This post will be short and to the point. Myself and many of my energy experienced friends have watched as absolutely anti-American, anti-Human energy polices have come to be. My friend Tom cut through the BS and wrote the following as a response to the Daily Caller article which documented Chinese involvement in NGOs impacting U.S. Energy Policy. From my very experienced electricity generation engineer, Tom:
This shows the real problem we have in the energy sector:
Nuclear power is the safest way to generate safe, clean, environmentally friendly bulk power. But the woman running the cash register at Walmart has been convinced by Jane Fonda and Greenpeace that nuclear power is dangerous and has a huge environmental problem with waste. Neither of these, or all the other fallacies that are widely believed regarding nuclear power are true. How did it ever get this bad?
Clean coal technology has advanced to an amazing level. Go to the top of Mount Washington in Pittsburgh, PA and look out over the clean bright city. Yes, 120 years ago the air was so bad that they needed streetlights during the day. The Monongahela River did indeed catch on fire (so did Lake Erie near Cleveland). But that was then, not now, and there is no way we are going back to using 1800’s technology for coal power plants. Yet, the West Penn Power and Cheswick plants were recently shut down and dismantled. The environmental groups have succeeded in brainwashing most of the non-technical people that climate change is real. They will believe Al Gore and Leonardo DeCaprio rather than the people that actually understand the environmental impact of energy generation. (oh, and they are fighting against building a datacenter on the Cheswick plant sight just because – it’s a lot easier to NIMBY everything than try to find real solutions).
The total thermal efficiency cycle for electric cars is far worse than burning a primary fuel in an internal combustion engine. How does this inefficiency impact the environment? (Answer: all the inefficiency is heat dissipated directly to the environment – how in the world does that not contribute to “global warming”?) But the public has become convinced that electric cars are cleaner and the way of the future. Why isn’t the technical community telling the non-technical community this side of the story? (I think we know, government $$$$$, just like wind/solar, the more the government gets to subsidize, the more money available for other nefarious activities. Isn’t this the trap ASME fell into?)
We can make nuclear safer, coal cleaner, and cars more efficient until the cows come home. The problem is – these facts don’t matter. The three-headed (now 4 with the new head of the justice system) doesn’t operate on facts. Until we start addressing this problem (Root Cause) we are just spinning our wheels. Maybe we should start with the ASME – when an organization that is supposed to be a premier technically based organization goes woke, how are the average non-technical people out there supposed to know that? If they can’t rely on ASME, then who can they believe? (think Covid, Anthony Fauci, Health & Human Services, the American Medical Association, etc….or even worse – the legal profession).
My thanks to Tom for giving me permission to share these concisely written, truthful and troubling facts.
I have written on the SWAMP Influencers, Federal Regulations and NGOs before. Tom just did it with a great economy of words.
Thank God for President Trump, Chris Wright, Lee Zeldin and a well qualified Cabinet of qualified people to look out for the best interests for America. In closing, let me suggest reading the references listed below if you are curious of who and how the absurd Federal Regulations have come to be.
Yours very truly,
Dick Storm, March 14, 2026
References and information that supports my opinion and text written above:
John Podesta, Head of 300+ Billion dollars of U.S. Taxpayer funds for clean energy. Check Influence Watch to read some interesting background on his career: https://www.influencewatch.org/person/john-podesta/
The Great State of South Carolina is usually thought of as a “Conservative” state. However, when it comes to applying destructive “Climate Policies”, South Carolina is no more conservative than is California or New York. So, I thought I would repost my comments on the Santee-Cooper IRP.
It is my understanding that the major Utilities providing electricity to S.C. (Dominion Energy and Santee-Cooper) are planning to build a major natural gas fueled power plant at the site of the old Canadys Coal Plant, near Walterboro. I posted my thoughts on this on LinkedIn, here. Also, Thomas Shepstone created a Blog post on substack based on my LI post, entitled, “”A Balanced Energy Portfolio is Critical but South Carolina Doesn’t Seem Get It” . It is here. Thank you Tom!
Since this article was first published, announcements of new Data Centers and increasing EV charging has caused alarm that more generating capacity will be required than what was thought a year or two ago. Imagine that, when policies to “Electrify Everything” are applied, electricity Demand grows…..(23, 25 )
This is an update on my comments to the IRP development for my local Regional Utility, Santee-Cooper. The last draft IRP has been published for comment and the figure below shows the expected load growth up to 2042. This Figure is from page 28 of the IRP presentation updated in April 2023. Shockingly, there is serious planning to shut down all coal plants by 2034 without having a Balanced Portfolio of replacement Bulk Power Supply that is Dispatchable, affordable and of reliable supply. Some energy news/issues authors, when discussing energy policy, speak metaphorically of “Falling off the Cliff” The illustration of projected load growth for Santee-Cooper is an example of planning to “Fall off the Cliff” by (NOT) Balancing Bulk Power Supply & load Demand. (The graph reminds me of the old saying, “Failing to Plan is a Plan for Failure”. How? By not providing adequate new generation capacity as older, reliable, dependable and Dispatchable coal units are retired. This is typical all across the U.S. and the western free world(6,10,14,15,15,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,27)
I had hoped that the more conservative, level headed General Assembly of S.C. would have better sense than to follow the “Woke policy” of the U.S. government and other states. There is still time to wake up to reality. (5,8)
The slide below is from my ENERUM presentation, August 2022. Data and chart are from the July 2022 NERC Report.(10) This shows 102 GW of Dispatchable & Reliable coal and nuclear plants shut down since 2011. This is shown to illustrate the fact that Santee-Cooper seems to be following the same destructive path as other utilities in the U.S.
Can a Great 80+ Year Record of Reliability and Affordability be Sustained While Retiring Coal Plants? Is S.C. Self Sabotaging our Great Record of Reasonable Cost, Reliable Bulk Power Supply? Why? Can the Legislature Stop the Madness?
It is my understanding, that the management of Santee-Cooper has been directed to formulate a plan to achieve Net Zero Carbon by 2050. Anyone that knows me, knows that I do not agree with this plan and my posts on this blog and my public presentations have clearly shown my analysis of the madness of Net Zero Carbon & the War on Coal. I have written letters to Santee-Cooper, the Governor, Congressional representatives and my S.C. Senator. Most of these have been made public. Myself and others that have knowledge of energy and electricity generation know that the path to Net Zero carbon is not possible by 2050.(4,5,6,7,8)Not without severe disruption of our way of life, our economy, industrial output, controlling inflation and national security. It is important for our state to generate electricity reliably, with high quality frequency and voltage control, from Dispatchable generators to meet customer Demand and do this 24/7 affordably under all weather conditions…..This has been done by Santee-Cooper for almost 90 years. Thanks to the reliability of coal, nuclear, natural gas generation and hydro-electric. Why would the Legislature force this fine Utility to sabotage its great record? The chart below is from the 2020 IRP. This lists the Dispatchable, Reliable, Affordable generating assets that have created and continue to provide a great record. In essence, the apparent path of the IRP update is to replace 61% of the reliable coal generation with “Intermittent” solar and wind generation.
Path to Jeopardizing S.C. Bulk Power Affordability, Reliability and Dispatchability
The S.C. Legislature has directed Santee-Cooper through “Act 90” to meet a net zero carbon goal by 2050.
The slide above is copied from the Santee-Cooper IRP presentation. My understanding is, that this is the direction ordered by the legislature. A plan to achieve Net Zero Carbon by 2050. (22)
There is active planning to not only shut down the 1,150 MW Winyah coal plant in 2028 but also to shut down the 2,350 MW Cross Coal plant about five years later so that in 2034 all coal plants will be shut down. This is shown on the slides below. Shutting down all coal plants by 2034, in my opinion, will jeopardize the very favorable record of reasonable cost, reliable and Dispatchable electricity Bulk Power Supply that has become associated with Santee-Cooper’s great reputation. Even more importantly, South Carolina’s excellent record of attracting and keeping a thriving industrial base within this region. Electricity intensive industries such as aluminum and steel manufacturers/Recyclers have thrived here as manufacturers in other states have ended operations and ceded U.S. manufactured steel and aluminum capacity to China.
Let me digress and quote Vaclav Smil’s statement on decarbonization. From Professor Smil’s book, “How the World Really Works” This applies to S.C. Too!
“The real wrench in the works: we are a fossil-fueled civilization whose technical and scientific advances, quality of life, and prosperity rest on the combustion of huge quantities of fossil carbon, and we cannot simply walk away from this critical determinant of our fortunes in a few decades, never mind years. Complete decarbonization of the global economy by 2050 is now conceivable only at the cost of unthinkable global economic retreat, or as a result of extraordinarily rapid transformations relying on near-miraculous technical advances.” Smil continues….
But who is going, willingly, to engineer decarbonization while we are still lacking any convincing, practical, affordable global strategy and technical means to pursue the latter? What will actually happen? The gap between wishful thinking and reality is vast, but in a democratic society no contest of ideas and proposals can proceed in rational ways without all sides sharing at least a modicum of relevant information about the real world, rather than trotting out their biases and advancing claims disconnected from physical possibilities.”
I have written other posts on this Blog to express my thoughts on competition with China and the importance for America to reshore U.S. manufacturing. This my friends, is in our backyard, our neighborhood, our state. This is a fact as stated above10). Premature retirements of reliable coal plants has been occurring at an alarming rate all across the U.S. Do we have to follow the same foolish self sabotaging policies of NY, Hawaii, Germany, the UK and Texas? I hope not. (12,13,14,15,)
Future Bulk Power Generation Capacity, The Apparent Plan to Self Sabotage Reliable Bulk Power Supply
Expected Outcome of Adding Over 4,250 MW of Non Dispatchable, Intermittent Bulk Power Supply
If all of the coal plants are retired and the portfolio shown above is used. Her are my predictions, based on the experiences of Hawaii, California, Texas, Germany, Denmark and the UK.
California is thought by some in government to be a model for the U.S. with regard to renewable energy policy. I do not agree. Here is a recent post by the CEO of the Electric Power Research Institute on how the California electric load (as reported by CAISO) has morphed from a “Duck Curve to a Canyon Curve”. Here is a screenshot of Dr. Mansoor’s post:
The “Canyon” curve represents high renewable generation during the peak sunshine of the day where California has bragging rights to sourcing almost all of their electricity from solar collectors. This is great until folks come home from work, mom starts dinner in her totally electric home and Dad plugs in his EV for charging. By early evening, electricity demand skyrockets out of the Canyon and must, for the sake of reliability, be generated to meet demand from Dispatchable sources.
Battery storage is not Bulk Power Supply. Batteries store electricity they do not generate electricity. Batteries are capable, depending on the size of the installation, of providing minutes or hours of backup. The largest battery storage in the U.S. is the Vistra Energy, Moss Landing facility in CA. The CAISO load for April 27 is expected to be about 30,000 MW. Note the largest battery storage facility in the world, Moss Landing, is 1600 MW which is about 5% of the Demand and only capable of providing minutes or hours of stored electricity.
Here is another post from another energy expert on LinkedIn. This graphic shows the electric generation through the day which includes battery storage.
The Moss Landing Storage facility is rated at 400/1600 MW and is capable of storing excess renewable generation for hours so that it can be used as the sun sets and kick in as the “Canyon Curve” and CA power supply and Demand Curves above become reality of demand. Emphasis should be on “Hours” it is not capable of backup during a days long cold severe winter storm, such as NC and SC experienced over Christmas week, 2022. Another example is the 150 MW Battery storage designed for Queensland, Australia and an artists depiction below. This is from an essay reviewing the NY electricity future written on the Blog, Watts Up With That.
