Category Archives: economic prosperity and energy

economic prosperity and energy, Energy, Politics and Economic Prosperity, Environmental, Nuclear

Without new thinking on nuclear power, (anti Carbon) climate policy can’t succeed

1 Comment

This is copied from the Tennessee Star Tribue Newspaper Opinion page, Nov. 11 2021. Full credit is given to the author, Mr. John Windschill. Thanks also is given to my friend Don Spellman for forwarding to me. I thought this is well researched and well written. As for myself, I believe Climate Change is mostly from natural forces, but if a reduced carbon society is desired and our quality of life and freedom is to be continued, then nuclear power must be included along with all other fuels.

The perceived dangers are overestimated. 

By John Windschill

From Dick Storm course at USCB-OLLI on the Future of Energy and Electricity Generation

A summer of destructive flooding, fires and drought across the planet, coupled with a sobering update from the United Nations climate panel, indicates that we are likely not making adequate progress addressing climate change. And our climate change ambivalence is especially obvious when it comes to nuclear power.

Despite nuclear power having potential to greatly reduce the fossil-fuel emissions that are responsible for about 70% of U.S. transportation- and electricity-related carbon emissions, and despite nuclear power being among the safest means of electricity production we have (as reported in Forbes, the Lancet and the Journal of Cleaner Production), many well-run nuclear plants are being retired.

In the last eight years, 11 nuclear reactors were retired in the U.S. This year four more are scheduled for permanent closure. These plants collectively represent 14,700 megawatts of electrical supply — enough electricity for 10 million people.

Consider the experiences of Germany, France and Sweden. Germany’s decision to forgo nuclear power has resulted in its falling far short of its carbon emission goal. France, which receives 72% of its electricity from nuclear, has less than half the carbon emissions of Germany, and electricity prices that are 40% lower. Sweden’s electricity is 40% nuclear, with prices 35% below Germany’s and per capita carbon emissions that are 57% lower.

Critics of nuclear power identify fear of accidents and a belief that a solution for waste disposal does not exist as reasons to oppose nuclear power. Neither of these is valid. People are afraid of nuclear power because it pushes all the wrong emotional buttons. As a result, the very low risk that nuclear power entails is not appreciated.

At the core of the fear of nuclear power is a fear of ionizing radiation (hereafter simply referred to as radiation). Radiation is extremely common in our environment. It is a straightforward substance to monitor and control, and its impact on public health is well understood. Each second natural background radiation interacts with our bodies more than 10,000 times. These natural sources account for about half of the radiation dose the average American receives, with the remaining half coming from medical procedures. The 60 operating nuclear power plants in the U.S. contribute less than 0.01% from routine operations.

The two basic ways a nuclear power plant can increase public radiation doses are accidents and waste disposal. Three accidents have occurred that affected the public. These, in increasing order of severity, were Three Mile Island in 1979 in Pennsylvania, Fukushima in 2011 in Japan, and Chernobyl in 1986 in Ukraine. This history of nuclear power over 42 years proves how safe nuclear power is.

At the Three Mile Island accident there were no health effects. Nuclear Regulatory Commission reports indicate the average radiation dose received by members of the public living near the plant was far below natural background radiation levels.

Fukushima released more radioactive materials than Three Mile Island, but because of effective emergency response efforts, public radiation doses were low. The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation and the World Health Organization (WHO) concluded that there would be no observable health effects in the public from the accident.

The Chernobyl accident was basically the most severe nuclear power plant accident that is possible. International Atomic Energy Agency and WHO reports indicate that the only cancer that has been detected from the accident is thyroid cancer, which has led to 15 related fatalities. Among initial responders, 28 tragically died of acute radiation poisoning at the time of the accident.

Based on conservative estimates, it is possible that a few thousand might die within 50 years of cancers not epidemiologically detectable among the background cancer rate. This puts a cap on the worst-case result. A few thousand people die each day in the world due to air pollution from fossil fuels and also from auto accidents. With more than 37,000 fatalities worldwide since the Three Mile Island accident, commercial air travel has about a 10 times larger impact on public health and safety.

For comparison among electrical generating sources, the fatality rate per billion kilowatt-hours generated is: coal, 25; natural gas, 2.8; global nuclear, 0.074 (includes an assumed 4,000 future deaths from Chernobyl); wind, 0.035; hydro, 0.024; solar, 0.019; and U.S. nuclear, 0.0001.

And the lessons learned from the three accidents described above have been effectively applied to make safe nuclear power even safer.

Regarding high-level nuclear waste, James Conca (who has Ph.D. in geochemistry from California Institute of Technology) says, “We know where to put nuclear waste, how to put it there, how much it will cost, and how well it will work.” An oft-repeated phrase is that high-level waste is dangerous for tens of thousands of years, but the fact is that high-level waste loses 99% of its toxicity within 600 years. And while high-level waste is very toxic material, it is less hazardous than gasoline.

The U.S. produces 50 times more lethal doses of gasoline each year than lethal doses of high-level waste; we carry our gasoline with us pretty much everywhere we travel, and it is stored much less carefully than nuclear waste.

The very small volume of high-level waste allows meticulous control to be achieved. Each U.S. resident’s lifetime share of high-level waste would fit in a single can of Coke. Kilowatt for kilowatt, solar power waste has 10,000 times greater volume than nuclear waste, and wind’s total is 500 times larger, each involving large amounts of toxic metals in panels and batteries. Also, nuclear waste is an inert solid within a metal casing (i.e., spent nuclear fuel), not green, oozing goo.

And yet, wind and solar get an environmental hall pass, but nuclear power is labeled as exceedingly dangerous.

The current concept is to secure the solid waste in highly robust steel containers, and to store the containers in an accessible manner that allows routine monitoring and inspection in a deep underground repository free of groundwater that has been geologically stable for millions of years. Yucca Mountain north of Las Vegas was selected for study.

Prof. Bernard Cohen of the University of Pittsburgh calculated that if all the electricity in the U.S. were provided by nuclear power, it would result in 0.3 deaths per year in the U.S. due to waste storage. Should we be concerned with tiny quantities of nuclear waste migrating from a very remote, highly engineered and easily monitored facility sometime in the far distant future, or with the millions of tons of carbon dioxide and harmful particulates we currently pump into the air to breathe and cause our planet to heat up?

Yet in 2011 President Barack Obama defunded the Yucca Mountain project. Again, faulty risk assessment and politics won out over science and sound public policy.

We should be insisting that our government more vigorously pursue this valuable technology that could be a difference maker for addressing climate change. Bill Gates has helped form a new company, TerraPower, whose mission is to bring nuclear power plant design forward to the next level of safety and economic performance. In a recent quote from Forbes, he said “there are only three ways to solve the electric grid problem: one is a miracle in [energy-battery] storage, the second is nuclear fission, and the third is nuclear fusion.”

Wind and solar have a vital role to play, but we should not be putting total reliance on a miracle.

economic prosperity and energy, Energy, Politics and Economic Prosperity, Environmental, Regulations

IPCC Data: Rising CO2 is 75% Natural

3 Comments

I have always believed Climate Change was mostly natural, here is a more scientific presentation showing 75% Natural forces are the cause of Climate Change. Thank you Ron Clutz for your analysis..

Ron Clutz's avatarScience Matters

A previous post reprinted later below raised the question Who to Blame for Rising CO?  It provided synopses of three studies challenging the IPCC orthodox explanation that humans are the cause by burning fossil fuels.  This post brings the research up to date with a 2021  publication by Edwin Berry.

The graph above summarizes Dr. Berry’s findings.  The lines represent CO2 added into the atmosphere since the 1750 level of 280 ppm.  Based on IPCC data regarding CO2 natural sources and sinks, the black dots show the CO2 data. The small blue dots show the sum of all human CO2 emissions since they became measurable, irrespective of transfers of that CO2 from the atmosphere to land or to ocean.

Notice the CO2 data is greater than the sum of all human CO2 until 1960. That means nature caused the CO2 level to increase prior to 1960, with no reason to…

View original post 2,989 more words

economic prosperity and energy, Energy, Electricity, Economic Prosperity and Environmental Protection, Environmental, Fossil Fuels are Important, Regulations

Glasgow, COP-26 Elitists and Special Interests Promote China First, America Last, Why? Because Energy Savvy Engineers Were Not Successful In Educating The Public and Politicians on the True Facts

5 Comments

Well, that is at least one reason we have such a mess of energy policy now.

Once a “War on Carbon”, Has now Morphed into a “War on Freedom”, “War on our Rights”, “War on Capitalism” and an assault on much of What “We the People” Have Worked Hard For. The clowns in Scotland are spending our tax dollars and restricting our freedoms as best they can. Essentially putting China and the rest of the world first, America last. All on our dime.

Meanwhile, U.S.A. High Gas Prices, Super Market Shortages, Inflation , Oil and Gas Jobs are Killed and Winter Energy Supplies may be limited. The American people did not vote for this

America has been a leader by example in reducing carbon. The U.S.A. has reduced our carbon emissions by over 50% since 2005. How? By releasing the power of free markets and American innovation. At the end of President Trump’s term, America was energy independent. He did that in four years only to have Joe Biden reverse his policies.

