Category Archives: Energy and Electricity Fundamentals

Facts Matter: Even Trade Journals Provide a “Woke” Spin on Energy

Yesterday I looked at a recent article in POWER Magazine on power generation capacity additions planned for 2022-2023. I have always respected POWER Magazine and I even give them credit for sparking my interest in electric power generation when I started reading POWER while in college. I have been a contributing editor for POWER and have had numerous articles I wrote published. So, when I see POWER Magazine becoming Politically Correct or “Woke” like many other respected publications, I become concerned.

Here below is the chart they published:

POWER Magazine, December 2021

It looks innocent enough and it is backed up by the EIA as being factual. I think it is more important to lift up what is not said. That is that 78.3 Gigawatts is about 7% of the U.S.A.’s total generation “Capacity” but renewables are not Dispatchable and have low capacity factors when they are producing. For example, let me show a graph (below) from the EIA Real Time Grid in October 2021. Note that of the total generation of about 534,000 MW only about 5% is generated by solar and of course, this was during the daytime. Wind was slightly more but 80% of the generation of Bulk Power was from conventional gas, coal and nuclear. These are all Dispatchable forms of Bulk Power. Conventional, Dispatchable Bulk Power Generation is what powers American Industry and our lives. America depends on reliable power.

Lets go back to last January in the PJM Interconnection (Northeastern U.S.A.) Here is a screen shot of the electric power production during January 31, 2021. Remember January 2021? It was colder than normal and just a few weeks later Texas had their Backouts largely because of dependence on too much wind and solar capacity that was not available (not Dispatchable and not available due to ice and snow). The PJM Interconnection total generation at this moment was 123,512 MW. Renewables were 6,864 MW and most of the renewable power generation was from Hydro.

Getting back to POWER Magazine. They were kind enough to publish my Commentary from March 2021 which is here: https://www.powermag.com/blog/all-fuels-are-important-but-thermal-power-generation-is-still-number-1/ I stand behind these comments.

Also in January of 2021, another publication that I have great respect for, the Wall Street Journal produced a video on energy and electricity generation. I took a screen shot of that video and used it in my course at USCB-OLLI. It is copied below:

Screen shot from WSJ video on EnergyC

Conclusion:

Facts matter and even respected publications seem to have become Politically Correct or as is commonly referred to today as “Woke”. My concern is that irreparable harm has been done to America’s energy infra-structure and planning for the future. Why do I say this? Because if we look back on the past year, and the list of ten items below are from Andy May’s Blog site (11) these are some of the policies that have been thrust on the people:

  1. European wind died, and they had already closed their coal plants, thus forcing natural gas prices to skyrocket.
  2. In Texas, windmills providing 30% of their power froze and the Texas grid came within minutes of total failure. More than 200 people died due to the storm and four million were left without power.
  3. The UK Cop26 president, Alok Sharma, called on the world to “consign coal to history.” Instead, Russia, China, and India put off ending coal until after 2060. Joe Manchin ended Biden’s plan in the U.S.
  4. In one of the worst timed policy moves in history, Biden promised to ban fracking and he canceled the Keystone XL pipeline. He ended up on his knees begging U.S. oil and gas companies, the Saudis, and anyone else he could find to produce more oil and gas.
  5. The U.S.-based Nature Conservancy sold phony carbon offsets to publicly traded companies, like Blackrock, Disney, and JPMorgan.
  6. Joe Manchin vetoed Biden’s plan to federalize the U.S. electricity grid, which would have allowed him to outlaw producing electricity with fossil fuels.
  7. Western wildfires burned up Microsoft’s carbon offsets, which were forests in Oregon.
  8. Blackrock says sustainability (environmental) investing is nonsense.
  9. The Federal Reserve staff says no to Biden’s idea to use the Fed to kill lending to the fossil fuel industry.
  10. An Associated Press poll says the public is not interested in paying more to stop human-caused climate change.

Dick Storm, December 30, 2021

References:

  1. EIA Real Time U.S.A. Grid Electric Production: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/dashboard/electric_overview/US48/US48
  2.  EIA Short Term Outlook, Oct 2021: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=49976
  3. EIA Electricity Explained, Total U.S.A. Electric Generating Capacity 2020: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us-generation-capacity-and-sales.php
  4. PJM Interconnection Real Time Electricity Production by Fuel: https://www.pjm.com
  5. Dick Storm Short Course at USCB-OLLI Feb 2021, Energy and Electricity Generation
  6. Net Zero Watch Press Release, News of Energy Policy  Failure in UK: https://mailchi.mp/c65f20c55714/declare-an-energy-emergency-or-risk-economic-disaster-boris-johnson-warned-185978?e=9e46528ac6
  7. POWER Magazine Commentary, March 2021: Getting back to POWER Magazine. They were kind enough to publish my Commentary from March 2021 which is here: https://www.powermag.com/blog/all-fuels-are-important-but-thermal-power-generation-is-still-number-1/ I stand behind these comments.
  8. Power Magazine December 2021 Article on Solar, Storage and Renewable Power: https://www.google.com/url?q=https://ai.omeclk.com/portal/wts/ucmcmsbyFjmbbEjs%255EcyzgrmcFjfNqFbdj3jgnzBHFHl&source=gmail&ust=1640952340990000&usg=AOvVaw3mbcbw4_Er9kDluBBUKOwV
  9. Washington Free Beacon article on Solar Loan Guarantees: https://freebeacon.com/biden-administration/biden-megadonor-scores-500-million-federal-loan-for-solar-company/
  10. Junk Science Website on Environmental Policy Failures of 2021: https://junkscience.com/2021/12/unsung-zeroes-the-top-10-under-reported-climate-flops-of-2021/
  11. Andy May Climate Change Blog: https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2021/12/28/climate-change-2021/amp/

World Affairs Council, Their Take on the Importance of Coal for Electricity Generation

I joined the Hilton Head Chapter of the “World Affairs Council” and as a member, I get daily Newsletters. Today I received the message below on the world’s addition to coal (36% of Electricity Generation). The article included the SME Link to their web page on the Importance of Coal to the World. Energy, Food Production and Economic Prosperity are all inter-related. America has steadily used about 100 Quadrillion Btu’s each year for about twenty years. Fossil Fuels provide about 80% of the energy we depend on. Our quality of life and Freedom (especially freedom of travel) depends on reliable, reasonable cost energy. You probably already know this, but I suspect most of the Democrat elected officials (except Joe Manchin) and (D) voters do not.  Just saw yesterday in WSJ the impact of high fertilizer costs on farming. (High Natural Gas Prices Cause Rise in Fertilizer and Food Prices, Dec. 16, 2021: https://www.wsj.com/articles/surging-fertilizer-costs-push-farmers-to-shift-planting-plans-raise-prices-11639580768?mod=itp_wsj&mod=djemITP_h )

Dick Storm,

December 17, 2021

The article below is copied from the “World Affairs Council” Newsletter which was published today

Dec. 17, 2021 World Affairs Council

A Global Addiction

At the 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference in Glasgow last month, more than 40 countries pledged to phase out their use of coal. Richer countries expect to end coal burning in the 2030s, the BBC reported. Developing nations have set a 2040s deadline.

China, India and the US didn’t opt into the agreement, however. India agreed to “phase down” rather than “phase out” coal, for example, wrote National Public Radio. Diplomats viewed the shift as a compromise. Environmentalists were deeply disappointed. Coal is one of the biggest sources of greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change.

The black, combustible sedimentary rock that helped fuel the Industrial Revolution in Europe and the US in the late 18th and early 19th century is proving to be a thorny subject for world leaders, businesses and activists. Nearly everyone agrees that the world must wean itself off coal. But doing so is easier said than done. As the Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration explained on their website, “Coal is the most abundant source of electricity worldwide, currently providing more than 36 percent of global electricity.” Link to Coal is Important to the World: https://www.smenet.org/What-We-Do/Technical-Briefings/Coal-s-Importance-in-the-US-and-Global-Energy-Supp#:~:text=Coal%20is%20the%20most%20abundant,“home%20grown”%20energy%20source

In the long term, the future of coal is bleak. China has stopped funding the construction of coal plants overseas. The US has done the same. But today, after significant reductions in emissions during the worst of the coronavirus pandemic, coal-burning has surged back along with world economic growth, Deutsche Welle reported. Even as the US and Europe decrease their coal burning, Asian countries will likely pick up the slack as they race to develop their economies, added the World Economic Forum.

Low coal supplies helped cause electricity shortages as the pandemic waned in China, which accounts for more than half the world’s coal consumption, CNN wrote. Factories were forced to cut production. Reports of folks stuck in elevators embarrassed leaders in Beijing. It’s not surprising that Chinese officials promptly ordered up more mining.

Such problems are not limited to Asia. North Macedonia is planning to import coal from Kosovo to deal with energy shortages in its antiquated energy grid, according to Reuters. Household electricity prices in North Macedonia, meanwhile, are slated to rise by 10 percent in the new year.

Change is coming, however. In Australia, where Prime Minister Scott Morrison has long defended the country’s powerful coal industry, homeowners are forecast to install rooftop solar panels on nearly half the country’s houses in the next decade, Bloomberg reported. Australia is therefore expected to cut coal consumption faster than earlier estimates suggested. Morrison is now in the odd position of pledging not to shutter coal-fired plants too quickly, the Guardian explained.

He and other leaders are hanging on tightly when many believe it’s time to let go.”

