US Energy Secretary Steven Chu pledged Tuesday the administration would pursue "clean coal" technology, even as it focuses research on alternatives such as wind and solar. ...
Chu, asked during testimony at the Senate Appropriations Committee whether the administration was committed to researching clean coal, replied: "Yes."
A new face in Kansas politics is bringing bipartisan solutions to difficult problems. Rather than simply falling back on strict anti-coal ideologies, Kansas’ new governor, Mark Parkinson, has worked with energy producers to end a protracted legal dispute over the state’s energy future.
A just released Charles Rivers Associates International and Coalition for Affordable American Energy report demonstrates that the proposed climate provisions within the Obama Administration's proposed FY 2010 budget will have profound negative impacts on energy availability, energy costs, and overal economic health of the country.
The Coalition for Affordable American Energy (CAAE) is made up of over 200 American businesses, industry associations, and Chambers of Commerce. Specifically, the report notes,
Impact on the Economy of the Climate Provision in the Obama Administration FY 2010 Budget Proposal
The report continues by noting that the U.S. energy sector will suffer substantial setbacks as it is reorganized to meet legislative and regulatory requirements.
Impact on the Economy of the Climate Provision in the Obama Administration's FY 2010 Budget Proposal
Readers can download the full report on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce website.
GAO Report on DOE Restructuring of FutureGenA February 2009 GAO report on the Department of Energy, FutureGen project describes how the decision to restructure the project in 2008 was based on inaccurate cost estimates.
While the initial $950 million estimated price was based in constant 2004 dollars, the later $1.8 billion estimate was a life cycle cost out to 2017 with inflation accounted for
If the same estimate process were used, the increased cost of the project would be $1.3 billion (not $1.8 billion), an increase of 370 million (+39%). Given the rising costs of steel, cement, labor, and the faltering economic conditions, the 39% price increase appears far more reasonable.
From the "Results in Brief" section of the report,
DOE did not use sufficient information to support its decision to restructure FutureGen. According to our recent work and best practices, a decision to terminate or significantly restructure an ongoing program should be informed by timely and sufficient information on the costs, benefits, and risks of such a decision. DOE did not prepare a comprehensive analysis of the costs, benefits, and risks of its decision to replace the original FutureGen with the restructured program. DOE made its decision based, in large part, on its conclusion that construction and material costs for the original program would continue escalating substantially in the indefinite future and that life-cycle costs were likely to double. However, according to economic forecasting organizations, such as DOE’s Energy Information Administration, significant cost escalations for building power plants, in general, do not typically continue in the long run. Also, DOE reached this conclusion by comparing its cost estimate for the original FutureGen ($950 million in constant 2004 dollars) with the Alliance’s 2006 estimated life-cycle costs for the program through 2017 (about $1.8 billion, considering inflation). In explaining his decision to restructure FutureGen, the Secretary of Energy noted that the projected program cost had “nearly doubled,” from $950 million to $1.8 billion. However, that assertion did not take into account a major difference between the two estimates: one was based on constant dollars and the other on inflated dollars. Our analysis indicates that the Alliance’s estimate in constant 2005 dollars would be approximately $1.3 billion—an increase of about $370 million, or about 39 percent, over DOE’s estimate, not a near doubling of costs. As DOE’s restructuring decision was not based on a comprehensive analysis of the associated costs, benefits, and risks, DOE has no assurance that the restructured program is the best option to accomplish the goal of promoting the accelerated and widespread commercial advancement of CCS. In contrast to the restructuring decision, FE identified and analyzed 13 other options for incremental, cost-saving changes to the original program, such as reducing the CO2 capture requirement. While FE did not consider all of these options to be viable, it either recommended or noted several of them for consideration, each with potential savings from $30 million to $55 million.
For decades, the coal industry has hummed quietly along, producing half of the electricity used in the U.S. We’ve kept ourselves out of the media, comfortable with our role as one of the country’s key energy resources. We “knew” that, despite the occasional bit of bad press, no one would ever seriously consider getting rid of coal-based energy.
Something has changed.
The constant harangue from environmental groups is no surprise. They don’t like coal and they’ve pushed for decades to block it at every turn. But we’re now also facing increased pressure from elected officials and policy makers, including some who are publicly vocal in their opposition to coal. I was recently shocked, as I sat listening to a webinar on CO2 mitigation strategies, to hear a federal government employee give a far more strident, climate change/anti-coal presentation than the spokesperson from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) who followed him.
Recent rulings and announcements by the EPA are also indicative of government’s increased pressure on the coal industry. In March, for example, EPA announced that it was putting hundreds of mining permits on hold to re-evaluate potential impacts on wetlands and streams. Subsequent Agency announcements noted they did not expect any problems with the “overwhelming majority of (those) permits.” But the ripple that the initial announcement sent through the media made it clear that things were not as they had once been.
What brought this issue home for me was a telephone call from an AP reporter on April 6th. He wanted a comment on Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar's claims that wind-based energy could be used to replace "most, if not all, of the coal-fired plants" in the USA. The Secretary had stated that we could generate over 1 million megawatts of electricity from ocean winds; roughly equivalent to the energy produced by 2,000, five hundred megawatt coal-fueled plants. I was accurately quoted in the article as being skeptical of the Secretary's information.
NERC: Electricity Industry Concerns on the Reliability Impacts of Climate Change InitiativesFrom the report Introduction,
The NERC Planning Committee (PC) has identified initiatives currently underway to address climate
change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions as among the most important emerging issues facing the eliability of the bulk power system over the coming years.2 Provisions and requirements implemented through state/provincial-level Renewable Portfolio Standards, regional initiatives, and federal and provincial legislation and regulations, have the potential to influence nearly every aspect of electric industry system planning, design and operation....
Taken individually, state, provincial, and regional initiatives may not significantly affect bulk power system reliability. However, as more and more state, provincial, and regional initiatives begin to take effect and federal climate change initiatives are considered in the U.S., there is an increasing need to review the collective impact of these initiatives on the bulk power system and identify effective means to help the electric industry meet these climate change initiatives without degrading system reliability.
The objective of this summary report is to document reliability concerns raised by NERC’s stakeholders and identify important objectives that, if met, could help the electric power industry meet the goals of climate change initiatives while maintaining bulk power system reliability. Further, this summary report aims to highlight the potential bulk power system reliability issues associated with the implementation of the climate change initiatives.