The War on Fossil Fuels is not new and the intentions have always been to raise energy costs so that “Green Power” will become competitive. Yes, the intentions of President Biden, John Kerry, Al Gore and the rest of the Green Extremists (Reminder, the War on Coal started in the Clinton-Gore Administration. Obama just continued and accellerated anti American energy policies Clinton-Gore began) The war on carbon is intended to make Exploration, Development, Production and use of oil, gas, coal and even nuclear, more expensive and harder to use. All of this as the world’s people still depend on Fossil Fuels and nuclear together for almost 90% of our total energy. How can our leaders be so ignorant and insensitive? Well, back in the 1990’s when bill Clinton started the “War on Coal”, I did my best to educate the public and the students of public schools and several Colleges on energy and electricity generation. I am proud of my efforts, small as they seem in the grand scheme of things. There is still a need for Energy Engineers to become active in PR for Energy!

I copied the Oct. 2011 Commentary(Below) from POWER Magazine’s web page. Kindly note my last line: I sure wish the readers of POWER and many other engineers took the suggestion to educate the public on energy and electricity generation more seriously. If we had, perhaps we would not have the mess we have in Washington today.

(From Oct. 2011)

Shaping America’s Energy Policy

America’s energy and environmental policies have been dysfunctional for decades. Obsessively moving toward “green” has made America weaker and has damaged our economy. During POWER’ s first 100 years (1882–1982), the magazine chronicled the U.S. growing into the strongest industrialized economy in the world. America designed and built products for the world using raw materials and energy from within our own borders. Now we are in a recession and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) “War on Coal” continues. Does anyone get the connection? Ever-worsening regulations are killing jobs by the thousands.

Past Turning Points in U.S. Energy Production

Remember when America took risks and led the world in energy innovation? Let’s review some of the past milestones.

The pace-setting power stations Eddystone and Philo are ultrasupercritical power plants that were designed in the 1950s. Hailed as the most efficient coal power plants in the world when they were launched, these plants were designed for over-40% thermal efficiency.

Then Admiral Hyman G. Rickover and President Dwight D. Eisenhower followed through on the “Atoms for Peace Initiative” to commercialize the success of the Navy nuclear propulsion systems, which were to be applied to electricity generation for peaceful purposes. The Shippingport nuclear power plant began operations in the early 1960s, and larger commercial nuclear plants were on the drawing boards. By the mid-1960s, it was said that nuclear power was such a technological breakthrough that “electricity will be too cheap to meter.” America went on to build more than 100 commercial nuclear plants, most of which are still operational. U.S. nuclear plants remain economical and have earned an enviable safety record.

Then came oil embargos, followed by volatile natural gas prices. The high oil and gas prices resulted in a surge in building new coal plants from 1975 to 1985. The nuclear fleet grew until 1978, when the Three Mile Island accident created a major setback. In recent years, nuclear power morphed into the politically correct, carbon-free fuel. However, the tsunami in Japan in March and the resurgence of anti-nuclear groups around the world seem to have once more stalled future nuclear plant development.

The Need for Energy Policies That Promote Our Economy

U.S. energy policy should promote the use of all fuels. America is the Saudi Arabia of coal. If mining permits, EPA regulations, and common sense energy policies were practiced, then power engineers could replace our aging coal plants with new clean coal plants exceeding 40% thermal efficiency. This would be an efficiency improvement of about 7 percentage points above the existing coal fleet.

It is absurd that environmental activists can shape the U.S. energy policy based on ideology alone, with little concern for keeping electricity prices reasonable and our economy growing. Why don’t environmental activists embrace new, more efficient clean coal plants? America should be replacing our aging fleet with new, more efficient, clean coal plants. Will we ever learn?

My concern is that the same type of political correctness that nearly killed nuclear power after Three Mile Island may harm the future of clean coal plants. If the U.S. rebuilt the aging 300+ GW coal fleet with all new, clean ultrasupercritical coal plants, it would employ well over three million Americans. Jobs and a strong America are related to the utilization of homegrown energy, including the mining of coal and raw materials; construction; and the production of steel, cement, copper wire, generators, boilers, balance-of-plant equipment, and environmental controls. Compare the number of jobs created to build, operate, and maintain new coal plants with the “green jobs” of erecting foreign-built windmills or solar power facilities.

If we want to restore economic prosperity and renew manufacturing in America, then we need reasonably priced electricity to supply power to manufacturing plants. Keeping electricity costs reasonable for residential consumption is nice, but to restore manufacturing jobs in America, reasonably priced wholesale electricity, which is available on a 24/7 basis, is needed. This point seems to be forgotten in the national dialog on America’s energy future.

Educating the American Public About Electric Power Production

I think each of us who understands power production has a responsibility to educate our friends, neighbors, and elected officials. There are millions of citizens who believe reasonably priced, reliable electricity is an entitlement. The right thing for human advancement is to use the God-given natural resources that have made “living better electrically” a way of life in the developed world.

In my opinion, we should build green power where it is practical and economic to do so, such as on the roofs of buildings and parking garages. I support the building of nuclear plants and combined cycle gas plants, where economically justified. Energy engineers understand that when the sun sets and the wind is calm, the U.S. needs reasonably priced, dispatchable power to energize what is left of America’s manufacturing might.

I urge the readers of POWER to do your part in educating the public and our elected officials on the true facts of how we can continue to “live better electrically” and keep America strong. I promise to do my part. Will you?”

— Richard F. “Dick” Storm  (was in 2011 ) CEO/senior consultant of Storm Technologies Inc. in Albemarle, N.C.

Reference:

  1. POWER Magazine, Oct. 2011 Commentary: https://www.powermag.com/shaping-americas-energy-policy/#.YYIdCBf0vsM.linkedin
  2. Ron Clutz, Science Matters, Climate Change is 75% Naturally Caused by IPCC Data: https://rclutz.com/2021/11/06/ipcc-data-rising-co2-is-75-natural/#like-22392

economic prosperity and energy, Energy, Politics and Economic Prosperity, Environmental, Fossil Fuels are Important, Politics & Management

The War on Carbon, How it Came to be:

3 Comments

Climate Change has been going on since well before the Romans. Certainly well before coal was burned for power generation. Yet, the main stream news is fixated on Climate Change being the result of the Developed World’s use of Fossil Fuels over the last 100 years. The MSM has completely blown off the possibility that Climate Change is mostly Natural. I am a proponent for reasonable cost, abundant energy and the resultant improved quality of life. I am also interested in protecting the environment, and I love nature just as much as any environmentalist does. Reasonable cost Energy improves quality of life and is referred to by some as improving the “Human Developmet Index”. It concerns me that the most reasonable cost and proven sources of energy have become somewhat socially unacceptable. Such as coal, oil, gas and nuclear. Ironically, these four forms of energy are the one’s that provide about 90-96% of the Developed World’s energy. Many Financial Institutions are reluctant to loan money to Developers of mines, fossil fueled power stations or refineries. Even though there are still almost a Billion people on the planet that have limited or no access at all to electricity. Energy and Economic prosperity go together.

A slide from a recent course I presented. The data are from the UN, Our World in Data and ExxonMobil’s Outlook for Energy

So, this begs the question: Why would so many in the MSM, Entertainment, Politics, Education and the General Public be against the very things that make our high quality of lives possible? As I was thinking about this, it occurred to me that perhaps it would be helpful to remind folks of how we have arrived at this absurd place in history. Here are my thoughts and research of how the “War on Carbon” came to be. This is purely Politically Driven, not based on science or protection of the planet.

The UN Agenda 21

It was 1993 and Bill Clinton was President of the U.S.A. with Al Gore as Vice President. Executive Order #12858 was signed.(1) This is my understanding of the beginning of the “War on Coal”. The U.N. Agenda 21 began in a conference in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. It brought together concerns for our environment, Socialism, Secular Humanism, and the world banking cartels. U.S.A involvement began in 1992, with then good intentions, by President George H.W. Bush. Bush #41 referred to Agenda 21 as encompassing “Sacred Principles”. Then the good intentions deteriorated into viscious, effective and well funded attacks on coal. The cost to Americans was blunted due to the near simulateous successes of the Shale Gas Revolution which greatly increased production of Domestic natural gas and drove natural gas prices downward. In the short term, the low natural gas prices actually hurt coal power more than the extremists and Democrat’s smear campaigns. However, the damage was permanent with no new coal plants being built in the U.S.A. since about 2012. Many older coal plants have been irreversibly decommissioned and hundreds demolished. Many of these plants could have been operating now had they been maintained. I hate to say the Environmental Extremists have won, but it looks like they have. But, who benefits from the Environmental Extremists apparent success? In my view, the only beneficiaries are China, Russia and other adversaries of the U.S.A.

Now, natural gas prices are escalating and even the Left Leaning MSM talk of expected high energy bills in winter and possible energy shortages. Therefore, given this scenario, I thought it was timely to review, from my vantage point, just how this madness came to be.