In my opinion the “War on Carbon” is the most successful Hoax ever thrust on World. Perhaps during the coldest months of winter 2022, people will wake up? Memories are short regarding last years Blackouts in Texas and the fact that had over 6,000 MW of coal power generation NOT been retired, the Blackout and resulting deaths did not need to happen. This is my personal opinion, Dick Storm, Dec. 17, 2021

References for additional support

  1. World is depending on coal power during this time of energy shortages: https://oilprice-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Coal-On-Track-To-Break-Records-Despite-Efforts-To-Curb-Production.amp.html

Texas and Coal Power 6,000+ MW’s of Coal plant Capacity is missed!

Introduction:

My first assignment to Texas was as a young B&W Results Engineer. I was participating as one of the Results engineers to perform acceptance tests of a large (500 MW class) natural gas fueled boiler at the P.H. Robinson Plant near Houston. That was about 1968. After that involvement I watched with great interest as Texas built dozens of 500-750 MW natural gas and oil fueled plants all across Texas. Built by Foster-Wheeler, Combustion-Engineering and Babcock & Wilcox. Then came the Arab Oil Embargo in 1973 and Texas responded to this true energy crisis with an incredibly successful fuel change to power production changing from oil and gas to Texas and Wyoming coal. The huge build out of coal plants went from the late 1970’s till the mid 1980’s and I was impressed. I had the pleasure of working at many of the coal plants operated by various Texas Utility Companies and what impressed me most was the “Can Do” attitude of Texans. Then about 1978 I became very involved as a Field Engineer to help solve combustion and power generation challenges with ALCOA’s massive Rockdale, Texas Lignite Fueled Power Plant. Also in the mid 1980’s involvement with acceptance testing of the 450 MW Gibbons Creek Coal Plant near College Station.

Why am I writing this? It is because I am perplexed after watching for decades how Texans were so practical and innovative, they became enamored with Renewable Wind and Solar Power to a fault. I was not surprised that California had such foolish policies but found it odd that practical Texas would fall into the trap of too much dependence on unreliable, non dispatchable renewables.

In the 1970’s Texas rallied to successfully change from oil and gas fuel to coal. In 2021-2022 I see Texas rallying again to overcome the problem of over-dependence on renewables.

The Good Old Days of Coal Power and Aluminum Production in Rockdale

Here is how coal power in Texas helped to build some of the most productive aluminum manufacturing in North America. A major contributor to the local economy and manufacturer of critical metals for America at the same time providing over 1600 jobs. A story to document the relationship of reasonable cost energy and economic prosperity.

The following is from the Milam County Archives, 1974:

On November 24, 1952, something strange happened in the small, agriculturally-oriented Central Texas town of Rockdale. A visitor, seemingly from a different world, changed the living habits of its people along with the general tempo and appearance of its community. 

The courting days of the 1950’s has now, nearly 22 years later, turned into a love affair unmatched in many communities between industry and townspeople. 

It began innocently enough. The Korean War was raging on and government needed aluminum to make airplanes. Aluminum Company of America needed a new facility to meet the demand. Rockdale, with its large lignite reserves, was the apple in Alcoa’s eye. 

Thousands of acres of the “Cinderella fuel” nestled beneath the earth’s crust gave rise late in 1951 to the establishment of the aluminum industry in Milam County. Aluminum production demands electric power to break down ore, shipped in from South America, to form the lightweight, corrosion-free metal. 

Demand for the metal by government and this abundance of the electrical energy- producing fuel triggered boom-like industrialization when Alcoa’s multi-million dollar Rockdale Works raced into production only 13 months after groundbreaking. 

Tipping the giant vat to cast the first aluminum ingot were the plant’s first boss (now Alcoa board chairman and chief executive officer) John D. Harper and smelting division manager R. T. Whitzel of Pittsburgh corporate headquarters.

Today, Rockdale Works is Aluminum Company of America’s largest worldwide metal producer with eight potlines and the capacity for turning out 280,000 tons annually or 1.5 million pounds per 24-hour, continuous operation day. 

The original four-potline plant was expanded by two more lines in 1956 and the Central Texas smelter became Alcoa’s largest in 1969 with the addition of the seventh and eighth lines. For the first time, Alcoa began producing more aluminum in Texas than in any other state. Rockdale Works and Point Comfort Operations down on the Gulf Coast have a joint capacity for making 455,000 tons annually. 

Rockdale Works has one of the world’s biggest carbon electrode-making facilities and a diversified ingot plant which converts molten aluminum into extrusion, sheet and remelt ingot. The latter produces everything from a 50-pound to a 22,000-pound product. 

A couple of fabricating facilities further enhanced the company’s local investment in the 1960’s. An atomized aluminum powder unit was built in 1966 and has been expanded twice. It’s now the biggest aluminum powder producer in the U. S. Then came a redraw rod facility in 1968 which spews out “raw material” for Alcoa’s electrical conductor-or wire-fabricating plants, primarily its nearby Marshall (Texas) Works. 

The Rockdale story is like many across the Developed World. Reasonable cost and abundant energy is used to fuel a manufacturing facility with the end result of not only manufacturing vital materials but also contributing to employment, funding the local tax base and infra-structure and more. Energy and Economic prosperity go hand in hand. Now, the four power generating units at Sandow Station are shut down. The Rockdale Plant is for sale and aluminum is no longer manufactured here. It was a great run from 1952 till about 2008 when the Chinese took over the aluminum smelting market.

https://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/news/2017/12/22/alcoa-to-close-texas-site-divest-italian-smelter.html

Recent Shutdown of 6,453+ MW of Coal Capacity

Including the Sandow Plant which was adjacent to the ALCOA Rockdale Plant, there were five other robust, reliable coal plants shutdown. These are:

Sandow 1252 MW, Oklaunion 650 MW, Monticello 1,980 MW, J.T. Deely 932 MW, Big Brown 1,186 MW, TMPA Gibbons Creek 453 MW.

Perhaps the renewable wind and solar power capacity made some folks feel good when it was purchased and installed. I am sure it made the environmental extremists happy to see these coal plants gone. However, the people in the great state of Texas sure could have used the reliable electricity that could have been produced from these plants, had they not been prematurely shut down.

Hayden Ludwig published this short video on the Capital Research web site on more sinister reasons of America’s foolish Green Energy policies: https://capitalresearch.org/article/how-china-designed-american-environmental-policy/

It personally saddens me to see the loss of the aluminum manufacturing in Rockdale which essentially was given up to Chinese aluminum smelting capacity. It saddens me also to see the unneccessary suffering of the people of Texas. The environmental extremists may be happy to have successfully hoodwinked the politicians on the evils of carbon. Perhaps now is the time to account for the costs in the loss of American jobs, economic prosperity, the powering of heat pumps, Refineries and Businesses and often overlooked, contributions to the local schools and government infrastructure & tax base.

Dick Storm

February 19, 2021

THE IMPORTANCE OF ENERGY, Part 3 , Heat-ENGINES, A Primer

The U.S. Department of Energy, through the EIA (Energy Information Administration) keeps up with the energy used by America. The measurement used is the BTU or British Thermal Unit. One BTU is the amount of heat required to raise one pound of water (about a pint) one degree Fahrenheit. Thus heating a pound of water from 32 degrees F. to 212 degrees F. requires 180 BTU’s. So, why is it important to know how many Btu’s are utilized? The reason is that 90% of the energy used in America is used by Heat-Engines to provide the motive force for vehicles, airplanes, drive electric generators and power industry. America in 2019 used about 100.2 Quadrillion Btu’s. Here is how these units of heat energy were utilized:

Most folks don’t think about Heat-Engines and their importance to provide our everyday high quality of lives. The facts are that Fossil Fuels, Nuclear and Thermal Power from Biomass together consume about 90% of our total energy. Did you ever consider that a Boeing 747 at cruise will consume about a gallon of jet fuel a second and burn about ten tons of jet fuel/hour of flight time. Everyday when you are driving you enjoy the convenience of your personal vehicle and see many large trucks delivering needed goods to local stores or shipping interstate. Electric vehicles are becomeing more common on the highway, but they too are using energy that originated (80+%) as either coal, natural gas or nuclear energy. An electric vehicle such as a Tesla uses stored electricity to power the vehicle. The electricity to charge the batteries (usually) comes from the American electric grid, most of which (about 80%) is provided by conventional energy of natural gas, nuclear and coal.

The intent of this chapter is to describe Heat-Engines. So lets first look at the example of a steam turbine commonly used in thermal power generation plants.

The simplified process of converting chemical energy of fuel to heat, to steam and then converting the heat energy to turn a magnet in a coil of wire to produce electricity

Each Btu is worth 778 foot pounds of mechanical Energy if converted from heat to work at 100% efficiency.

In essence, this is the process that takes place in all steam powered thermal power plants. Whether wood, coal, Biomass, natural gas or nuclear fueled. The heat is used to generate steam and then the steam is passed through a steam turbine to produce electricity. The figure below shows examples of heat engines that we depend on every day. Each of these converts heat energy from fossil fuels into motive force for either transportation or the generation of electricity.

Each of the examples above are heat engines. The auto and aircraft engines are internal combustion engines. The car uses a gasoline engine. The jet airliner uses a jet engine. The steam turbine (is really an external combustion engine) in the lower center has the top half of the shell removed to expose the turbine blading and rotor. The large reciprocating Diesel engine driven generator in the lower right is a drive engine for a ship and uses the Diesel cycle. Another version of a reciprocating internal combustion engine is the natural gas fueled, spark ignited gas engine. A natural gas reciprocating engine will look very similar to a Diesel or gasoline reciprocating engine. The steam turbine uses steam generated in a boiler, thus the combustion is external to the steam turbine and it would be considered an “External Combustion Engine”.