Battery storage such as shown above is very costly. For example, the 150 MW facility above is projected to cost $250/kWh. Therefore for 12 hours of storage for 450 MW, the cost would be about $1.35 Billion dollars. Keep in mind, this is for 12 hours storage of only 450 MW of power. Winter storms such as the Christmas 2022 storm lasted longer than 12 hours and even very conservative, steeped in energy expertise Duke Energy, also with a great reputation for reliable electric service, had rolling Blackouts. Ditto for TVA(18,19,20,21,22,23).
When the sun is not shining and the wind not blowing, then the generation must be purchased from neighboring Utilities or generated with Dispatchable natural gas generation. The plan shown above includes 4,316 MW of natural gas generation. This combined with the 322 MW of Summer Unit #1 nuclear power totals 4,638 MW. The wind generators, though intermittent, could generate another 400 MW to total 5,038 MW. The projections of up to 9,000 MW Demand in 2050 (according to Santee-Cooper projections) then will require additional Dispatchable generation which is likely to be natural gas CT’s or Combined Cycle facilities. Think for example of the uncertain growth of Electric Vehicles. If much of transportation is “Electrified”, then the high range projections of about 9,000 MW peaks can be expected in 2050 or before. So, why would we kill the coal plants that have served South Carolinians so well?
This reminds me of my experiences working for CP&L in the 1970’s when the manager of Fossil Plant Engineering pointed to an oil fueled CT and proclaimed to me, then a young engineer, “That young man is a monument to poor planning”. Yes, as CP&L (That was before CP&L merged with Florida Progress and was later absorbed by Duke Energy). I see history repeating here as so much faith in renewables today is somewhat like the high expectations of nuclear being “Too Cheap to Meter” beliefs of the 1970’s. However, nuclear power eventually delivered. Wind and solar are not capable of replacing coal, nuclear and gas fueled Bulk Power Generation. In the 1970’s the Bulk Power Supply gaps were made up with quickly installed, oil fueled CT’s. Today, thanks to reliable, affordable natural gas, the backup generation, when solar and wind cannot deliver, is gas fueled CT’s or Combined Cycle plants. This is doable and satisfactory… providing that pipelines are of adequate capacity and natural gas remains affordable and Federal Regulations on drilling, Hydraulic Fracturing, pipelines and fuel supply infra-structure is expanded as needed, when it is needed. The Federal Government is wrong on their war on carbon and the natural gas resources just may not be as abundant in 2040 or 2050 as they are now. Because, the Federal Government currently highly regulates exploration, drilling, production and transport of any fossil fuels. The uncertainty of future primary energy supply is why a Balanced Generation Portfolio is important. A Balanced Energy Portfolio will include nuclear, coal, gas and renewables.
Have the Importance of Reserves Been Forgotten?
Santee-Cooper is a Regional Utility. In other states, such as PA, OH, WVA, NJ & DE many utilities the size of Santee-Cooper have joined RTO’s (Regional Transmission Operators) such as the PJM Interconnection. In the Midwest it is MISO (Midwestern Independent System Operator) With RTO’s, the electricity generation is shared across state lines and with different utilities with separation of the ownership of the generating plants and the transmission and distribution of the Bulk Power. This has eliminated accountability for individual utilities such as Philadelphia Electric, Potomac Electric Power Company, Public Service of NJ, PP&L and others to plan for Reserve Generation capacity. Therefore, there is no accountability for lack of reserves. I presented examples in my ENERUM talk slides(6) . There is some talk of Santee-Cooper joining a similar RTO with the Southeast Electric Exchange. In my strong opinion and based on the references listed below and my experiences, Santee-Cooper should plan for their own (Our own) reserves. Reserve generation from others states was depended on Christmas week 2022 by TVA and Duke Energy. Two fine utilities, also with great records from the past. But, the reserves from neighboring states were not available due to Demand exceeding supply. Reserves of 15-20% have always been important for reliability and to keep generation costs reasonable by not requiring the startup of backup power generation using high cost fuels such as Diesel or spot market gas. Donn Dears has written several books on this. Here is a graph from the book, “Clean Energy Crisis”, on the Reserve generation that was planned in 2018. However, Texas Blackouts in 2021 killed over 200 people. The ERCOT planners in 2018 had performed due diligence as Santee-Cooper is doing now with well respected consulting services to perform computer analyses of planned reserve margins. Do we need to learn the hard way as Texans did in 2021?
Facts to be Consider regarding Electricity and South Carolina’s High Quality of Life
The experiences of other states and other countries should be considered. I cited the examples of California, Texas and Hawaii above. Much analysis has been put into the planning by some very smart engineers and planners. However, computer modeling of the “Future” weather, fuel prices, EV use, population growth, industrial growth and other uncertainties, will likely create a need for other sources than wind and solar renewables. Just as Texas learned in 2021 after performing similar planning.
Primary Energy and Secondary Energy
Each S.C. resident on average uses about 300 million Btus per year in Primary Energy. If the trend to “Electrify Everything” continues, then more of the energy use currently provided at reasonble prices for transportation and our high quality of life, will be substituted for by (Secondary Energy) electricity or hydrogen. Such as more EV’s as the government is forcing us to use. Therefore, the growth of electricity demand may be much greater than expected. Thus, my title which relates to potential 9,000 MW Demand in 2050.
Over 50% of South Carolina’s electricity has been provided by nuclear power for decades. SC is rated as #3 in the nation in nuclear power generation. Nuclear power has served SC citizens and industry well. Safe, affordable, Base load capable at 90+% capacity factor and proven. However, the great record and importance of nuclear is not discussed by politicians or even utilities. For example, Palmetto Electric promotes the use of “Green Power” when in fact, it is a small contributor to the total portfolio of power generation. Here is an example of “Green indoctrination” by a bill insert that misleadingly leads citizens to believe that most of their power is from renewables:
The reality of our future electricity generation is that nuclear is the most important and least carbon intensive fuel for electricity generation. The plan to expand the Summer nuclear plant with two additional units was a very good idea. However, it was not to be because of poor management, limited trained talent and failure by Bankruptcy of Westinghouse, the primary contractor. The planned new Pee Dee coal plant near Florence was also a good idea and provided for natural growth of generating capacity to meet Demand. Pee Dee, (600 MW coal plant) in my understanding, was killed because of outside influence of Environmental Extremists. Had the Summer Units 2 & 3 and the 600 MW Pee Dee Clean Coal Plant been built as planned, then together these three units would have provided 2,800 MW of Base Load plus reliable, affordable and clean, Dispatchable Bulk Power. Including some reserve generation capacity.
Is the Great State of South Carolina going to sabotage our future just because other countries and states are doing so? I hope not.
Conclusions
The“War on Carbon” is based on politics and corrupted science. It is about Socialism and not about protecting the environment. The South Carolina Legislature seems to be just as gullible of the green myth as the current Federal government leaders.
The UN-IPCC is also Politically Driven and Not based on protection of the environment or to provide for the best interests of the people of the world. The Paris Climate Agreement is not in the best interests of America, the free western world or even for protection of the environment. It is politically motivated.
The path to Net Zero Carbon is steadily weakening our country. It will eventually destroy America’s productive capacity, lower our standard of living and place national security at risk. It will hasten the decline of America and the Rise of China.
America requires 100 Quadrillion BTUs of energy each year to sustain our quality of life. This is about 300 million BTUs per person, per year. Currently, after decades of subsidies, wind and solar provide about 5% of the total PRIMARY energy we use. Wind and solar cannot replace the other 95% of energy we need.
A Balanced Portfolio of Generating Capacity as is currently installed at Santee-Cooper generating plants, is the best path forward to sustain our high quality of life and economic prosperity. Reserve generation from dynamic generators is needed. Battery backup does not provide the same system voltage and frequency control as spinning reserve generator rotors do.
Electric generation planning in the 1970’s and 1980’s was better than today. There is no Energy Policy in America, there is only a decarbonization plan(4,5,6,7), there is no well thought out plan to replace the reliable and dispatchable generating capacity that is being shut down across the country. As during the 1970’s when nuclear units were late coming into service, the quickest available generating capacity was to install gas turbines. This is likely here in SC if the coal plants are retired before Dispatchable or Base Load replacement generation is installed.
Recommendations
Initiate a comprehensive Energy and Electricity Education program to provide 1. public education on energy, 2. Public School education on energy and electricity generation and 3. Public Technical/Trade School education to prepare youth for the construction workforce. Energy Education is recommendation #1 of the path forward. Public education is needed to reverse the myth that wind and solar can replace coal, gas and nuclear power generation. This is priority #1 because so many people are “Green Energy” indoctrinated.
Plan and continue to provide adequate Operations and maintenance funds for repairs and component replacements of the boilers, pumps, turbines and all of the equipment installed at the Cross Coal Plant. Keep the full 2,350 MW capacity so that it can be used until replacement generation is built and proven.
Construct the two unit 1,200 MW Pee Dee Coal plant that the components were purchased for in 2009, but never constructed.
Plan and begin construction on at least 2,000 MW of nuclear capacity. (as was planned for the Summer Units 2 & 3). Please re-read recommendation #1 above.
Plan and construct at least 1,750 MW of combined cycle gas plants
The coal, nuclear and gas plants 2,3 & 4 could replace the existing Cross coal plant capacity, thus continuing a “Balanced Generation Portfolio”
Summary
South Carolina can be an example of applied Common Sense Energy policies that can be a model for the U.S.A. and for the world. The current reasonable cost electricity in SC is amongst the lowest cost in the nation. Over 50% is generated from 4 nuclear plants with seven units. Four of these 7 nuclear units started up in the 1970’s. These four units operating licenses will expire in the 2030’s. They may be extended for another 20 or 30 years by the NRC but, plans should be made to construct new nuclear units for replacement of carbon free, Dispatchable, reasonable cost electricity.
Every time I present a course on energy and electricity generation the comments come back, “You did not discuss Climate Change and Decarbonization”. My response is, I am not an atmospheric scientist. I am an experienced power engineer. My beef with the current path toward Net Zero Carbon is, there is not an organized plan to replace the vitally important electric generation that has kept our country strong. If the politicians were really serious about reducing carbon dioxide emissions and “Sustaining” our high quality of living, then nuclear plants would be on a fast track to construction. After the Summer 2 & 3 failure, SC politicians are rightfully concerned about the financial risks. Plant Vogtle in GA is an example of a major budget overrun. Last cost estimate that I saw shows that Vogtle will cost $34 Billion and the original planned cost was less than half the ultimate cost. Also, it took ten years to just get one of the units running.
In my opinion and research, I feel the war on carbon is a plan initiated by the U.N. (including competitors/enemies of the U.S.A.) and Socialists that have an agenda other than clean power generation. If we wish to “Sustain our high quality of life“, then we need a reasonable cost, abundant and reliable electricity supply. Nuclear is the most accepted approach to achieving that goal. Three examples of applying a Balanced Energy Portfolio with a high percentage of nuclear are S.C. (1970-2030), Sweden and Finland. For research into why I believe the “War on Carbon” is political, not environmentally driven, I have included dozens of references below. My concern for Santee-Cooper and for America is to keep our Bulk Power Supply safe, secure, reliable and affordable. Also, sourced from a U.S. Supply-Chain.
The Supply-Chain of all of the future generation equipment, in an ideal scenario, would be from U.S. sources. Including manufacturing and construction talent. The workforce education is a weakness that I believe had part in the $9 Billion dollar Summer 2 & 3 construction debacle. We should learn from the past 50 years of electric generating history. The successes and the failures.