War on Coal 1993-2012

The Democrat’s have hated coal for many years. The only reason I can rationalize their hate, is because the well funded Environmental Groups usually support Democrat’s. Here below is an excerpt from Wikipedia on the “War on Coal”(6)

“A goal of the Sierra Club is to replace coal with other energy sources.[31] Through its “Beyond Coal” campaign, the Sierra Club has set a goal to close half of all coal plants in the U.S. by 2017. American business magnate and former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg donated $50 million to the Sierra Club’s anti-coal work in 2011, and announced another $30 million gift to Sierra’s Beyond Coal campaign in 2015.[32]The Beyond Coal campaign says 187 coal plants have been closed since 2010.[33] Other funders of the Sierra Club’s anti-coal campaign include the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.[34] The CEO of Chesapeake Energy, a natural gas company, donated $26 million to the Beyond Coal campaign between 2007 and 2010.[35]

The Sierra Club is also opposed to nuclear energy.[36][37] “

Then, piling on with the MSM and the environmental organizations comes the allying of the public schools and teaching (indoctrinating) extreme green policies to our teenagers many of which have now grown up to be adults.

In addition to demonizing of carbon in Public Schools the general public is bombarded with “Save the Planet” propaganda by entertainment personalities, and the  MSM.  Here is a short history of the War on Coal by Politico(7): https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/05/inside-war-on-coal-000002/ 

The Democrat’s hated coal and then that hate has morphed into hate of all Fossil Fuels. The (D’s) are supported by Environmental organizations (4,5) that mostly, also hate nuclear. So, the Democrat’s and Environmentally (Like Bush 41, they have good intentions) conscious citizens tend to oppose the one carbon-free form of power that is efficient, reliable, proven and capable of Dispatchable operation at high-capacity factor. The generation (it has been 28 years since Clinton signed EO) of youth that were indoctrinated to hate coal and nuclear are now voters.

This is my summary of “How the War on Carbon” has brought us to Congress working on a Stupid and anti-American Path to Net Zero Carbon. A path that only benefits adversaries of the U.S.A. The best word I can think of to describe these policies is “Stupid”.

A better path would be to continue energy independence using Hydraulic Fracturing and production of all of America’s oil and gas, including pipelines for safe transport of oil and gas. Build many more new nuclear plants to produce more nuclear power generation for both electricity generation and for hydrogen production. Also, build new highly efficient coal plants with the future capability for CCUS (Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage) Called HELE (High Efficiency Low Emissions)

In closing, my view is that all forms of energy are important including; nuclear, coal, oil and gas. By the way, another reason that supports this is the fact that about 96% of America’s energy is provided by conventional energy as shown below. Disrupting the supply chain of Domestic energy will weaken America.

These views are my own and not those of any organization that I have been part of. I take full responsibility for these opinions and they are based on my personal experiences in the electric power industry over many decades.

Richard F. (Dick) Storm, PE

PS I just came across this post by the GWPF (Global Warming Policy Foundation) A reminder that all the meetings and hype are strictly Political, not about getting Results:

References:

  1. Living with Agenda 21, Surrendering Our Freedoms by Dr. H. Lawrence Zillmer, Copyright 2012
  2. U.N. Agenda 21 Info: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf
  3. U.N. Sustainable Development Report, 2021: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/UN-DESA_Back_Common_Future_En.pdf
  4. Capital Research Center, Report on Climate Dollars https://www.climatedollars.org/full-study/a-short-history-of-global-warming-fears/
  5. The NEW Leviathan, Crown Forum, NY 2012 Check Appendix X and summary of $9 Billion in Assets
  6. Wikipedia, “War on Coal” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_coal
  7. Politico, “War on Coal” https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/05/inside-war-on-coal-000002/
  8. War on Coal, Issues in Science and Technology: https://issues.org/real-numbers-president-obamas-war-on-coal/
  9. An Excellent video of some very smart Patriots, The Right Stuff Climate Team (Retired NASA Engineers): https://www.therightclimatestuff.com
  10. Donn Dears well written and practical articles: https://ddears.com/donns-articles/
  11. Michael Shellenberger on John Shanahan Website. Solar Panels make more waste than nuclear: https://www.allaboutenergy.net/energy/238-energy/today/wind-and-solar/north-america/862-100-percent-renewable-energy-rested-on-a-lie-michael-shellenberger-environmental-progress-mark-jacobson-usa
  12. Armstrong Economics, Great article on CO2 and the politics of the “War on Carbon” aka, “Manmade Climate Change” https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/3rd-attempt-to-publish-this-google-interferes/
  13. EPA New Source Review  Settlements Summaries: https://www.gem.wiki/EPA_Coal_Plant_Settlements
  14. EPA Settlements on NSR violations by WEPCO 2003: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/wisconsin-electric-power-company-wepco-clean-air-act-civil-settlement 
  15. Dissertation on the Sierra Club Success of Beyond Coal Campaign 2020: https://www.proquest.com/openview/b734be1b4fa402463fbb2ee03a7993e5/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
  16. Inside the War on Coal Politico, The Agenda 2015: https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/05/inside-war-on-coal-000002/
  17.  NRDC China Office: https://chinadevelopmentbrief.org/ngos/natural-resources-defense-council-nrdc/  
  18.  Government Accountability Office Report on Environmental Protection Agency–Application of Publicity or Propaganda and Anti-Lobbying Provisions EPA Lobbying, 2015: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-326944
  19. NRDC About us and link to IRS 990 Form: https://www.nrdcactionfund.org/about/
  20. Influence Watch, NRDC page: https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/natural-resources-defense-council-nrdc/
  21. Washington Examiner: Gina McCarthy CEO of NRDC: https://eelegal.org/washington-examiner-gina-mccarthy-and-nrdc-together-again/
  22. Wrong Kind of Green, NRDC and Source Watch: https://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/the-group-of-ten/natural-resources-defense-council/
  23. Bezos awards $100 million to NRDC : https://www.nrdc.org/media/2020/201116
  24. Bezos plans to give Billions to Environmental Org’s: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/20/jeff-bezos-pledges-1-billion-to-conservation-through-bezos-earth-fund.html
  25. Activist Facts,  Environmental Report (Follow the Money): https://www.activistfacts.com/organizations/19-natural-resources-defense-council/
  26. Washington Examiner 2013 EPA and Sue and Settle Lawsuits: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/epas-back-room-sue-and-settle-deals-require-reform
  27. Activist Facts, Sierra Club, Beyond Coal, Beyond Gas, Nuclear :https://www.activistfacts.com/organizations/194-sierra-club/
  28. Mother Jones 2012, Sierra Club “War on Coal” update to kill 167 coal plants: https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/04/map-american-coal-plants/
  29. AEP Newsletter to employees and Retirees on Turk Plant Settlement: https://aepretirees.com/2011/12/22/aep-resolves-all-legal-challenges-against-turk-plant-plant-on-track-to-begin-commercial-operation-in-2012/
  30. PowerEngineering Articles on Turk and Duke Coal plant closures, 2/01/2012: https://www.power-eng.com/renewables/aep-resolves-all-legal-challenges-against-turk-plant/#gref
  31. Source Watch Brags on NRDC being responsible for forcing shutting down of Seven major coal plants in Texas in 2007: https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Natural_Resources_Defense_Council#Support_for_coal_gasification
  32. Environmental Defense Fund: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Defense_Fund
  33. Influence Watch profile of EDF: https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/environmental-defense-action-fund/
  34. WUWT, Article, July 8, 2022, Green Communism, Eradicate the Energy Privilege of Rich Countries:  https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07/08/green-communism-eradicate-the-energy-privilege-of-rich-countries/

economic prosperity and energy, Energy, Electricity, Economic Prosperity and Environmental Protection

The Impossibility of “Net Zero Carbon”

5 Comments

I presented a short course to the local University, OLLI, Life-Long Learning Program. I thought it may be helpful to provide a summary of the course on this Blog so that it is available to others. Mindful that many policy makers and voters are not aware of the costs of renewable energy and the difficulties in living without carbon based fuels. This course was intended to provide insight to non-energy engineers on this important topic. Also included at the end are numerous references that are not widely discussed by the Main Stream Media, Entertainment and even in “Woke” Social Media.

America uses about 100 Quadrillion Btu’s per year. This translates to about 830,000 to 1 Million Btu’s used each day by each American. This includes electricity, transportation, shipping, heating, industrial and commercial. Each individual citizen consumes roughly about a million British Thermal Units (BTU’s) per day, the chart below show the sources of those BTU’s and how they are used.

From U.S. Department of Energy, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory data

About 37% of America’s energy is used for electricity generation. The other 63% is also important and if everyone drove EV’s, then much more electricity demand will be required.

Each citizen uses almost a million Btu’s per day. Depending on employment type, home location in warmer or northern climate and life-styles, the amount of energy used will vary. But for me and my friends and our life-styles, I am sure we use over a million Btu’s per day. For the class, I prepared an illustration of just how an average person could use 866,000 to a million Btu’s each day.

Another illustration shows just how we depend on energy to carry on our daily living.

I have watched the use of total energy for the last twenty years or so and have seen it hover at about 100 Quadrillion Btu’s each year. This is the energy required to fuel our economy and the Freedom to travel and live our lives as Americans have enjoyed for many years. Disrupting this energy supply to fuel our economy and our life styles will create unnecessary hardship, pain and National security risks for all Americans.