Modern Coal plants use the Rankine steam cycle to generate electricity.

The process of converting coal energy to electricity is shown below. In this example about 0.8 pound of coal is used to generate one kilowatt of electricity. One kilowatt hour of electricity is about the same as using ten 100 watt light bulbs or one toaster for an hour.

A simplified steam power plant fueled by coal

The illustration is greatly simplified. In order to achieve high efficiency a clean coal fueled power plant has lots of complicated equipment and the steam turbine is multiple stages of highly precise manufacture. A typical electric utility scale steam turbine is shown below. This is the prime mover to spin the rotor (magnet) of the generator.

The illustration above is a large electric utility scale steam turbine. A typical 600 MW steam turbine will utilize about 4.2 million pounds of steam flowing through it per hour at 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The flow of 4.2 million pounds of steam per hour is equivalent to about 8,403 gallons per minute of water flow entering the steam generator. Therefore, all of the components of the steam generator, fuel handling and emissions control devices are huge in size.

A schematic of a modern coal plant which utilizes the Rankine steam cycle is shown below. This shows the water, steam, cooling water flows through the boiler, steam turbine-generator and condenser. The illustration does not include the enormous amount of equipment for fuel preparation and emissions control. Solid fuels require much more equipment to convert the heat to electricity than liquid or gaseous fuels.

Here below is a modern four unit, 2,400 MW coal power plant. In this example, the four boilers are the tallest structures and are about as tall as twenty story building. The stacks are about 300 ft tall. The plume of gases coming our of the stacks is water vapor. This is steam released as the exhaust flue gases are cleaned from sulfur using limestone slurry of water and powdered lime. Known in the industry as Flue Gas Desulfurization. So the white plumes are simply water vapor from the cleaned flue gases. Also within the plumes are the invisible gases of nitrogen, carbon dioxide and oxygen.

A modern coal power plant with four units and including FGD (Flue Gas Desulfurization) and SCR (Selective Catalytic Reactor) to remove oxides of nitrogen emissions

A 2,400 MW power plant when operating at full capacity (depending on the heating value of the coal fuel) will burn about 2,000,000 pounds per hour of coal. Supplied by 100 ton rail cars this is about 10 rail cars per hour of fuel. The raw coal supplied from the mines is pulverized to a fine powder slightly more coarse than face powder and is conveyed to the furnaces using fans to mix the powdered fuel with air. The coal is burned in suspension in the furnaces much like a huge gas flame. A schematic of a typical Utility scale Steam Generator (Boiler) is shown below.

A Typical 600 MW Utility Scale Steam Generator. The furnace is approximately 40 ft. deep by 80 ft wide and about 150 feet tall. A Unit such as this will burn about 133 pounds of coal per second and the products of combustion will be completely burned out and converted to hot gases in about one second in the furnace. The coal particles are an average size of about 60 microns and burn as a gas. The grey device on the lower left of the illustration above represents a coal pulverizer. A boiler this size will usually have five or six large coal pulverizers to supply the fuel to the furnace.

This description is intended for High School students and to provide a brief overview of the various heat-engines that we depend on each day. Suffice it to say, a large coal power plant is a very complicated and very large complex of equipment. In essence a huge “Heat-Engine” that uses solid fuel, coal. The coal is burned in the furnace above reaching peak temperatures of about 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit. As the products of combustion pass through the boiler the water entering is heated to steam at up to 1,150 degrees F. and the flue gases (Products of combustion) are cooled to about 300 degrees F. The flue gases are then treated with emissions equipment to remove the oxides of nitrogen, the sulfur and the solid ash particulates. The solid ash particles are referred to as being Flyash and today much of the flyash is recycled to use in high strength concrete. Much of the FGD scrubber slurry waste (calcium sulfate) is recycled into sheetrock for home building.

A modern, clean coal plant such as the above example may require a staff of about 160 full time employees. One of the reasons coal plants have difficulty competing with natural gas plants is the large number of personnel and the costs of fuel preparation, maintenance and cost of chemical reagents to remove the sulfur and oxides of nitrogen from the exhaust gases. A Gas Turbine Combined cycle plant of four units and also producing 620 MW will require a staff of about 25 employees. A four unit 2,400 MW of power will require a much smaller staff than a similar sized coal plant, about 40 full time employees.

The choice of the fuel and prime mover depends on the geography and availability of coal, natural gas or nuclear fuel. Alaska for example is most suitable for coal because there is not a network of gas pipelines. Also, the demand for power is less than would be justified to construct a large nuclear plant. Coal plants are also common and competitive in Developing Nations such as African and Asian countries.

Background on How Natural Gas Plants Using Aeroderivative Gas Turbine Drives Have Replaced Much of America’s Coal Electric Power Generation

Up till about the year 2010 about 50% of America’s electricity was generated from coal and about 20% from nuclear. Then came Hydraulic Fracturing and oil and gas production in the U.S.A. from locations that were not anticipated before, such as North Dakota and Pennsylvania. The U.S.A. after ten years or so of successful and highly productive Hydraulic Fracturing and directional drilling, the U.S.A. has become the world’s #1 oil and gas producing nation. What does this mean? It means economic prosperity for the U.S.A. but also it has been a disruptive economic force in electric power generation. Because about 75% of the production cost of electricity from a coal plant is fuel, the new low cost natural gas has made natural gas a less expensive fuel option for power generation. In addition, the Gas Turbine Combined Cycle Power Plants have become the most efficient “Heat-Engines” ever developed. A GTCC Power Plant has far less components than a similar sized coal plant, thus a much smaller staff and overall has lower operations & maintenance production cost. (GTCC=Gas Turbine Combined Cycle) Because of the small staff the main production cost for electricity from a GTCC plant is fuel. The natural gas fuel is about 90% of the production cost of electricity from a GTCC plant.

Further, not only lower fuel costs than coal, the GTCC plants are now approaching 65% Thermal Efficiency. More on thatin a later chapter on economics of power generation.

How Did Jet Airplane Engines Fit Into Electric Power Generation?

Jet aircraft engines have been used for air travel and military uses since the 1950’s. The jet engine is another form of internal combustion engine. For jet airplanes, the engine creates hot air and gases that are forced out the rear of the engine thus causing thrust, a force to propel the airplane forward. For planes designed to fly less than about 450 mph, such as Regional Air Transportation, a Turbo-Prop is more efficient than jet thrust alone. A derivation of the jet engine is to use the hot air and combustion products to force over a gas turbine rotor and turn a shaft which in turn drives a propellor. This is called a “Turbojet”. Many Regional commuter airliners use propellors driven by a turbojet engine. A turbo-prop engine is shown below.

Turbo-Prop Engine fueled by jet fuel. The jet engine provides hot gases to spin the turbine which creates shaft power to drive the propellor.

The jet engines and turbo prop engines have advanced in power and efficiency drastically since first use during WWll. The advancements have been applied to Gas Turbines used for power generation in stationary power plants. This gas turbine engines which are derived from the best aviation jet engines to power generation have been referred to as “Aeroderivative”. That is because the R&D that was invested in developing the most powerful and highly efficient jet engines has been adapted to electric power generation using natural gas fuels. The G-E “F Class” Series of “Gas Turbine as installed in many modern natural gas fueled power generation plants. A G-E Gas Turbine is shown below. Siemens, Mitsubishi, Rolls-Royce, Pratt-Whitney and a few other world manufacturers also design and manufacture large Utility Scale Gas Turbines.

As described earlier, the gas turbine drives a shaft which is connected to a generator to produce electricity. Here is a schematic of the gas turbine combined cycle plant exhausting heat to a steam generator that then provides steam to a steam turbine. This is called a Gas Turbine, Combined Cycle Power Plant. The combined cycle is using two cycles for power generation, the internal combustion (Brayton) cycle and the external combustion (Rankine) steam cycle. By combining the two cycles overall efficiencies have reached the highest of any other thermal power generatioin cycle or process at up to 65% efficient.

A modern 620 MW Gas Turbine, Combined Cycle Power Plant is shown below. This is the Duke Energy, Buck Plant located near Salisbury, NC.

Duke Energy’s Buck Gas Turbine Combined Cycle Power Plant located near Salisbury, NC

South Carolina has generated about 28.6% of the electricity consumed from natural gas fuel. Most of that is through gas turbine combined cycle plants similar to the Duke Buck Plant in the photo above. FYI, North Carolina generated about 33% of that states electricity from natural gas.

Up to this point we have discussed the reciprocating gasoline engine, the Diesel, coal plants, jet engines and gas turbines. All of these are variations of “Heat-Engines” they convert heat energy into thrust or shaft horsepower that is a motive force for either propulsion of a vehicle, train, ship or plane or for turning a shaft that drives an electric generator. These engines consume a high percentage of the total energy utilized in America. Next covered is nuclear which has generated about 18-20% of America’s electric power for decades. A nuclear plant produces steam using the heat of nuclear fission. The steam is then passed through a steam turbine, much the same as in a coal plant described above. Here below is a schematic of a nuclear power plant using a pressurized water reactor,

An example of a pressurized water reactor system for generating electricity from nuclear power. The Turbine-Generator and condenser are similar to those utilized in a large coal plant.

