Skip to content

Wall Street Journal Lurches Left

September 23, 2016

Until now, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) could be read without concern over the veracity of its articles.

That is changing.

Today, it’s necessary to verify the facts and content of WSJ articles.

On September 14, the WSJ included a special section, Innovations in Energy.

The centerpiece of this special section was The Coming Price on Carbon, a full page article, proposing that a price on carbon was necessary, in part, at least, because Moody’s, and others, considered uncertainty over carbon a financial risk.

It went further to say, not only was it necessary, but that industry favored it, that the COP 21 agreement committed the United States to cutting CO2 emissions, and that a carbon tax would not put the United States at a disadvantage to China and others, because they are pursuing actions to cut CO2 emissions by using cap-and-trade.

Interestingly, the article said, “U.S. trading partners have priced carbon, and so Americans already pay for carbon in goods from those countries, which include European Union countries, Japan and South Korea.”

The fact we are already paying more, doesn’t seem like a good reason to inflict additional economic pain on Americans. It hardly seems rational to add a carbon tax to the goods we produce, just because some other country adds one to the goods they produce.

From Environmental Integrity Project (EIP) web site: Picture of power plants releasing steam into the air.

Steam from a power plant, used as a symbol of CO2 emissions.

In so far as industry support for a carbon tax is concerned, much of that comes from companies, like Total, BP and Shell, based in Europe where there already is a carbon tax in the form of cap-and-trade. It’s true that Exxon has also said they favor a carbon tax, but as producers of natural gas they would benefit when competing with coal, while also fending off environmental extremists who want the government to prosecute Exxon for supposedly committing fraud.

The WSJ allowed this article to be printed, even though there were factual errors and misleading information contained in the article.

Here are three examples of inaccurate or misleading statements from the WSJ article, The Coming Price on Carbon.

  • The article claims that the cost of solar has fallen and “put the price of power in parity with natural gas in some markets.” I know of no such instance, and in fact, even the Energy Information Administration (EIA) admits that the levelized cost (LCOE) of solar is significantly higher than from natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) power plants and from coal-fired power plants.
  • The article claims that the price of batteries for backing up solar has come down 50%, but, while this may be true, the cost of battery storage is still far greater than the cost of building an NGCC power plant and generating electricity. The cost of battery storage is at least $2,000 per KW, which is twice the cost of building an NGCC power plant. Battery storage is not economical.
  • The article says that industry doesn’t want to invest in carbon capture and storage (CCS), which is probably true. CCS is not only exorbitantly expensive, it won’t work. Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plants cost 6 times as much as a natural gas power plant. Storing huge quantities of CO2 underground for centuries without leaking back into the atmosphere, quantities that are millions and millions of tons greater than have been tried thus far, is probably not possible, especially when there are examples of how gasses stored “securely” underground have leaked into the atmosphere. See, Kemper is No Keeper.

The article assumes that CO2 is the cause of global warming, and that a price must be put on carbon.

But that in itself is a false assumption, because CO2 may very possibly not be the cause of global warming.

The article completely ignores the possibility that the sun is the cause of global warming.

If the WSJ didn’t want to force the author to rewrite the article, it could have offered a rebuttal to all the false and misleading information contained in the article. The WSJ did publish an article, A Price on Carbon? Don’t Bet on It, that examined the political reasons why congress wouldn’t impose a price.

But, saying a carbon tax won’t happen because of politics, is vastly different from saying the original article was misleading and inaccurate.

It’s the accuracy and truthfulness that is missing from the WSJ special section.

Allowing misinformation to stand without questioning it, should be unacceptable.

It’s tragic, it’s no longer possible to read the WSJ and believe the information will be factually correct. Virtually the entire special section, Innovations in Energy, is an opinion piece that should have been in the editorial section.

This is the second time within a month that the WSJ has published misleading and inaccurate information, without providing an explanation. See, Wall Street Journal Drinks the Kool Aid.

* * * * * *

Nothing to Fear, Chapter 12, explains why carbon capture and sequestration will not work.

Nothing to Fear is available from Amazon and some independent book sellers, including the Heartland Institute.