The Democrats and the Biden Administration have America on a path to “Net Zero Carbon”. This is insane, foolish and simply not possible to attain. Not unless our standard of living and productive capacity as a nation are severely compromised. I refer you back to the first figure above, the Sankey Diagram that shows total Primary Energy Used in 2019. Of the 100 Quadrillion Btu’s used, only 3.8% came from wind and solar. This is after decades of tax subsidies to renewables. Only 3.8%. Now, for the “Net Zero America” path promoted by Princeton University and the Democrats, they want to change ALL of our ENERGY to Carbon Free. See the figure below:

After many years of subsidies, renewables can’t do better than 3.8% of our energy and the “Net Zero Carbon” proponents think that by throwing Billions and Billions of your tax dollars to connected, (D) Crony Capitalists, we will be able to replace Fossil Fuels and Nuclear with solar panels and wind turbines. This is simply not practical and it will harm America if it is tried. Why? Because we utilize and depend on 96.2% of our energy to come from conventional sources. Petroleum, Coal, Natural Gas and Nuclear. It is absolutely Nuts to have a “War on Carbon” when in fact, we depend on carbon based fuels for every day living. OK, I am a retired coal power engineer and some will say, I am biased toward Fossil Fuels. Imagine that. So to get past the bias, let’s take some real world examples of where large groups of citizens have been subjected to “Extreme Green” policies and take a look at the results. Certainly the politicians are smart enough to understand we should learn from the mistakes of others. You think? Four examples I will offer are:

  • Wind Power in the UK and resulting extreme costs
  • Emphasis of Solar and Wind in Germany and the escalating costs
  • Hawaii Electric’s highest price electricity of the 50 States due to the commitment to shut down a coal plant and depend on renewables
  • Texas Blackout Feb 2021 due to excessive solar and wind being included in their reserve generation

Are these examples of what “we the people” desire for all of America? How can we reshore American Manufacturing with electricity costs such as Hawaii now has? How can we remain the #1 Economy in the world if we depend on imported energy. Does anyone remember the 1974 Arab Oil Embargo and what it did to slow our way of life? Reminder, 96% of our energy is provided from conventional (including old nuclear plants) sources. Yes, old nuclear is good. My state of SC generates 55.8% of our electricity from nuclear plants, some of which are over 50 years old.

American Energy Policy Gets Dumber Each Month, Elected Officials should take notice of how these policies have worked out where tried:

From Wall Street Journal Oct. 6, 2021

Hawaii has chosen their own version of the “Green New Deal” and it has earned them two first places. (1) They burn the highest cost fuel for generating electricity and not surprisingly, (2) they have the highest electric costs of the 50 U.S. States. Fortunately, Hawaii is not a major manufacturing state. These high costs of power do not bode well for manufacturing, especially primary metals like steel, copper and aluminum. However, it is important for my state of SC to continue with reasonable cost electricity. We do have NUCOR Steel and Century Aluminum and they depend on abundant and reasonable cost electricity. Hawaii can pass the costs on to Tourists and Government, SC cannot.

http://www.islandpulse.org and EIA Electricity cost data

The High Cost of Renewables is well established in the U.S.A. and in Europe

Dick Storm, October 13, 2021

References and Additional Study Materials to research the basis for my opinions as stated above:

  1. Santee-Cooper Flip Facts Sept 2021: https://www.flipsnack.com/santeecooper/2020-santee-cooper-fingertip-facts/full-view.html
  2. Santee-Cooper IRP, Dec 2020: https://www.santeecooper.com/About/Increasing-Value/ORS-Reports/_pdfs/Dec-23-Signed-Filed-IRP.pdf
  3. SC Dept of Energy :  http://www.energy.sc.gov/irp
  4. Dominion Energy SC IRP update, Feb 2021: https://dms.psc.sc.gov/Attachments/Matter/531e91d9-05ff-48e2-938f-adccf3548768
  5. Donn Dears Report on Hydrogen: https://ddears.com/2021/06/01/special-report-on-hydrogen/
  6. WSJ  Japan and Hydrogen Commitment: https://www.wsj.com/articles/japans-big-bet-on-hydrogen-could-revolutionize-the-energy-market-11623607695?mod=searchresults_pos8&page=2
  7. America’s Power.org : https://www.americaspower.org/behind-the-plug-blog/
  8. References for further reading and research on Climate Change from Natural Forces:
  9. On Natu ral Climate Change (Not Carbon Dioxide) The Right Climate Stuff Team (Retired NASA Engineers): https://www.therightclimatestuff.com
  10. D. Roy Spencer website, “Is there a Climate Crisis?” : http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Introduction.pdf
  11. Watts Up With That Blog, “Follow the Money” By Dr. Paul Rossiter: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/06/understanding-the-climate-movement-part-3-follow-the-money/
  12. Judith Curry website, Climate.etc : https://judithcurry.com
  13. Science and Environment Policy Project  Website: http://www.sepp.org
  14. Princeton Physicist, Dr. William Happer, A key segment begins at minute 24 where the effects of CO2 are discussed. https://bit.ly/3zsXcS6
  15. Donn Dears Articles: https://ddears.com/donns-articles/
  16. Science and Environment Policy Project  Website: http://www.sepp.org
  17. Judith Curry, 15 slides to summarize Climate Change website: https://judithcurry.com/2021/09/03/15-minutes/#more-27827
  18. Global Warming Policy Foundation: https://www.thegwpf.org
  19. WSJ article on “Climate Change Agenda Goes Out With a Bang” July 15, 2021: https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-summit-cop26-cost-esg-carbon-11626297240
  20. Armstrong Economics Climate Change Chart: https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/reality-of-climate-change-v-people-believe-what-they-want-to-believe/
  21. Armstrong Economics on coming Ice Age: https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/the-threat-of-an-ice-age-is-real/
  22.  Energy Facts from respected sources:
  23. Donn Dears Articles: https://ddears.com/donns-articles/
  24. Nuclear Energy Institute, Land Area Required for Wind and Solar to replace a 1000 MW Nuclear Plant: https://www.nei.org/news/2015/land-needs-for-wind-solar-dwarf-nuclear-plants
  25. EPRI video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42UqxqCCYs4  https://youtu.be/42UqxqCCYs4
  26. Real Time US Power Grid link to EIA (Energy Information Administration):https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/dashboard/electric_overview/US48/US48
  27. CA Grid Real Time Demand: https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/default.aspx
  28. PJM Operations: https://www.pjm.com
  29. MISO Operations: https://www.misoenergy.org/markets-and-operations/real-time–market-data/real-time-displays/
  30. SPP (SW Power Pool) Market Generation by Fuel: https://marketplace.spp.org/pages/generation-mix
  31. ERCOT Grid (Electric Reliability Council of Texas): https://mis.ercot.com/public/dashboards
  32. John Shanahan (Excellent) Website: https://www.allaboutenergy.net/energy
  33. CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH CENTER REPORT, PRIMER ON ENERGY (GOOD REFERENCE WITH EXCELLENT FIGURES) https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46723
  34. WUWT Blog on Global Fuels Use, July 11, 2021: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/07/11/2020-global-energy-data-shows-fossil-fuels-completely-dominate-world-energy-use/
  35. EIA Battery Storage as of August 2021: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=49236
  36. Dick Storm Blog: https://wordpress.com/posts/dickstormprobizblog.wordpress.com
  37. Mark Mills, The Myth of Renewable Energy: https://www.manhattan-institute.org/the-myth-of-the-great-energy-transition
  38. WSJ, Wind Stops in Europe: https://www.wsj.com/articles/energy-prices-in-europe-hit-records-after-wind-stops-blowing-11631528258?mod=djem_EnergyJournal
  39. General Energy and Environmental References:

Regulations

The War on Carbon Madness has Come to South Carolina, Check the IRP’s and Weep

3 Comments

The Great State of South Carolina is Following the Path of the Insane Net Zero Carbon Path Proposed by the D.C. Swamp

I am writing this post because as I see it, the usually conservative, level headed elected officials in SC have become “Woke” with regard to energy policy and planning. Worse yet, they have bought into Central Control from Washington, much like the CCP in Beijing.

During the last year I became active as an instructor for the local College Continuing Education Program. As part of my preparations for classes, I did some digging into my adopted state’s policies regarding electricity generation. What I found was enlightening, but not in a good way. 

The energy policy of South Carolina has gone, “Woke” and this great state is headed for higher electricity prices and reduced reliability. I copied the goals from the executive summary of Santee-Cooper’s IRP. They are……

From Santee-Cooper IRP December 2020

There is much written about increasing solar and other renewables and much emphasis on the importance of downsizing the coal fleet.  Yet, the projections to 2050 show a great reliance on coal fuel. I copied the chart below.