Electricity generated from nuclear power also utilizes the steam turbine prime mover as a massive heat engine. Instead of using combustion to provide the heat to produce steam, a nuclear power plant utilizes nuclear fission within the reactor vessel. The primary coolant for the nuclear reaction is water under high pressure so that it will not boil. This loop of hot, pressurized water is circulated through the steam generator where the heat is transferred to the secondary cycle which provides the steam flow to drive the steam turbine. Another version of a “Heat-Engine”

Other Heat-Engines that We Depend on

You have heard of renewable power generation which includes Hydro-electric, solar, wind and biomass. Solar and wind usually generate power directly, although there are a couple of hybrid designs that utilize sunlight to boil water and produce steam. These will not be discussed here.

Biomass fuel such as waste wood or processed wood chips is used much like coal in a boiler furnace to produce steam to drive a turbine generator, Then there is Bio-Fuels such as Ethanol made from corn which is added to gasoline and burned in Internal Combustion engines of our cars and trucks.

Another form of Biomass fuel is Landfill Gas which is methane that is generated from decaying garbage in landfills. This gas is collected and piped to power boilers to generate steam and electricity.

Lastly, a small amount of electricity is generated in the U.S.A. by geothermal power. This is usually in the western U.S.A. in California and Nevada where hot rocks below the ground are used to generate steam which is then passed through a steam turbine generator.

The above serves as a primer to become familiar with the importance of heat engines in our everyday lives.

Dick Storm, September 9, 2020

Energy and Economic Prosperity, my thoughts: Dick Storm

REAL ESTATE PRACTICES COMMITTEE

Delaware County Bar Association

July 15, 2016

Energy for America

Sunshine, Wind, Nuclear and Fossil Fuels

How Energy Policies and Federal Regulations are Impacting Economic Prosperity

By Richard F. (Dick) Storm, PE, CEM

Introduction

The name of the seminar series suggests that you might be interested in the inter-relationship of energy, environmental and trade policies that impact the economy, Real-Estate demand and jobs for Middle Class Americans. Here are my observations from my own experiences and travels as to how I think the “Four E’s” are inter-related”. What are the fours E’s? Energy, Environmental, Education of energy and environmental science and Economic Prosperity. These are my personal views which are based on my five decades of working as an engineer in the electric power generation business.

Energy fuels America’s manufacturing, jobs, transportation, heating, air conditioning, lighting and is essential for all of our commercial, industrial production, good paying jobs and financial well-being. In summary, abundant, reliable and reasonable cost Energy is essential to sustain our everyday lives. Just think of the last extreme weather event that cut off your electricity for a few hours or a single day. How about life altering shortages of gasoline as us older folks remember from the Arab Oil Embargoes of 1974-1980?  The purpose of this presentation is to cover the inter-relationship of energy with the economy. An example of energy and primary metals production will be explained to show how rising costs of green power & the war on carbon, combined with International Trade policies has harmed employment by destroying millions of Middle Class manufacturing jobs. Current U.S.A. Regulations and Policies are helping to drive American Manufacturing overseas. Where does our energy come from? How do Renewables fit in? What are the realities of energy supply? The comparative costs? How about National Security? Federal and state regulations are harming America’s competitiveness in manufacturing, driving jobs overseas and causing a decline in American productive capacity. We need policies that will return America to a Nation that Builds and exports products. The notion that America can remain strong as a “Services only  Economy” is wrong, in my opinion. In the following presentation, I will do my best to show the facts of why I believe this. The topics I wish to cover are in two parts:

  1. Energy and the Relationship of Reasonable Cost Electricity to Manufacturing in the U.S.A. (Connecting the dots of energy and environmental regulatory policies to Real-Estate)
  • Relationship of Energy & Economic Prosperity
  • Why the Decline of American Middle Class Economic Prosperity from the loss of Manufacturing Jobs? Trade, Currency Manipulation, Unions, Regulations
  • Manufacturing and Energy Costs Are Related, so where have American jobs gone?
  • Transfer of Manufacturing Capacity Overseas and Trade w/China
  • The Four E’s; Energy, Environmental, Education and Economic Prosperity
  • The loss of “Middle Class American Jobs” is a loss of potential homeownership, contributing to the wide separation of incomes between wealthy and working class folks.
  • America needs to build and export more products made in the U.S.A.
  1. Energy and Electricity Production in the U.S.A.
  • Energy Production in PJM Region
  • Regulations and Energy Costs in U.S.A.
  • Renewable Power
  • Nuclear Power
  • Coal Power
  • Natural Gas
  • Today’s Cost of Competitive Electricity Generation
  1. Relationship of Energy and Economic Prosperity

The NASA Composite Photo, “Earth at Night” shows the world at night. You can see the difference of thriving economies and the Developing World by the level of illumination. The stark differences of lights in Africa and North Korea are striking and for those of us who have traveled to South America, Asia and Africa it is not a surprise. However, Americans take our abundant and secure energy for granted. Public education and the News Media are promoting Renewable “Green” Power and suggesting that we can eliminate the use of fossil fuels in our lifetime. America and the rest of the Developed World depends on Fossil Fuels for over 80% of our energy. This presentation will attempt to highlight the relationship of energy and economic prosperity.

NASA-The Earth at Night a composite photograph

North & South Korea at night. This photo presents a stark contrast of North Korea’s version of Socialism and South Korea’s Freedom and Capitalism. Abundant and reasonable cost electricity combined with Freedom, improves the quality of life.

 

The figure above was presented by Carl Bauer then of the National Energy Technology Laboratory about 2007. I was impressed with the clear relationship of GDP per person and energy use. This relationship applies to the U.S.A. as well. As our economy and manufacturing boom, people are working overtime spending money for vacation travel and enjoying life, we use more energy than if we stay at home and conserve. Then there are the ever increasing numbers of electrical gadgets that we all love. Soon to come are more attractive electric cars such as the Tesla. Think about where the electricity to power these will come from. I will cover that later.

  1. Why the decline of the American Dream for Middle Class Americans? What does Economic Prosperity have to do with energy or National Energy Policies?

You are a group of lawyers and Real-Estate Professionals and a fair question would be, “What does energy, green energy policies and environmental policies have to do with me?” Well, not directly but the ever increasing Federal Regulations to force green power on the public is harming America’s productive capacity. Of course it is more complicated than just the cost of electric power. There are other important factors that impact America’s competitiveness and manufacturing. Amongst these other factors are: International Trade Policies, Unions, China’s manipulation of their currency, Dumping of primary metals and manufactured products on the world markets and others.

Let me make a point here. This is an Election year and there are two clearly different approaches to the Economic Recovery of America. I submit that the main problem cannot be handled by changing the President or his or her Party, The problem with the decline of American prosperity has much to do with Federal and State Regulations. For example, the EPA, Department of Energy, Department of State, Dept. of the Interior, IRS, Banking Regulators and more remain no matter which party has the office of President. When I contact my Congressman, he politely lets it be known that there is little he can do about the “Professional specialists that are employed in the EPA or other Government Agency”. These people are thought to be as professionals to protect public health and safety. But since the EPA was formed in 1970 and the Dept of Energy in 1977, they have outlived their purposes and simply create new regulations each year, further harming America’s productive capacity. Check the CEI (Competitive Enterprise Institute) web site and Wayne Crews annual “10,000 Commandments”. These provide some further insight to my suggestion that it is an excessive Regulations problem.

My expertise and experience is in power generation so I will focus on where our power and energy comes from and how we use it.  First, let’s take a look at the total energy used in America and the source of that energy. The figure below is called a Sankey Diagram. The thickness of each bar is representative of the amount or percentage of each form of energy flow from the supply on the left side to the use or demand on the right side.

This figure is provided by the EIA (Energy Information Agency) and the above data is from 2014. It shows the total U.S.A. energy consumption of about 98.32 Quadrillion Btu’s. Let’s round it off to 100 Quadrillion Btu’s. What does this represent? Well, if we divide the 100 Quad’s by a population of about 320 million persons then the equivalent visualized energy would be as shown on the next figure. Each American Citizen uses about 334 million Btu’s per year. This is average. Some of us have larger homes, some drive more, some fly more in commercial jet aircraft. Manufacturing to provide jobs, travel, home heating and cooling and Mall lighting and heating all require energy. The intent of the next chart is to illustrate what 334 million Btu’s is equivalent to in coal, oil, gasoline, propane, jet fuel and diesel fuel. This slide was prepared using 2007 data and the total American energy use that year was over 101 Quadrillion Btu’s. The economy was also stronger and growing then. Population was smaller too.

Worth remembering is our high school science class definition of a Btu. A British Thermal Unit is the amount of heat that will raise one pound of water (about a pint) one degree Fahrenheit. Another equivalence that is important is that if each Btu was converted into mechanical energy at 100% efficiency, then one Btu=778 Foot pound of work. This is where the term “Heat Engines” comes in. “Heat Engines” sometimes called “Prime Movers” are at the root of a thriving modern economy. Thus, the government measures and reports “Quadrillion Btu’s” as a measure of America’s and the world’s energy production and consumption.

So, what does this have to do with home sales and the American Dream for the Middle Class Americans? As America has implemented more and more Federal and State Regulations, the cost of electricity and regulations on energy use for manufacturing has crept up. As I stated before there are other factors too. But the cold hard facts of manufacturing employment are less people are employed in manufacturing today than are employed in government. The total “net” number of manufacturing jobs has declined from over 17 million in 1998 to currently, about 12.3 million.  Some have said that up to 8 million manufacturing jobs have been lost to China alone. Therefore, the loss of five million net jobs takes into consideration the new jobs that have been created since 1998. These figures can be checked with the US BLS (Bureau of Labor Standards) and the NAM (National Association of Manufacturers).

