North Wasco County Energy Grok
The Uncertainties of “Cheap” Energy
By Hollie Lund, 4-13-07
 |
|
 | |
|
What do coal plants and tube tops have in common? Thirty years later, and against our better judgment, they’re both making a comeback. Why? Well, I won’t even try to explain the tube top phenomena, but the world’s renewed interest in coal is pretty clear: it’s cheap. Or so it seems.
Even here, in a region with abundant renewable resources, we’re not immune. On May 15th, customers of the North Wasco County People’s Utility District (PUD) will be asked to vote on a measure (Measure 33-59) that would authorize the PUD to obtain energy and power from a proposed coal gasification plant in Kalama, Washington.
If you skip to the last line in the measure—which is exactly what most of us do—you’ll read that “any profits [from the sale of excess energy] will be used to reduce customer rates.” Sounds great, right? Before you vote, back up a paragraph.
The measure would also “obligate the district to make payments whether or not the coal gasification plant project is undertaken, completed, operable or operating…[Italics added].” In other words, whether it’s built or not, whether it’s successful or not, we’ll still be paying for it. And there are many reasons to believe that we will not get our money’s worth.
If you were living in the Northwest in 1982, you probably recall the WPPSS (pronounced “whoops” for a reason) disaster. It was the largest municipal default in history at the time; WPPSS—the Washington Public Power Supply System—defaulted on 2.2 billion dollars (that’s billion with a ‘b’) worth of bonds, leaving customers of the Bonneville Power Administration (which means pretty much everyone in the Pacific Northwest) to pay the bill. Twenty five years later, we’re still paying off that debt.
Here’s the kicker though: WPPSS—the agency responsible for this financial disaster—and Energy Northwest—the agency that would be in charge of building the new coal plant in Kalama—are one and the same. Just a new name on an old and familiar face.
More importantly, the proposed plant relies on a new technology (known as Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle, or IGCC) that remains largely untested. Only two models exist in the U.S., and both operate at less than one-half of the capacity proposed for Kalama (the Kalama plant would produce 680 megawatts of power each year; the largest existing model produces around 260). The additional technology that would allow the plant to capture and sequester the carbon dioxide (injecting it into the earth rather than emitting it into the air) is also untested and still not cost effective for use in large power plants.
Because of the technological uncertainties, the costs are still relatively unknown—as our neighbors are quickly discovering. Idaho City, which voted recently to invest in a similar IGCC plant being built by the Utah Associated Municipal Power System, is already scaling back on the size of their investment due to a nearly 33 percent cost increase less than one year into the project. Others, such as Lower Valley Energy in Wyoming, have opted out entirely.
Even if we do approve the measure, and the plant does operate successfully, who’s going to buy our excess energy? California has already said no to any sources that emit more carbon dioxide than a modern natural gas plant (which would include the Kalama plant since the “capture and sequester” technology is not yet available). And recent events indicate that other western states may be soon to follow.
Personally, I’d rather put my money in tube tops.
For more news on coal in the west, read Has Tri-State Seen the (Green) Light? by Richard Martin.
Hollie Lund, Ph.D., what is your PHD in? Personally I would rather see young ladies in tube tops rather than money. WPPSS failed for lack of financial controls over costs as the politicians and their special interests attempted to slaugher a fat hog, or so it seemed at the time. ALL power projects, including wind and solar, should make financial sense regardless of type, or don't build them.
Comment By tomi, 4-13-07Hi Craig,
I didn't even get a chance to upload the photos before you commented. Darn, your quick. All fixed up now with pretty pictures. (No tube tops but Trojan Project is sort of Tube Top-esque, don't ya think?)
About your comment--Do Any power plants make long term financial sense when factoring in ALL possible contingencies?