Once upon a time, (up till about the mid 1990’s) each state had a Public Utility Commission that would review such plans and approve new capacity additions. Not anymore. America has “Progressed” to being run by Central Control, much like the Chinese Communist Party rules electric power supply in China from the ruling class in Beijing. Yes, central control. The Democrats have downplayed the “Green New Deal” and rebranded it the “Clean Energy Plan”(6). Basically, it is a perfect world, fairy tale authored by Ivory Tower Professors who have never been involved with electric generation.  This is Princeton University’s “Net Zero America Plan” This is available at this link. https://cmi.princeton.edu/annual-meetings/annual-reports/year-2019/the-net-zero-america-project-finding-pathways-to-a-carbon-neutral-future/

https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/?explorer=year&state=national&table=2020&limit=200

Getting back to “Woke South Carolina”, Here are the links to the Integrated Resource Plans for Santee-Cooper and Dominion Energy SC.

Click to access Dec-23-Signed-Filed-IRP.pdf

https://dms.psc.sc.gov/Attachments/Matter/531e91d9-05ff-48e2-938f-adccf3548768

If you take some time to read these through you will see an emphasis on shutting down coal plants and ramping up renewables. I have written on my Blog about the experiences of California, Texas and Hawaii. All of which have taken the bait of low cost power from free fuel of sun and wind. The TX Blackouts of Feb 2021 are probably recent enough that you do not need a reminder. 

Perhaps I should digress to explain why I feel qualified to write on this topic. For those who do not know me, I will relate a summary of my experience and credentials. I also have strong feelings on why I think it is foolish to apply the ISO/RTO approach to electricity generation in South Carolina as most of the U.S.A. electric power is now controlled. I hate that word, “Controlled”, it reminds me again of the Swamp and the CCP. Kindly bear with me.

My Personal Experiences in the Power Industry

My career in the power industry began in the 1960’s. I worked at Babcock and Wilcox in Barberton Ohio first in nuclear and special products which included involvement with work on the design and construction of the Duke Power Company Oconee nuclear plant. Then I transferred to the Fossil Power Generation Division as a Results Engineer. As a Results Engineer, I did boiler acceptance testing and special tests on large steam generators for design engineering technologies all over the U.S.A. By 1970, I was a senior engineer involved with the startup of new coal plants for Riley Stoker Corp. My first foray into SC was as a startup engineer at the then new supercritical coal plant at Wateree Station, being built for South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. At this time, I was aware of the startup of the Westinghouse PWR at Robinson Station for Carolina Power and Light Co and of course the progress of the building of Oconee.  While employed by Riley I was also on the team that ran the acceptance test of the Santee-Cooper Jefferies coal plant. So, I do have some roots in SC. Later I worked for CP&L on the startup of Sutton and Roxboro plants and as a system “Boiler Engineer” working all across the NC plants.  I left CP&L in 1977 as Operations Superintendent of the four unit, 2,500 MW Roxboro Generating Plant. The lowest cost producer of CP&L’s power at the time.

Later I worked for a large Utility Contractor and started a Technical Services Department with about 20 engineers and technicians. This team worked as Field Engineers and Consultants solving coal, oil and gas steam power generation plant problems. We traveled the world. Much of my travel was working for the Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA) These worldwide experiences provided helpful insight into the interrelationships of reasonable cost, reliable energy to economic prosperity. Especially evident in South America, Guinee W. Africa, Jamaica and others. Wonderful and enlightening experiences as a contracting engineer for ALCOA and for other International facilities. In 1992, I founded  Storm Technologies, Inc. During the 20+ years I worked at Storm Technologies, I traveled to most states and hundreds of power plants in the U.S.A., also traveled the world to Indonesia, the Philippine Islands, South America and numerous island nations. 

My perspective of Electric Utilities could be said to be like the proverbial “Fly on the Wall”. I had an insider’s view of what was going on, some good, some not so good. Let me show some advantages of how small vertically integrated electric Utilities were better than the RTO/ISO approach to separating generation from transmission and Distribution.

The Advantages of Vertically Integrated Utilities that Include Both Generation and Transmission & Distribution

When I was at Wateree in 1970 and later Carolina Power and Light Company, 1973-1977, there was a healthy rivalry between Duke Power, SCE&G and CP&L as to who could produce the lowest cost power. These could really be called “The Good Old Days!” Imagine that, engineers and managers working hard to produce the lowest cost electricity.  Duke’s approach was to use supercritical steam plants and they built the Marshall and Bellew’s Creek plants which to this day are amongst the most efficient in the world with design heat rates below 9,000 Btu/kWh. CP&L took the approach of building 2400 PSI/1000/1000 degree F. sub critical units with the largest possible condenser and design heat rates of about 9,500 Btu/kWh. Bordering NC was SCE&G which had the McMeekin Plant near Columbia. This plant used cool condenser water from the Lake Murray Dam and a heat rate competitive with Duke’s. In 1968 SCE&G began the construction of the two-unit supercritical Wateree Station. In addition, each Utility kept sufficient power generation capacity to provide about 15% spinning (or fast start gas turbines) for power generation reserves. Two Key Points: “Dispatchable” and “Reserve Generation”

Wheeling of Power Is Perfected During Arab Oil Embargo’s

I remember during the Arab Oil Embargo of 1974 how CP&L “Wheeled Power” to VEPCO and the Northeastern States. Philadelphia Electric, VEPCO and other Northeastern Utilities  that had changed fuels from coal to oil as a result of the then new EPA requirements to reduce sulfur emissions. Back in 1972 coal and #6 oil were about the same cost/million Btu’s. Then, about $0.50/million Btu’s. The Arab Oil Embargo permanently changed that! A utility could meet the newly (The EPA began in 1970) regulated particulate and sulfur emissions by either firing heavy oil or by installing electrostatic precipitators and firing low sulfur coal. CP&L and Duke took the path of installing flue gas cleanup equipment. VEPCO and Philadelphia Electric switched much of their generation fuels to oil. Thus, when the Arab Oil Embargo’s resulted, there was fuel shortages for those dependent on oil fuel and an opportunity to “Wheel” high voltage, Bulk Power generated from U.S.A. mined coal, from NC northward.

Several hundred Megawatts of power was sent north during the crucial time that oil became scarce due to the Embargo. Coal looked very attractive back then. In fact, following the Arab Oil Embargo’s, (1974 and again 1980) there was a rush of orders for new coal plants across the U.S.A. Texas made a huge investment in switching from oil and gas fueled generation to coal plants. Coal was King for many years thereafter.

The Advent of ISO’s and RTO’s

Then in the 1990’s the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and State Regulators became interested in separating generation from Transmission and Distribution to create competition for lower electric rates. Perhaps a good intention, but now it looks like a poor decision, from my viewpoint. The Independent System Operator and Regional Transmission Operator Model was initiated. The FERC Map of these RTO/ISO Regions are shown below.


From: FERC website: https://www.ferc.gov/electric-power-markets

 

Notice the Southeast does not have an RTO/ISO, yet. So far, so good. But after the 9 Billion Dollar debacle of the failed Summer Units 2 & 3 addition, some elected officials are likely to favor the RTO/ISO approach. I hope not! SC has amongst the lowest electricity costs in America and our power has been very reliable. About a third of SC’s electricity is used by industry which includes NUCOR Steel and Century Aluminum. Two industries that I think are vital for America to remain strong. That is besides the importance of providing jobs and economic advantages to the state.

Where can a person check to see what the planning is? I suggest that everyone check your Utility Integrated Resource Plan or IRP. I did this for Santee-Cooper and for Dominion Energy in SC.  Here below is a screen print of the generation plans for Dominion 2023-2049:

I know it is hard to read. If interested, check the actual website yourself to read the plans for more solar, shutdowns of coal plants and dependence on intermittent, non-Dispatchable generation.

Santee-Cooper’s dependence on solar additions and shutdown of coal plants is similar. 

Perhaps this is a good point to interject the current generation mix of SC according to the EIA. Over 55% of SC electricity is generated by nuclear plants. Mostly. Old nuclear plants. The great intention of building Summer Units #2 and 3 was a noble idea for carbon free Bulk Power into the future. But, SCR&G botched that. Check the figure below to understand the importance of nuclear power in SC.

Conclusions and Recommendations:

  1. The State owned Santee-Cooper Power Generation, in my view, is a treasure that should remain a public power generation entity.
  2. The Coal plants planned for retirement should be replaced with new plants capable of providing “Dispatchable Power”. Dispatchable means Natural Gas, Nuclear and Coal Plants. I know this is not popular but, coal is the fuel that is depended on during extreme winter weather. Also, check the 2035 generation projection in Santee-Cooper”s own IRP, Figure 1.1 above..
  3. Build more nuclear generation to replace the aging fleet of nuclear units in the state. 
  4. In whatever planning goes forward, make sure that at least 85% of peak Demand is capable of being generated by “Dispatchable Power”
  5. Electricity and Energy are in Vaclav Smil’s words, “The Universal Currency” Low cost, reliable electricity is vital to a thriving economy and living truly sustainable lives. Sustainable is moving forward not backward to living as the Pilgrims did in the 17th Century.

