In June 2015, the EPA released its draft rules to cut emissions from coal fired power plants known as the Clean Power Plan.
One of the motivations behind this approach by the Obama administration was the fact that Congress had failed to enact either a cap and trade program, a carbon tax, or any other meaningful limits on CO2 emissions.
In the folder referenced above, I've uploaded a few documents describing the proposed rules and compliance options. For its part, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) asserted that the new rules would save billions (with a B) of dollars. Conversely, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), which bears responsibility for grid reliability, questioned the impact that the proposed rules could have on reliability of the electric grid.
To complicate matters further, last February the Supreme Court issued a stay of the execution of the rules pending a hearing in the Court of Appeals and, most likely, ultimately in the Supreme Court. But, with the new administration, all of this may likely become moot.
Given that, what should regulators do -- if anything -- to limit CO2 emissions?
For monumental, game changing decisions such as the implementation of the CPP 111(d) requirements and associated timeframes to comply, regulators should attempt to develop a coordination framework or industry workgroups including all pertinent technical professionals and economists to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the ideas that they would eventually impose. Regulators could cross-coordinate among themselves to find mutually agreeable approaches (EPA, FERC, DOE, etc. who would appear to all have skin in the game?) and be aligned. Some of the requirements imposed on coal fired plants are simply not attainable as far as the timelines for building new infrastructure to accommodate renewables or installing pollution stripping technologies, but that may not matter. If regulators want to reduce CO2 emissions, then they could stay on the path to make regulations so stringent and unattainable that industries are forced toward renewables (as is the current case). They could impose a big tax on coal burners. Regulators could reach out to technical representatives of the industries to gain a better understanding of how it all works and what process improvements could be made in the most economically feasible manner given technological and economic barriers. Regulators could do more stakeholder (industry) vetting and gain an understanding of what is attainable and what is impossible (knowing nothing is impossible if money is no object). When industries evaluate the data that regulators publish, it should be understood that the technical experts come out of the woodwork and are eager and armed to question assumptions and methodologies. If the data and conclusions make sense to industry experts, than there is less room to argue over doing the right thing. Economically, ideas may not be feasible. However, ethically and rationally, they just might be embraced by both sides if the facts and data are accurate. I would think it’s a balance; there surely are win-win compromise solutions rather than an authoritarian directive sparking emotions and conjecture. I am not talking about partnerships per se; I am talking more toward better communication with some learning on both sides. Regulators could continue to support the R&D of CO2 decreasing or eliminating technologies and help utilities identify solutions to remove coal from the fuel fleet. Regulators could give researchers and industry incentives to develop away from coal, give tax credits to those who end the use of coal or move to cleaner technology, or regulators could continue on a really strong anti-climate change, anti-coal marketing campaign until the new, younger generations have it ingrained in their brains that coal is a thing of the past. One more thing that may be valuable, is for the new administration to continue investment tax credits and solar tax credits to continue the momentum of more efficient wind and solar technologies.
ReplyDeleteThe EIA graph Figure 3, Energy-Related Carbon Dioxide By End-Use Sectors, 1990-2014, shows million metric tons of carbon dioxide emitted by Transportation, Residential, Industrial, and Commercial sources. How politically out-of-bounds would it be for regulators to shift focus to the transportation sector (tailpipe exhaust)? EV's plug in somewhere, but it might not always be to your local coal-fired power plant in the future.
ReplyDeleteSonia, I agree that vehicle CO2 emissions should also be included in regulations as transportation makes up 26% of GHG emissions in the US. But I an argument could be made that they already are through increased fuel efficiency standards. Every gallon of gasoline a car burns results in approximately 20 pounds of GHG emissions. So as the new CAFE standards are implemented they will have the effect of reducing vehicle GHG emissions over the long term.
DeleteThis issue with limiting CO2 emissions is going to be interesting to watch play out; especially taking into account the new head of the EPA, Scott Pruitt, who is an admitted climate change denialist.