Link to Amazon: http://amzn.to/1miBhXy

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

* * * * * *

NOTE:

It’s easy to subscribe to articles by Donn Dears.

Go to the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription. Click and enter your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know people who would be interested in these articles please send them a link to the article and suggest they also subscribe.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Is The Strategic Petroleum Reserve Necessary?

September 20, 2016

Recent media stories have claimed the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) is no longer necessary, or that oil from the reserve could be sold to offset the budget deficit.

With this in mind, it’s important to evaluate exactly what the SPR is capable of doing, and what it means to the national security of the United States.

A recent Department of Energy (DOE) report concluded that:

  • The United States could not meet its international obligations, established by treaty, if there was a severe interruption to the world’s oil supply.
  • The SPR facility, due to its age, requires considerable new investment to bring the facility up to date, and ensure its ability to operate.
  • Changes to pipeline flows caused by shale oil production has resulted in the SPR not being able, under some circumstances, to deliver oil to where it’s needed in the U.S.

What are the potential threats to the world’s oil supply?

Major choke points in oil flows from EIA

Major choke points in oil flows from EIA

From the map, three choke points are obvious, together with the amount of oil flow, in million barrels per day, that could be interrupted.

  • Strait of Hormuz, 17
  • Bab el Mandeb, 3.8
  • Suez Canal, 4.5

To these must be added major oil processing or shipping installations.

  • Ras Tanura or Al Jubayl (Saudi Arabia, Persian Gulf export terminals), 3.0 ea.
  • Abqaiq, 8.0

Blockage of the Suez Canal or the Bab el Mandeb would result in an interruption of oil supplies for about two months, as tankers are rerouted around Cape Agulhas, South Africa.

For reference, here are the disruptions used by DOE in its report and computer projections.

Chart from DOE SPR report

Chart from DOE SPR report

  • It’s important to note that the DOE report assumed 8 mmb/d disruption if the Strait of Hormuz is blocked, which grossly underestimates the threat. Even so, DOE determined the U.S. could not meet its treaty obligations.
  • Similarly, the Abqaiq threat is underestimated. Approximately 80 to 90% of Saudi oil must be processed through Abqaiq.

The U.S. is obligated by treaty to export, from the SPR, 44% of the amount of oil that the IEA determines is required under “collective action”. In the case of the Strait of Hormuz, the U.S. would be required to export 7.5 mmb/d, from its SPR, which is impossible since the maximum amount that can be released is 4.4 mmb/d, for 3 months, after which the amount is reduced to 3.8, 3.4 and1.9 mmb/d.

Similarly, the U.S. could not meet its treaty obligations if Abqaiq was severely damaged.

Chart from DOE SPR report, showing current 695 million barrel capacity of SPR, together with drawdown rates.

Chart from DOE SPR report, showing current 695 million barrel capacity of SPR,
together with drawdown rates.

If either the Strait of Hormuz was blocked or Abqaiq was severely damaged, the U.S. would release 4.4 mmb/d from the SPR, and sell it to the world. This would help reduce the impact on the world price of oil, which would nonetheless spike due to the sharp reduction in supply.

In all other situations, the U.S. would be able to meet its treaty obligations by exporting 2.0 mmb/d, or less, for about 5 months, while distributing the balance of oil from the SPR to U.S. refineries. (Exports help maintain oil supply around the world and mitigate the tendency of the price of oil to spike.)

It should be noted that the other countries with a Strategic Petroleum Reserve must also release oil, which in total, will be about 10% more than the release from the U.S. SPR. Combined, these releases will restore, at least partially, the amount of oil available to world markets.

Market forces would find it virtually impossible to react quickly to resolve oil supply shortages if there was a sudden disruption to oil supplies amounting to 4 to 5% of world supply, or around 4 mmb/d. Market forces would, unfortunately, probably exacerbate the spike in oil prices with demand far exceeding supply.

Computer models have attempted to show both, that the SPR is beneficial, and, alternatively, that it is unnecessary. Factually, computer models are limited in their ability to handle unknowns, and merely reflect what some expert believes is the appropriate probability. For example, what probability should be assigned to a computer model for blockage of the Strait of Hormuz? The risk may only be 1%, which would likely show the SPR to be unnecessary, but if a blockage occurred, the consequences would be devastating without the SPR.