Tomi, or is it Hollie?, the Whoopsie people Piled it Higher and Deeper than anyone before Enron. The carbon trading scam is next for exploitation. The project developers have to have "skin in the game". These quasi public private partnership arrangements screw the taxpayers because of all the special interests to satisfy. Read politics. The French have made nuclear power as chic as desicated liver on a cracker. Why can't we? ;?P
Comment By tomi, 4-13-07Craig, Hollie Lund wrote the article. I posted it and added the nice pictures. (BTW-kudos sam lowery, for the trojan pic)
How do the French make nuclear waste chic? Not the power (that I get) but the leftovers? Do the French have a Hanford equivalent?
Tomi, is it Gunn?, here's how the French came to say "Oui" for nuclear power. http://www.npcil.nic.in/nupower_vol13_2/npfr_.htm
"... nuclear power provides 80% of today's total electricity needs of France, most of the balance being hydro. A large portion of the units follow grid demand. Fifteen percent of this electricity is exported to neighbours and constitutes a steady flow of foreign exchange. The primary energy dependency rate has fallen from 76% in 1973 to less than 50% today. France is seen as an example among industrial countries for controlling CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. Last but not least, electricity in France is among the cheapest in Europe, with a total cost per kWh, including depreciation of capital, fuel, operation and maintenance costs, and decommissioning allowance, of about 35 mills at the bus bar, which is only rivaled by large hydropower production in Scandinavian countries."
Looks like Nuclear is THE answer for limiting Co2 and providing affordable electricity. Everything else is mere details and decimal dust.
no matter who plans to oversee it, or whatever the new technology is that makes coal burning cleaner, the fact remains that getting the coal in the first place is probably one of the most environmentally destructive activities known to man. have you ever seen the pictures of entire mountains flattened by coal mining?
here's a link
http://www.ohvec.org/galleries/mountaintop_removal/007/index.html
and that doesn't even take into account the millions of gallons of toxic sludge that get released into rivers and streams as a result of the mining
For every one ton of coal mined, we produce 100 tons of toxic sludge.
Has anyone noticed that the IGCC plant is proposed to be built in Kalama, WA, right next to the Columbia River??
Energy Northwest says they're gonna go green by making the plant carbon capture and sequestration ready, but that technology is still science fiction.
What can I do or where can I vote to stop this boondoggle? Did any of you remember reading "How Green Was My Valley"? Coal is dirty to people and the environment no matter what is done to clean it up. How about we all try in our daily lives to use less energy? There are many small ways that this can be done, and if everyone does it, it can make a large impact.
Comment By Kathleen Fitzpatrick, 4-14-07If anyone would like to help me stop Wasco County from investing in TWO new coal plants (the one in Washington and a conventional coal plant in Utah), please email me at
Comment By Craig Moore, 4-15-07Coal, is one of the only options we have for affordable energy independence. IGCC needs water. Building close to the Columbia achives a readily available water source and provides easy access to the power grid. The water can be reused something like nine times before discharge to a retention pond. Population in our country, and especially the West, is exploding. We can't save our way or build enough green power to serve our needs...especially not with the environmental movement to tear out power generation dams, stop all new dam building, and stop all nuclear power development that the French have so successfully achieved. Something has to give to address the growing population needs. The ultimate trade-off is coal vs. nuclear. Choose wisely!
Comment By Hollie Lund, 4-15-07Craig, my Ph.D. is in urban studies, but it doesn't take a Ph.D. to see the problems with coal - economic, environmental and otherwise. (Thanks Deanna for the link to the mountain top removal article - I had wanted to include that as well, but didn't have the space!)
As for meeting our energy needs, the study by the Tellus Institute (http://www.nwenergy.org/outreach/tellus_report.html) suggests that we can in fact meet our needs if we have the political and economic will-power to promote conservation and invest in renewable sources. With new programs such as the Renewable Energy Technology Certificate now being offered at Columbia Gorge CC, that could mean good-paying local jobs as well.
I absolutely agree, though, that we do need to be doing something. Investing in coal just doesn't seem to be the answer - especially at a time when states are starting to back away from fossil fuel sources, and when we'd be left with the bill if it doesn't work.