Respectfully submitted,
Dick Storm
References: (there are two sets of references below, SC Specific are second set)
Arshad Mansoor, CEO of EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute) LinkedIn post, April 25, 2023 on the CAISO System. EPRI Post on the CAISO “Duck Curve changed to Canyon Curve” of Electric Load: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/activity-7056612841755181056-SCPK?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop
In My opinion and research, the Path to Net Zero Carbon is Based on Corrupted Science and Political Ploys to Promote Socialism and One World Government, Not to Save the Planet or to Improve the Environment. Therefore, to substantiate this claim the following references are provided:
Energy and climate policies, if not reversed, are progressing toward shortages of not only fuels for transportation and electricity, but also the supply of products for our materialistic society.(359) This includes food supplies, freedom of travel, quality of life in the western world, weakening of the Free World economy and including an acceleration in the decline of American influence in the world and more…. There is no climate emergency and there are thousands of credible atmospheric and climate scientists that have studied, researched, spoken out and written science based and scholarly articles on the impact of human involvement on climate. However……
The policy makers, including the U.S. EPA, Congress and the Bureaucrats in the Biden Administration have not paid attention to or seemed the least bit interested in digging into the facts.
Climate has changed naturally and with some influence from human behavior. A long list of references are copied below done by credible scientists that understand Meteorology, Atmospheric Science, Engineering and Physics who have analyzed climate and weather patterns. Eight of my individual favorite experts are Dr. Judith Curry, Donn Dears, Dr. Roy Spencer, Dr. John Christy, Dr. Richard Lindzen, the NASA Right Climate Stuff Team, Dr. William Happer and Anthony Watts. Some of these and other experts have joined the CO2 Coalition, Committee For a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), CLINTEL, the Heartland Institute, Heritage Foundation and others. There are over 330 references included below. I am not an expert on climate or weather so I defer to those mentioned (and listed below, most with live links) to explain why we should not destroy our country in the name of so called, Climate Policies” to save the planet. (347) There is no Climate Emergency, so why is the Free World Sabotaging our Energy and Electricity Infra-structure? Please bear with me and read on. It is very complicated and cleverly done so that scare tactics with no accountability has been thoroughly obfuscated….According to the Cambridge Dictionary, the meaning of Obfuscate is: “to make something less clear and harder to understand, especially intentionally“
Origins of Anti-American, Anti-Human, De-Industrialization and De-Growth Environmental Policies
So, how did such wrong headed policies come to be? I wrote a couple years ago, on my thoughts (and with references) how the war on carbon began. That article and references is here. I also, wrote on the Czech Republic’s Vaclav Klaus book, Freedom is not free, What is Endangered, Climate or Freedom? ”Blue Planet in Green Shackles” hereand the relationship of energy policies and economic growth for the U.S. here and comparison of U.S. energy and electricity use to that used by China, here. These articles were written more than a year ago.
Last week I finished reading an interesting book on the history of the Federal Reserve. Not expecting to find information on energy or climate policy, one chapter turned out to be quite informative on the world-wide environmental movement. The meticulously researched book is entitled, “The Creature from Jekyll Island” by Edward Griffin. (341) Here are some excerpts from chapter 24, “Doomsday Mechanisms”. here is a scan of pages 531 & 532.
Attempting to De-Obfuscate the topic of Climate Policies?
This is referring to world financial/economic leaders meeting about the time of the drafting of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Also known as the “Earth Summit” More info on the U.N. conference and the IPCC here.(1, 66, 342, 343, 344 )
Interestingly, the author of “The Creature from Jekyll Island” does not mention the “World Economic Forum” but many of the same individuals or the organizations the WEF members are part of, or have been involved all along with the World Economic Forum. (171, 172, 173, 174, 175)
The WEF influencers are linked. Examples are the Environmental activist. NGO’s, U.S. government Bureaucrats, Billionaire Climate activists and the United Nations. Check the references below to verify for yourself. (170, 195, 196, 197, 198, 345, 346, 358)
In addition to the links to the credible organizations with Internet articles listed below, There are numerous books published which also corroborate the twisting of science by the IPCC. (47, 344, 354) These and more are also shown in the references below.
Conclusions
Anthropogenic Climate change policies are not needed and are in fact, weakening America and the western world.
Much of the science behind the Climate Policies is distorted and flawed
The true agenda of the U.N., WEF, Environmental activist NGO’s, Billionaires (358) and politicians(360) is Control over the citizens, not protection of the environment.(355)
Please check and read the references listed below, then decide for yourself.
Yours very truly,
Dick Storm, Feb. 13, 2024
Here are some References for further reading to support my conclusions:
This report reveals much of what is wrong with the EPA. 114th Congress Report on Obama Carbon Policies and the revolving door of key people from well funded & Influential NGO Green Groups: http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/USSEWP080415.pdf
Sheldon Whitehouse’s new book where he will claim the opposition party does what he and his party have done very effectively, for decades: “The Scheme, where He accuses Republicans of using Dark Money”, when in fact, the Democrats do it much more: https://thenewpress.com/books/scheme
“The Creature from Jekyll Island” by G. Edward Griffin, 5th Edition, published by American Media, Westlake Village, CA Library of Congress No. : 95-80322
“Liberty on Life Support” by Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh ISBN: 147748308X
“AGENDA 21”, BY AMERICAN POLICY CENTER, 2016
“The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science”, by Dr. Tim Ball, 2014 published by Stairway Press
By now almost everyone has seen or heard about Tucker Carlson’s interview with Putin. Here is a link that is less well spread where Tucker discusses his impressions of Moscow while he was in Russia for the Putin interview. I found his descriptions of walking about in Moscow to be sobering. A friend sent me the YouTube link of Tucker Carlson in Dubai discussing his impressions of Moscow after his interview with Putin. Here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2xa7hHMUhoLet me suggest that you skip to minute #32. My concerns for America are: We have put anti-American Climate policies as top priority which will increase the decline of the U.S. relative to other countries of the world, especially China. The words of Tucker on discussing the comparisons of Moscow to cities in the U.S. is sobering. The term MAGA has been demonized. A reminder of what MAGA is an acronym for: Make America Great Again. What is so wrong with that? Three more points. Gatestone Institute on it is not only Boeing jets that have declined in quality, https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20394/boeing-leadership-crisis , the condition of and quality of service of my home town Post Office. Then there is our local Public Schools where about one third of the students are performing below Grade level in reading and math. And our government has Climate policies as #1 Priority. God help us, even if we do not deserve it
I was recently invited to a local civic club and my host asked that I focus on the limitations of minerals and difficulty of replacing conventional fuels with wind and solar. Here are some of the slides and my explanation which I used to attempt to drive the point home: The U.S. does not have an orderly and rational energy transition plan only a “War on Carbon”. In my opinion, conventional energy will be needed far beyond 2050 if we are to continue our high quality of life and freedom of travel.
Here are some of the challenges and impracticality of replacing fossil fuels with carbon free energy. Let’s start with food and agriculture. About 1% of the total primary energy used in the world is consumed for producing fertilizer. Ammonia fertilizer is incredibly important to food production. Vaclav Smil has researched and written that if production of synthetic ammonia fertilizer was stopped, then about 50% of the world’s population could not be fed.
The figure above shows a modern farm tractor powered by Diesel fuel. The table below shows the sources of 94% of our primary energy used during the year 2022. Wind and solar provided less than 6% of our Primary Energy.
The bottom line on primary energy is simply this.
Over 90% of our primary energy is provided by conventional sources and that if reduced carbon emissions are really to be achieved, there needs to be a rational path forward. Not the irrational and unthoughtful path of demonizing and attempting to ban fossil fuels. Let’s move on to see why Net-Zero Carbon is impossible to achieve by 2050 using the current policies from Washington. That is, impossible if we are still to keep our freedom and our high quality of life.
Just as a reminder: Electricity is Secondary energy. It takes Primary energy to generate electricity. Forms of primary energy are nuclear, natural gas, coal, biomass, hydro plants, wind, geothermal and solar. (1, 26 & 27)
What Would it Take to Achieve Net-Zero Carbon by 2050?
My friend Donn Dears wrote numerous books on the destructive war on carbon. In fact, he was the inspiration for me to start this blog. Unfortunately, Donn recently passed away, but he left a legacy of books on energy education for us to refer. His last book published in 2023 is “Clean Energy Crisis”. In this book, Mr. Dears lays out the facts of what it would take to replace conventional fossil fuel energy. In chapter 8, here is his basic analysis:
It should be pointed out that the above refers to replacement of Primary energy from fossil fuels for electricity generation to be replaced by carbon free sources. Reminder: Bulk Power electricity requires about 37% of Primary energy. The other 63% of primary energy is used for motor vehicle use, shipping, Industrial production, jet fuel, heating of homes, commercial buildings, cooking, food production and agriculture.
The Reality of the transition to renewables, according to Mr. Dears is summarized in two statements:
It is impossible for the United States to achieve Net-Zero carbon by 2050.
CO2 is not an existential threat to mankind.
These two statements are direct quotations from chapter #8 of “Clean Energy Crisis” by Donn Dears.
Conclusions
Here are some of the Reasons why I also believe achieving Net-Zero Carbon is Impossible by 2050:
There arelimited mining and production facilities to produce the Metals to Build Batteries and EV’s
Wind whether offshore or on Land Requires Enormous Acreage (22)
Wind & Solar Provide Intermittent & Non Dispatchable Generation
Battery Electricity Storage Technology is Not yet Commercially Available for Long TermStorage of Bulk Power
U.S. Regulations on Mining & Manufacturing are Too Restrictive
U.S. Heavy Manufacturing Cannot Ramp Up in Time. The American manufacturing facilities for nuclear power plant components has been lost and needs to be rebuilt. This will take decades.
China controls much of the critical minerals, materials and manufacturing
The required number of new nuclear power plants cannot be designed, manufactured and constructed by 2050
Hopefully, the American People Willbecome informed and vote for energy wise leadership that will implement practical and science based energy and climate policies
The current path to Net Zero Carbon is a fictional delusion driven by the largest scientific hoax in history.
Conventional energy is vitally important for all that we do. Missing from news reports to the general public is an honest communication to try to explain the huge and enormous energy systems that we depend on each day and the impossibility of replacing conventional energy with wind and solar. To start 2024, I thought I would post a series on the Hard Truths of Energy. I borrowed the title from the 2007 National Petroleum Council report, led by Chairman, Lee Raymond, retired CEO of ExxonMobil. Petroleum, natural gas and coal were important in 2007 and they remain important today. The “Energy Density” of fossil fuels makes them indispensable to sustain our economy and our high quality of life.(4)
Fossil Fuels Provide 79% of U.S. Primary Energy
79 Quadrillion BTUs is the amount of energy we depend on from fossil fuels. This is my attempt to try to explain and illustrate what 79 Quadrillion BTUs of energy looks like. The number 79 Quadrillion is from the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Livermore Laboratory for energy use in 2022.(2) Below is a short summary of the amount of natural gas, petroleum and coal that we used in the U.S.A. in 2022.
How Huge is a Quadrillion?
I have discussed the steady U.S. energy demand of 100 Quadrillion BTUs per annum for decades and yes, 100 Quadrillion BTUs is the amount of energy we use each year and it has been steady for over 20 years.(6) Until now, I did not take the time to explain the enormity of a Quadrillion BTUs. Here is what one Quadrillion BTUs of energy is equivalent to:
Coal= About 50 million tons of coal. This would be a coal pile that would be one mile wide, ten feet high and 3.3 miles long.
Oil= 7.14 Billion gallons. See Lee Raymond quote below on the quantity of motor fuels used in the U.S. in a year
Natural Gas= 1 Trillion cubic feet. This is equivalent to 200 aircraft carrier sized LNG Tankers. More on the enormity of an LNG ship below.
It is a fact, in America, we use and need about 100 Quadrillion BTUs of energy each year.
36 Quadrillion BTUs of Petroleum
The single largest form of energy that we depend on is petroleum. About 20 million barrels per day. To visualize what 20 million barrels per day would look like, take a look at the photo of me and the 48″ Alyeska pipeline in Alaska. At its peak flow, about 2 million barrels per day flowed through the Alaska pipeline. So, to visualize 20 million barrels per day, picture in your mind, ten of these 48″ pipelines installed side by side.