Dick Storm, October 1, 2021

References for Further Reasearch:

  1. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Primer: https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/energy-primer-2020_0.pdf
  2. Federal Regulatory Commission Map of RTO’s: https://www.ferc.gov/electric-power-markets
  3. Santee-Cooper IRP: https://www.santeecooper.com/About/Increasing-Value/ORS-Reports/_pdfs/Dec-23-Signed-Filed-IRP.pdf
  4. Dominion Energy revised, Feb 2021, IRP: : https://dms.psc.sc.gov/Attachments/Matter/531e91d9-05ff-48e2-938f-adccf3548768
  5. EIA State Energy Profile for SC: https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=SC
  6. Utility Dive, Clean Energy Plan, Sept 17, 2021: https://www.utilitydive.com/news/house-committee-to-mark-up-150b-clean-electricity-performance-program-toda/606422/
  7. Donn Dears Book, “THE LOOMING ENERGY CRISIS, ARE BLACKOUTS INEVITABLE” Check Mr. Dears Blog: https://ddears.com/2020/09/01/about-the-looming-energy-crisis/
economic prosperity and energy, Energy, Electricity, Economic Prosperity and Environmental Protection, Energy, Politics and Economic Prosperity, Fossil Fuels are Important

830,000 Btu’s per Day/Person

Leave a comment
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Energy Flows of the U.S.A. 2020

Congress and our President are in the process of forcing Net Zero Carbon, Green Energy on all of us. In my view what this will do is increase prices of energy, make our energy less reliable, make America less competitive and in general, harm our quality of life. In thinking about this and attempting to explain why I feel this way, it occurred to me that if all of the citizens knew where our energy comes from and how much we depend on it each day, perhaps more of us would pressure our Congressmen/Congreswomen to resist this foolishness. So, here is my stab at explaining where our energy comes from and why the “Green New Deal” is so harmful.

I have been involved in the energy business for many years and the one chart that explains energy flows best, is the DOE Sankey diagram above. This shows the sources of all of our energy and how it is used throughout the economy. I have been watching this for about 20 years and interestingly, the total U.S. energy use has held steady at about 100 Quadrillion Btu’s per year. In fact, I will show a graph below of the U.S. Energy use by year from 1950-2019.

Where does the 830,000 to a million Btu’s per day come from? If we divide 100 Quadrillion Btu’s by the population of 330 million, then the per capita energy use is about 303 million Btu’s/person/year. Divide the 303 million Btu’s per person/year by 365 days and it comes out to about 830,000 Btu’s/day/person.

This is average and of course, a person living in a small condo that does little travel, will use less energy than a person who lives in a 2500 square foot home, owns a small fishing boat and travels the world. Lets say the latter example would use more than a million Btu’s per day. This energy could be in gasoline, natural gas, propane for the grill, electricity for HVAC of the home and for cooking. Included in the allottmant of per capita energy use is our share of industrial production, commercial buildings, shipments of goods and government use for the military. Below is an illustration of the forms of energy we might use each day.

So what does this have to do with the “Green New Deal” and the Clean Energy Plan Congress is about to pass? Well, if we are accustomed to living productive lives using conventional energy sources such as outlined above, then how can we sustain our high quality of lives by substituting wind turbines and solar panels for the 96.2 Quadrillion Btu’s provided by conventional forms of energy? Note that on the first figure above, the Sankey diagram I have inserted the total wind and solar in 2019 provided 3.8% of our energy. Petroleum, natural gas, nuclear, coal, biomass, geothermal and old hydropower dams provided the other 96.2%

Let’s get to electricity. The total energy used in 2019 was 100 Quadrillion Btu’s and 37% of this was used to generate electricity. So if we look into the future of EV’s and eliminating the internal combustion engine, then the energy used for transportation will need to come from electricity. Lots more electricity. How does the “Net Zero 2050” proponents think they will get to zero carbon emissions? By windmills and solar. Lots of windmills and solar. Here is an illustration from the Princeton University Net Zero Path.

My opinion is that if this path is taken, it is totally impractical and harmful to America, our way of life and our national security.

After many years of tax subsidies, wind and solar produced 3.8% of our energy in 2019. Texas, Hawaii and California have their own applications of too much renewable power which resulted in Blackouts in CA and TX and the highest electricity costs in the nation for Hawaii. How can we expect zero carbon based fuels by 2050 and still maintain a strong economy and enjoy our way of life. Perhaps more important to our grandchildren, keep English as our primary language, not Mandarin? The next three charts show the relationship of carbon emissions and manufacturing by a few selected countries.

I will close with the fact that according to a report I saw in S&P Global, China has the four largest banks in the world. The relationship of energy use and economic prosperity cannot be denied. China built more power generation in twenty years than America did since Thomas Edison’s first Pearl Street Station was commissioned.

Vaclav Smil’s quote of “Energy is the Universal Currency” comes to mind.

China loves America’s Net Zero 2050 and the “Green New Deal” Maybe they even wrote them?

Dick Storm, September 16, 2021

economic prosperity and energy, Energy, Electricity, Economic Prosperity and Environmental Protection, Fossil Fuels are Important, Keeping America Great

93.5% of America’s energy is used in Heat-engines to drive our economy and power our comfortable lives: 80% is from fossil fuels

1 Comment

This huge amount of energy is not easily replaced by alternative fuels! My response to an ASME webinar on forcing a “Green Grid” on America.

From EIA Annual Energy Outlook Jan. 2021

All Fuels Are Important, but Thermal Power Generation Is Still Number 1

Last month I participated in a continuing education webinar presented by the ASME Mechanical Engineering Magazine. I was upset by the lack of practicality and missing common sense of the presentation. Thus, I wrote a letter to the ASME Magazine’s Editor. The text is copied below.

Throughout my career—and also through the ASME’s long history (ASME’s, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, B&PV Code saved millions of lives and advanced our country!)—thermal power generation has been the greatest source of dispatchable electricity generation. In my view, policymakers have run a very good and smooth evolution of power generation diversity off the rails. The Biden Administration (probably with advisors like Dr. Jenkins) and Democrat Congress policies constitute an anti-American war on carbon. These policies, if continued, will in fact be extremely harmful to the country’s economy, national security, and eventually, when considering bans on oil and gas production and pipelines in the U.S., our freedoms. Further, if continued as Jenkins, Biden, Kerry, Et Al wish, will contribute to the decline of western civilization. (by strengthening China, Russia, Iran and their allies)

There is not space here to debate climate change, whether manmade or natural. Suffice it to say, I believe climate and weather changes are, for the most part, driven by natural forces of solar activity, ocean currents, volcanoes, tilt of the earth, and other uncontrollable dynamics. The pressure to rejoin the Paris Agreement is driven by other countries that wish to see America decline in power and influence in the world. China will gain the most by America’s decline. Princeton’s Dr. William Happer provides an excellent summary with a segment beginning at minute 24 where the effects of CO2 are discussed. https://bit.ly/3zsXcS6

Reasonable cost, and abundant, energy and electricity are crucial for our economy and the functioning of our society. Over the years, it has been well-documented that all advanced economies grow in proportion to energy use. America’s economy grew in direct proportion to its energy use over the 130-plus years since Edison’s Pearl Street Station commenced operation. 

China’s economy grew from being a poor and developing country in the year 2000 to now being the world’s largest manufacturer and world’s second-largest economy. China produces more than 50% of the world’s steel and aluminum, as well as being the largest producer of manufactured products. China plans to become larger than the U.S. and is likely to pass America as the world’s #1 economy in a few years. Biden’s policies will accelerate the growth of China’s economy and the decline of America’s. To reach the status of the world’s largest manufacturer and largest producer of steel and aluminum, China built more electric power generation in the past 20 years than America did since Westinghouse and GE were founded. Remember George Westinghouse? One of America’s finest engineers.

Energy and economic prosperity go hand in hand. So, let’s look at where our energy comes from. America has used right at 100 quadrillion Btus per year for about the last 10 years or more.  (last year was about 93 Quads due to the pandemic) According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the U.S. used 100.2 quadrillion Btus in 2019. 

More than 90% of the U.S.’s primary energy consumption in 2019 was provided for use by thermal heat engines. This is comprised of about 36.8% petroleum, 32.1% natural gas, 11.3% coal, 8.4% nuclear, and 4.9% biomass. The total renewable energy consumption (excluding biomass) was 6.4%, and a significant portion of that bulk power (40%) was from hydroelectric. This primary energy use includes transportation, commercial, residential, and industrial use. Electricity consumption of our total primary energy was 37.1%.

When politicians and the mainstream media talk about energy- and planet-saving electric vehicles and renewable power generation, I think it would be wise to consider that, if we like our status in the world, and our current comforts and conveniences, then we will need at least 100 quadrillion Btus of energy per year for the foreseeable future. At present, about 93.5% of our total energy is used in heat engines and only about 6.4% is supplied by non-biomass renewables. That’s right. Check the EIA website to see for yourself.

To say changing from 93.5% heat engines to renewable power generation and electric vehicles will be disruptive is a gross understatement. In time, renewable power advances and green hydrogen from renewables will eventually come. But for the next 10 years or more, America should stay the course with modernizing our current fleet of natural gas, nuclear, and coal plants. These are what we depend on and the mid-February rolling blackout experiences in Texas should be a wake-up call to policymakers.