There are certainly many many issues and viewpoints here though - too many for a 500-or-so-word article - so thanks for getting (and keeping) the dialogue going! Hollie
Hollie, when you wrote your column and used PHD after your name I thought you may have been a wrung up the ladder from the rest of us mere mortals on this subject. ;)
The study you site has many flaws, one of which is that it doesn't contemplate the explosive growth we are having. Regarding coal reclamation I wound direct attention to what Kentucky is doing. http://www.coaleducation.org/ky_coal_facts/environment/environment.htm
My last post as I am now gone for 3 weeks. Carry on!
It is interesting that Craig is using all the same old arguments that were presented to justify WPPSS' investment in 5 nuclear plants in the 1970's...4 of which were never built, and one that is limping along not supplying very much power at all to the Pacific Northwest. Because all of those arguments were proved in time to be so erroneous and created one of the worst financial disasters the bond market has ever seen, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council was created as an independent study group (not the coal or nuclear industry) to advise the Northwest on their future energy needs. Their most recent report states quite clearly that of the 5,000 megawatts needed by the year 2023, HALF can be met through new efficiency measures (conservation) and most of the rest by WIND power.
Choosing coal over renewable technology is like jumping off a cliff and choosing not to pull your parachute cord because "it may not work." We know that coal is going to kill us. Why choose certain death over wind power?
I would like to add that Hollie does not cite any "study" in her article. All she is reporting on are past and present events, which are all backed up by numerous news articles and reports.
Comment By Hollie Lund, 4-16-07Thanks Kathy. I should also add that while the "explosive" growth Craig keeps referring to is undoubtedly being felt in areas like Bend, Coeur d'Alene and Boise, the remainder of the region - including here in Wasco County, where we're being asked to buy into coal power (getting us back to the main point of this article) - is growing at steady but quite predictable rates.
And Craig, there's a PhD after my name because I earned it.
I have read those population reports for Wasco County and have copies of them. The limiting factor to this so-called "population explosion" that noone has yet mentioned is WATER. The Mosier Valley (in Wasco County) is already closed to groundwater development by rule, which means that all three of the Mosier Aquifers are closed to any further application. These aquifers have been dropping at a rate of 4 feet per year. Other areas of Oregon and Washington are dealing with similar water issues, and as greenhouse gases affect our annual snowpack, in ten years we are all going to be affected by water shortages. And no amount of electricity generated by coal or nuclear energy is going to restore our water supply...in fact, isn't it COAL that is responsible most of the greenhouse gases in the US that are responsible for our diminishing snowpack???
Comment By Tim Wagner, 4-16-07Combusting coal for electricity is responsible for approximately 40% of all green house gases worldwide, and about 33% here in the U.S. It's undisputable that our coal habit is one of the major causes of climate change. To make things worse, power plants (non-hydro) account for 48% of ALL water usage in the U.S., the largest majority of those being coal-fired generating units. That's more than industry, agriculture, or consumer and commercial uses. To put this in perspective, burning coal is and will be responsible for more droughts and shrinking snowpacks while also being the single largest user of water in the country. Think we'd better be finding other sources of electricity? I do.
Comment By Gary Miller, 4-17-07As for Columbia Generating Station limping along, it recently completed a 486-day run of continuous generation, averaging over 1,100 megawatts. The only cheaper cost of power is hydro. Let's stick with facts and avoid the "more-heat-than-light" generalizations.
For instance, Hollie, you stated that "twenty-five years later, we're still paying the debt" for the WPPSS default. Not so. Neither ratepayers or taxpayers were on the hook for the $2.2 billion; the bond owners were. Your link to the BPA website is to information that has nothing to do with the defaulted debt. I'm not saying that's good -- I'm saying you got it wrong.