Photo credit, Dick Storm circa 2007
Another illustration was offered by Lee Raymond, retired CEO of ExxonMobil when introducing the National Petroleum Council report “Facing the Hard Truths of Energy” in 2007. This explanation is offered by Mr. Raymond on You Tube, here. Mr. Raymond explained that the amount of motor fuels used in 2006 was about 150 Billion gallons. He then went on to state that if each gallon was placed in a one gallon tin can as he used in his youth to fill his lawnmower, the length of 10″ high cans, if placed end to end would circle the earth 1,000 times. That is the enormity of 150 Billion gallons of motor fuel. Mr. Raymond stated, (among other important points), “To replace current energy systems it will take a an enormous effort and a long period of Time.”(5)
The gasoline and Diesel motor fuels used in the U.S. has increased from the 150 Billion gallons consumed in 2007, to about 209 Billion gallons in 2022.
33 Quadrillion BTUs of Natural Gas
America used 33.4 Quadrillion BTUs of natural gas during 2022. Most of the natural gas used by the U.S. is distributed by a vast network of unseen, underground pipelines. Therefore, hard to visualize. So, let’s imagine that if we were to use all of our natural gas from shipments of LNG, (Liquified Natural Gas) how many huge LNG Super Tankers would it take? Such as the vessel Pan American shown below:
This LNG tanker holds 174,000 cubic feet of liquified natural gas. LNG is 1/600th the volume of the gaseous state. The ship is over 977 feet long and the gross tonnage is 114,966. This is a ship about the size of a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier. The energy equivalent of the cargo is about 6 trillion BTUs.
Now, imagine 6,600 ships like the Pan American above all lined up along the east coast. If the ships were placed touching, end to end, this would be about 1,220 miles of ships from New York City to south of Miami, Florida. That is the number of aircraft carrier sized LNG tankers that it would take to provide 33 Quadrillion BTUs of natural gas fuel. The 33 Quadrillion number is from 2022, the actual demand. The future will likely require more than 33.4 Quadrillion BTUs.
10 Quadrillion BTUs of Coal Power
Coal power has been important to the U.S. since the days of Thomas Edison, Nikola Tesla and George Westinghouse. The American electric system, referred to as the “Grid” was built on the foundation of reliable, affordable, domestically supplied and environmentally clean steam power generation fueled by coal. This took over 125 years to build and has been described by the Smithsonian as, “The Largest Machine Ever Built”. Video here. As recent as 2011 about 50% of America’s electricity was produced by steam turbines with steam generation from coal fuel. In 2022 the coal powered electricity generation dropped to about 20%. Much of the total electricity generation which was once powered by coal fuel, has been switched to natural gas fuel.
As recent as 2011 America used about a billion tons of coal. In 2022 coal use declined by about 50% to about 512,000 million tons. Coal is important because of it’s enormous energy density. Another important fact, is that weeks and months of primary energy can be safely stored on site. Coal provides Dispatchable power and it is proven to be affordable. America has the largest coal reserves of any country. The U.S. is the Saudi Arabia of coal.
How much coal is 512,000 million tons? This is enough coal to fill about 5,000,000 coal cars such as the one shown below.
How long would a single train of 512,000,000 tons of coal be? About 50,000 miles, long enough to circle the earth two times at the equator.
Conclusions
The so-called energy transition from conventional to wind and solar is simply not possible with today’s technology. As Mr. Raymond stated in 2007, changing from our conventional energy systems to something else is an enormous effort that will take. a long time.
Net-Zero Carbon by 2050 is impossible. A previous blog post is here.
The largest energy density and provider of the greatest quantity of carbon-free energy is nuclear power. However, replacing the existing electric generation with nuclear will take decades to accomplish and massive roll back of Federal Regulations. It took about 40 years to develop, manufacture, construct and perfect the 93 operating commercial nuclear units in 54 plants. These currently provide about 20% of America’s electricity. Most of these are now over 30 years old and the last two units built by Southern Company (2,200MW capacity) took over ten years to build. A previous blog post discusses “Without New Thinking on Nuclear Power, Net Zero Carbon is Impossible”, here.
Electrifying Everything is not possible, even electrifying transportation is not practical for every vehicle and if they were, much more electricity would be required.
The so-called energy transition from conventional forms of energy to wind and solar is impossible and attempting to do so by forced laws (such as the IRA), increased Regulations and the continuing war on carbon will destroy our country.
It is my hope and prayer that after the next election some sanity to energy policy will return.
Much has been written on the importance of energy to power a nation’s economy and to continue to provide a high quality Human Development Index. The purpose of this post is to focus on the importance of Fuel Diversity for electricity generation. There is a proven concept for energy storage for electricity generation. It is coal fueled power plants with a 30-60 day supply of coal in a pile, on site. This is proven to be reliable, low cost and safe.
Energy powers everything we do!
Think about this. You are probably reading this on a computer screen. Have a warm cup of coffee nearby and are sitting in an air conditioned office or home. Your car is sitting outside and at your urging is ready to provide transportation. You get the point. Remember the last hurricane or severe winter storm that killed power for a day or so? Loss of energy sources or electricity is debilitating. Think about the 1970’s Oil Embargoes. If you are too young to remember 1973-1979 check these references, here and here.
Primary Energy Sources-Back to Basics
Lets discuss energy and electricity and the sources and quantity of everyday energy that we depend on.
America has used right at 100 Quadrillion Btus of PRIMARY energy per annum since about the year 2000.
The energy we use is compiled by various government agencies in BTUs equivalent (British Thermal Units). A BTU is enough heat to raise one pound of water one degree Fahrenheit, just as a reminder of High School Physics. Each BTU converted to work is equivalent (at 100% efficiency) to 778 Foot Pounds. Therefore, the energy production and consumption is converted to BTUs so that all forms of energy can be reported on a like basis. I wrote an article on the basics of energy for Middle School students here if you are interested, also on “Demystifying Energy and Electricity” here.
This article is about fuel diversity. Just as I explained above regarding the reporting of energy in BTUs to have a common measurement of energy quantities, in some cases one fuel can be substituted for another, especially in electric power generation. Thermal Power Generation Plants that generate Bulk Power can be provided with natural gas, coal, oil, Biomass or nuclear energy to produce steam to drive a steam turbine generator. The fuel selected is done for reasons of economic or fuel availability. Hawaii is truly an Energy Island and thus cannot interconnect with the lower 48 states. Fuels for Thermal Power Generation needs to be imported. In fact, I wrote on Hawaii’s electricity generation in 2020, here.
The proportions of each form of energy used and depended on to power our lives has changed as technologies for extraction and production have improved. For example for electric power generation coal fuel was consumed for about 50% of power generation in year 2000. Then due to the Shale Revolution of Hydraulic Fracturing and Directional Drilling, natural gas became less expensive than coal on a $/million BTU basis. See my review of Harold Hamm’s book, Game Changer which covers the Shale Gas Revolution, here. Thus, gas was substituted for coal generation by many utilities that could get it. Alaska and Hawaii of course do not have pipelines to connect, but of many utilities in the lower 48 states, gas was an economical and clean fuel of choice.
Coal fuel in the U.S. today provides about 23 % of the primary energy to produce Bulk Electric Power over the year. The substitution of coal fuel as primary energy is natural gas which has become more economical as a result of the Shale gas revolution which took off about 2012. Electricity is SECONDARY Energy and must be produced from Primary energy. Electricity is important and in 2022 electricity consumed about a third (37.7% to be exact) of the total PRIMARY energy used in the U.S. The best factual illustration that I am aware, of the sources and consumption of primary energy is the LLNL Energy Flow Diagram, shown below. This is one of my favorite graphics and it is prepared each year by the Department of Energy. The chart above shows the total primary energy used since 1950 and thus supports my conclusion that America needs right at 100 Quads per year to sustain our quality of life, economy and industrial production.
The total Primary Energy used by the U.S. from coal fuel in 2022 was about 10% of the total. (9.91% from data above). That doesn’t seem like much does it? Remember, this is primary energy I am talking about. So, although coal only provided about 10% of our total primary energy it was in fact, Dispatchable, affordable and it provided electricity generation when solar and wind were not available. The chart below is of MISO generation by fuel this past summer. This example shows 40% of total power generation in MISO from coal at this moment in time.
The topic of this article is “The Importance of Fuel Diversity”. The example above of summer Bulk Power Generation depending on coal fueled power generation units is just one of many reasons America should keep our Fuel Diversity. Another example of the importance of coal plants and the consequences of shutting them down is discussed in my blog post discussing the February 2021 Texas Blackout that killed over 200 people. Here.
My previous post on De-Mystifying Energy attempted to explain this, here. The difference between Primary and Secondary Energy is important. If everything is Electrified as many suggest we should do, has anyone really thought through where the primary energy to do so is to be sourced? In my opinion, it has not. Wind and solar cannot replace the primary energy currently required. The four charts shown up to here should make that clear.
Government policy and many people in the general public believe that renewables can replace fossil fuels and nuclear. The harsh reality is that after decades of government subsidies & tax credits wind and solar provide less than 6% of our total PRIMARY energy. Here below is the LLNL Energy Flow Diagram from 2021 with the 4.96% wind and solar contribution circled.
Public demonization of all conventional fuels including nuclear, coal, gas, gasoline, Diesel are unAmerican and foolish. Wind and solar only provide single digits of the total Primary energy needed to power our lives and it will be impossible to ramp wind & solar renewables up to 100% of our energy needs. The charts above are from the government statistics as published on the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Sankey Diagram website, an excellent resource.
Back to Fuel Diversity
Each American citizen, on average is accustomed to using about 315 million Btus of energy per year. I have written separate articles on American energy use here and here. My first point is that we all need on average of about 863,000 to 1 million Btus each day in Total Primary Energy. This number is provided by dividing 330 million citizens into 100 Quadrillion Btus and then dividing that by 365 days/year = 863,000 BTUs per day/citizen of PRIMARY Energy. This is for all uses which (see LLNL chart above) including: Electricity generation, Transportation, Industrial Production, Commercial and Residential uses. The second important point is that providing this energy each day may be from various forms of energy. Depending on which is more efficient or more economical. Let’s take an example of electric generation on July 21, 2023 in the Midwest at about 2:00 PM in the afternoon (example above). It was more economical to use coal fuel for 40% of the electricity generation at that hour. It may have been, I do not know for sure, that only coal generation could deliver the electricity Demand at that moment. The fact is, coal delivered 40% of the electricity at that moment.
Let’s take another example from last winter. This example below is from Christmas week, 2022.
Fuel Diversity with more coal plants ready to operate and properly maintained could have avoided the Blackouts of Christmas week, 2022. Duke Energy has shut down many coal plants as part of their Net-Zero Carbon plan. So have many other Utilities, both Public and Investor Owned. I presented my views on this at the ENERUM (Columbus Ohio Energy Forum) in August 2022. My presentation is Here. Also, my recent article on the self sabotaging of our energy and electricity generation Grid is here.
Even well respected utilities that were once known for their outstanding leadership and engineering excellence are planning to shut more of their coal plants down in the near future. This works against Fuel Diversity! Here below is a screen print excerpt of the Duke Energy IRP for 2023:
These planned shut downs are in spite of the winter 2022 rolling Blackouts described above. Why? Because the N.C. politicians and top Duke management have agreed to follow a disastrous Net-Zero Carbon path. So has the S.C. Legislature and Santee-Cooper. I wrote about Santee-Cooper in an earlier article, here.
