sites – two in Illinois and two in Texas – evaluated in the Department’s Environmental Impact Statement issued in November 2007, including the site announced by the FutureGen Alliance in December 2007, Mattoon, IL, may be eligible to host a commercial-scale IGCC plant with CCS technology.

I think this approach is much better than the original, provided it does not delay the demonstration of CCS and the following legislation to require CCS, or equivalent technology, on future coal fired plants.

Shell CEO Presents Two Scenarios For the Future of Energy

The chief executive of Shell has posted this article on Shell's new energy scenarios. I was made aware of it by The Oil Drum, who first posted it at http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3548 and I thought it was worth repeating for your comments. They had a large number, 153, of mostly very insightful comments at the time of this posting. 

The article supports the peak oil theory, as I envision it. They defined it as the time that easy accessible oil will no longer be able to keep up with demand, their estimate being 2015.  I interpret that as meaning that heavy oil, as in the tar sands of Canada and the heavy oil in Venezuela, and oil shale are not significant sources of oil by 2015 and that their addition will cause significant increases in the price of oil which will have an effect on demand. The exact date is not that important, but it is meaningful that they predict a relatively near date, within the next 10 years.

They also predict that A growing number of cars are powered by electricity and hydrogen.  I think they underemphasize this important factor in reducing our consumption of oil, and believe that hydrogen will not play that important a role. I think a very aggressive development of PHEVs, EVs and biofuels combined with North Americas' (USA, Mexico and Canada) remaining reserves of oil should be able to supply all our needs to power our vehicles and have some expensive oil left over to export to other countries before 2100, hopefully by 2050.

The statements that more nuclear power will be required and that carbon capture and sequesteration (CCS) must be required on coal powered power plants in all developed countries are right in line with my thinking.  In the interim period, until renewable power can replace all aging nuclear and coal powered plants, these power sources will be required, no matter how much power is saved by increased efficiency in the home and in industry. From the economic point of view nuclear power has the clear advantage over coal when CCS is required on coal plants. However there is opposition to nuclear in some quarters and will be as long as the threats of proliferation and problems with waste disposal remain issues.  To me the ideal situation would be thorium fueled plants with fuel recycling.  However it will be a very long time before there is any consensus on that.

The complete text of the article, as appears on the Shell website, is given below. The bold facing is mine.

Two Energy Futures

* By Jeroen van der Veer

By 2100, the world’s energy system will be radically different from today’s. Renewable energy like solar, wind, hydroelectricity, and biofuels will make up a large share of the energy mix, and nuclear energy, too, will have a place. Humans will have found ways of dealing with air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. New technologies will have reduced the amount of energy needed to power buildings and vehicles.

Chinese "GreenGen" Power Plant with CCS

A little late in reporting, but still significant:

Peabody Energy (NYSE: BTU) became the only non-Chinese equity partner in "GreenGen," the first near-zero emissions coal-fueled power plant with carbon capture and storage (CCS) which is under development in China.  . . .

The US$1 billion GreenGen project will use advanced coal-based technologies to generate electricity for Chinese families and businesses using China's most abundant energy resource. It will be capable of hydrogen production and will advance carbon dioxide capture and storage, providing a clean energy prototype to address carbon dioxide concerns.  . . .

Led by managing partner China Huaneng Group, the GreenGen Company will design, develop and operate an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plant near Tianjin, southeast of Beijing. A 250-megawatt plant will be built in the initial phase, expanding to 650-megawatts in later phases.

Project design and review is complete, a site has been selected at the Lingang Industrial Park, and construction is expected to commence in early 2008, with the first phase of the plant expected on line by 2009. The project includes multiple phases for additional generation and carbon capture.  . .

Noted in Passing: IEA Says Massive Investment in Alternative Electricity Generation to Reduce CO2 Emissions

The Telegraph.co.uk ran the following post:

The world needs to build 30 nuclear power stations and the equivalent of two Three Gorges dams every year to prevent dangerous climate change, the International Energy Agency has said.

It also needs to build 13,000 wind turbines and 40 coal and gas power stations fitted with carbon capture and storage technology each year between 2013 and 2030, the head of the Agency told the climate change conference in Bali. 

. . . an £11 trillion investment in alternative electricity generation technology was needed to meet the target of more than halving atmospheric emissions of carbon dioxide by 2050.  . . .  More

Supergrid to Supply Europe with Wind Power

The Independent reports that a proposed supergrid could supply Europe with carbon free electricity primarily from wind power. The 5,000-mile electrical grid, stretching from Siberia to Morocco and Egypt to Iceland, would slash Europe's CO2 emissions by a quarter, scientists say.

The scheme would make the use of renewable energy, particularly wind power, so reliable and cheap that it would replace fossil fuels on an unprecedented scale, serving 1.1 billion people in 50 countries. Europe's 1.25bn tons of annual CO2 output from electricity generation would be wiped out. High-voltage direct current (HVDC) lines, up to 100 times as long as the alternating current (AC) cables carried by the National Grid's pylons, would form the system's main arteries. HVDC lines are three times as efficient, making them cost effective over distances above 50 miles.

Building the supergrid would require an investment of US$80bn (£40bn), plus the cost of the wind turbines – a fraction of the €1 trillion the EU expects to pay for a 20 per cent reduction of its carbon footprint by 2020. The average price of the electricity generated would be just 4.6 euro cents per kWh, competitive with today's rates, which are likely to rise as fossil fuels run out.  . . .

Kansas Turns Down Coal Power Plant Because of CO2 Emissions

An article in the Washington Post reports, on what could be a major decision in the fight against global warming, that the Kansas Department of Health and Environment became the first government agency in the United States to cite carbon dioxide emissions as the reason for rejecting an air permit for a proposed coal-fired electricity generating plant, saying that the greenhouse gas threatens public health and the environment. . . .

It may be the first of a series of similar state actions inspired by a Supreme Court decision in April that asserted that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide should be considered pollutants under the Clean Air Act. . . . more

Update, 12:34 am:

This is not the only coal plant in trouble, as this article in the Austin American Statemen reports:  At least 16 coal-fired power plant proposals nationwide have been scrapped in recent months and more than three dozen have been delayed as utilities face increasing pressure due to concerns over global warming and rising construction costs. . . . more

Update, 1:48 am:

In Energy and Capital Jeff Siegel wrote: This past Tuesday, American Electric Power Company agreed to a $4.6 billion settlement over pollution controls at its power plants. The company will also have to shell out $15 million in civil penalties and $60 million in cleanup and mitigation costs. . . . more

If this precedent is followed, and it will be cited by environmentalists in future applications for air quality permits for future coal powered power plants, we may not need additional legislation to require carbon capture and sequestration, unless a law is passed exempting carbon dioxide from the provisions of the Clean Air Act.  The later would be a very unpopular law with citizens and, I believe, from Democrats and without much support from Republicans in an election year.  Until this is straighted out in appeals courts, it looks like a big win for nuclear power and renewables as utilities will be less willing to take a chance on coal powered power plants. This will also be a big boon for wind power and thermal solar in the near future, until PV solar becomes more competitive. The fact is that coal power is getting more expensive as many other sources are becoming less expensive.