So let's review: We don't want coal - clean, IGCC or otherwise. We don't want more hydro; in fact, some want to tear out dams. Natural gas is a problem due to having to import it from Canada and uncertain long-term pricing. We don't want nuclear due to a viceral fear of anything nuclear. Most of the good wind sites are either taken or too remote to transmit the power -- or it would infringe on someones viewscape. The best wind project capacity factors around are only about 27 to 28 percent. One of the larger solar stations in the Northwest produces, on a bright day, enough electricity to power 6 to 8 homes - when the sun shines. All that leaves us wishing and hoping we can conserve our way to prosperity.
After the BPA did a bit of refinancing, the WPPSS disaster payments are now at 400 million dollars a year (previously 600 million a year), which amounts to more than 12% of all BPA's customers' wholesale rate.
I suppose we would all have more faith in nuclear energy if they could just get Hanford cleaned up. At the last DOE meeting I attended last year, they said they had neither the money nor the science to clean up that mess. Didn't they promise us they'd have it cleaned up 20 years ago? Maybe they just forgot.
And coal? Does it make sense to build a coal plant in Kalama, Wa, and ship the coal from Wyoming? The price of coal and shipping it keeps going up, but the wind and sun are always going to be free.
It seems strange to point to renewable technologies that are huges successes in California, Utah, Oregon, and Washington, only to say--see! they don't work.
Dear Dr. Lund,
I liked your article. It was neither peer reviewed technically nor perfect in every way; but, it was a good way for an intelligent contributor to open discussion on an important and interesting topic. I'm sorry that I was out of town and couldn't come to your defense earlier and, for the record, my original PhD is in engineering science (sort of a really deep look at the spectrum of applied science), although I've studied other fields since and also ranch and do a lot of other things. Also, I'm not sure and I hope that he'll correct me if I'm wrong; but, I believe that Craig's basic education was in theatre arts, although he may have added more, perhaps some business education, since then. I think he's a photographer.
I suppose I should have included a link to BPA's full annual report, but I didn't want to overwhelm folks; if you're interested, you can find it here: http://www.bpa.gov/corporate/Finance/a_report/
Ratepayers are paying the bill.
And Mike - glad you're back in town ;) You hit on the exact purpose of this article - to raise awareness of an important issue, and to do so in time for people to respond (rather than after the fact, which is often what happens when you need to wade through months of peer review). That being said, this article was the result of quite a bit of research; it can only be as accurate as its sources though, which were limited to information available in the public realm. It would be wonderful to get more expert opinions on this matter - if anyone (with the appropriate credentials) would like to write a follow-up, we'd be thrilled to post it.
Hollie
Rocky Mountain News
To print this page, select File then Print from your browser
URL: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5303572,00.html
Health officials find unsafe mercury levels at 5 more lakes
By Todd Hartman, Rocky Mountain News
January 25, 2007
State health regulators have discovered unsafe mercury levels in fish in five more Colorado water bodies, including popular Horsetooth Reservoir west of Fort Collins, prompting new warnings for anglers.
The new data show mercury accumulations in four species of fish at levels greater than one-half part per million, the level at which regulators say people should limit their consumption. Pregnant women and children should heed even tighter limits or avoid the fish altogether, officials say.
The latest mercury warnings are in addition to advisories already posted at nine other Colorado lakes and reservoirs, the bulk of them in the state's southwestern quadrant near a cluster of large coal-fired power plants in the Four Corners region that many believe are a key contributor to the problem.
The five new sites are Horsetooth, Totten Reservoir near Cortez, Purdy Reservoir near Grand Junction, Horseshoe Reservoir west of Walsenburg and Trinidad Lake near Trinidad. Fish species affected are walleye, saugeye, wiper and largemouth bass.
A key source of the mercury is most likely airborne deposits of emissions from coal-burning power plants. But determining from which plants - or which states or nations - the pollution originates is controversial, as industry, environmentalists and scientists often disagree on the matter.
"We certainly have coal-fired plants in this state and some in adjoining states - there are a whole lot of coal-fired plants across the whole Northern Hemisphere," said Steve Gunderson, director of Colorado's Water Quality Control Division. "There are questions about contributions North America is receiving from Asia and China."
The new mercury warnings come amid contentious debate in Colorado and nationally over proposals requiring power plants to control mercury emissions. A state air-quality board was to rule on the matter Wednesday, but interest groups asked for more time to reach a consensus.
"I think this is a wake-up call to Colorado that the problem of mercury from coal-fired power plants is real, and we have to find a solution quickly," said Will Coyne of Environment Colorado. "This is a serious problem, with serious ramifications that will require serious solutions."
Once deposited in water, natural processes can transform mercury into a highly toxic form known as methylmercury, which accumulates in fish and animals, including humans, that eat fish. Exposure is of greatest concern for unborn babies and young children, where it may harm the developing nervous system, affecting a child's ability to think and learn.
The news could force the Colorado Division of Wildlife to alter the way it manages some fisheries. At Horsetooth Reservoir, for example, mercury warnings will discourage people from taking the largest fish, as they'd likely have the highest levels.
"We need to adjust our management of that reservoir so it doesn't become top-heavy with big, top-predator fish," said Tyler Baskfield, a DOW spokesman.
Jim Sanderson, an attorney representing utilities, said he doesn't believe the elevated mercury levels are linked to Colorado facilities, but he added: "That doesn't mean nothing should be done. The utilities I'm working with are willing to make reductions over time, as the program calls for."
or 303-954-5048
Just more information on this issue, and of course an attorney representing utilities states he doesen't believe the elevated mercury levels are linked to Colorado facilities, but adds "that doesen't mean nothing should be done. The utilities I'm working with are willing to make reductions over time, as the program calls for." Once again we all are put at risk and its all about the money!
Pay attention people, close attention! Its our future at stake not just a few coal plants and utilities. The two paragraphs below are show also just what is at risk, keep your eyes and ears open, ask questions but most of all use your voice to let these utilities know that you want clean safe power, not the same old bull. Its your life and your future!
If you were living in the Northwest in 1982, you probably recall the WPPSS (pronounced “whoops” for a reason) disaster. It was the largest municipal default in history at the time; WPPSS—the Washington Public Power Supply System—defaulted on 2.2 billion dollars (that’s billion with a ‘b’) worth of bonds, leaving customers of the Bonneville Power Administration (which means pretty much everyone in the Pacific Northwest) to pay the bill. Twenty five years later, we’re still paying off that debt.
Here’s the kicker though: WPPSS—the agency responsible for this financial disaster—and Energy Northwest—the agency that would be in charge of building the new coal plant in Kalama—are one and the same. Just a new name on an old and familiar face.
Welcome to paradise!
Hollie, you wrote: "...this article was the result of quite a bit of research; it can only be as accurate as its sources though, which were limited to information available in the public realm."
Your research fails to incorporate the readily available data and projections by the EIA. See: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/forecasting.html Coal consumption for energy generation is projected upwards for many years regardless of past mistakes like Whoopsie.
Dr. Vranes has an interesting comment on the anti-nuclearites. See: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/energy_policy/001179taking_options_off_t.html
Yes, if we continue on the path we are on - with little to no effort at conservation and little investment in renewable energy sources, our coal consumption will continue to rise. No doubt about that, and the EIA projections do a nice job of confirming it.
Interestingly enough, though, I tend to agree with we should not take nuclear power off the table entirely. Compared to coal, it's cleaner, its renewable and much less destructive - as long as it's done well. But the public opinion of nuclear is so negative (and for very understandable reasons) that I don't think it really stands much of a chance. Not right now at least. Personally, I would rather see us investing money in exploring the possibilities of nuclear power over coal any day - but only after we've exhausted the possibilities of wind and hydro.
Fear and the manipulation of people through fear drive much here in America. For example, food irradiation. Successfully used in Europe while taboo here. EIA forecasts increasing coal consumption worldwide. See: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/coal.html This will continue to drive the Asian economies.
This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/main/article/the_financial_uncertainties_of_cheap_energy/