Transcript epa clean power plan – an engineers perspective – a&wma

An Engineer’s Perspective
Mike Schimmelpfennig – January 15, 2015
• Currently it’s a proposed rule.
• It is 645 pages.
– 12 pages for contents and outline information
– About 40% of the pages are justification for the rule.
• Justification is based on reduced human health
issues (reduced heart attacks and asthma), better
weather (reduction in hurricanes and other
significant weather events) and more energy
related jobs.
• Final rule expected by 6/1/15. (p. 47)
• Allows for individual and multi-state plans.
• Each state must submit an initial plan by
6/30/16. (p.47)
• Final state plans due by 6/30/17 or 6/30/18 if
multi-state. (p. 48)
• The stated goal is a 30 percent reduction in CO2 emissions
from electric generating units by 2030 for the United
States.
• Each state has a different goal for CO2 reduction.
• The EPA suggests a “building block” approach to achieve
the CO2 reductions to include demand side energy
efficiency reductions, renewable energy and heat rate
improvements.
• For Missouri, the interim goal is 1621 and a final goal of
1544 LBS of CO2 per MW-HR.
• For Illinois, the interim goal is 1366 and the final goal is
1271 LBS of CO2 per MW-HR.
• Interim goal by 2020 through 2029 and the final goal is due
by 2030. (p. 346)
• Building Blocks:
– 6% improvement in coal plant efficiency. Most
economic improvements have already been done.
– Increase natural gas combined cycle (NGCC)
dispatch. Assumes a 70% capacity which is not a
good economic choice.
– Increase RE generation from 1.3 million MWh to
2.8 million MWh by 2029 and continue to operate
nuclear fleet at 90% capacity.
– Increase demand-side efficiency by 1.5% annually
and a cumulative of 9.92% by 2030. This has
never been done historically anywhere.
• Reduced weather event savings by 2030 - $30
billion (“global social cost savings”)
• Health savings benefits by 2030 - $25 to $59
billion (“global social cost savings”) (p. 57)
• Cost of implementation by 2030 - $7.3 billion
• Projects jobs growth in energy of 100,000+ per
year. (p. 60)
Gina McCarthy: “So, by 2030, we are actually
looking at electricity bills for families going down by
8 percent.” http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/epa-chief-defends-price-white-houseplan-cut-carbon-emissions/
The agency is determining state goals for
affected EGU (Electric Generating Unit) emission
performance based on application of BSER (Best
System of Emission Reduction) during specified
time periods. This raises the question of
whether affected EGU emission performance
should only be maintained -- or instead should
be further improved -- once the final goal is met
in 2030. (p. 419)
– Is it real? Politically, can there be any doubt?
– Does the temperature data support claims?
– Is it better to be warmer or colder?
– If it’s bad, how does it get corrected?
•
•
•
Brisbane hits coldest temperature in 103 years http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/brisbane-hits-coldest-temperature-in103-years/story-e6frg6n6-1226986116278?nk=9fe3cbf4f5bf37a6dc3f771dfd4654b8
Coldest Antarctic June Ever Recorded http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/12/coldest-antarctic-june-ever-recorded/
New York breaks record cold as temps hit 5 degrees, smashing 118-year mark set in 1896
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/deep-freeze-midwest-prepares-50-article-1.1567597
NAMED HURRICANES BY YEAR
TOP 15 WARMEST
YEARS – ST. LOUIS, MO
TOP 15 COLDEST
YEARS – ST. LOUIS, MO
Rank
YEAR
AVERAGE
Rank
YEAR
AVERAGE
1
2012
61.2
1
1875
52.8
2
1921
60.1
2
1978
53.2
3
1991
59.2
3
1872
53.4
59.0
4
1873
53.7
4
1990
5
2011
58.7
5
1961
53.8
6
1998
58.7
6
1917
54.0
7
1938
58.7
7
1940
54.0
8
1954
58.6
8
1976
54.1
9
2006
58.5
9
1958
54.1
10
1931
58.5
10
1979
54.1
58.5
11
1966
54.1
58.3
12
1963
54.3
58.3
13
1912
54.3
14
1951
54.4
15
1950
54.4
11
12
13
14
15
References:
1953
2007
1900
1987
1946
58.2
58.1
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/lsx/?n=cli_archive
• Global Warming 'Fabricated' by NASA and NOAA http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/06/23/Global-warming-Fabricated-by-NASA-and-NOAA
• Australian Bureau of Meteorology accused of Criminally
Adjusted Global Warming - http://www.breitbart.com/BreitbartLondon/2014/08/25/Australian-Bureau-of-Meteorology-accused-of-Criminally-Adjusted-Global-Warming
• Extreme Weather is Linked to Global Warming, a New
Study Suggests - http://www.universetoday.com/114076/extreme-weather-is-linked-to-globalwarming-a-new-study-suggests/
• NASA Scientist Puzzled by Global Cooling -
http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/science-us-climateoceans/2014/10/06/id/598864/?Dkt_nbr=Newsmax&utm_source=Newsmax&utm_mediu
m=widget&utm_content=5&utm_campaign=widgetphase2?ns_mail_uid=36752517&ns_m
ail_job=1589243_10072014&s=al&dkt_nbr=gtwfhh1a
• Irreversible Damage Seen From Climate Change in UN
Leak - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-26/irreversible-damage-seen-from-climate-change-in-unleak.html
• Extent of Antarctic sea ice reaches record levels http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-14/record-coverage-of-antarctic-sea-ice/5742668
• Top scientist resigns from post - admits Global Warming is a scam
http://www.sott.net/article/277349-Top-scientist-resigns-from-post-admits-Global-Warming-is-a-scam
• Coal burning produces about 2100 LBS of CO2 per
MW-HR.