Most of these were “Middle Class, head of household” job holders. Think about major Pennsylvania companies alone such as US Steel, Bethlehem Steel, ALCOA, Sun Shipbuilding, Scott Paper and many more.

  1. So where have the jobs gone?

I have lived the last 45 years or so in the south. Once the textile capital of the world, I was told from a retired executive of Wiscassett Mills, that Cannon Mills (Wiscassett Mills was a subsidiary of Cannon Mills)) had about 60% of the world market for towels, sheets and pillow cases in the 1960’s. North Carolina was also the Furniture Capital of the world. Hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs from textiles and furniture were lost from North and South Carolina over a couple decades. Why? Unfair trade policies under NAFTA. Here in Pennsylvania this was the Steel Capital of the world. This state has also lost hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs in the primary metals business.

In 2006 the CEO of NUCOR Steel, Dan DiMicco wrote a book entitled, “Steeling America’s Future” This book sub title is, “A CEO’s Call to Arms, Saving Manufacturing through Free Trade”. An important message focused on our Trade policies and the impact of world trade on the Steel Industry in America.  DiMicco’s   message was prescient and important then and still is now. China’s steel manufacturing capacity has grown to be over 50% of the world production capacity. NUCOR Steel is America’s largest Steel producing company. NUCOR became the largest U.S.A.  Steel producer and outperformed other U.S.A. manufacturers. How?  With higher productivity and lower production costs by introduction and perfecting the Mini Mill concept using scrap steel for feedstock to produce steel alloys and shapes to order, rather than integrated mills using iron ore, coke and limestone. NUCOR is Americas largest steel producer and the world’s largest steel recycler. NUCOR’s furnaces are electric arc and utilize about as much electricity for one furnace as a medium sized city. Upwards of 175 MW for just one steel melting furnace. This is one example of the relationship of reasonable cost electric power and jobs in America.

The demise of Pennsylvania’s high paying jobs in steel production is well known by those of us who are over 60. Pennsylvania is/was the home state of Bethlehem Steel, US Steel, Phoenix Steel, Sharon Steel and others. Only US Steel survives of these and now it is at a fraction of the productive capacity of the 1960’s.

Another fine Pennsylvania company once the size of G-E and now defunct, is Westinghouse Electric Company.

Let’s take a look at a surviving Pennsylvania metals company that is still viable but has been significantly downsized in the last decade. That company is ALCOA. In 2006 Alcoa employed over 120,000 employees. Now according to the 2015 Annual Report they employ about 60,000 worldwide.

The Aluminum Company of America known as ALCOA since about 1998 was founded in 1888 and still has their world headquarters in Pittsburgh. ALCOA currently employs about 28,000 in the U.S.A. the other 32,000 jobs are overseas.  ALCOA aluminum production helped us win WWll, build the best commercial aircraft in the world and have made some of the finest engineering breakthroughs using lightweight aluminum alloys. The newest Ford F-150, latest G-E Aircraft engines and Audi automobiles are three examples of ALCOA assisted engineering breakthroughs. So, if we are so good at engineering, innovation and creativeness, then why are so many of our jobs leaving the U.S.A. ?

Of course, it is not as simple as blaming energy and environmental rules that have gone rogue. It is at least nine factors which include energy regulations, misguided public education and excessive environmental laws for three of the nine:

  • Currency manipulation by our International trading partners
  • Trade Policies such as NAFTA which killed the Textiles and furniture industries in the south
  • Foreign manufacturers “Dumping” of products in America. Especially Steel & Aluminum
  • Unions which contributed to the demise of the US Steel and Aluminum Industries
  • Robots and automation of manufacturing processes to minimize human labor
  • Excessive Federal Government Regulations by non-elected Bureaucrats
  • Excessive Environmental and Energy Rules/Laws
  • Misguided Public education on the fundamentals and truth of energy production and environmental protection
  • Business concerns for the “Uncertainty” of future Federal Regulations

 

As America’s manufacturing workforce has declined, China’s has increased at an exponential rate. China has dumped steel and aluminum on the world markets and risen to be the largest manufacturer of steel and aluminum in just a decade. This has been done at the expense of American jobs. Here are several figures that illustrate the rise of China and the relationship of energy production/consumption in China.

 

Reasonable cost electricity is important to power competitive  manufacturing production. China has increased their productive capacity in part because of low cost coal power generation. Also, aided by low wages and currency manipulations. Please note the exponential growth of coal power production. China has built over 150 new coal plants in the last decade. India is also building many new coal plants. The Asian’s get it. Reasonable cost energy is needed to create economic growth and jobs.

The photo above is aluminum ingots for export from China. Photo courtesy of the Wall Street Journal. Dumping primary metals is possible with no regard for profitability in a Socialistic/Communist Nation. Full employment is important for the “Subjects” or “Communist Comrades” but unlike ALCOA, US Steel or Nucor Steel, the Chinese do not need to make a profit. They can and do produce enormous quantities of commodities and dump them on the world markets. When competition becomes difficult for them, then they manipulate their currency to make their exports more attractive.

Here are a series of graphs that illustrate the transfer of American Manufacturing Capacity to China. These are from reliable sources including the WSJ, US Government, Congressional Research Service, ALCOA Annual Report and the International Aluminum Institute.

 

 

Note the ramping up of Chinese aluminum capacity reached exponential growth rates starting about 2006. ALCOA employment that year was over 120,000 employees.

The world map with total aluminum production below shows China and the world production as of April 2016. China is less than a decade has increased their primary aluminum production capacity to now exceed 50% of the world capacity.

The future for American competitiveness is harmed by the loss of manufacturing in at least six ways:

  • Once a smelter is shut down it is very expensive to restart
  • Skilled craftsmen and technicians are lost
  • Engineering personnel are retired and their expertise is lost
  • Research & Development for new processes and advanced products are reduced because of the lack of funding from profitable manufacturing cash-flow
  • Reduced American jobs drive more College Students to study Humanities and Arts studies that have (mostly) dead end employment opportunities
  • Once prices are driven down by “Dumping” the consumers of aluminum ingot metal become accustomed to the artificially low prices and are reluctant to pay higher prices for American manufactured aluminum.

If you doubt the above, think about what China has done to the United States Steel Industry. It is hard for my son’s company, Storm Technologies to purchase US Made pipe and plate. When he does it is at greatly higher prices and longer lead times than Chinese steel. Even the recently completed San Francisco-Oakland Bridge was constructed of Chinese Steel. Worse yet, Chinese engineering and construction. This erosion of our intellectual and creative capacities, combined with the loss of productive manufacturing capacity is not helpful for our next Generation. This also contributes to the loss of Middle Class jobs and is related to Real-Estate sales.

More worrisome for the long term is the loss of funding for Research and Development of new products, most of which (R&D) has been funded by Industry from a portion of profits of manufacturing. So, as we lose manufacturing we also decline in intellectual property advancement for building products in the U.S.A.

The smelting of aluminum using the electrolytic process pioneered by the Aluminum Company of America uses about 6-7 kW of electricity to produce one pound of metal. It is one of the most electricity intensive manufacturing processes for a common metal. Low cost electricity is imperative to produce aluminum. For example, the aluminum ingot price on the London Metal Exchange is currently about $0.65 per pound. If it takes six kilowatts of electricity to produce one pound of aluminum, then at the US Wholesale electric rate of about $0.06/kW the electricity component for smelting alone is about $0.36/pound or over 50% of the selling cost of the ingot metal. This does not include the energy for refining Bauxite to Alumina and the transportation, labor, cost of Capital, Research & Development and yes, profit. Profit and Dividends to the investors should not be dirty words in America!

The production of aluminum is extremely energy intensive. The figure below illustrates the production of aluminum which requires enormous amounts of energy from the mine to the final use. (Of course the production of all primary metals are energy intensive including steel, copper, titanium, etc.)

The world supply and demand of the light metal has caused a severe drop in pricing from the combined effects of Chinese over-production (Dumping) and the world recession.

Meanwhile in China they have built more than 150 new Coal plants since 2006. America is shutting down about 300 existing coal plants and even more foolish, shutting down some nuclear units. The Chinese are not bound by the Paris COP 21 agreement to reduce carbon emissions. Neither is India. The Asian nations understand that their economic prosperity depends on carbon based fuels and or nuclear generated electricity to power their manufacturing capacity and to lift their people from poverty. So do the African nations. In fact, China is building coal power plants in Africa and other Developing Countries. We have ceded our leadership (and manufacturing jobs in the U.S.A.) of providing power plants to the Developing World to China, Japan and South Korea. When I entered the manufacturing business for power generation equipment in the 1960’s, the U.S. Agency for International Development (US AID) was sending U.S.A. manufactured generating components to build power plants, water purification systems and other infrastructure components to Developing Countries. The American industries that I remember participating in the USAID programs of the 1960’s were Babcock & Wilcox, Westinghouse, Combustion-Engineering, Foster-Wheeler and more.  Now China, South Korea and Japan have that lead. We send our earned wealth to finance Utilities in the Developing World. The manufacturing and jobs however, have been transferred to Asia.

The share of added value of manufacturing of various industrialized countries. Note the steep rise in Chinese Value Added Manufacturing since 2006.

How does China power their Manufacturing?  Same as the U.S.A. did in 2006, with Coal power. The difference is, America uses clean coal plants.  New coal plants for the U.S.A. cannot be built. There is no available and commercially viable technology to capture and sequester the carbon dioxide of coal fueled power plants. In essence, new coal plants (if the EPA so called, Clean Power Plan remains) are illegal to build.