Energy Storage
My first instructor on electricity generation was in class in 1959. The instructor, Harry Park stated, “Electricity needs to be generated the instant that it is needed”. That stuck with me my entire career. Today intermittent renewables are the rage and of course, as Mr. Park stated in 1959, electricity needs to be generated or provided from storage the instant it is needed. That is what built America’s Grid and America’s strong economy. Reliable, affordable electricity available the instant it is needed or in today’s word, Demanded. The published articles I see regarding the justification of higher and higher percentages of wind and solar generation are dependent on electricity storage. The best and largest Bulk Power Storage systems today are “Pumped Storage Hydro”. Such as Duke Energy’s Bad Creek or TVA’s Raccoon Mountain. These work well where the local topography allows it. Bad Creek has about 1,200 ft of elevation change between the upper and lower reservoirs(21). Bad Creek is currently, according to N.C. Business Journal, being uprated to about 2,800 MW. TVA’s Raccoon Mountain provides 1,650 MW of storage. Two other alternatives for storage are batteries and hydrogen. The largest battery electric storage system (BESS) that I am aware is in California. This is at Moss Landing Plant in California. It is being uprated to 3,000 MWH. The “H” after MW means Hour. That means the electricity stored is good at the rated capacity for one hour. Enough time to start gas turbines or buy power from a neighboring utility on the grid. Hydrogen can be a source of storage too. However, it must be remembered that it takes about four times the input of electricity to produce one unit of Bulk Power from hydrogen. An excellent reference on this was published in Gas Turbine World Magazine in August 2022, Here. (22)
The most reliable, proven, safe and affordable form of Energy Storage: A large pile of coal onsite at a clean, efficient coal power plant. When I started in the power generation business in the 1960’s one of my experiences was in conducting a boiler efficiency test at a large power plant in Illinois. As I recall the explanation for the huge coal pile was, “Because of the possibility of Union walkouts at either the coal mines or the railroad, a 90 day supply of coal was required to be stored on site”. Proven, safe and affordable. The photo below is real long term energy storage. A coal pile can store enough energy for a 2,000 MW power plant to run full power for months, not hours as is currently planned for batteries.
These five categories of energy use are shown on the LLNL charts above. Americans with our current population of about 330 million, will need at least 100 Quads per year for the foreseeable future. If we are to sustain our quality of life and freedom to travel, we will continue to need about 100 Quads per year. This article is focussed on electricity generation and the 37% of America’s PRIMARY Energy used to generate Bulk Power. The second part of this article will cover the other 63% of our PRIMARY ENERGY.
Conclusion
It will be impossible to replace fossil fuels with wind and solar any time soon. Attempting to do so will create hardships, economic decline and a general weakness of our country including weakness of our National Security.
The best and most proven energy storage system that I have known through my entire career in power generation is a large coal pile. It was common for coal power plants to have 30 or 60 day supplies of coal storage on the plant site.
On a positive note, I wrote about the preceding 80 years the “Era of Affordable, Reliable Energy and Electricity Generation, Part 1” Here. America really did great things in making energy and electricity reliable and affordable for over 80 years. Coal plants became more efficient and clean, nuclear power came of age and America became energy independent and the largest producer of natural gas in the world. I chose 80 years because that covers my lifetime and I know the history of accomplishments during these times, because I worked in the power generation business for over 50 of those years. Experiences in design, maintenance, operations, tuning, upgrading, capacity improvements, Betterments, Heat-Rate Improvements, fuel flexibility, fouling and slagging reductions and emissions reductions of fossil power systems. I admit, I am not a policy wonk, I am a nuts and bolts power engineer. But, I have been gifted with many years of experiences and have traveled much of the world to witness the relationship of energy and economic prosperity.
The loss of legacy coal plants is threatening Bulk Power Supply Reliability by the loss of over 100,000 MW’s of reliable coal power generation capacity without replacing it in kind is wrong. I wrote on the “End of the Era of Reliable, Affordable Energy and Electricity” a couple weeks ago. It is here. The references included are from NERC, FERC and other reliable people and sources of information. I encourage the reader to check these references to decide for yourself.
Nuclear power generation is the only known technology to produce carbon dioxide free electric power. However, building a new nuclear power generation supply chain will take decades. David Archibald wrote an excellent article on “The Energy Future We Need to Have a Future Worth Having”, here. I also support nuclear for the long term, but the next 30 years are important to work through and hopefully, sustain our high quality of life until future technologies and the needed supply-chains are sufficiently developed for safe and reliable implementation. My previous blog post covered an overview of the needed new thinking (and policies) on nuclear power for carbon dioxide emissions reduction to succeed. here. (27)
The University of South Carolina provides OLLI programs (Osher Lifelong Learning Institute) which include Geopolitics, Science and many other courses. I am an instructor on energy and electricity. Two other instructors that I respect and have enjoyed their courses are retired senior military officers. General Craig Whelden served in the Pacific and has taught several courses on the “Rise of China”. I took notes from his courses and combined his information with my experiences in the relationship of energy & electricity generation. These thoughts are posted here. Retired Navy Captain, Greg Blackburn has taught several courses on Economics and the “Fate of Nations, Their Rise and Fall and Rise Again”. I took notes on Captain Blackburn’s and General Whelden’s courses and posted my thoughts as of January 2021 here.
As I read a LinkedIn post by CS Krishnedev earlier this week, these three OLLI courses came to mind. (Rise of China, Fate of Nations and Energy & Electricity) Mr. Krishnadev’s post is here. In his post, Krishnadev discusses how China is far ahead of the west in the design, construction and deployment of nuclear power plants.
Photo from Krishnadev, CS Post on LinkedIn, August 13, 2023
Leaders in Heavy Manufacturing of Nuclear Power Plant Reactors and Steam Generators
America invented nuclear power and held the lead for many years in the design, manufacturing, construction and operation of nuclear power plants. The Combustion-Engineering Chattanooga facility comes to mind as one of the most capable and advanced nuclear and fossil manufacturing facilities in the world. That was then.
Of course, the magnificent C-E Facilities are gone now. So are the thousands of talented and experienced engineers, technicians and craftsmen. Westinghouse is a fine American name but was sold off long ago. Babcock & Wilcox is still based in the U.S. and involved, but the company is downsized from the 35,000 or so employees that worked there in the 1960’s and 1970’s. I started my power generation career with B&W in 1966, so it is with personal knowledge and experiences that I remember this. The photo below is a Reactor vessel being loaded onto a barge from the Mt. Vernon Indiana manufacturing facility.
From “B&W Steam, It’s Generation and Use”. 39th edition
Specialized manufacturing tools, such as the Gun Drill shown below is used to drill approximately 16,000 precise holes through a 24″ tube sheet to manufacture a steam generator, such as the one below for the B&W Once Through Steam Generator.
From B&W “Steam, It’s Generation and Use” 39th Edition, 1978
The highly successful B&W Once Through Steam Generator as used at Oconee, Three Mile Island, Crystal River and other Nuclear Steam Systems is shown below.
Nuclear Steam Generator from B&W Steam, It’s Generation and Use” 39th edition
View inside the Containment building showing the Reactor and Once Through Steam Generators. To provide a reference of the size of these, the nozzle at the top of the steam generator in the upper left of the photo below is 36″ diameter.
B&W “Steam, It’s Generation and Use” 39th edition
These pressure vessels were built using the most advanced manufacturing, welding and non-destructive testing techniques in the world. However, after the 1979 Three Mile Island incident, very few new NSS’s were manufactured in the U.S.A. Eventually the Combustion-Engineering manufacturing facility in Chattanooga was shut down and B&W downsized. The Westinghouse Electric Corporation which was the pioneer designer and manufacturer of nuclear power plants (starting with the U.S. Navy Nautilus and Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” Initiative) was broken down into numerous business units and sold off. The nuclear power business unit was sold in 1999.
The World Nuclear Association lists the current major manufacturers of heavy pressure vessels. This list is shown below. Much of the heavy manufacturing equipment such as Electroslag Welding, 15,000 ton presses, precision gun drills and other heavy manufacturing equipment once available in Chattanooga and other locations in the U.S. has been lost.
Here are the Heavy Pressure Vessel Manufacturers listed by the World Nuclear Association that are capable of fabricating nuclear reactor pressure vessels, today.
The enormous presses, rolls, welding, machining and forging apparatus that the U.S. once was a leader in are now gone and will take a huge government policy commitment and large capital investments to replace. A new workforce of tens of thousands of engineers, technicians and craftsmen will have to be trained as well. In other words, the entire Supply-Chain, including education will have to be rebuilt. This, if accomplished would be on a scale of President John F. Kennedy’s “Moon Shot” commitment of 1960.
Summary & Conclusions
If the U.S. was really committed to “Electrifying Everything”, that is, everything possible. Then the most practical and proven fuel to provide carbon free electricity is nuclear. An excellent OpEd was published in the TN Star Tribune newspaper a couple years ago on this. I copied it, along with my thoughts, onto my blog, here.
The Net-Zero Carbon path if continued, will further weaken the U.S.A. and strengthen the CCP. I do not have anything against the Chinese people and the many millions that have been lifted from poverty by China’s Development of many coal, nuclear, hydroelectric and renewable power production power plants. However, I am frustrated that the current U.S. leaders, have put the U.S. on a path of decline in manufacturing and economic strength. Also, a decline in influence in the world and a decline in military capability. Much of the decline is due to energy policies that are at a literal “War on conventional forms of energy”. The “Green New Deal” (aka Inflation reduction Act) incentivizes the myth of renewable power in an impossible to achieve replacement of fossil and nuclear fuels.
I have been a supporter of “All Fuels are Important” and that the U.S. should be utilizing all fuels that are available within our borders. Including coal, oil, gas and uranium. It is a myth to believe that wind and solar can replace coal, oil, gas and nuclear fuels. One of my blog articles on the impossibility of reaching Net-Zero Carbon is here. The government’s policies which penalize conventional fuels and incentivize renewables, if continued, will weaken the United States.
The course taught by my friend Greg Blackburn, “The Fate of Nations”, comes to mind. A screen shot of one of the slides he used is copied below. The current U.S. Climate Policies are contributing to the Rise of China and the Decline of America. It is my hope that the voters will elect members of Congress and a new President that will wake up and stop the madness.
The Bureaucratic Agencies of the Biden Administration since Biden’s inauguration have created ever worsening Regulations that are weakening our country and literally forcing the economic decline of our nation. It is as if the Biden policies are being dictated by Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin. The Biden policies are weakening America, day by day from within. I have used the term, “Self-Sabotage”.
In parts 1 and 2 of this Green Energy Series, the Green Energy Crisis and which people and organizations caused it. (part 1 here and part 2 here) The purpose of this post is to attempt to explain the impossibility of replacing conventional forms of Primary energy with wind and solar.
America consumes right at 100 Quadrillion Btus of energy each year. This has been fairly constant for decades. My previous posts here and here have explained this. Broken down to a per capita basis this is about 315 million Btus per year, per person/year. This is as compiled by the EIA and each BTU of energy is based on the thermodynamic equivalent of the following. From BP stats here:
1 British Thermal Unit (BTU) = 778 foot pounds of energy
3412.6 BTUs = 1 kWh of electricity
1 Barrell of oil = 42 gallons
1 Barrell of oil=. 5.8 million BTUs
2,545 BTUs = 1 Horsepower
The book, “Clean Energy Crisis” by Donn Dears is an outstanding reference and short read. I will use Mr. Dear’s books, data and calculations for much of this post.
What are the sources of America’s Primary energy now? The two charts that show this best are the Statista Bar chart and the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Sankey Digram. Both are copied below:
Electrify Everything? Really, Think Again?
The government, MSM, Entertainment, Woke corporations (and there are a lot of them), public school education, the WEF, Environmental Extremists and many politically active organizations have waged a Demonization of conventional fuels since about 1970(13). My take on this history of environmental extremism is covered in part 2 of this series.