• Natural gas burning produces about 1200 LBS of
CO2 per MW-HR.
• 3.62% of all Green House Gases (GHGs) are CO2.
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=74&t=11
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=74&t=11
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/GlobalWarmingPrimer.pdf
(see p. 6)
• 3.4% of all the earth’s CO2 is man-made.
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/GlobalWarmingPrimer.pdf
(see p. 7)
• The USA produces 14.14% of all the man-made
CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
• 32% of USA’s man-made CO2 is from the burning
of fossil fuels for producing electricity.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources.html
• 3.62% X 3.4% is 0.123 percent. This is the percentage
of man-made GHG CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere.
• 14.14% X 32% is 4.52 percent. This is the percentage of
USA’s man-made CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere from
electric generation.
• 4.52% X 30% is 1.36 percent which is the final 2030
reduction in the USA for man-made CO2 if this rule
becomes reality.
• 1.36% X 3.4% is 0.046 percent which is the maximum
reduction in world-wide man-made CO2.
• 0.046% X 3.62% is 0.0017 percent which is the
maximum reduction in world-wide GHG CO2.
• Burn natural gas? Natural gas price is
currently about $4.25 / Mbtu, and coal is
about $2.10 / Mbtu delivered.
• Complete CO2 capture projects on existing
coal units? Estimated cost is $0.03 / KW-HR
and a loss of 15 to 25 percent of the
generating output.
• Retire coal units and replace with wind and
solar? Hidden costs are huge.
http://sequestration.mit.edu/pdf/David_and_Herzog.pdf
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/renewable-energys-hidden-costs/
• Australia to repeal unpopular tax on carbon
emissions
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/07/17/332251967/australia-repeals-an-unpopular-tax-on-carbon-
emissions
• Coal Returns to German Utilities
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-
14/coal-rises-vampire-like-as-german-utilities-seek-survival.html
• Ontario bids farewell to coal
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/editorials/Editorial+Ontario+bids+farewell+coal/9748912/story.html
• Ontario electricity consumers can expect their
bills to jump almost 50 per cent in the next three
years
http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ontario-electricity-rates-to-keep-rising-as-long-term-energy-plan-released-1.1569774
• Construction of World’s Largest Carbon
Capture Project Under Way – 240 MW,
Estimated Cost $1 Billion
http://coalage.com/news/latest/3757-construction-of-world-s-
largest-carbon-capture-project-under-way.html#.U8kuC4BdXSI#UF0983 http://www.forbes.com/sites/uciliawang/2014/07/15/nrgs-1b-bet-toshow-how-carbon-capture-could-be-feasible-for-coal-power-plants/
• But we have a problem and it is NOT that the appropriate new
technologies don't exist or haven't reached a competitive price point. The
problem is us. We haven't figured out how to engage and motivate the
end use energy customer - which basically is the entire American public
and electorate - to pay attention, to take control of their individual energy
destiny, to make energy decisions that are not only in their economic selfinterest but critical, collectively, to the long run health of the planet that
we all cherish and depend upon. David Crane, CEO, NRG
http://www.nrg.com/news/executive-blog/post/build-the-clean-energy-movement-with-nrg
68% Coal
17% Hyd
48% Gas
20% Coal
16% Nuc
64% Coal 58% Hyd
22% Hyd 20% Coal
72% Hyd
11% Gas
40% Coal
27% Gas
17% Nuc
80% Nuc
14% RE
40% Gas
32% Coal
18% Nuc
50% Oil
28% Gas
& Nuc
35% Oil
33% Gas
& Nuc
76% Oil
25% RE
25% Nuc
45% RE
Note: Current Ontario, Canada electric rates are, OFF-PEAK 7.5¢/kWh, MID-PEAK 11.2¢/kWh,
ON-PEAK 13.5¢/kWh http://www.ontarioenergyboard.ca/OEB/Consumers/Electricity/Electricity+Prices
“The relationship between load growth and gross domestic product
growth appears to have slowly eroded since the end of World War II”,
said PJM Interconnection LLC Chief Economist Paul Sotkiewicz. “There
could be a number of reasons for this erosion, including energy
efficiency, declining median incomes and multiple families
consolidating under one roof due to economic hardships”, he said. But
“it's hard to discern what's actually going on.”
• Can a 0.0017% reduction in GHGs return any
positive results for human health and weather
events?
• How likely are electric rates to be decreased
by burning more natural gas, CO2 capture or
retiring existing coal units?
• Comment on the EPA’s Clean Power Plan:
http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards/how-comment-clean-power-plan-proposed-rule
• Write to Congress:
Senate Contact Information: https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
House of Representative Contact Information: http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
• Join and Participate in the ACC:
http://www.americancoalcouncil.org/
Thank You!
Mike Schimmelpfennig
[email protected]