So. Calif. Cities Opt for Cleaner Power

Several Southern California cities are gambling their future power needs on the development of sufficient alternative energy sources, such as wind power, solar power and power from IGCC power plants to meet their needs.  Currently these sources are either too intermittent, too costly, or not well enough developed to meet their needs.

Anaheim, Burbank, Glendale, Pasadena, Riverside, and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power have told Intermountain Power Agency in Delta, Utah, that they would not be renewing their contracts for cheap, coal-fired power. They are instead going to seek cleanear alternative energy power sources by 2027, after their current contracts with the Utah company expire.

A new California law that effectively prohibits electricity purchases from conventional coal-fired power plants goes into effect January first and Intermountain had been pushing cities to renew their contracts ahead of that date in a move to circumvent the law, but these cities refused to budge. The law bans use of power from sources that generate more such gases than in-state natural gas plants. 

Traditional coal-fired plants are the cheapest, most reliable source of power but emit tons of carbon dioxide skyward along with other harmful air pollutants. Annual CO2 emissions at the Intermountain plants total more than 16 million tons, according to an analysis by the conservation group Environmental Defense.

Intermountain's Searle said the Utah agency worked for three years on the renewals and now was looking at ways to modernize its plants to bring them into compliance with California's greenhouse-gas legislation, including burning biomass — which includes fast-growing trees and plants as well as waste products — instead of coal, or possible burial of carbon dioxide from IGCC plants. He warned that such measures "will be costly" to consumers.

Biomass conversion would cost about $300 million, he said, and carbon capture and sequestration technologies would cost billions. But Searle said the Utah plants were uniquely situated over a large salt dome that could be ideal as an underground storage site for the gas. The agency also extended its renewal offer for any sort of power from the plants until 2023. The previous deadline was next May. California utility officials hope that state legislators will allow them to renew the contracts if greenhouse gases are reduced.

Wind, solar and IGCC are the technologies that The Energy Blog has been reporting on for power generation since its inception. Without subsidies or regulations requiring their use they are still not cost effective.  Wind power is close to that point and should be ready in time to meet these cities requirements.  The same can be said for solar trough solar and IGCC plants with a little less certainty. PV solar or concentrating solar should be able to meet their need by that time, but they still require some development and probably will not be ready for the kind of mass production required for this project. The problem is they have to decide in the next five years what technology to use if they are going to get enough capacity installed in time.

The California cities have rights to 1,400 of the 1,900 MW of generating capacity of Intermountain and in fact are using more than that, not to consider the growth in demand that will occur over the next 21 years.  That is a large amount of power compared to the alternative power that has been installed to date, with the largest of current wind or solar plants in the neighborhood of 100 MW and no commercial IGCC plants operating, let alone any with sequestration, although several without sequestration are well along in the planning stage.  However it does seem to me, to be possible to meet their goals in that period, with, as a first approximation, perhaps 250-300 MW for wind and 250 MW for solar, assuming some energy storage could be implemented, and the remainder IGCC plants, without accounting for the 1.5 to 2% annual growth that would occur with business as usual. Any more renewable energy would cause problems due to intermittency and there may not be enough area to gain significant relief due to geographical seperation of the wind plants. Siting for the wind power plants will be especially difficult with current climate in California, pending any revision of siting proceedures.  Conservation could easily replace the power needed to provide for growth, plus considerably more.  Conservation should be easier to motivate since under any circumstance the cost of power will be higher than would occur due to inflation. 

Comments

[David Marcus]

The excitement over IGCC is a result of fine marketing by its proponents (e.g. GE). Conventional pulverized coal plants can be made to meet the same emissions levels as IGCC plants (including CO2) at much lower cost.

[Cervus]

Part of the reason why it's been so hard for California to get the renewable energy that enjoys broad bipartisan support statewide is how our bureaucracy is set up. In order for new energy projects to get approved they have to go through _two_ separate state agencies with very different masses of red tape.

Here's an article from last September on the topic.

It's the state's own fault. They want more renewable energy, but they put so many regulatory hurtles in front of these projects that nothing gets built.

[Engineer-Poet]

Including CO2, David?  How can they do that, when the scrubber systems for a PCC plant consume power while the scrubber systems for an IGCC plant only have to process a small volume of high-pressure fuel gas?  You'd have to have much greater thermal efficiency from the PCC plant, which is a big stretch when the IGCC plant has combined-cycle operation going for it.