Electrifying everything, of course, (such as transportation EV’s) will require much more electricity generation. That is, if we are to continue to live our high quality of living and freedom of travel.
Sustaining our current life-styles and economy will require an average of about 315 million Btus/person/year.
This math is a fact and it is provided by the EIA. Please note the Statista and Sankey Diagrams above which show the Total Primary Energy Flows for 2021. The key word is Primary Energy. Electricity is Secondary Energy. Note that about 37% of the total Primary Energy was used to generate electricity. Of that total, less than 5% of the total Primary Energy used to generate electricity was provided from solar and wind. Let’s go to Mr. Dears book, Clean Energy Crisis and take a look at what it would take to replace fossil fuels. It is my understanding that Mr. Dears book calculations are projected from normal electricity growth, not including “Total Electrification of Transportation” and NOT to provide for Industrial Reshoring of industries lost to China over the last 20 years, especially primary metals industries such as steel, aluminum and copper. Primary metals production is particularly energy intensive.
These numbers below are the number of units of each form of carbon free generation that it would take to provide the electricity demand expected in 2050. Keep in mind, future predictions of any kind are always done with uncertainty.
Wind Turbines- 995,141 units of 2.5 MW each
PV-Solar Panels- 139,964 MW per year, every year till 2050
Nuclear- 851 new nuclear units comparable to Southern Company’s Plant Vogtle in Georgia. This is building 31 new nuclear units every year, till 2050 (The Plant Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant expansion of just two units has been in progress of construction since 2009)
The combined design, manufacturing, construction and commissioning of replacements for the existing installed capacity of coal, gas and nuclear plants would take over a hundred years to build, in my opinion. I recommend reading and referring to Mr. Dears book to form your own opinion. Below is a paragraph from chapter 8 of “Clean Energy Crisis”, page 59:
“Transition Reality”
“1. It is impossible for the United States to achieve Net-Zero carbon by 2050
2. CO2 is not an existential threat to mankind”
If these two conclusions are correct, and there’s considerable evidence that they are, the entire clean energy transition is a dangerous delusion.
Europe is learning the importance of energy security as it struggles to find sources of fossil fuels.”
I agree with the conclusions of Donn Dears.
We Did a Great Job of Energy Education of the U.S. Public 1950-1970. This is The Best Solution of “How to Fix Public & Political Demonization of Carbon” Educate the Public!
This post was started a couple months ago and I thought;
“What is a positive approach to correct the indoctrination?”
The solution to the problem (Self Sabotaging America’s Energy Infrastructure) is Energy Education of the public. Those of us folks who were born before 1950 remember the Public Utilities energy education programs from the 1950’s through the 1970’s “Living Better Electrically”. One example is the Sunday night TV program of the 1960’s, the “General Electric Theatre” which showcased Ronald Reagan as a spokesperson for G-E, to introduce new electrical appliances that were making a Mother’s work easier and living better electrically a reality for all Americans(4). Reddy Kilowatt was the mascot for the programs by the Investor owned Utilities. Living better electrically was shown on TV, electric bill inserts, newspapers and perhaps more importantly, in public schools. Local electric Utilities had regular programs in High Schools to teach not only Home Economics and how to cook using electric stoves, for the girls, but also “How Electricity is Generated” for the boys. I know, today that sounds wrong and politically incorrect, but back when we referred to Boys and Girls. People also had a better understanding of where our electricity came from. In fact, I was one of them that as a 16 year old (in 1959), I became enamored with coal power generation. A true fact. And I was just an average student, but I knew how electricity was generated as a teen.
In my view, this is what America needs again. Improved energy education for all ages to teach the importance of energy and the various sources of primary energy that can meet our needs.
This is a tall order. Better energy education of the public has been an idea I have had for at least two decades. When living in N.C. I did paid weekly “Energy Fact Minutes” on the radio with my old friend Matt Smith and also placed full page paid advertisements in the local Stanly News and Press newspaper.
Since then, I have written to the leaders of several Utility companies, including Lynn Good CEO of Duke Energy and the CEO of our Electric cooperative, A. Berl Davis (Palmetto Electric) to suggest such energy education programs to be reinstated. The letters and message were ignored and in fact, not answered. Those Utilities and Coop’s are Politically Correct and at least partially “Woke”…. they are Promoting the myth of green energy instead of educating the public on the true facts of energy and electricity generation.
A review of the history of how energy replaced muscle power in both the U.S. during the 20th Century and China in the 21st would be instructive for anyone who doubts the importance of conventional energy. I wrote three blog posts on the history of energy and electricity and the growth of economic prosperity, here, here and here. Also, a course presented to USCB-OLLI Program on the history of Energy and Electricity is here.
If Not the Electric Utilities, Then Who Will Educate the Public?
A good question. Mr. Tom Moser of the retired, NASA Right Stuff Climate Team is shown on a presentation by the Heartland Institute in February. At the end of his presentation, (at about the 15 minutes mark) he addresses this issue with regard to educating the public and changing public policy on the current path of Net-Zero Carbon. The number he used was 50 million dollars. A good start, but it will take much more to reverse the demonization of carbon in the public’s minds.
Summary and Conclusions
There are many reasons why the transition to wind, solar and nuclear by 2050 is unreasonable, impractical and essentially, impossible. Some reasons are simply the laws of Physics which have been explained in easy to understand terms by Donn Dears, Vaclav Smil and others. Some of the reasons are Supply-Chain related.
America invented commercial nuclear power generation and once had a strong U.S. based manufacturing infrastructure. I know this for a fact because I was employed by B&W when nuclear power was expected to grow so fast and so efficiently , “It would be too Cheap to Meter”. Now the massive manufacturing facilities of Combustion Engineering in Chattanooga, TN and many more facilities ( like Textiles and Furniture manufacturing in U.S.) are mostly gone. Also, included in the supply chain concerns & limitations is training of the workforce. Those of us old enough to remember President Kennedy’s inspirational “We Choose the Moon” speech of 1960 where he stated we “will land on the moon within ten years” remember the extremely successful upgrading of public education in math and science and the large number of excellent engineers that were trained 1960-1970. In my view, “Electrifying Everything” at least everything possible, will take a larger commitment than the space program of the 1960’s and we cannot electrify everything nor can we replace fossil fuels with wind and solar. The fundamental Physics of energy and electricity need to be taught to all students and adults. Like the Edison Electric Institute and Electric Utilities did in the 1960’s with the “Live Better Electrically” program and Federal and State governments did to inspire excellence in public STEM education, 1960-1970.
So, where do we start? As I see it, we need to educate the public on energy and how it is produced and used. A model of public education on energy was accomplished between 1950 and 1970. Let’s take a look at what we once did in energy awareness for the public. The B&W ad is from a nationally distributed business magazine in 1954.
Just for the record, I practice what I preach and have done my best to spread the word to my friends, neighbors and the communities where I have lived for decades. In the past three years I have presented several courses at USCB-OLLI in Beaufort County, SC, given presentations in Public Schools and civic clubs. Most of my presentations are available in pdf on LinkedIn or on my blog. If I can assist or share any info to others interested in educating the public on the facts of the importance of conventional energy, let me know, I will help as best as I can.
Thank you for reading. This blog is my small contribution to spreading the true facts on the importance of conventional forms of energy.
Yours truly,
Dick Storm, June 23, 2023
References and Further Information
Tom Moser video, (198,298 views Mar 21, 2023) Join former NASA engineer and program director for the space station Tom Moser for a presentation that sheds light on the science behind climate change. Drawing on his impressive credentials, including serving as Acting Associate Administrator for Spaceflight in Washington, D.C., Director of the Space Station Program, Deputy Manager of the Space Shuttle Orbiter, and Chief Engineer at the Johnson Space Center, Moser highlights the correlation between global temperatures and solar irradiance. He also delves into the disparity between real-world data and often reported climate models, which are used as the basis for governmental public policy, and how these models consistently overestimate temperature trends versus the real-world data. Moser exposes the propaganda in the climate science field and breaks down why media claims are often misleading. This informative presentation is not to be missed by anyone interested in gaining a better understanding of climate science. The Fifteenth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC) featured more than 50 speakers who are top scientists in their fields and policy experts from around the world. Each edition of these conferences attracts scientists, legislators, environmentalists, and more all discussing their views on climate science, the idea that there is a crisis, efforts to educate the public, views on the state of discourse, and more. Visit these sites for more great climate information from The Heartland Institute: PLAYLIST FOR THE WHOLE 2023 HEARTLAND INSTITUTE CLIMATE CONFERENCE: • 2023 Climate Conf…
This is an update on my comments to the IRP development for my local Regional Utility, Santee-Cooper. The last draft IRP has been published for comment and the figure below shows the expected load growth up to 2042. This Figure is from page 28 of the IRP presentation updated in April 2023. Shockingly, there is serious planning to shut down all coal plants by 2034 without having a Balanced Portfolio of replacement Bulk Power Supply that is Dispatchable, affordable and of reliable supply. Some energy news/issues authors, when discussing energy policy, speak metaphorically of “Falling off the Cliff” The illustration of projected load growth for Santee-Cooper is an example of planning to “Fall off the Cliff” by (NOT) Balancing Bulk Power Supply & load Demand. (The graph reminds me of the old saying, “Failing to Plan is a Plan for Failure”. How? By not providing adequate new generation capacity as older, reliable, dependable and Dispatchable coal units are retired. This is typical all across the U.S. and the western free world(6,10,14,15,15,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,27)
I had hoped that the more conservative, level headed General Assembly of S.C. would have better sense than to follow the “Woke policy” of the U.S. government and other states. There is still time to wake up to reality. (5,8)
The slide below is from my ENERUM presentation, August 2022. Data and chart are from the July 2022 NERC Report.(10) This shows 102 GW of Dispatchable & Reliable coal and nuclear plants shut down since 2011. This is shown to illustrate the fact that Santee-Cooper seems to be following the same destructive path as other utilities in the U.S.
Can a Great 80+ Year Record of Reliability and Affordability be Sustained While Retiring Coal Plants? Is S.C. Self Sabotaging our Great Record of Reasonable Cost, Reliable Bulk Power Supply? Why? Can the Legislature Stop the Madness?
It is my understanding, that the management of Santee-Cooper has been directed to formulate a plan to achieve Net Zero Carbon by 2050. Anyone that knows me, knows that I do not agree with this plan and my posts on this blog and my public presentations have clearly shown my analysis of the madness of Net Zero Carbon & the War on Coal. I have written letters to Santee-Cooper, the Governor, Congressional representatives and my S.C. Senator. Most of these have been made public. Myself and others that have knowledge of energy and electricity generation know that the path to Net Zero carbon is not possible by 2050.(4,5,6,7,8)Not without severe disruption of our way of life, our economy, industrial output, controlling inflation and national security. It is important for our state to generate electricity reliably, with high quality frequency and voltage control, from Dispatchable generators to meet customer Demand and do this 24/7 affordably under all weather conditions…..This has been done by Santee-Cooper for almost 90 years. Thanks to the reliability of coal, nuclear, natural gas generation and hydro-electric. Why would the Legislature force this fine Utility to sabotage its great record? The chart below is from the 2020 IRP. This lists the Dispatchable, Reliable, Affordable generating assets that have created and continue to provide a great record. In essence, the apparent path of the IRP update is to replace 61% of the reliable coal generation with “Intermittent” solar and wind generation.
Path to Jeopardizing S.C. Bulk Power Affordability, Reliability and Dispatchability
The S.C. Legislature has directed Santee-Cooper through “Act 90” to meet a net zero carbon goal by 2050.