 

A topic for another day is the discussion of Rare Earth Minerals and their strategic importance for America. The Federal Government rules on mining whether hard rock or coal are incredibly restrictive. Many Federal agencies just say NO to exploration, mining, drilling, Hydraulic Fracturing and any harvesting of natural resources. China, on the other hand, is exploiting the importance of raw materials, Not only in China but around the world including such places as Brazil, Africa, Canada and West Virginia. As I said, that is a topic for another day. Check the National Mining Association website for more information on the difficulties of obtaining a permit for any kind of mine. Remember the “Pebble Copper Mine” proposed for Alaska and killed by Federal Regulators a few years ago. This is just one of many examples. It is not only coal mining that the government regulators excessively regulate.

Back to ALCOA. The company continues to operate but at a much downsized business since the 1970’s when I first became associated with them as a contract engineer.  Alcoa was good to me. I traveled all over the world to four Continents and Jamaica while on contract for them. An example close to my last home town of the last 40 years is Stanly County, NC. In Stanly County when I moved there in 1977 the highest wages were paid by ALCOA’s Badin Woks aluminum smelter. For a small county of about 60,000 citizens the combined payroll of ALCOA and Textile firms was greater than sixty million dollars per year. Since the decline of local manufacturing in Textiles and the aluminum smelting operations about 8,000 jobs were lost in a County with a total population of about 63,000.  Most of the manufacturing and jobs moved to Asia.  The same story of lost middle class jobs can be told of jobs in Pennsylvania steel towns like Johnstown, Bethlehem, Aliquippa, Beaver Falls and Fairless Hills.

  1. Pennsylvania Energy

Pennsylvania has become a major energy producing state thanks to the Marcellus Shale Gas formation and Hydraulic Fracturing. The economic boom of western PA is not from wind power or Renewables; it is from abundant natural gas production.  By the way, the EPA and Federal Regulators have more regulations and more restrictions in mind for natural gas. They are Ideologically driven to favor green energy and they over regulate any fossil fuel exploration or production. They hate fossil fuels and regulate accordingly.

Hydraulic Fracturing has revolutionized natural gas production in America. The amazing innovations and productivity of natural gas production has vaulted the U.S.A. to being the leading producer of natural gas in the world.

 

Quick Facts on Pennsylvania Energy from the EIA web site:

  • Pennsylvania’s annual gross natural gas production, primarily from the Marcellus Shale, exceeded 4 trillion cubic feet in 2014, doubling the state’s 2012 production and making Pennsylvania the nation’s second-largest natural gas producer.
  • Pennsylvania was the fourth-largest coal-producing state in the nation in 2013 and the only state producing anthracite coal, which has a higher heat value than other kinds of coal.
  • In 2014, Pennsylvania ranked second in the nation in electricity generation from nuclear power. The state obtained 35.5% of its net electricity generation from nuclear power, nearly as much as the 36.1% obtained from coal.
  • Pennsylvania’s Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards require 18% of electricity sold by 2021 to come from approved renewable or alternative sources, including at least 0.5% solar photovoltaic power. In 2014, renewable energy accounted for 4% of Pennsylvania’s net electricity generation.
  • As of 2013, 51% of Pennsylvania households used natural gas as their primary home heating fuel, while 21% depended on electricity for heat and 18% relied on fuel oil. Other heating fuels used in the state included propane, wood, and coal.
  • Natural gas (38%) provides heat to more Pennsylvania homes than any other fuel, but electricity (29%), fuel oil (20%), and propane (9%) are also widely used in the state, according to EIA’s Residential Energy Consumption Survey.

Last Updated: May 21, 2015                  By the US Dept. of Energy, EIA (Energy Information Agency)

  1. What Were the Top 10 Electricity Producing Plants in the U.S.A. in 2015?

The top 10 generating plants in the U.S.A. during 2015 are:

  1. Palo Verde, AZ 32.5
  2. Brown’s Ferry, TVA AL, 27.5
  3. Oconee, Duke Energy, SC, 21.9
  4. West County, FPL Natural Gas, 20.4
  5. Braidwood Nuclear, Exelon, IL, 19.7
  6. Byron Nuclear, Exelon, IL, 19.4
  7. South Texas Project, Nuclear, 19.4
  8. Limerick Nuclear, Exelon, 18.4
  9. Grand Coulee Dam, Washington State, 18.8
  10. Miller Coal Plant, Alabama Power, 17.8

These are major plants that truly carry the load to supply America with reliable high quality electric power. Notice, seven of the ten are nuclear plants. Not on this list, but important contributing nuclear plants are Exelon’s Three Mile Island, Clinton and Quad Cities Plants. There are now less than 100 operating nuclear plants in the U.S.A. and these provide the most reliable carbon free power. Just a few years ago there were 104 operating nuclear units. Why are they threatened with being shut down? Two reasons. Competitive Generation Economics because of low cost, abundant natural gas and forced subsidies of Renewable power such as wind and Solar. One of the top ten producers above, Byron Nuclear Power Plant has been reported as at Risk for shutdown, due to low competitive power generation costs of natural gas and subsidized Renewables.

The excessive Federal Regulations that favor “Green” energy and are against carbon based fuels combined with declining steady 24/7 industrial power demand has created uncertainty for the Utilities and shutdowns of many reliable power generation facilities. There are now 99 operating nuclear generating units. Most are over 30 years old but have been refurbished to run another 30 years. Two new nuclear power plants are being built in the U.S.A. One each by SCE&G and Southern Company.

 

 

 

  1. Coal Plant shutdowns

Coal has been the main fuel for reliable electric generation for the last 100 years. In fact, as recent as 2014, coal plants generated over 40% of America’s electricity. Due to Federal Regulations including the MATS (Mercury and Air Toxics) and Clean Power Plan (Carbon Limitations), many reliable coal plants are being shut down.

The map below is available from the EIA and National Mining Assoc. This shows the locations of 300 coal plants being shut down by 2020.

Another chart provided by the EIA which shows the electricity generation by type in 2014. Note that as recent as 2014 coal provided 18% of America’s Total Heat Energy. This represented about a Billion tons of coal. Since 2014 the coal consumption has been severely reduced, has Bankrupted many coal companies and reduced mining and coal plant employment.

Coal plant shutdowns have been caused by a number of factors which include:

  • The Hydraulic Fracturing advances that have made natural gas abundant and cheap over the last five years. A very recent and large “Step Change” in gas availability and pricing.
  • Federal Regulations, including The EPA and President’s War on Carbon based fuels
  • International trade policies
  • Shut Down of American factories. Especially primary metals producers
  • Efficiency improvements of LED Lighting, improved building codes for reduced heat losses
  • Low cost and abundant natural gas supplies
  • “Green Power” subsidies that force Renewable power on consumers including Industrial uses
  • Public pressure because of the Demagoguery and mis-information of the importance of coal for America

Last year, 2015 natural gas slightly exceeded coal as the predominant fuel for electric power production.

  1. What About Renewables

The “PA Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard requires 18% of Pennsylvania’s electricity to be provided from renewable or alternative sources by 2021. Note that although growing, in 2014 only 4% of PA’s electricity was generated by wind, solar and other renewable sources.

As more and more Solar, Wind and Bio-Mass electric generation is forced on the public, the more the cost is going to increase and the more US manufacturing will be at a further disadvantage in world competition.

A key point to be made about Solar and Wind Power is, these are “Intermittent”. Unlike proven coal and nuclear plants that generate power 24/7 with well over 95% reliability, Renewable Power is intermittent and truly at the mercy of nature.

An example of the cost of solar as compared to a natural gas turbine. This cost analysis is provided by Philip Dowd and published on the “Watts up with That Blog”

The Capital costs of building a solar plant compared to a natural gas plant are compared. Basically, a solar project will cost about 13 times as much as a gas turbine plant of the same size. Also, provisions need to be made for backup power for nights and when the sun is not shining. The example given shows a Capital cost of $200 million dollars for a gas turbine combined cycle plant and $2.6 Billion dollars for a similar sized Solar plant.

As Renewables are being forced on Americans, it is raising the true cost of electricity. Tax credits make it attractive to developers to install solar and wind production facilities, but the fact remains, they are expensive.

Germany and the UK have had recent experiences of escalation of electricity prices and concerns about electric Grid reliability. America should learn from the experiences of these other countries that have forced Renewable power on their citizens. The high cost of renewable power is only reported in trade journals and not widely known by the American public. The abundant and low cost natural gas produced in Pennsylvania, Texas and North Dakota has permitted relatively flat power costs. The low cost and abundant natural gas has masked the rising cost of power generation by the move to Renewables. Natural gas has a history of cost volatility. If the U.S.A. starts exporting our natural gas to sell at world market prices it will be good for America’s trade balance and for jobs in America. But, the world market cost of natural gas is about four times that in the U.S.A. So, with about 80% of the cost of power generation in a Thermal Power plant being the cost of fuel, when natural gas prices rise, so will the production cost of electricity.

 

  1. Electricity demand on this facility is 4,800 MWh/day, about the demand for a community of 160,000 average households[i]
  2. The “up time” of both plants must be equal. That is, both must be equally reliable and produce the demand for the same fraction of time over the course of one year.

Estimated Capital Cost to Generate Electricity

This does not include the cost of backup power such as natural gas, nuclear, coal and hydropower plants that must be maintained and ready to replace power when the solar plant becomes unavailable. The backup power provided by conventional power plants is a large factor that is causing extreme problems for the Utilities that have much of the current installed capacity that is depended on when needed but not adequately compensated for to keep in first class condition and ready for backup of the “Politically Correct” Renewable Power generation. The most extreme example of the harm being done is the shutting down of perfectly reliable and safe nuclear power plants. Once the lowest cost power production available.