Remember, coal production across the USA is maxed out or close to it.  You can reduce net CO2 emissions with carbon capture, but if that comes at lower efficiency you will have to reduce your net generation.

There's also the issue of future improvement.  The IGCC plant can convert to a fuel-cell topping cycle.  What can the PCC plant do?  It doesn't have the fuel processing facilities to feed an SOFC or MCFC.

[Cartman]

I've just got an idea: why not do direct sequestration of ALL of the flue gasses a coal plant produces? wouldnt that be much more energy-cost efficient?

[amazingdrx]

"Siting for the wind power plants will be especially difficult with current climate in California, pending any revision of siting proceedures."

Good point (as usual) Jim.

That leaves offshore floating wind/wave power platforms as the one practical alternative. 10 miles offshore they would be invisible from land.

The guarantee of low cost power for decades would more than offset the initial cost.

A crash program of concentrating trough collectors that produce electricity and heat would also be cost effective. Will the venture capitalists (who started the internet boom) from Silicon Valley take on these projects?

With sufficient tax credits I think they would. Tax credits to consumers to buy the wind/wave power and solar installations for their homes and businesses.

And conservation in the form of geothermal cooling instead of regular air conditioning. Air conditioning is the grid breaking load. And concentrating solar trough collectors block the solar heat that boosts that cooling load.

I think IGCC ought to be leapfrogged, straight to solid oxide fuel cell/turbine grid power plants. California is the new "dairy" state and all that manure could be turned into biogas to feed these fuel cell plants. With pulverized coal as the backup energy source, it can run in the same fuel cells.

Then rather than sequestration by pumping the cO2 underground (expensive, impractical, and unverifiable)it ought to be processed in algae growing solar collector biofuel systems. With biodiesel as a valuable byproduct.

If California leads the way the rest of US will follow.

[Michael Cain]

Then rather than sequestration by pumping the cO2 underground (expensive, impractical, and unverifiable)it ought to be processed in algae growing solar collector biofuel systems.

But you're going to burn the biofuel, no? So the CO2 still ends up in the atmosphere? Granted, you've reduced the amount of coal you use (I suspect that if you calculate the volumes needed, there will still be plenty of coal being burned), but you haven't stopped.

[amazingdrx]

Well half of the weight of the algae is veggie oil, and is turned into biodisel and half is run through the fuel cell/turbine system. Yeilds of 10s of thousands of gallons of biodiesel per acre have been reported using algae in solar collectors.

The CO2 from the biodiesel is released. But with a fuel cell plugin hybrid that biodisel is consumed at an average of 10 times the mileage per gallon, cutting CO2 emmision from cars by 90%.

And the portion of the algae run through the fuel cell/turbine power plant has all it's cO2 emmisions sent back through the algae solar system.

And by converting the biogas from the animal waste into CO2 and electricty in the fuel cell/turbine power plant, that methane in the biogas that is 20 times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas is converted to CO2 that runs through the algae systyem. That more than makes up for the biodiesel cO2 release.

Plus the biodiesel part of the system makes fuel farming obsolete, freeing up crop land to turn into conservation reserve land that sequesters CO2 as cellulose. That organic matter builds up the soil (depleted due to chemical agriculture) helping to prevent another dust bowl.

[Jim from The Energy Blog]

See Pulverized Coal vs Coal Gasification for a discussion of the pros and cons of the two technologies.

[Paul Dietz]

I don't think pulverized coal plants with flue gas CO2 capture are competitive with IGCC, but there's a new CO2 capture technology that could change this.

[Engineer-Poet]

Michael Cain:  The soi-disant doctor can't balance an equation, as you noticed.

But I've got a system I believe would do the job (and even go carbon-negative); if you'd like to look over my math, please have at it.

[steven]

Hello...
My name is Steve and I am interested in implementing biomass (biogas) technology for my home. I live on approximately .25 acre with the option to purchase an additional .5 acre. Yes I live in the city, but I like the idea of using the technology. A few questions:
-I am looking for companies in the Intermtn area that can help me with a pre-feasiblity study. Can anyone provide a handful of companies that might assist me?
-from your experience, do cities heavily regulate these systems?
-what are the average costs involved in implenting the technology?

My interest is to have a biomass generator which will heat my home and provide electricity.

Thank you in advance for your assistance...
Steve

[designer handbags on sale]

let me know when will you place your new blog