The slide above is copied from the Santee-Cooper IRP presentation. My understanding is, that this is the direction ordered by the legislature. A plan to achieve Net Zero Carbon by 2050.
There is active planning to not only shut down the 1,150 MW Winyah coal plant in 2028 but also to shut down the 2,350 MW Cross Coal plant about five years later so that in 2034 all coal plants will be shut down. This is shown on the slides below. Shutting down all coal plants by 2034, in my opinion, will jeopardize the very favorable record of reasonable cost, reliable and Dispatchable electricity Bulk Power Supply that has become associated with Santee-Cooper’s great reputation. Even more importantly, South Carolina’s excellent record of attracting and keeping a thriving industrial base within this region. Electricity intensive industries such as aluminum and steel manufacturers/Recyclers have thrived here as manufacturers in other states have ended operations and ceded U.S. manufactured steel and aluminum capacity to China.
Let me digress and quote Vaclav Smil’s statement on decarbonization. From Professor Smil’s book, “How the World Really Works” This applies to S.C. Too!
“The real wrench in the works: we are a fossil-fueled civilization whose technical and scientific advances, quality of life, and prosperity rest on the combustion of huge quantities of fossil carbon, and we cannot simply walk away from this critical determinant of our fortunes in a few decades, never mind years. Complete decarbonization of the global economy by 2050 is now conceivable only at the cost of unthinkable global economic retreat, or as a result of extraordinarily rapid transformations relying on near-miraculous technical advances.” Smil continues….
But who is going, willingly, to engineer decarbonization while we are still lacking any convincing, practical, affordable global strategy and technical means to pursue the latter? What will actually happen? The gap between wishful thinking and reality is vast, but in a democratic society no contest of ideas and proposals can proceed in rational ways without all sides sharing at least a modicum of relevant information about the real world, rather than trotting out their biases and advancing claims disconnected from physical possibilities.”
I have written other posts on this Blog to express my thoughts on competition with China and the importance for America to reshore U.S. manufacturing. This my friends, is in our backyard, our neighborhood, our state. This is a fact as stated above10). Premature retirements of reliable coal plants has been occurring at an alarming rate all across the U.S. Do we have to follow the same foolish self sabotaging policies of NY, Hawaii, Germany, the UK and Texas? I hope not. (12,13,14,15,)
Future Bulk Power Generation Capacity, The Apparent Plan to Self Sabotage Reliable Bulk Power Supply
Expected Outcome of Adding Over 4,250 MW of Non Dispatchable, Intermittent Bulk Power Supply
If all of the coal plants are retired and the portfolio shown above is used. Her are my predictions, based on the experiences of Hawaii, California, Texas, Germany, Denmark and the UK.
California is thought by some in government to be a model for the U.S. with regard to renewable energy policy. I do not agree. Here is a recent post by the CEO of the Electric Power Research Institute on how the California electric load (as reported by CAISO) has morphed from a “Duck Curve to a Canyon Curve”. Here is a screenshot of Dr. Mansoor’s post:
The “Canyon” curve represents high renewable generation during the peak sunshine of the day where California has bragging rights to sourcing almost all of their electricity from solar collectors. This is great until folks come home from work, mom starts dinner in her totally electric home and Dad plugs in his EV for charging. By early evening, electricity demand skyrockets out of the Canyon and must, for the sake of reliability, be generated to meet demand from Dispatchable sources.
Battery storage is not Bulk Power Supply. Batteries store electricity they do not generate electricity. Batteries are capable, depending on the size of the installation, of providing minutes or hours of backup. The largest battery storage in the U.S. is the Vistra Energy, Moss Landing facility in CA. The CAISO load for April 27 is expected to be about 30,000 MW. Note the largest battery storage facility in the world, Moss Landing, is 1600 MW which is about 5% of the Demand and only capable of providing minutes or hours of stored electricity.
Here is another post from another energy expert on LinkedIn. This graphic shows the electric generation through the day which includes battery storage.
The Moss Landing Storage facility is rated at 400/1600 MW and is capable of storing excess renewable generation for hours so that it can be used as the sun sets and kick in as the “Canyon Curve” and CA power supply and Demand Curves above become reality of demand. Emphasis should be on “Hours” it is not capable of backup during a days long cold severe winter storm, such as NC and SC experienced over Christmas week, 2022. Another example is the 150 MW Battery storage designed for Queensland, Australia and an artists depiction below. This is from an essay reviewing the NY electricity future written on the Blog, Watts Up With That.
Battery storage such as shown above is very costly. For example, the 150 MW facility above is projected to cost $250/kWh. Therefore for 12 hours of storage for 450 MW, the cost would be about $1.35 Billion dollars. Keep in mind, this is for 12 hours storage of only 450 MW of power. Winter storms such as the Christmas 2022 storm lasted longer than 12 hours and even very conservative, steeped in energy expertise Duke Energy, also with a great reputation for reliable electric service, had rolling Blackouts. Ditto for TVA(18,19,20,21,22,23).
When the sun is not shining and the wind not blowing, then the generation must be purchased from neighboring Utilities or generated with Dispatchable natural gas generation. The plan shown above includes 4,316 MW of natural gas generation. This combined with the 322 MW of Summer Unit #1 nuclear power totals 4,638 MW. The wind generators, though intermittent, could generate another 400 MW to total 5,038 MW. The projections of up to 9,000 MW Demand in 2050 (according to Santee-Cooper projections) then will require additional Dispatchable generation which is likely to be natural gas CT’s or Combined Cycle facilities. Think for example of the uncertain growth of Electric Vehicles. If much of transportation is “Electrified”, then the high range projections of about 9,000 MW peaks can be expected in 2050 or before. So, why would we kill the coal plants that have served South Carolinians so well?
This reminds me of my experiences working for CP&L in the 1970’s when the manager of Fossil Plant Engineering pointed to an oil fueled CT and proclaimed to me, then a young engineer, “That young man is a monument to poor planning”. Yes, as CP&L (That was before CP&L merged with Florida Progress and was later absorbed by Duke Energy). I see history repeating here as so much faith in renewables today is somewhat like the high expectations of nuclear being “Too Cheap to Meter” beliefs of the 1970’s. However, nuclear power eventually delivered. Wind and solar are not capable of replacing coal, nuclear and gas fueled Bulk Power Generation. In the 1970’s the Bulk Power Supply gaps were made up with quickly installed, oil fueled CT’s. Today, thanks to reliable, affordable natural gas, the backup generation, when solar and wind cannot deliver, is gas fueled CT’s or Combined Cycle plants. This is doable and satisfactory… providing that pipelines are of adequate capacity and natural gas remains affordable and Federal Regulations on drilling, Hydraulic Fracturing, pipelines and fuel supply infra-structure is expanded as needed, when it is needed. The Federal Government is wrong on their war on carbon and the natural gas resources just may not be as abundant in 2040 or 2050 as they are now. Because, the Federal Government currently highly regulates exploration, drilling, production and transport of any fossil fuels. The uncertainty of future primary energy supply is why a Balanced Generation Portfolio is important. A Balanced Energy Portfolio will include nuclear, coal, gas and renewables.
Have the Importance of Reserves Been Forgotten?
Santee-Cooper is a Regional Utility. In other states, such as PA, OH, WVA, NJ & DE many utilities the size of Santee-Cooper have joined RTO’s (Regional Transmission Operators) such as the PJM Interconnection. In the Midwest it is MISO (Midwestern Independent System Operator) With RTO’s, the electricity generation is shared across state lines and with different utilities with separation of the ownership of the generating plants and the transmission and distribution of the Bulk Power. This has eliminated accountability for individual utilities such as Philadelphia Electric, Potomac Electric Power Company, Public Service of NJ, PP&L and others to plan for Reserve Generation capacity. Therefore, there is no accountability for lack of reserves. I presented examples in my ENERUM talk slides(6) . There is some talk of Santee-Cooper joining a similar RTO with the Southeast Electric Exchange. In my strong opinion and based on the references listed below and my experiences, Santee-Cooper should plan for their own (Our own) reserves. Reserve generation from others states was depended on Christmas week 2022 by TVA and Duke Energy. Two fine utilities, also with great records from the past. But, the reserves from neighboring states were not available due to Demand exceeding supply. Reserves of 15-20% have always been important for reliability and to keep generation costs reasonable by not requiring the startup of backup power generation using high cost fuels such as Diesel or spot market gas. Donn Dears has written several books on this. Here is a graph from the book, “Clean Energy Crisis”, on the Reserve generation that was planned in 2018. However, Texas Blackouts in 2021 killed over 200 people. The ERCOT planners in 2018 had performed due diligence as Santee-Cooper is doing now with well respected consulting services to perform computer analyses of planned reserve margins. Do we need to learn the hard way as Texans did in 2021?
Facts to be Consider regarding Electricity and South Carolina’s High Quality of Life
The experiences of other states and other countries should be considered. I cited the examples of California, Texas and Hawaii above. Much analysis has been put into the planning by some very smart engineers and planners. However, computer modeling of the “Future” weather, fuel prices, EV use, population growth, industrial growth and other uncertainties, will likely create a need for other sources than wind and solar renewables. Just as Texas learned in 2021 after performing similar planning.
Primary Energy and Secondary Energy
Each S.C. resident on average uses about 300 million Btus per year in Primary Energy. If the trend to “Electrify Everything” continues, then more of the energy use currently provided at reasonble prices for transportation and our high quality of life, will be substituted for by (Secondary Energy) electricity or hydrogen. Such as more EV’s as the government is forcing us to use. Therefore, the growth of electricity demand may be much greater than expected. Thus, my title which relates to potential 9,000 MW Demand in 2050.
Over 50% of South Carolina’s electricity has been provided by nuclear power for decades. SC is rated as #3 in the nation in nuclear power generation. Nuclear power has served SC citizens and industry well. Safe, affordable, Base load capable at 90+% capacity factor and proven. However, the great record and importance of nuclear is not discussed by politicians or even utilities. For example, Palmetto Electric promotes the use of “Green Power” when in fact, it is a small contributor to the total portfolio of power generation. Here is an example of “Green indoctrination” by a bill insert that misleadingly leads citizens to believe that most of their power is from renewables:
The reality of our future electricity generation is that nuclear is the most important and least carbon intensive fuel for electricity generation. The plan to expand the Summer nuclear plant with two additional units was a very good idea. However, it was not to be because of poor management, limited trained talent and failure by Bankruptcy of Westinghouse, the primary contractor. The planned new Pee Dee coal plant near Florence was also a good idea and provided for natural growth of generating capacity to meet Demand. Pee Dee, (600 MW coal plant) in my understanding, was killed because of outside influence of Environmental Extremists. Had the Summer Units 2 & 3 and the 600 MW Pee Dee Clean Coal Plant been built as planned, then together these three units would have provided 2,800 MW of Base Load plus reliable, affordable and clean, Dispatchable Bulk Power. Including some reserve generation capacity.
Is the Great State of South Carolina going to sabotage our future just because other countries and states are doing so? I hope not.
Conclusions
The“War on Carbon” is based on politics and corrupted science. It is about Socialism and not about protecting the environment. The South Carolina Legislature seems to be just as gullible of the green myth as the current Federal government leaders.
The UN-IPCC is also Politically Driven and Not based on protection of the environment or to provide for the best interests of the people of the world. The Paris Climate Agreement is not in the best interests of America, the free western world or even for protection of the environment. It is politically motivated.
The path to Net Zero Carbon is steadily weakening our country. It will eventually destroy America’s productive capacity, lower our standard of living and place national security at risk. It will hasten the decline of America and the Rise of China.
America requires 100 Quadrillion BTUs of energy each year to sustain our quality of life. This is about 300 million BTUs per person, per year. Currently, after decades of subsidies, wind and solar provide about 5% of the total PRIMARY energy we use. Wind and solar cannot replace the other 95% of energy we need.