Another example is Hawaii, which plans to shut down its lowest cost power plant—Barbers Point coal plant. As the state moves toward its version of the new “Green Deal,” Hawaii has the highest cost electricity in the nation. Not a problem for an economy based on tourism and government facilities, but $0.25 kilowatts will not permit competitive primary metals production or competitive manufacturing in the contiguous 48 states.

In my adopted state of South Carolina, about one-third of the total electricity is used by industry. South Carolina has a thriving industrial sector, and it depends on reasonable-cost and reliable electricity. Sacrificing reasonable-cost conventional power generating plants to replace with renewables will drive much manufacturing overseas (again). 

As I read the plans for South Carolina’s coal plants, all of which I have worked at and know very well, I see that several more coal units are planned to be shut down in the next 10 years. These are to be replaced with solar or other renewables. Currently, more than 55% of South Carolina’s electricity is generated from nuclear power. Therefore, replacing coal with renewables may not be a problem, if the South Carolina nuclear units keep running indefinitely. However, several of these nuclear units are into their second licenses and will begin shutting down in the 2030s. As I see it, this sets ourselves up to follow California, Hawaii, and Texas into higher-cost power production and less-reliable power supplies. All fuels are important!

Let’s review the last 15 years of fuel changes in the U.S. In 2004, electric power generation was about 92.4% thermal generation. In 2019, the percentage of thermal generation was still the highest at 83.6%. Natural gas made the largest gain at the expense of coal. Wind grew from 0.4% to 7.1% over the 15-year period. Now, if policymakers are concerned about electric reliability and competing in the world with manufactured products, they should rethink the trends toward more intermittent non-dispatchable renewables.

Americans have lived through disruptions before. I lived in a small town in North Carolina, which the county seal showed textiles and aluminum production as being the most important for its economy. Then, after the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) went into effect, the textile mills closed down, killing about 7,000 jobs in a county with 60,000 people. A few years later, Alcoa Corp. shut down the aluminum smelting plant that had been in operation for more than 100 years, causing another 750 or so jobs to be lost. Aluminum smelting is very energy intensive, it takes about 5 kWh to produce one pound of aluminum. It doesn’t take a world class Economist to understand how China has become the world’s largest producer of steel and aluminum. China uses about 57% of the world’s coal to power their industry. True, China uses more coal than all of the rest of the world put together.

In Texas, I did much work from 1978 onward at an Alcoa plant in Rockdale, as well as at numerous coal plants. Rockdale was the largest aluminum smelter in North America, and it was shut down in 2008 due to oversupply of aluminum from China. Over 6,000 MW of reliable, reasonable-cost coal power generation has been shut down in Texas since 2008. Had these coal plants not been retired, perhaps the events in mid-February may have played out differently.

Energy and economic prosperity are inter-related. The Green New Deal and more renewable power will harm America’s competitive advantage. If we think February was a bad month for electric reliability, imagine what the Green New Deal and further accelerated disruptive changes to renewables will do to the rest of the U.S. Preserving our good lives requires about 100 quadrillion Btus per year. In my view, obtaining this energy from all available fuels within our borders is important.

I suggest that the ASME publications and energy programs consider the facts of All Fuels and why they are important for our country.

Respectfully submitted,

Richard F. Storm, PE

economic prosperity and energy, Energy, Electricity, Economic Prosperity and Environmental Protection

Sustainability of our high quality of life depends on reasonable cost electricity

1 Comment

“Energy, is the only universal currency”

The author of several books on energy, Vaclav Smil is quoted as saying “Energy is the only universal currency: one of its many forms must be transformed to another in order for stars to shine, planets to rotate, plants to grow, and civilizations to evolve.”

Most American citizens simply take abundant, reliable and reasonable cost energy for granted. It is not until a major pipeline is shutdown as the Colonial Pipeline was last year by hackers. Or, there is severe weather such as a hurricane that shuts down refineries and/or topples electricity transmission towers. Only then does the average American notice just how important energy is to our lives. As important as energy is to us, we are allowing politicians who know very little about the production of energy, electricity generation, transmission and distribution of energy to, “Completely transform America’s energy infra-structure with the Green New Deal” I wrote last year on Hawaii’s path toward the “Green New Deal”, Here is the link: https://wordpress.com/post/dickstormprobizblog.wordpress.com/32

I used Hawaii as an example, because Hawaii is literally an energy island and is not connected to the American Electric Grid. Thus, it provides a perfect laboratory to expose the results of going green, or at least moving in that direction. Because of the isolation from competitive electricity supplies, the change to more green generation is making a much faster impact on electricity pricing. There is not the ability to import low cost coal or natural gas power from other states as say, California can. Because of the intermittant nature of renewable power (Non-Dispatchable), much of Hawaii’s electricity is generated from oil fuel. In fact, you can get a real time update on the generation source here: https://www.islandpulse.org

Oahu has a very reliable and clean coal plant, Barber’s Point. The real time screen shot above shows 14% of Oahu’s power was being provided at this moment. Unfortunately, because of unreasonable Political reasons, the coal plant is scheduled for premature shutdown. Just because the elected officials have their own war on carbon. Their intentions may be pure but in reality to keep the power supply reliable, much of the electricity generation is from oil fuel. (no natural gas pipelines in Hawaii either, thus, oil backup power) Most of the cost of electricity (about 75% for coal and 90% fuel cost component for natural gas or oil) production from a Thermal Power Plant is for fuel. Therefore, using Diesel Fuel which second only to hydrogen, is the most expensive fuel available. As time goes on, the higher production cost of electric generation must be passed on to the Rate-Payers. Thus, Hawaii has the highest electricity costs in America. Note the chart below provided by the Electric Choice.com web site. The average retail cost of electricity in America is about $0.13/kWh. As shown below, Hawaii’s is $0.327/kWh

Critics can say that electricity is a small cost of our household expenses. That, high electric costs such as Hawaii and California have is not a big deal. Well, in my state of South Carolina, manufacturing (jobs) is still a large part of our economy. We have NUCOR Steel and Century Aluminum manufacturers. The production of vital steel and aluminum that we need is very electricity intensive. So, perhaps Hawaiians can enjoy life and their economy thrive. Tourism and government facilities can absorb the high electric costs, competitive manufacturing cannot. My state cannot. Just for reference, over 50% of our electricity in SC is generated by four well run nuclear power plants. These nuclear plants plus reasonable cost natural gas and coal plants keep our electricity costs below the National average. The generation is “Dispatchable too!” That means, electricity load can be increased or decreased as customer demand fluctuates.

All of us should be aware of China’s dominating world manufacturing. China produces over 50% of the world’s steel, aluminum and concrete. China uses over 57% of the world’s coal production for electric power. Yes, China is the most productive and least cost producer of many products manufactured in the world. China the last time I checked, produces about 28% of the world’s manufactured goods. I submit that electricity prices matter. Reasonable cost electricity is absolutely required for competitive manufacturing.

My presentation to the Delaware County Bar Association in July 2016 has some facts and information on how China crushed ALCOA’s aluminum production. This is at this link:

https://wordpress.com/post/dickstormprobizblog.wordpress.com/24

My personal experiences included working (as a contractor/consultant) for ALCOA all over the world at their Alumina and Aluminum smelting facilities. I made many friends with Alcoans from 1978 till about 2012. Then, huge plants such as the Rockdale Texas Smelting operation, the smelter at Suriname, SA and others were shut down. Why? Becuase aluminum requires about 5 kWh per pound to produce the metal. This is just for the smelting operation. More energy is required for alumina production and transportation. Energy costs matter for economic prosperity. For many of my friends at ALCOA, the Chinese dumping of aluminum on the London Metal Exchange, meant early retirement or job changes.

The “Green New Deal” is anti-American and will weaken America’s competitive capacity. Conversely, the “Green New Deal” will strengthen China’s grip on world manufacturing. Their dominance in solar panel manufacturing is well documented.(4) The Green New Deal if passed will be a (another) huge gift to China.

Donn Dears has an excellent website where he provides information on energy, Net Zero Carbon, Electric Vehicles electricity generation, nuclear power generation, hydrogen and much more. Here is the Power for the U.S.A. Blog address: https://ddears.com/donns-articles/ I strongly recommend reading Donn’s articles. He has a knack for writing short concise posts with ample facts and references.

Conclusion:

The changing of America’s electric power generation to becoming carbon free is not practical and in fact, with today’s technology, impossible. I submit the case study of Hawaii’s experiences to show the fallacy of committing to new renewable power sources to quickly. California and Texas have experienced Blackouts because of too much intermittant renewable power and not enough reliable and Dispatchable generation capacity. (Key phrase, Dispatchable Electric Generation capacity) Why would we enact policies and Regulations that make America weaker and less competitive with China?