ReplyDeleteThe issues I see with the previously implemented regulations is that adding scrubbers to the stacks of coal plants does substantially reduce the emissions of sulfur dioxide and mercury, but CO2 is free to pass. Even though scrubbers are effective, the cost is too high for some plants even to consider installing them, which lead us to states putting CO2 reducing efforts elsewhere Decades after Clear Air Act, most smokestacks still lack scrubbers. The idea of carbon sequestration would be a great solution, if only we were at the point technologically to take care of the issue of storage.
I like the use of carbon capture and storage (CCS) in tertiary oil recovery, rather than pressurizing wells with water, but we need to take a look at how we can capture the CO2 when it comes back to the surface with the oil and natural gas. The idea of storing CO2 in briny aquifers or salt caverns may work in the long run, only if the geology is fully understood in the storage area. Leaks due to old or currently active faults, or other natural disasters, could pose a major problem.
In my opinion, regulators should work with scientists within the EPA and in the private sector to come up with a more innovative and long-term solution; the solution is out there, we just haven’t thought of it yet. Companies like BP are working to demonstrate the successful storage of CO2 BP. So maybe the solution for the regulators is to place more pressure on the companies who are the major producers of CO2.
Jessica you have pretty much laid out the challenges over the years, with either CO2 capture, storage or "what do we do with captured CO2".
DeleteYou mentioned there tertiary recovery, this is something that gives me hope. Projects like http://www.nrg.com/generation/projects/petra-nova/, which are initial stabs at using CO2 for an enhanced recovery oilfield. This excites me for multiple reasons:
- This could be a potential use for captured CO2. Will result in high cost CO2 capturing techniques being justified, and a source for CO2 for already existing EOR fields.
- Yes, there is an issue of "recycling" of gas to some extent in EOR injection and production wells. But in other parts of world (like Oman), which rely on EOR fields, there are valuable lessons to be learnt. Monitoring downhole reservoirs has made the earth somewhat transparent. Well spacing, injection rates, production rates, injection and production patterns are some parameters that can be optimized to reduce this issue.
As long the increase in recovery from this field, can justify the CO2 capture, transport, I think we may have seen projects like this come up. What is also to note though is this was initially funded through Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI), what remains to be seen is the funds that will be available now with the changes in government.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI do like Neha's point about the new uses for compressed CO2 in the oilfield. I personally have been on C02 fracking jobs and while the technology is relatively new it can be perfected rather quickly. This article explains it a bit further http://bakken.com/news/id/240757/statoil-to-test-co2-well-stimulation-in-the-bakken/
DeleteThis may give power plants a bigger incentive to install carbon capture technology, if they can defray the costs on the scrubbers and such then sell the carbon its a benefit for both.
Neha, that is the main issue, in my viewpoint, regarding the utilization of CO2 in EOR. There are definite plusses and minuses in either situation. That is where the ethical question comes into play: should we implement regulations stating that EOR cannot be executed with CO2 since there is no reliable way to recapture the gasses? Or do we allow countries who do not have alternative EOR methods to proceed, knowing that the level greenhouse gasses is increasing at an alarming rate?
DeleteTwo-thirds of U.S. electricity generation comes from coal (38.8%) and natural gas (27.5%), and these two sources account for almost 100% of the CO2 emissions within the power industry. Not much clarification is needed as to why we need policy and regulation to guide pollution protocol for both entities. The most recent developments, namely with coal plants, comes from Carbon Sequestration, or Carbon Capture and Storage. This method seeks to basically capture, transport, and store the carbon dioxide emissions. The technologies involved in this process generally include pre and post combustion capture, as well as oxyfuel combustion. Currently, the most efficient coal plants using integrated gasification combined cycle technology emit around 1700lbs CO2/kWh. CCS plans to cut that in half.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, we come to the economical hurdles that subdue the progression of a fully integrated CCS system. The various costs associated with carbon capture can vary based on a number of factors. According to Greenfacts, CCS can “increase the cost of electricity production by 35% to 85% depending on different assumptions in plant design, operation and financing. This represents .01 to .03 US$ per kWh of electricity produced.”
Cost in US$/kWh
New fossil fuel plants without capture: $0.03 – $0.06
New fossil fuel plants with capture: $0.04 – $0.09
Capture alone: $0.01 – $0.03
1. Greenfacts. CO2 Capture and Storage. Facts on Health and the Environment. 2016. Retrieved from http://www.greenfacts.org/en/co2-capture-storage/l-2/3-capture-co2.htm#2
While I do not dispute the CO2 emissions of natural gas or coal, I do believe it is a stretch to say "we need policy and regulation". The market will eventually push GHG emitting power plants out of existence because of price and society's environmental conscience. The only question is how long will it take. Policy makers best serve their constituents when they represent their constituents' thoughts and beliefs and not infer what they may need or what is in their "best interest".
DeleteIsn’t policy and regulation a method of implementing society’s conscience? We may not have an indefinite period of time within which to take action. Policy is one way of ensuring we have a mechanism in place to incent those who would otherwise have a vested interest in doing nothing but the status quo when the status quo is harmful to the greater good. Why would an entity, such as a corporation, knowingly incur incremental costs of production when their primary purpose, arguably, is to earn a positive return for their investors? Do most investors really know about the environmental policy, if one exists, of the corporations within which they invest?
DeleteIt may be a bit unfair to “point blame” at individual companies for things that occurred prior to our understanding of the damage caused by GHG emissions, but we have known for some time, and we need to determine a course forward. So, who pays for the necessary changes? Should it be the folks who have profited most from the processes that contributed the emissions? Recent research by Richard Heede of the Climate Accountability Institute sheds some light on who those folks are. “90 investor and state-owned companies produced 63% of the greenhouse gas emissions from 1751 to 2010. These firms’ cumulative global carbon dioxide and methane emissions equal about 914 gigatons of carbon dioxide. Almost one-third of the emissions were produced by the top 20 companies studied.” (SmartFocus on Climate Change, 2016). Heede’s paper go’s on to discuss a number of policy proposals that have a producer vs. consumer responsibility notion. (Heede, R. Climatic Change (2014) 122: 229. doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0986-y)
Andrew, any organization that has operations which bear any influence on society, whether it be physical, financial, educational, environmental or otherwise, needs to have policies and regulations in place. The reason is to create an ethical practices guideline that streamlines their efforts to conform to the betterment of society. A pilot has to have regulations on how to fly and what altitudes to navigate or else we might not land safely. A power plant needs them in order to remain transparent with their efforts to practice sustainability and create a transparency with their operational practices.
DeleteA profit margin can often times overrule an ethical decision, so many of these regulations are in place to mitigate the human effect on the greater consequence.
http://cdn1.globalissues.org/i/cartoons/effect_debate.gif
I guess I should have said that link at the bottom of my last post isn't a Reference or Source...but instead a comic that represents exactly why these policies and regulations should be in place.
DeleteI think both Russell and Erick make very good points. Policies within organizations is very much needed. If there are none, lessons learned leave as an organization experiences turnover. When I worked as a safety professional, there was a common saying within the industry, "safety policies are written in blood." You could probably make a similar argument with environmental policy.
DeleteAs for who pays for 63% of the greenhouse gases emitted between 1751 to 2010. Everyone has paid but is there a group that is more accountable than another? Who's to say? We have reaped the benefits of the medical, industrial, and technological breakthroughs since the industrial revolution. Infant mortality had declined over 90% between 1915 - 1997 (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4838a2.htm). Average life expectancy has increased to mid 80's today from mid 40's in 1840 (http://www.businessinsider.com/how-has-life-expectancy-changed-throughout-history-2015-6). To say that we have not all benefited from the advances of the ones before us would be denialism.
It was also be denialism to think that those advances have not come with costs. It's only been since the 60's the public and industry started to fully understand man's impact on nature thanks to Rachel Carson's Silent Spring book (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Rachel-Carson). Now that we better understand those costs, it is on our shoulders to do something about it. I do not place blame on any individual, corporation, or organization for advancing the world while not fully understanding the cost of doing so.
You make a good point, Andrew, on who is responsible for the 63% of greenhouse gasses emitted before 2010. I think a lesson from the mining industry can be utilized here. In mining, if a company chooses to take over a historic mine, they also assume the responsibility and are required to adhere to current environmental regulations, meaning even if they mine adjacent to a historic mine, but they own the entire claim, they are required perform any necessary environmental mitigation for that preceding mine.
DeleteWhen it comes to CO2, I think all emitting industries should be held accountable, since the atmosphere is a shared commodity for the entire globe, and all currently active emitting companies should be responsible for mitigation and cleanup.
Jessica - I could definitely see some similarities between taking over coal mines and the inherited liability there and CO2 emission liability. What would happen if GM were to purchase Fiat-Chyrsler in this scenario? Would GM "own" Fiat-Chyrsler's CO2 emissions prior to acquisition?
DeleteRegulators could support utility attempts to find a more economically feasible (cheaper by 1/3 or 1/2) carbon capture and storage technology via research and project funding such as Cryogenic Carbon Capture (CCC). This is a new technology being researched currently and companies and utilities are involved. CCC process dries and cools a flue gas stream, modestly compresses it, and cools it to slightly above the frost point of CO2. The gas is then expanded, further cooling the stream and precipitating solid CO2. The solid CO2 is separated from the flue gas and the pure CO2 stream is pressurized. The cooled CO2 and N2 streams are then used in a heat exchanger to cool incoming flue gas. The final result is the CO2 in a liquid phase and a gaseous nitrogen stream.
ReplyDeleteThe goal of the EPA’s Clean Power Proposal is to reduce CO2 emissions by 30% by 2030. This proposal will change many aspects of the generation industry. The CPP has outlined four main building blocks to achieve this reduction in emissions: unit efficiency improvements, changes from coal based units to natural gas base units, increase use of zero-carbon generating capacity, and increases in energy efficiency. The NERC has also presented some of its concerns in reliability if the CPP goes through. The CPP suggests running NGCC as a baseload resource instead of coal. This will help reduce emission, but creates other concerns. In 2015, the US generated about 4 TWh. Coal, natural gas, and nuclear comprised the largest percent of generation at 33%, 33%, and 20%, respectively ("What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)", 2017). The NERC projects that under the CPP, natural gas will reach up to 49% by 2040. The concern is that generation will become too dependent on natural gas as a fuel source. Any changes in availability of natural gas could result in power shortages and blackouts. Carbon capture and sequestration is another technology that the CPP suggest CFPP utilize, but CCS systems are expensive, only capture the carbon, and use large percentage of the produced energy (Bliss, 2017). Therefore large CFPP would have to burn more coal, creating more emissions and still have the issue of transportation and storage. A cap and trade policy could solve many of these problems. Regulators, EPA, states, and generation sector must meet and negotiate reasonable terms for the cap, allocation of credits, and a strong price for trade of credits. One of the reasons the EU cap and trade policy failed was due to governments issuing too many credits causing the price of the credits to drop. The cap and trade system will allow for individual plants and states to reduce their emissions how they see fit opposed blanketing policies that fit some states better than other. This will also create a new market advantage for renewable energies. Renewable energy generation will also receive credits and require little to no credits to be compliant. They will then be able to sells these credits make renewables more economical. With proper allocation of credits, accurate caps, and a strong credit price this could be a solution to our emission problems.
ReplyDeleteBliss, R. (2017). Clean Power Professionals | Energy Central. Renewablesbiz.com. Retrieved 27 January 2017, from http://www.renewablesbiz.com/article/14/07/compliance-strategies-proposed-greenhouse-gas-rules-existing-power-plants
Potential Reliability Impacts of EPA’s Proposed Clean Power Plan. (2014) (1st ed., pp. 1-30). Atlanta, Ga.
What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). (2017). Eia.gov. Retrieved 27 January 2017, from https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3
Although the Court did stay the implementation of the CPP, in June 2014 it did affirm EPA's ability to regulate CO2 emissions from sources already having to comply with mitigating other pollutants. I am not a lawyer but it would seem that its CPP stay contradicts its earlier precedent. It will be interesting to see how the Court reconciles the two decisions.
ReplyDeleteIn the meantime, between the Court's stay and the new administration, it is interesting that 19 states (including Colorado) are continuing to plan for CPP implementation. This would not be the first time that states took the lead in new regulations and if federal agencies will be hogtied, states can still move forward. If NRDC's assessment of costs vs savings is indeed accurate, then economics, which is always a stranger driver than regulation, will push other states to follow suit.
Regulators should move forward with actions that are reasonable for the U.S. economy as well as the welfare of the earth’s environment. It is not a secret that CO2 emissions affect the world atmosphere (https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases). However, some under the Trump administration do not see the effects of CO2 as being a big issue. Big or small, there is an issue which needs to be addressed. A plan to better the environmental issue related to ensure economic stability must be obtained. The EPA put forth options and measures for achieving 30% less CO2 emissions by 2030 (Bliss, R. July 14, 2014. Compliance strategies for proposed EPA GHG rules. Renewablesbiz.), but how does economics play into the broad scope of this effort? Will the imposed changes have impacts on the reliability of the grid which are not acceptable for utility purposes? Unfortunately, regulatory commissions do not have all the answers on how more environmentally friendly energy options will affect the marketplace.
ReplyDeleteRecent studies by the NRDC show that renewable energy is a cost-effective method of obtaining energy when looking at price per KWh (NERC. November 2014.Potential Reliability Impacts of EPA’s Proposed Clean Power Plan). Given the more renewable energy sources are becoming economical, regulators should push for the install of renewable power plants and possible reduction of output for non-environmentally friendly power plants. Renewable energy becoming economical is great, but how will the grid deal with the peaks and valleys of energy production due to availability of the sun and wind?
Regardless of the administration’s stance on global warming, there must be a push from U.S. citizens to produce energy in an efficient manner that is sustainable. Consumer awareness is key, so that options are known. We may not need much regulation if consumers are making sustainable choices. Hopefully technology will drive us towards a sustainable future.
One of the United States greatest strengths is that it is a melting pot in so many ways. We have a vast variety of people, sources of energy, environments, economies, etc. The states were set up to be used as "laboratories" for new ideas and programs (http://www.ushistory.org/gov/3a.asp). If one state has a disastrous idea, it is limited to that state. Conversely, if the idea of that state flourished, both the federal government and other states could adopt the idea and alter it to best fit their constituents' needs and wants.
ReplyDeleteIt is going to take a monumental effort to force thirty-three (33) states to cut their carbon emissions by 25% or more by 2030 (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/energy/2015/08/080115-seven-most-coal-dependent-states/). The EPA has seemingly set up some states to fail.
A more balanced approach would have been for the EPA to ask the states that are more than 25% reliant on coal or have higher than average carbon emissions to adopt the energy strategies from at least one of the nine (9) states that has a per capita carbon emissions of less than 11.0 metric tons (https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/infographics/us-carbon-emissions-by-state.html). Then as long as the the states reach those goals, by an agreed upon time frame which would be determined state by state, the EPA should not care how. This frees up the states to do what is best for their state residents and be innovative at the same time. This would also reduce the likelihood of another Kemper coal plant financial pitfall (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/05/science/kemper-coal-mississippi.html) which now could be replicated throughout the nation under the CPP. The federal government could also put in subsidies for states that hit their benchmarks early as incentives. When the federal government paints with a broad brush over the states, innovation is often the victim who suffers the worst and our "laboratories" influence is reduced.
From what we know about the new administration and the appointees of people in key environmental positions, i.e. Scott Pruitt-EPA, Rick Perry-DOE and maybe the most important determination of the Clean Power Plan's survival, the appointment of a justice to the 9th seat of the Supreme Court, which will be announced tomorrow (Tuesday). I'm skeptical that the Clean Power Plan will survive. Although, assuming the CPP does not survive, I'm not positive it will have the damaging effects to climate change mitigation that many people think. The federal government has never issued, to my knowledge, an all encompassing federal energy policy. The determination of how energy is produced has generally been left up to the state. Whether the CPP survives or not, individual states recognize that climate change is a problem most closely related to how we produce and consume energy. States and local utilities have developed programs for implementing and developing renewable technologies that put a price on GHG emissions and create revenue streams for investment in clean energy technologies. Many of these programs predated the CPP and the cumulative effect of states actions have already projected us to meet nearly all of the CPP requirements by 2030 (1).
ReplyDeleteAs for Trump's promise to deliver new jobs to the coal sector by removing restrictive regulations, global market forces will make this nearly impossible. Peabody Energy, the world's largest privately owned coal producer, filed bankruptcy in 2016, joining 50 other US coal producers to do so in recent years (3). The sector is losing about 10,000 jobs per year because it remains unprofitable. According to a report by the Department of Energy, the coal sector employs around 156,000 people, however, generation from coal has declined by 53% since 2006 (2). This will only continue with the loss of jobs being offset by growth in natural gas and renewable. With the current push to more sustainable, cleaner energy sources from the states and the general public it's hard to see Trump's promises to revive the coal industry having any merit.
1.https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/9561-States-not-Trump-will-decide-future-of-US-energy
2.https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/01/f34/2017%20US%20Energy%20and%20Jobs%20Report_0.pdf
3.https://www.chinadialogue.net/blog/9560-Economic-realities-will-override-Trump-s-plan-for-a-coal-renaissance/en
DeleteWill the CPP even get to the Supreme Court under this administration? At this point is it not moot?
DeleteWell with the nomination of Neil Gorsuch by Trump to the supreme court, Clean Power Plan could maintain its effort providing technics that can help reducing atmospheric pollution. In the event CPP gets to the Supreme Court, the outcome of CPP policy of protecting the environment can be observed as promising for the simple reason that Neil Gorsuch has history of being an environmentalist who advocated for renewable energy. In 2015, in a judicial panel Gorsuch affirmed in the cause of renewable energy the following: “To be sure, fossil fuel producers like [E&E]’s member will be hurt. But as far as we know, all fossil fuel producers in the area served by the grid will be hurt equally and all renewable energy producers in the area will be helped equally. If there’s any disproportionate adverse effect felt by out-of-state producers or any disproportionate advantage enjoyed by in-state producers, it hasn’t been explained to this court” (1).
Delete(1) http://heavy.com/news/2017/01/neil-gorsuch-environment-views-opinions-clean-energy-laws-environmentalism-renewable-ann-burford-epa/
At this point it does seem to be a moot point when forecasting the CPP to be heard by the Supreme Court as it seems unlikely to make it past the DC Circuit Court. But it is likely that whatever the DC Circuit Court's ruling is, there will be an appeal to the Supreme Court. I do find it interesting to look at what this Administration might do when it comes to the CPP and there is bound to be much more litigation involved. The Trump Administration has the option to ask for a 'Voluntary Remand' that would stop the case as the EPA reviews complaints which will stall the the enforcement of the CPP's carbon cutting requirements. But a letter (1) written by several states vows to bring the administration to court if that was the case. If the EPA waits for the DC Circuit ruling and the decided to scrap the CPP more lawsuits would ensue because the EPA has an obligation to curb greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.(2)
Delete1. https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/20161228_final_letter.pdf
2. http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/20/14316574/donald-trump-environment-climate-change-obama-legacy
So, given the scenario laid out by Carson, it seems headed to the Supreme Court via one path or another. One other thing to consider... the Chief Justice of the DC Circuit is none other than Merrick Garland. Though he recused himself initially, now that he is no longer a candidate for the SC, can he jump back into it?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteToday we should emphasize the risks associated with climate change we are facing due to CO2 emissions generated by the use of different forms nonrenewable energies. The question here is how to significantly reduce the net emissions from fossil fuels. This objective cannot be achieved if regulators do not put in place an objective policy that can facilitate the use of technological means to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. On the other hand, it is necessary to evaluate the reliability of the existing means used to reduce CO2. In my humble opinion, a program of action must be put in place to achieve a gradual and satisfactory reduction of CO2 emission. This program should be articulated on the following topics: taxation on CO2 Emission (as suggested by the Ecological Tax Reform), development of new and renewable technologies, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to encourage and facilitate the use of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technologies to help improving their plant’s energy output and efficiency, and subsidize the effort of CCS technology research.
ReplyDeleteThe “Demand Side Management” (DSM) is one approach to help reduce carbon emission. Another important way to reduce CO2 emission is to encourage the utilization of new and renewable technologies on both demand and supply sides. Therefore, in addition to the DSM program that EPA has suggested, we should also consider a supply Side management program by expanding renewable technologies such as utility scale Wind and solar (why not High Voltage Direct Current - HVDC) power generations. I believe that these technologies are contributing factors to minimize greenhouse house gas (GHG) emissions. HVDC technology is a very reliable and sustainable source of power production. We should implement methods of educating engineering consulting firms to HVDC technologies. Today China occupies the first place in HVDC world market with Power Grid Corporation of China (PGCC), with more than 2,391,620MVA of capacity, which makes it the world largest utility power HVDC producer (http://www.dsius.com/cet/HVDCinChina_EPRI2013_HVDC.pdf).
Looking at the problem of greenhouse gas emissions the EPA's new Clean Power plan seems like a step in the right direction, though under the new administration I wouldn't think it has much of a chance at being implemented. Instead I think we should be looking at ways to incentivize these changes into effect instead of taxing them in.
ReplyDeleteWe know natural gas is cleaner and cheaper than coal (http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/gas-vs-coal.html), and we should take advantage of that fact. We also know from class in denver that public utilities only make their money on new power plants and transmissions. This new administration would it pretty simple to pass tax cuts that make natural gas even more viable than any new coal technology. These changes would push us towards a cleaner energy future. Trump has said he wants to save the american coal worker but economically I'm not so sure thats an achievable goal. Maybe he could push for a retraining of those workers for natural gas extraction or to run the natural gas power plants.
Unfortunately its looking more and more like regulators are going to face an uphill battle to fight GHG emissions. The only solution I see would be to appeal to the businessman in Trump. They should be looking to promise him jobs an profits in a new industry rather than penalizing an existing one. If they can convince the president and the rest of the climate deniers to go with the cheaper, cleaner and more efficient power than that would go a lot further than another regulation.
To expound on Elhadj’s point, we are just now starting to implement HVDC lines in the US. One of President Trump’s big plans to improve the country’s infrastructure is a HVDC line that will be used to transport 4 GW of wind power from Oklahoma to western Tennessee. We have seen this utilized in China, and so far, the effort has produced positive results. His Energy Storage and Grid Modernization plan (http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2017/01/27/green-energy-features-big-in-trumps-top-50-infrastructure-projects/#3f17ee454503) also shows promise, as it will pump more R&D funding into the continued development of energy storage innovations, and thus work to tackle the reliability issues surrounding a carbon-free energy industry.
ReplyDeleteAs both Ejhadj and Chris pointed out, Demand-Side Management, or DSM is also a great effort that is currently being implemented across the country. Xcel Energy’s DSM group in CO reduces an average 400 GWh of consumption per year. On the utility side of things, you are cutting down costs, reducing emissions and preventing the development of a new generating facility, which comes with large costs in both the short and long term. For customers, both residential and commercial, you’re cutting down on your electricity bills and operating costs, and the up front investments aren’t always too intense. Xcel’s DSM program offers decent rebates to help offset those costs as well. It also stimulates the market for trade partners and equipment vendors. I personally manage two DSM programs within the scope of new construction, and know that my programs keep many businesses afloat by just providing them with projects. Now, what is this cost to our customers? Less than $1/customer bill. To reiterate, these programs cost such a negligible amount to the public that most people don’t even know they’re paying for it. The result is increased operational efficiency, reduced costs, and stimulation to the local trade and vendor economy. Whether you support fossil fuels or energy efficiency and renewables, you would have to be crazy and/or stupid to not see the benefits of these programs. Like Chris mentioned, success stories like PG&E’s or Xcel Energy’s DSM programs would greatly appeal to the businessman in Trump. The main obstacle here is to develop a transition plan/framework for workers in the coal industry.