Low production cost of electricity has been the backbone of American manufacturing, Reasonable cost electric power in the past has truly fueled America’s economic prosperity and productive capacity. Here is a perspective on the cost of producing electricity from the Nuclear Energy Institute:

Nuclear electricity production costs are much lower than any other type of generation .  This can be seen from the Nuclear Energy Institute’s website, which provides the production costs for nuclear, coal, natural gas, and petroleum generating units. (Renewable energy sources are not included.)  The costs are based on data submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on the FERC Form 1 by regulated electric utility companies. These costs are shown in the graph which follows.  Note, excluding Renewables which are only competitive because of subsidies, Nuclear Power is the least cost generation. Nuclear for those who believe man is changing the climate, is the largest most reliable form of “Carbon Free” energy.

POWER Magazine wrote recently that the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, Dr. Ernest Moniz, said: U.S. Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz said the time will come—perhaps 10 to 15 years from now—when “nuclear power is going to have to see a substantial resurgence.”

Moniz was speaking on May 19 at the “Summit on Improving the Economics of America’s Nuclear Power Plants.” He provided opening remarks, framing the challenges facing the nuclear power industry, but not offering a remedy for the problems.

Economics Are Challenging Nuclear Power

“I think the challenge is very clear,” Moniz said. “With the economic challenges facing certainly some of our nuclear plants, we’re seeing—as you well know—some closures before license expirations. We’re seeing the prospect of even more. The importance of incentivizing continued operation, I think, is very clear, but the solutions are less clear.”

Moniz  noted that nuclear power accounts for roughly 60% of the U.S.’s zero-carbon generation. As such, he suggested that it is hugely important in the country’s quest to meet carbon reduction goals by 2030 and beyond.

 

 

When Capital cost of installation, fuel costs, maintenance and all operational costs are considered, here is one estimate of power generation costs from new generation technologies.

As you can see, the lowest costs are for conventional coal and natural gas generation. Nuclear power generation reductions, such as premature nuclear plant closings is an unexpected consequence of the “Green Energy” policies. This trend, in my opinion, is contributing to the De-Industrialization and weakening of America’s productive capacity.

  1. What are some of the Issues of Drastically Swinging the Load of Large Coal and Nuclear Power Plants? Reliability of electric power supplies is important to any advanced economy. The issues of reliability and cost is not explained by the news media or by fair public service education by the government. There are disadvantages and risks of forcing green renewable power onto the Electric Grid. Green, carbon free power sounds good but what are some of the hidden costs and challenges? Well, here is a challenge that only electric utility engineers and people close to the industry are aware. That is the fact that when renewable power is forced onto the Grid, the backup power (coal, nuclear and natural gas) must be backed down. Imagine a huge generating unit of say 500 MW running on coal fuel and stable. As the sun comes up or the wind starts to blow the wind generators, the power is forced onto the grid and the load must be immediately reduced to minimum. It may not seem like a big deal to those who have not had power plant operation experiences but a large coal plant usually will take hours to startup and increase load to maximum. Safely shutting down should be a matter of hours to gradually reduce the load and take the equipment out of service. In the real world of forced renewables here is the actual impact of the forcing of solar or wind on the California Independent System Operator:

In this example, as the sun went down 13,000 MW needed to be started up within three hours to replace that power generation loss. This can be done with fast starting natural gas turbines. It is very difficult to do this with the existing coal and nuclear plants that carry most of the load and stabilize the frequency and voltage of the Grid.

 

From my personal experiences about six years ago in Nevada, we were working at a small coal plant near Las Vegas which had total generation capacity of about 600 MW. The Renewable Power Portfolio laws in Nevada are similar to Pennsylvania and tax incentives were given to encourage the installation of Solar panels by home owners and commercial locations. As the sun came up in the morning a near immediate reduction in power demand was seen on the system. The 600 MW of solar power was equivalent to the entire output of the coal plant. At the end of the day when the sun set, there was a similar sudden reduction in power production by the solar panels requiring that the power plant be ramped up.

Now when we get industrial sized batteries and inverters to cover these swings it will likely be handled with new technologies of storage. But, until then, the quality of power including frequency, VAR’s, voltage and Grid balance is a challenge.  High capacity storage is decades away, in my view. Electric Grid voltage and frequency stability is better with today’s technology by having massive conventional nuclear and coal plants stabilizing the grid.

The sudden drastic increase in natural gas generation has mitigated the effects of Renewable power intermittency.  The Shale Gas Revolution was not planned ten years ago. Inexpensive and abundant natural gas came on us not through good energy policy planning but by Free Markets and American ingenuity.

Likewise, the current reasonable cost of electricity is not due to “Free Power” from the sun and wind. The reason power costs are level is primarily because of low cost natural gas. Other contributing factors are excessive generation capacity due to Industrial Power reductions (less manufacturing) and existing nuclear plants that have a low power generation cost. Remember the old STP Oil Treatment ad where the statement is made, “Pay me now or pay me later” It is an appropriate phrase for forcing green energy on the grid. America  will eventually  pay a high price for these Ideologically driven policies.

 

  1. What About the Cost of Producing Electricity?

Most of the production cost of a coal or natural gas plant production is fuel. In round numbers about 80% of the cost to produce electricity in a coal or gas plant is for fuel. Nuclear plants have a high Capital cost and low fuel cost. Renewable power is much higher cost production and to be competitive it is given subsidies.

For example, here are two charts that show the cost of European electricity prices and how these compare  to the U.S.A. electricity costs.

The European experiences with shutting down nuclear power plants and forcing green energy has come at a high cost. It would be helpful if American Regulators would study the results of green policies in Europe and elsewhere in the world.

The lowest cost generation is nuclear, coal and natural gas used in Thermal Power Plants as shown in the preceding graphs from the Nuclear Energy Institute and the Institute for Energy Research (IER).

 

 

 

Here is a map of the U.S.A. which shows power costs by state and the percentage of coal generation. This is from the National Mining Association website. NMA.org

Cost Per kWh & Percent of

Coal Power Sector Generation

Sources: Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, March 2016 (2015 prelim. data); WGL Energy Services, District of Columbia (2015); California Energy Commission (2014 latest available); Washington State Department of Commerce (2014 latest available); Idaho Power (2014 latest available). 2015 data are preliminary.

  1. Summary of How We Got into this Mess and What Can Be Done to Correct it?

The reasons we have such a mess of our energy and environmental policies are many. There is ample blame to go around and one the main reasons has been the natural gas “Boom” that has created abundant supplies of natural gas which have driven natural gas power generation prices downward. This is good for America. Combined with the natural gas boom has been tax subsidies or “Production Tax Credits” for Renewable Power from Biomass, Wind and Solar generation. “Green Power Only” is very harmful and not good for America’s long term interests.

The impact of all of these factors together have created unintended consequences of causing perfectly good, well maintained, safe and carbon free nuclear plants to become economically uncompetitive. Two Exelon Plants have publicly announced they will shut down in 2017. These are the Illinois nuclear plants “Clinton and Quad Cities”. The Three Mile Island plant has been discussed as a possible for shutdown due to current economic conditions. So has the Byron Nuclear plant been discussed as being at risk. To those of us who have been involved in the electric generation industry for decades and understand the long term consequences of these shutdowns, we are concerned for America.

My list of reasons why we have gotten into this mess follows.

Ten Regulatory components of why we have such an energy and environmental rules mess:

  1. Regulations to force “Green Energy” on the public.
  2. Subsidies of green energy with tax dollars
  3. News Media indoctrination of green energy as being the only way to go by the government. Driven by influential persons and groups who basically follow an Ideological “Green Religion”
  4. Use of Federal Agencies to spread biased information on science. NASA, NOAA, Dept. of State, Dept. of the Interior, The Office of the President,
  5. Public education at all levels, including College level, has been incentivized to come on board with the greens to push the renewable agenda by University Grants and Federal Funding. AT least two states (Washington and California) have implemented book destruction if the textbooks do not conform to “Green Policies”
  6. Large corporations, especially Utilities have accepted the push for solar and wind. Why not? They will get compensated just as well by building wind towers and solar farms as with building new coal or nuclear plants. Less risk, good payback. Why fight for right? There are at least two ex CEO’s of major US Electric Utilities that are examples of “Green Ideologues”. Two I know of are thankfully, retired. Both are leftist lawyers. Both lobbied for more green subsidies and a carbon tax. In the case of one Utility that has 17 nuclear power plants, the green subsidies have back-fired on his plan to make carbon free nuclear plants attractive. It was not only the pro-renewable energy policies that is causing problems for nuclear, it is also abundant and inexpensive natural gas generation as is covered below.
  7. Unexpected as all of the “Green Push” was going on came the outstanding success and innovation of Hydraulic Fracturing and enormous amounts of natural gas flooding the markets and causing prices to drop sharply. Ten years ago few people expected natural gas production in the U.S.A. to reach the levels it went to. Prices to drop to less than coal in $/million Btu’s
  8. High Efficiency natural gas generating plants that use Gas Turbines with heat recovery and a steam turbine topping cycle. These plants called Gas Turbine, Combined Cycle are far more efficient than coal plants.  G-E, Siemens and Mitsubishi and more manufacturers around the world, build these plant components like they produce jet engines…assembly line style. Low cost and manufacturing that can be done anywhere from Charlotte to Hanoi to China… The components for one of the   G-E GTCC plants that I am familiar with, were manufactured in locations all over the world.
  9. American manufacturing has declined, especially energy intensive primary metals manufacture like aluminum, steel and copper. This freed up enormous amounts of power generation once needed 24/7 for industry to be available for commercial malls and residential. ALCOA’s dams in Stanly County is an example. The 100 MW of ALCOA Hydro is double the 50 MW used by the city of Albemarle (population about 20,000) on the highest demand day of the year.  Worse yet, industry used to use power at night that flattened the load demand. Now we have sharp swings of load demand from high to low and large coal or nuclear plants cannot be run from 10% to 100% load like a gas turbine can be. This gives gas plants another advantage of being fast to respond to load changes.
  10. Then there is the carbon hating mainstream media in my area the most biased are CBS 60 Minutes and the Charlotte Observer which have hyped up coal ash concerns when the public health issues are not near as bad as reported.