A Balanced Portfolio of Generating Capacity as is currently installed at Santee-Cooper generating plants, is the best path forward to sustain our high quality of life and economic prosperity. Reserve generation from dynamic generators is needed. Battery backup does not provide the same system voltage and frequency control as spinning reserve generator rotors do.
Electric generation planning in the 1970’s and 1980’s was better than today. There is no Energy Policy in America, there is only a decarbonization plan(4,5,6,7), there is no well thought out plan to replace the reliable and dispatchable generating capacity that is being shut down across the country. As during the 1970’s when nuclear units were late coming into service, the quickest available generating capacity was to install gas turbines. This is likely here in SC if the coal plants are retired before Dispatchable or Base Load replacement generation is installed.
Recommendations
Initiate a comprehensive Energy and Electricity Education program to provide 1. public education on energy, 2. Public School education on energy and electricity generation and 3. Public Technical/Trade School education to prepare youth for the construction workforce. Energy Education is recommendation #1 of the path forward. Public education is needed to reverse the myth that wind and solar can replace coal, gas and nuclear power generation. This is priority #1 because so many people are “Green Energy” indoctrinated.
Plan and continue to provide adequate Operations and maintenance funds for repairs and component replacements of the boilers, pumps, turbines and all of the equipment installed at the Cross Coal Plant. Keep the full 2,350 MW capacity so that it can be used until replacement generation is built and proven.
Construct the 600 MW Pee Dee Coal plant that the components were purchased for in 2009.
Plan and begin construction on at least 2,000 MW of nuclear capacity. (as was planned for the Summer Units 2 & 3). Please re-read recommendation #1 above.
Plan and construct at least 1,750 MW of combined cycle gas plants
The coal, nuclear and gas plants 2,3 & 4 could replace the existing Cross coal plant capacity, thus continuing a “Balanced Generation Portfolio”
Summary
South Carolina can be an example of applied Common Sense Energy policies that can be a model for the U.S.A. and for the world. The current reasonable cost electricity in SC is amongst the lowest cost in the nation. Over 50% is generated from 4 nuclear plants with seven units. Four of these 7 nuclear units started up in the 1970’s. These four units operating licenses will expire in the 2030’s. They may be extended for another 20 or 30 years by the NRC but, plans should be made to construct new nuclear units for replacement of carbon free, Dispatchable, reasonable cost electricity.
Every time I present a course on energy and electricity generation the comments come back, “You did not discuss Climate Change and Decarbonization”. My response is, I am not an atmospheric scientist. I am an experienced power engineer. My beef with the current path toward Net Zero Carbon is, there is not an organized plan to replace the vitally important electric generation that has kept our country strong. If the politicians were really serious about reducing carbon dioxide emissions and “Sustaining” our high quality of living, then nuclear plants would be on a fast track to construction. After the Summer 2 & 3 failure, SC politicians are rightfully concerned about the financial risks. Plant Vogtle in GA is an example of a major budget overrun. Last cost estimate that I saw shows that Vogtle will cost $34 Billion and the original planned cost was less than half the ultimate cost. Also, it took ten years to just get one of the units running.
In my opinion and research, I feel the war on carbon is a plan initiated by the U.N. (including competitors/enemies of the U.S.A.) and Socialists that have an agenda other than clean power generation. If we wish to “Sustain our high quality of life“, then we need a reasonable cost, abundant and reliable electricity supply. Nuclear is the most accepted approach to achieving that goal. Three examples of applying a Balanced Energy Portfolio with a high percentage of nuclear are S.C. (1970-2030), Sweden and Finland. For research into why I believe the “War on Carbon” is political, not environmentally driven, I have included dozens of references below. My concern for Santee-Cooper and for America is to keep our Bulk Power Supply safe, secure, reliable and affordable. Also, sourced from a U.S. Supply-Chain.
The Supply-Chain of all of the future generation equipment, in an ideal scenario, would be from U.S. sources. Including manufacturing and construction talent. The workforce education is a weakness that I believe had part in the $9 Billion dollar Summer 2 & 3 construction debacle. We should learn from the past 50 years of electric generating history. The successes and the failures.
Arshad Mansoor, CEO of EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute) LinkedIn post, April 25, 2023 on the CAISO System. EPRI Post on the CAISO “Duck Curve changed to Canyon Curve” of Electric Load: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/activity-7056612841755181056-SCPK?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop
In My opinion and research, the Path to Net Zero Carbon is Based on Corrupted Science and Political Ploys to Promote Socialism and One World Government, Not to Save the Planet or to Improve the Environment. Therefore, to substantiate this claim the following references are provided:
Each American that lives an above average life-style in our country uses about a million Btu’s per day. So, if the government wishes to outlaw fossil fuels through ever increasing regulations, then what are we prepared to give up? Politicians are continuing the war on carbon which began under the Clinton Administration in 1993. What freedoms are you and I willing to give up? As for me, and my family, I say none! As this is written, it is Memorial Day weekend and many fine Americans gave all so that we can enjoy our lives. The 2020 election created serious consequences for Americans to continue to live the American Dream.
Freedom & Sustainability
Joe Biden and the Democrats are doing their best to outlaw fossil fuels. This is un-American and in fact, anti-American sustainability. Sustainability to me, means to sustain our high quality of life and for our children and grandchildren to have an ever increasing quality of life. That is the way my God gifted life has gone, each year in general, became better with more manual work performed by energy. Some examples, modern electric appliances, power tools and yard tools. We depend on energy to replace muscle more than any time in history. Our quality of life is a result of using more energy and less muscle power. About a million Btus per day, per person. So, if Fossil Fuels are providing the majority of the energy we depend on (see 2021 LLNL chart below), then the Democrats must want us to scale back our quality of life? Because abundant, reasonable cost and reliable Energy is required to power our good lives. This includes the supply chain, fertilizer and food production, manufacturing, jobs, transportation and just about everything that makes living the American Dream possible. Fossil Fuels currently provide about 79% of our energy.
From Dick Storm ASME Presentation, “The Importance of Coal” 2011 Summer Annual Meeting
The illustrations above and below are copied from a presentation I gave to the Annual Meeting of the ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers) in 2011. This was following the Financial crisis of 2008. Remember that? The energy consumption of the U.S. in 2009 actually dropped from about 100 Quadrillion Btu’s per year to about 94.6 Quadrillion Btu’s/year. The point is, that energy does in fact provide for economic prosperity and our high quality of life. Freedom too!
Dick Storm, 2011 ASME presentation, Chart & data from EIA
In 2009 about 50% of America’s electricity was being generated by coal. That was before the Shale Gas Revolution. After the recovery from the 2008 Financial crisis, life became very good again. Actually, we Americans have been Blessed with very good lives for many decades. I have had the gift of living for seven decades of a wonderful life reaching all the goals I could have wished for as a child. Energy has played a big part of America’s rise during the last 100 years. Now each of us uses about a million Btu’s of energy each day.
A Million Btu’s per Day per Person
I would like to show the progression of America’s energy mix from 2008 to the present. A steady 94-102 Quadrillion Btu’s of “Total Primary Energy” have been used. This is important. Our lives (and the American Economy) have been powered by about the same quantity of energy at a fairly flat level since 2001. I will confine this discussion to energy use since 2008.
From Dick Storm Presentation 2011 to ASME Annual Meeting, The Importance of Coal
Coal fuel produced about 50% of America’s electric power up to about 2012 when the Shale Gas Revolution took over and natural gas became so abundant that fuel prices for gas dropped below coal. The graph below shows the trend of natural gas prices from 2006-2012. When natural gas dropped to about $2.00/million Btu it became very competitive with coal and in fact in certain areas of the U.S., a less expensive fuel than coal for power generation.
From Storm Technologies, Inc. Seminar Presentation, 2016
One more point. The sub heading above uses the word “Dispatch” Yes, about 90% of America’s Power was from Dispatchable Fuels. Solar and Wind are not Dispatchable. Renewable power comes onto the Grid as nature provides. Government subsidies and regulations allow it to be forced onto the Grid making it tough for Thermal power plants to back down or pick up load as fickle nature varies the output of wind and solar.
From Dick Storm OLLI Course , Energy Production Part 1, January 2021
Total Primary Energy Flows
Shown above is the Sankey Energy Flow Diagram for the year 2009. Below is the latest version of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Energy Flow Diagram for the year 2021. If you compare 2009 with 2021 Total Energy Flows, they are very close at 94.58 and 97.3 Quadrillion Btu’s. In 2019 America used right at 100.2 Quadrillion Btus. The economy was improving and 2019 was the year before the Covid Pandemic. So, as the economy improves, more energy is used. When the economy shrinks, less energy is used. This is TOTAL ENERGY which includes energy from all sources, including renewables. It also included electricity generation (about 37%) and Transportation (about 27%). Keep in mind that if we maintain or sustain our current freedoms of travel and lifestyles, likely the total energy use will remain rght at 100 Quadrillion Btus. Population increase and reshoring manufacturing will increase energy use above 100 Quad’s.
From Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory web-site
Can EV’s for Transportation Substitute Electricity for Petroleum?
There are about 280 million light trucks and cars on our highways today. All but about 11 million of these vehicles are fueled with gasoline and Diesel fuel. Heavy trucks for commerce are mostly Diesel powered and of course, airlines are fueled with Jet Fuel. These comprise fuel for transportation, which is about 28% of the Total Primary Energy used in the U.S. If these were all electrified then the electric power generation would need to vastly increase to use about 65% of the total primary energy. Of course, the about 8-10% of petroleum that is used for Jet Fuel will still be needed even if all other vehicles were replaced with EV’s. This is not practical any time soon. Check the excellent research that Donn Dears has done on this.(3)
Hydrogen as Fuel
Replacing petroleum with hydrogen fuel has been talked about for decades. Yes, it is feasible to use Electrolyzers to separate hydrogen and oxygen molecules from water and thus produce “GreenHydrogen”. However, it takes about 2.5 to 3 times more electricity to produce a unit of hydrogen than what that unit of energy will produce in electric power.
Conclusions
America uses about 100 Quadrillion btus each year. Over 79% of these energy units are provided by Fossil Fuels. Replacing them with renewables in the near term is at the very least, impractical. In my view it is impossible during my lifetime or the lifetime of my children.
Net Zero Carbon Policies are not driven by science or protection of the planet. They are politically driven for the benefit of politicians to wield power over the people.
Climate Policies are being formulated by politicians and non-science trained individuals.
Energy and Economic Prosperity are linked together. As shown in the Energy Flow diagrams above, when there was a recession in 2008-2009 America’s energy use declined. Likelwise during the 2020 Pandemic. As the Economy thrives, we use more energy. Energy is vital for a thriving economy.
America will continue to use 100 Quadrillion Btu’s per year and more when our economy is performing at it’s best. As population grows and hopefully, more manufacturing is reshored, energy use will rise. Solar and wind power cannot meet this increase.
New Nuclear plants are needed to keep a Balanced Electric Generation Portfolio(7,8,9)
By not keeping a Balanced Electric Generation Portfolio, America risks energy shortages and Blackouts(10)
All Developed Countries depend on reliable, affordable energy. In my opinion, a significant portion of the 100 Quadrillion Btu’s America has been using for decades, should continue to be supplied by coal fuel.(6, 22)
The Transportation fuels of gasoline and Diesel cannot be replaced in the short term with EV’s or Hydrogen.
If America continues on the Net-Zero Carbon Path, then it will lead to a reduction in our freedoms to live sustainable lives as we have been accustomed to. (11)
Energy is important not only to power our high quality of lives, but reasonable cost, abundant energy is also important to the supply chain and food production(17)
Dick Storm's Thoughts on Energy, Education, Economic Prosperity & Environmental Blog 