Dick Storm, August 20, 2021

References:

  1. Island Pulse website by Blue Planet Foundation for real time electric generation data for Hawaii Electric on the island of Oahu. https://www.islandpulse.org
  2. Electric Choice.com for electric rate comparisons of 50 states.
Electricity Rates

3. Donn Dears Blog: Power for the U.S.A. An excellent collection of relevant articles on energy and electric power generation. https://ddears.com/donns-articles/

4. Coalition for a Prosperous America, report on Solar Panel Manufacturing and dominance of China: Coalition for a Prosperous America report on Solar Panels from China: https://prosperousamerica.org/cpa-releases-report-on-reclaiming-the-us-solar-supply-chain-from-china/

economic prosperity and energy

FREEDOM IS NOT FREE, NEITHER WILL NET ZERO CARBON BE FREE

Leave a comment

Reducing Reliability and Increasing Prices of Our Energy Supply

Introduction

Vaclav Klaus was the President of the Czech Republic in 2003. I have a copy of his book, “Blue Planet in Green Shackles” with the sub-title, “What is Endangered: Climate or Freedom”

As I was straightening up my book case, I found this interesting insight from nearly 20 years ago. I started paging through the book and one quote by Klaus caught my attention.  “As someone who lived under communism for most of my life, I feel obliged to say that the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity at the beginning of the 21st century is not communism or its various softer variants. Communism was replaced by the threat of ambitious environmentalism.”

Klaus’ book reminded me of my friend Tom’s experience as a Charlotte, NC,  City Ambassador during the 2008 Democrat Party Presidential Convention. Tom, like me was also employed in the energy industry for many decades. So, when energy issues were discussed, his antenna went up.  He heard influential leaders of the Democrat Party strategizing on how to wage the war on coal. Their reasoning was, If they could craft policies to increase coal generated electricity prices, then solar and wind power will become competitive.  Obviously, President Obama won that election and the war on carbon accelerated during his eight years.

These two examples of green policy intentions on two continents are the inspiration for this article. My last post was a reminder that in America we depend on (including the Btu equivalent of renewable generated electricity) about 100 Quadrillion Btu’s each year to fuel our economy. Over 85% of that energy is used in heat engines. So called, because steam turbines, reciprocating gasoline or Diesel internal combustion engines, jet engines and stationary gas turbine generators are all Heat-Engines. Heat-Engines convert the chemical (or nuclear) energy of fuel to heat that is then applied as shaft horsepower, motive force or jet thrust for producing electricity, transportation or industrial production. 

Reasonable cost and reliable energy are important for us to continue our high standard of living.

Below is the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Sankey Diagram which shows the energy flows from 2019. This was a more normal year of economic activity. The total energy used was right at 100.2 Quadrillion Btu’s. If you study the energy flows, you can verify the conclusion that most of our energy is used in heat engines. Heat engines such as; steam turbines which are used to generate electricity from coal, natural gas, nuclear, geothermal, biomass and petroleum. Gas turbines that are used for stationary power generation, ship propulsion, turbo-prop aircraft propulsion. Diesel engines for trucks, buses, farm tractors, railroad locomotives and backup electric power generation, jet aircraft engines, gasoline for automobiles and trucks.

You get the point I am trying to make. To power our high quality of living, we use about 100 Quadrillion Btu’s equivalent of energy. American citizens take energy for granted and many, especially the current Congress and President assume that the existing forms of energy can be substituted in the next 15 years with Renewable forms of energy such as windmills, solar panels and Hydrogen. This is the path our elected officials have us on. So, let me ask you to check the chart below and then visualize replacing the nuclear (8.5%), natural gas (32%), coal (11.4%) and petroleum (37%) with Renewables.  The total of these four sources of energy is 88.66 Quadrillion Btu’s or right at 89% of our total energy used each year. Note solar and wind was 1.04 and 2.74 Quadrillion Btu’s, totaling 3.78 Quadrillion Btu’s. Right at 3.8%.

Hydrogen is a medium that can be used for storage and is therefore zero on the chart below. Hydrogen is planned to be a large part of America’s future fuels, but it should be pointed out, hydrogen requires more energy to produce it by electrolysis than it will produce in a fuel cell or by combustion in an internal combustion engine.

Current Energy Costs for Various Fuels

I have never liked the word “Cheap” and try not to use it. However, when referring to fuel to produce power or motive force, cheaper energy is better. Example, electricity  produced by a gas turbine requires Capital cost to purchase the equipment, construction cost to build the power plant, employees to operate and maintain the plant and spare parts to keep the turbine and all of its auxiliary equipment in top condition. Would you be surprised if I said a gas turbine, combined cycle power plant of say, 600 MW may cost about $ 720 million dollars? The going cost today for a GTCC plant is about $1,200/kW installed capacity. Now, think about the cost of electricity produced by the GTCC plant. It would likely be about $0.02 per kWh if the natural gas fuel was $3.00/million Btu (British Thermal Units). Over 90% of the production cost of a modern high efficiency GTCC plant is for fuel. The raw natural gas fuel is the single most expensive component of electricity production cost. Not the amortization of capital cost, or labor or spare parts. It is fuel cost that governs the production cost of electricity. So, if the natural gas price doubles, so does the production cost of electricity.

Thanks to Hydraulic Fracturing, the War on Coal has not caused a dramatic increase in the cost of electricity because natural gas prices have been very low since about 2012 or so. 

Here is a chart of natural gas prices 2006-2012 from EIA data of Henry Hub spot prices, as recorded by the EIA. The war on coal has been going on since the Bill Clinton Administration but accelerated during Obama’s Presidency. The lower cost coal plants equipped with flue gas cleaning Baghouses, Electrostatic Precipitators, Selective Catalytic Reactors and  Sulfur Scrubbers were the lowest cost generators. Then came Hydraulic Fracturing and cheap natural gas. The low production cost of electricity production by natural gas made competition by coal nearly impossible. Remember, fuel is 90% + of the electricity production cost for GTCC plants. Thus, cheap gas equals very reasonable cost electricity. America has had a good run of reasonable cost electricity up to now.

NATURAL GAS PRICES AT THE HENRY HUB 2006-2012

The current natural gas prices have increased from $2.00/million last year, to nearly double the price of 2012. Therefore, if this trend continues electricity prices will have to increase or electricity from lower cost producers, such as coal and nuclear will be needed to keep power costs down.

Here below is the natural gas price as reported by Business Insider Commodities.

The figure below illustrates production cost for the fuel component only when comparing a clean coal plant with a gas turbine combined cycle plant:

COMPARATIVE ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION COSTS BY NATURAL GAS AND COAL FUELS AT THE PLANT BUSBAR

When fuel cost per million Btu’s increases, so does production cost.  Hydrogen cost if you can find it (California prices)  is about  $142.23/million Btu’s as compared to the comparatively less expensive natural gas at $4.00/million Btu.

Typical Fuel Costs Today

The above is my attempt to explain the fundamental costs of Thermal Power Generation of electricity. Because coal plants have many other costs of flue gas cleaning reagents, more O&M personnel and more maintenance requirements of a solid fuel power plant, the fuel cost component for a typical coal plant is about 75% of production cost. Fuel is still the major cost component for electricity generation for gas, coal and oil fueled thermal power plants. 

Gasoline, Regular Octane at               $3.00/gallon   116,000 Btu’s/gal.       $25.86/million Btu’s

Diesel Fuel                                          $3.00/gallon   135,000 Btu’s/gallon  $22.22/million Btu’s

Jet Fuel Jet A   (IATA airline cost)       $1.93/gallon   119,000 Btu’s/gal.      $16.22/million Btu’s

Natural Gas at Henry Hub (July 27, 2021)                                                      $ 3.97/million Btu’s

Coal delivered at SC Power plant estimated                                                  $ 2.00/million Btu’s

The above shows traditional energy costs for “Heat-Engines”. There is a push by the Democrat’s in government to change to “Green Renewable Power”.  Autos, airplanes and trucks  cannot be run on windmills or solar. But, the technology to power these heat engines with Hydrogen is technically possible. The amount of power output is conversion of hydrogen into either electricity through the use of fuel cells or by combustion in an internal combustion engine. The cost to operate will be commensurate with the energy contained in a given unit of hydrogen, usually expressed as Btu’s. The equivalent cost of hydrogen is about $16.51 to replace a gallon of gasoline. Perhaps some day the cost of hydrogen will come down to compare with gasoline prices for a given energy output? 

CONCLUSION:

Net Zero Carbon will come at a very high cost and the high cost will harm our current Freedoms.

Dick Storm

August 5, 2021

References:

  1. Natural Gas Prices from Business Insider commodities: https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/natural-gas-price
  2. Storm Technologies Seminar information on economics of power generation.
  3. “Blue Planet in Green Shackles” by Vaclav Klaus Competitive Enterprise Institute, 2007
  4. IATA Jet Fuel Prices: https://www.iata.org/en/publications/economics/fuel-monitor/
  5. Chevron Aviation Jet Fuel specs: https://www.chevron.com/-/media/chevron/operations/documents/aviation-tech-review.pdf
  6. Coal Costs by EIA Coal Markets: https://www.eia.gov/coal/markets/
  7. California Hydrogen Fuel Council: https://cafcp.org/sites/default/files/Path-to-Hydrogen-Competitiveness_Full-Study-1.pdf
  8. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Sankey Diagram of Energy Flows: https://str.llnl.gov/content/pages/2021-02/pdf/02.02.2.pdf