My recommendations for the future are to do whatever is necessary to keep a “Balanced Portfolio” of electricity generating plants that use Coal, Natural Gas, Nuclear and Renewable power.

I have referenced a report by the National Coal Council which prepared a report following the 2014 “Polar Vortex”. The state of Pennsylvania during that extreme cold period was importing 2,000 MW from the Midwest. Luckily, the transmission lines remained capable of keeping power reliable over that long distance. Should a similar extreme cold or extreme heat weather event come to pass in 2017, we may face the true prospect of rolling Blackouts or Brownouts. Why? Because over 300 coal plants and at least five nuclear plants that were operating in 2014 are not likely to be operable in 2017. Concerning electricity prices of the future, it is my prediction that when natural gas supplies and demand come closer in alignment, the price of natural gas will increase to levels comparable to the world markets. The cost of electricity production from thermal plants is about 80% fuel cost. So, if natural gas prices rise sharply, so will electricity production prices. It is the cost escalation of electricity from over regulation that I fear will create more problems for American manufacturing competitiveness in the world markets.  One of the “Root Causes” of escalating electricity prices will be Federal Regulations and the Renewable Power Standards.

I hope this presentation helps you understand where our electricity and energy comes from and some of the complicated policies that create uncertainty for the future. I would point out the National Coal Council Report of 2014 which reported on the near “Blackouts” that we were perilously close to during the Polar Vortex of January 2014. Extreme weather events such as this, will be harder to handle with large coal and nuclear plants shutdown. I have attached references and links for further research. If you only read or peruse one of the listed references, I suggest that you refer to # 34 the National Coal Council Report of “the Value of the Existing Coal Fleet”. Read about the “Polar Vortex” of January 2014 and the many reliability issues that were compounded from freezing lines, gas pipeline choking, transmission line limitations and absence of Renewable power during a time of extreme demand. Next winter could be a “Perfect Storm” for Blackouts if extreme cold weather recurs, such as it did during the 2014 Polar Vortex.  In my opinion, America’s green energy and environmental policies have set us up for some painful and expensive experiences that will be harmful to our Nation’s economic recovery as well as energy security. Current complicated Energy and environmental regulations have contributed to the decline of American manufacturing, a decline of middle class American jobs and weakened National Security.  I hope the foregoing information and references below are helpful to you.

Prepared by,

Richard F. Storm, PE, CEM

Richard.storm@stormeng.com

Dick Storm

55 Headlands Drive

Hilton Head Island, SC 29926

References and materials for Further Reading and Research:

  1. Competitive Enterprise Institute, 10,000 Commandments by Wayne Crews: https://cei.org/10KC
  2. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Manufacturing Employment, May 2016- 12.28 million: http://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag31-33.htm#workforce
  3. Congressional Research Service, April 2016 Report by Mark Levinson on American and World Manufacturing  Statistics and trends: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42135.pdf
  4. Congressional Research Service, Rare Earth Materials for National Defense and the concern of China’s dominance of control of such elements: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41744.pdf
  5. International Aluminum Association http://www.world-aluminium.org/statistics/#linegraph
  6. Coalition for a Prosperous America web site regarding “Fair Trade” http://www.prosperousamerica.org/issues/
  7. San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, Made in China: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/20/san-francisco-oakland-bay-bridge-controversially-made-in-china.html
  8. file:///Users/richardstorm/Documents/Economic%20Reports%20and%20Data/World%20Aluminium%20—%20Primary%20Aluminium%20Production%20by%20IAI%20April%202016.webarchive
  9. EIA Annual Energy Outlook Early Release, 2016: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/index.cfm
  10. National Mining Association: http://nma.org/
  11. NASA Earth at Night composite photo: https://www.bing.com/search?q=NASA%20Earth%20at%20Night%20Composite%20Photo&form=WNSGPH&qs=SW&cvid=7658c32752fd496e81ad8bbe8714daa2&pq=NASA%20Earth%20at%20Night%20Composite%20Photo&nclid=3B35B6EC4D0EA3B760130707528016F6&ts=1465764031428&elv=AA02IzXQU1LgaghU7RIZjeiQFVSSdMtrt8x5Uh6BVli8
  12. NETL’s Carl Bauer Presentation, 2006: http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/06/ecc/pdfs/Bauer.pdf
  13. EIA Sankey Diagram of U.S.A. Energy: https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=eia+sankey+diagram+of+energy+flow%27s+2014&view=detailv2&&id=648140E12879FE50D4B683FACA1BF4ADBDEBB440&selectedIndex=0&ccid=PK1nF1%2fc&simid=608044091700874184&thid=OIP.M3cad67175fdc63d1dc13a942b80af477o0&ajaxhist=0
  14. S.A. Citizen per Capita Energy Use Figure: Storm Technologies, Inc. Power Point Presentation to Civic Organizations about 2010. Other presentations are available on the Storm Technologies, Inc. website: http://www.stormeng.com
  15. Nucor Slide of U.S.A. Manufacturing Jobs, from NUCOR Townhall Meeting presentation about 2008. Update of manufacturing jobs in the U.S.A. in 2015 from National Assoc of Manufacturers (NAM)
  16. Dan DiMicco, CEO NUCOR Steel, Book, “Steeling America’s Future”, A CEO’s call to arms, saving free trade. Vox Populi Publishers, LLC , 2007
  17. World Steel Organization: Facts on China Steel Production http://www.worldsteel.org/dms/internetDocumentList/bookshop/2016/WSiF-2016/document/WSiF%202016.pdf
  18. Wall Street Journal article on China production keeping a lid on aluminum prices: http://www.wsj.com/articles/rising-chinese-production-keeps-lid-on-aluminum-prices-1447186082
  19. New York Times article on Aluminum Dumping by China: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/19/business/international/china-aluminum-trade-tariff.html?_r=0
  20. Metal Miner Blog articles on Steel and Aluminum dumping by China: https://agmetalminer.com/category/anti-dumping/
  21. Institute for Energy Research (IER) http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/
  22. Pennsylvania Energy Quick Facts: EIA
  23. Top Ten Generating Plants in U.S.A. May 23, 2016 U.S. Chamber of Commerce: https://www.uschamber.com/above-the-fold/these-10-power-plants-produce-the-most-electricity-america
  24. Coal Plant Shutdowns: NMA.org
  25. Exelon to Shutdown Two Nuclear Power Plants in Illinois: http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-nuclear-exelon-idUSL1N18U1L6
  26. Power Magazine, June 7, 2016: Exelon Byron and Three Mile Island Plants also at Risk: http://www.powermag.com/byron-three-mile-island-nuclear-plants-at-risk-exelon-says/?printmode=1
  27. S. Department of Energy Remarks, POWER Magazine, May 20, 2016: http://www.powermag.com/moniz-incentives-needed-to-alleviate-nuclear-power-woes/
  28. Grid Parity for Renewables: An Empty Concept (Parts 1 & 2) Mark Febrizio, March 21, 2016, IER: http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/grid-parity-meaningless-concept/
  29. Gas and Solar Comparison Costs: Blog “Watts up with That” by Blog owner, Anthony Watts
  30. S. Electricity Generation Production Costs: Nuclear Energy Institute: http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/Costs-Fuel,-Operation,-Waste-Disposal-Life-Cycle/US-Electricity-Production-Costs
  31. California System Operator Demand Problem with Renewables, “Duck Curve” page 68, Donn Dears book: “Nothing to Fear, A Bright Future for Fossil Fuels”
  32. Donn Dears Blog: “Power For the U.S.A.” Donn is a retired G-E Executive engineer with outstanding credentials and common sense: http://donndears.com/
  33. World Electricity Price Comparisons: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Energy_price_statistics
  34. The National Coal Council May 2014 Report: “The Value of the Existing Coal Fleet”: http://www.nationalcoalcouncil.org/reports/1407/NCCValueExistingCoalFleet.pdf
  35. A good read of a speech by the father of Nuclear Power, Hyman G. Rickover’s speech to the medical association of Minnesota on peak oil and the future of energy and atoms for peace, 1957: A very prescient genius. Worth the read: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2011/ph240/klein1/docs/rickover.pdf
  36. Heritage Economic Freedom http://dailysignal.com/2016/05/16/why-were-falling-behind-in-world-trade/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=CapitolBell&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWXpKa01tTTFaalE0TjJKayIsInQiOiI5ZXNkMDZzd1crWWZXMGVmR05UWks2QU9HMXkxN0FRUzRMaE9vRlhGZkRVenIyYlQrdG5jY0pTOVVDVHA0UEpYR0dmQ2Q3TGQxRlwvNklxSk5oOEpFQVd1QXh0M3FaZHNHaldxd1RvMmdYZU09In0%3D
  37. Listing of Countries by  Economic Freedom: http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking