Energy: The Rest of the Story
To The Editor:
The headline “Dubious Distinction” got my attention. But like most headlines of this nature, it ramped up my skepticism filter. I really do not want to come to the defense of coalpowered generation, as we need to do everything in our power to reduce emissions and soften the impact we humans make on ole Mother Earth. To get more insight on the subject, I reached out to Matt Hope who promptly provided a link to his report. I extracted the report’s data mainly collected from the EPA and the EIA, and cleaned it up to do some further analysis. Here is “the rest of the story.”
While Fayette Power Project (FPP) is ranked 14th, as I suspected, of the 77 plants in the US that derive their fuel source primarily (>97%) from coal, it is the 16th largest as well. So it goes to reason that on an emissions basis the larger the plant the greater the emissions. Perhaps the more comparative way to look at this is CO2 emissions in kilograms per megawatt hour generated (kg/ MWh). Among the peer group of producers in the eight to nine million megawatt category, there are only two plants that are larger and produce less emissions in kg/ MWh, and both of those are within 70 kg. I call that insignificant. Of all 77 plants, FPP ranks 24th in emissions on a kg/MWh basis. This means there are 23 plants nationwide that are indeed worse in emissions than FPP, and of the 53 plants with lower emissions all but four are smaller facilities. Further, FPP is among only 22 plants out of 77 that are reported to have no toxic release. For what it is worth, FPP is the 55th oldest plant among 77, of which 17 are scheduled to be shuttered in the next 10 years. While it sounds horrible, FPP is not fully deserving of the headline as there is more to the story.
Beyond the horror, the real question is what can be done about this? Now I am a little out of my wheelhouse, but I did some digging. The EPA suggests there are five ways to improve electricity generation CO2 emissions.
Increase efficiency of electricity producing plants, which for example includes changing to natural gas boilers or combined cycle turbines. All of these require extensive capital costs, ranging somewhere between $500 to $900 million. That investment would be questionable on a 43-year-old plant originally commissioned in 1979, that may have another 15 to 25 years of run time. There are numerous calls to phase out all coal-fired generation by 2040 in the US to meet the commitments enshrined in the Paris Agreement, and even China, the world’s leader in coal producing emissions, has committed to end coal power generation by 2060.
Nuclear energy generation, which is an emotional nonstarter in this country since Three Mile Island. Even though nuclear is the safest and cheapest generation method, second only to hydroelectric generation, there are only 55 nuclear plants nationwide, two of which are in Texas. We are not likely to see more in Texas.
Carbon recapture and sequestration, which means scrubbing and capturing emissions and storing it most likely in underground storage facilities, a large one of which is proposed for the Houston area. This technology is estimated to cost just over $58 per metric ton of CO2. For a plant like FPP, with a nameplate capacity of 1,615 megawatts, that would also suggest capital cost north of $524 million (¢5.9 /kWH at your meter.) Also, likely to raise the ire of environmentalist as much as producing the CO2 in the first place.
Increased end use efficiency, which means you and me. I don’t see many of us returning to the Jimmy Carter days of sweaters, turning our thermostats back to 68. And while LED lighting helps, lighting is an estimated 14 percent of your household energy consumption on average. Candles may help but are not likely to obfuscate the need for FPP and its associated emissions in the near future.
And that leaves the saltwater liberal’s favorite, renewables. I am a fan of renewables, but I just evaluated solar on my property. To offset my consumption, I would need a 25kW array with an upfront cost of approximately $100k cash. That is a roughly 20- year payback, after Federal tax credit (ITC), assuming 5% cost increases for the next 20 years, and excluding the lost opportunity cost. For me the payback is just not there, but I am still studying it. And on a utility scale, if you close a 1,615 MW facility, you have to replace that capacity and continue to be able to balance grid capacity to grid demand in the non-solar hours. While I do believe we can, should, and will see more solar capacity, potentially in this county, it will likely not offset the need for large scale non-renewable power generation for years to come.
None of these options seem realistic or impactful. The bottom line is these kinds of headlines grab attention but rarely grab action. And to me there is not much action available within the bounds of current technologies. Does that mean we should not continue to pursue all manner of emissions reduction for all of the greenhouse gases, including CO2?
Of course, we should. Yet calling for the closure of coalfired electrical generating capacity is environmental theatre, unless all of the FPP electricity users are ready to increase our current ¢9.5 per kWH power cost initially up to the national average of ¢13.45/kWH, and then in all likelihood well beyond.
Sam Wilson
La Grange