It’s easy to visualize how the Strait of Hormuz could be blocked for as long as 6 months.

It’s also very easy to visualize how Abqaiq could be severely damaged and put out of operation for a year. Similarly, the Suez Canal, Bab el Mandeb, Ras Tanura and Al Jubayl are all large, soft targets.

The United States consumes approximately 19 million barrels of oil per day, of which 6.4 million are imported. Approximately 4.5 million of these imports are from Canada and Mexico.

Assuming the United States could continue to import oil from Canada and Mexico, the SPR would provide enough oil in all but two cases, to allow U.S. consumption to continue at approximately 19 mmb/d.

In summary:

  • The SPR can protect the United States from serious consequences of major oil disruptions except in two cases: Blockage of the Strait of Hormuz, and severe damage to Abqaiq. Even in these cases, the SPR can mitigate damaging economic consequences.

Two conclusions can be reached from this cursory examination of the SPR.

  1. The SPR is important to the national security of the United States.
  2. Congress and the administration should not sell oil from the SPR to balance the budget, and Congress and the administration should appropriate and use the necessary funds to maintain the SPR in good operating condition.

NOTE:
Readers can forward this article to their Senators and to their Representative, or write to them, with copies of this article attached.

The media is not adequately reporting on the SPR. A recent WSJ article provided scant information on the importance of the SPR to national security. Contrary to the conclusions of this article, the Heritage Foundation, an influential Washington DC think tank, says Congress should pull the plug on the SPR because market forces are able to handle any and all supply disruptions.

They also claim, with some justification, that the SPR has been used by politicians for their political advantage.

While market forces could probably handle small interruptions, market forces can’t handle massive interruptions. The SPR is an insurance policy protecting the United States against the most serious threats.

The DOE SPR report is available at http://bit.ly/2cvMzpU

* * * * * *

NOTE:

It’s easy to subscribe to articles by Donn Dears.

Go to the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription. Click and enter your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know people who would be interested in these articles please send them a link to the article and suggest they also subscribe.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

VP Biden in Europe Supports Fracking

September 16, 2016

Speaking in Stockholm, Vice President Biden warned Europe against the proposed Nord Stream-2 pipeline that would bring more Russian gas to Germany. The existing 745-mile long underwater Nord Stream Pipeline, under the Baltic, brings large quantities of Russian natural gas to Germany.

Nord Stream Pipeline Route

Nord Stream Pipeline Route

The proposed Nord Stream-2 would essentially double the capacity of the Nord Stream pipeline.

Biden said, when indirectly referring to Russia, “No country should be able to use energy as a weapon, to coerce policies from other nations.”

Europe depends on Russia for 1/3 of its natural gas, while some Eastern European nations are wholly dependent on Russia for their natural gas.

Biden proposed, instead, that Europe should use LNG from the United States.

While this was a very sound proposal, and an important strategic option for Europe, the natural gas from the United States would come from fracking.

We now have the spectacle of Vice President Biden speaking out in opposition to the position taken by the Democrat platform that calls for the abolition of fracking.

The United States itself would have a shortage of natural gas if it weren’t for fracking.

Adding to this spectacle is that Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, has joined the Ukrainian gas company, Burisma, as a board member.

Another member of Burisma’s board is Devon Archer, a former senior advisor to current Secretary of State John Kerry.

As reported, “Mr [H.] Biden and Mr Archer are also managing partners at Rosemont Seneca Partners, a Washington, DC-based investment company.”

Meanwhile, Vice President Biden said, the United States will help Ukraine with “technical know-how” for horizontal drilling and unconventional natural gas production from shale, so that Ukraine can increase natural gas production.

All of this would be an excellent foreign policy position, except for a single factor:

It’s contrary to this administration’s actions, and those of environmental organizations such as the Serra Club, to kill fracking in the United States.

Without fracking there wouldn’t be any surplus natural gas from the United States.

Aside from the hypocritical nature of these events, they demonstrate that fracking can provide the natural gas needed by the United States, and, to some extent, Europe.

The war against natural gas, i.e., methane, is contrary to the interests of Americans.

* * * * * *

From Chapter 16 of Nothing to Fear, The Tragic War on Fossil Fuels, “Mankind needs fossil fuels to eliminate poverty and sustain a healthy lifestyle.”

Nothing to Fear is available from Amazon and some independent book sellers.

Link to Amazon: http://amzn.to/1miBhXy

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

* * * * * *

NOTE:

It’s easy to subscribe to articles by Donn Dears.

Go to the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription. Click and enter your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know people who would be interested in these articles please send them a link to the article and suggest they also subscribe.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Censorship at Colleges

September 13, 2016

What’s being taught in colleges and universities about energy and energy issues?

This is the third article on this subject.

While the previous two articles discussed college professors in general, and the Great Courses specifically, this will highlight professors at the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, who have outlawed free speech during their course. This came to light when a student’s letter was published on The College Fix web site.

Professors Rebecca Laroche, Wendy Haggren and Eileen Skahill, told students that there was to be no discussion of climate change during their course, either in class or between students during on-line forums.

Infrastructure associated with fossil fuels

Infrastructure associated with fossil fuels

The class, Medical Humanities in the Digital Age is to examine the health and medical consequences of climate change.

Several students had expressed concern after watching the first on-line lecture on the effects of climate change.

Students were told to keep silent about opposing views or drop the course.

Further restricting students’ ability to obtain a broad and diverse education, the students were told they could only use reference material that had been “peer-reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).” The professors provided a link to IPCC material.

Obviously, anything that had been approved by the IPCC had to support the hypothesis of manmade climate change.

Additionally, the course syllabus indicated the course would study the health effects of fracking.

Assigned readings includes: “4 States Struggling to Maintain Radioactive Fracking Waste,” “EPA Study on Fracking Ignored Contamination Studies,” and “Frack Free Colorado: ‘Colorado’s Affected People.’”

These references were clearly one-sided.

The only conclusion any open minded person can reach is that this course is not education, but, instead, indoctrination.

For earlier articles on how professors are corrupting science for political purposes, See What’s Being Taught on Campus, and A Great Course Failure

The University of Colorado, Colorado Springs joins other campuses, and the Great Courses in indoctrinating their students on energy issues, rather than providing them an education.

* * * * * *

Nothing to Fear, Chapter 15, An Alternative Hypothesis, describes why the sun is the far more likely cause of global warming.

Nothing to Fear is available from Amazon and some independent book sellers.

Link to Amazon: http://amzn.to/1miBhXy

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

* * * * * *

NOTE:

It’s easy to subscribe to articles by Donn Dears.

Go to the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription. Click and enter your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know people who would be interested in these articles please send them a link to the article and suggest they also subscribe.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Wall Street Journal Drinks Kool-Aid

September 9, 2016

An article in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) misleads readers into thinking wind provides cheap electricity.

Texas is an ideal location for the use of wind and solar for generating electricity, perhaps one of the best areas in the country. If wind and solar aren’t competitive in Texas, they aren’t likely to be competitive anywhere else in North America.

Texas has areas that are very favorable for generating electricity from wind, and therefore, developers have invested heavily in wind farms. As a result, according to the WSJ article, wind represents 16% of installed capacity in Texas.

According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) from wind farms will be 7.3 cents per kWh in 2020, four years from now. Obviously it’s more costly today.

The Institute for Energy Research (IER) has calculated the LCOE from land based, i.e., on-shore, wind today is 10.4 cents per kWh, which more accurately establishes today’s cost of wind power.

The WSJ article says the retail cost of electricity in Texas is 8.6 cents per kWh. How can the retail cost be 8.6 cents per kWh when it costs 10.4 cents to generate electricity from wind?

The answer is straight forward.

  • To begin with, wind provides a tiny portion of the electricity used by Texans. The 16% of installed generating capacity doesn’t translate into an equal percentage of electricity produced from wind. The capacity factor in the U.S. is generally less than 30%, but in Texas it’s probably somewhat higher, perhaps 33%. This means that wind contributes around 5% of electricity in Texas … a small amount.

In other words, low-cost natural gas is providing the bulk of electricity, and its what’s creating low-cost electricity for Texans.

  • Next, wind farm developers receive a subsidy of 2.3 cents per kWh for the electricity they produce. Wind farm developers can sell their electricity for practically nothing, and still make money. In fact, there have been instances where the wind farm developers have paid ERCOT to take their electricity so that the developers could receive the 2.3 cent subsidy.

It’s this subsidized low-cost that’s contributing to the low-cost of electricity for Texans.

The WSJ article is pandering to environmentalists and distorting the truth, so that people will get the wrong impression about the cost of, not only wind, but also solar. In truth, wind and solar are expensive and unreliable.

This chart shows the real effect of wind and solar where it has been used most extensively, Germany and Denmark. Countries such as Norway, which uses hydro for the bulk of its electricity, have far lower costs.

eu-electricity-prices-from-energy-matters

Depending on the exchange rate, the cost of electricity in Germany is around 3 to 4 times the cost of electricity in the United States.

The WSJ has done Americans a disservice by printing an article that distorts the facts while promoting wind and solar.

* * * * * *

Nothing to Fear, Chapter 9, The Utility Death Spiral, explains why displacing fossil fuels with wind and solar will result in the bankruptcy of Utilities and the possible takeover of the industry by the government.

Nothing to Fear is available from Amazon and some independent book sellers.

Link to Amazon: http://amzn.to/1miBhXy

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

* * * * * *

NOTE:

It’s easy to subscribe to articles by Donn Dears.

Go to the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription. Click and enter your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know people who would be interested in these articles please send them a link to the article and suggest they also subscribe.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

National Security and Arctic Drilling

September 6, 2016

Top U.S. military leaders recently wrote to the Obama Administration emphasizing the need for continued drilling in the Arctic, in the interest of national security.

This was in response to a request from the Department of Interior for comments on proposed leasing from 2017- 2022. The military leaders wrote:

  • “As foreign policy and national security specialists, we support retaining the two Arctic leasing areas when the Program is finalized. The strategic significance of the Arctic is growing … Excluding the Arctic from the Program would harm our ability to protect our interests and to promote cooperation in the region.”

The military leaders went on to say:

  • “Russia, notably, has been investing heavily in the region with a world-leading 40 ice-breakers, new Arctic bases, airfields, and ports, and ambitious new energy development projects. Russia’s military has established an Arctic Strategic Command and conducted large-scale Arctic exercises.”
  • “PLA (Navy) destroyers and other combat ships sailed the Aleutian Islands as President Obama toured Alaska, the Chinese Navy’s first operation in the Bering Sea.”
  • “In contrast, Arctic capabilities of the U.S. have dramatically declined.” For example, the Coast Guard now has only two ice breakers, the same number as Estonia, while at one time the Coast Guard had 8.
  • “Our reduced Arctic presence and capabilities challenges the U.S. ability to positively influence all developments in the region.”
  • “Excluding the Arctic from the Program would signal retreat.”

Against this backdrop of concern for the interests of the United States, the AP reported that:

  • “Nearly 400 scientists have signed a letter urging President Obama to eliminate the possibility of Arctic offshore drilling … by taking the Arctic Ocean out of the next federal offshore lease sale plan.”
  • These scientists were concerned, “Global warming will be accelerated by burning oil found in the Arctic Ocean.”

It’s clear that there is considerable pressure to ignore our national security interests in favor of cutting CO2 emissions to comply with the Paris COP 21 accord.

Meanwhile, in May this year, Norway opened its Arctic waters to drilling by 13 oil companies.

Russia is taking the lead in Arctic offshore oil production. Gazprom Neft expects to more than double oil production this year from Prirazlomnaya field in the Pechora Sea.

Russia Arctic Circle

Russia Arctic Circle

Russia has also claimed considerable areas beyond its continental shelf, which could give Russia rights to resources beyond its 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone in the Arctic.

China isn’t sitting idly by, and has made some acquisitions with the Arctic in mind. “China also obtained an exploration license for Iceland’s Dreki region in the Norwegian Sea.”

President Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau issued a joint statement concerning the Arctic.

A few salient items are as follows:

  • “The two leaders regard the Paris Agreement as a turning point in global efforts to combat climate change and anchor economic growth in clean development.”
  • “Canada and the U.S. will work together to implement the historic Paris Agreement, and commit to join and sign the Agreement as soon as feasible.”
  • “Both countries commit to work together to support robust implementation of the carbon markets-related provisions of the Paris Agreement.”
  • “Canada and the U.S., commit to take action to reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas sector.”
  • “Canada and the U.S. affirm their commitment to reduce use and emissions of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs).”
  • “Reduce emissions from international aviation.”
  • “Commercial activities will occur only when the highest safety and environmental standards are met, including national and global climate and environmental goals.”

For the many other joint U.S. & Canadian commitments concerning the Arctic, see, U.S.-Canada Joint Statement on Climate, Energy, and Arctic Leadership.

America’s energy interests are in danger of being ignored because of the emphasis being placed on reducing CO2 and methane emissions so as to comply with the Paris accord, even though the accord is supposedly not a treaty, and has not been ratified by the Senate.

* * * * * *

Nothing to Fear explains why CO2 isn’t to be feared. Chapter 15, An Alternative Hypothesis, describes Dr. Svensmark’s hypothesis on cosmic rays.

Nothing to Fear is available from Amazon and some independent book sellers.

Link to Amazon: http://amzn.to/1miBhXy

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

* * * * * *

NOTE:

It’s easy to subscribe to articles by Donn Dears.

Go to the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription. Click and enter your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know people who would be interested in these articles please send them a link to the article and suggest they also subscribe.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Boring, But Important LCOEs

September 2, 2016

Levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) is what excites engineers and economists, and bores most other people, but can have profound effects on Americans.

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) publishes LCOEs for various methods of generating electricity, such as for coal and solar, but their estimates are based on today’s conditions, or conditions a few years from now, for building new power plants.

What’s important, is that the LCOEs supplied by the EIA do not reflect the cost of generating electricity from existing power plants. Plants that have already been built.

A new study by the Institute for Energy Research (IER) has calculated the LCOEs for existing power plants and compares them with the LCOEs for new power plants.

These include adjustments for intermittency and capacity factors for wind and solar.

Today, we are scrapping 110,000 MW of existing coal and nuclear power plants before the end of their useful lives, and replacing them with wind and PV solar.

In other words, we are replacing existing power plants that generate low-cost electricity with new power plants that generate expensive electricity, merely because of new regulations and a political effort to cut CO2 emissions.

As explained below, these actions can harm the American economy, which kills jobs.

Here are the LCOEs for existing power plants, by type from the IER study.

  • Coal-fired: 4 cents per kWh
  • Natural gas combined cycle (NGCC): 3.4 cents per kWh
  • Nuclear 2.9 cents per kWh
  • Hydroelectric: 3.5 cents per kWh

Here are the LCOEs for new wind and PV solar power plants, from the IER study.

  • Wind 10.4 cents per kWh
  • PV solar 14.3 cents per kWh

The IER study did not include Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) plants, such as Ivanpah, but CSP LCOEs will be approximately 8 cents greater than for PV solar, based on earlier EIA estimates.

Since it’s doubtful there will be any significant building of new nuclear or hydro power plants, we need only examine coal-fired and NGCC power plants.

It’s obvious that replacing existing power plants before the end of their economic lives, with wind or solar, will increase the cost of electricity for all Americans. The cost of electricity produced by wind and solar is two to three times the cost of generating electricity from existing coal-fired or NGCC power plants.

LCOEs are an abstract for most Americans, so here is what the higher LCOEs for wind and solar mean for the American economy.

Americans used 3.9 trillion kilowatt hours of electricity in 2015.

If all of this, excluding hydro and existing wind and solar, were generated from new PV solar power plants, where electricity cost 10.9 cents per kWh more than from existing NGCC power plants, it would cost Americans an additional $379 billion each year. For wind, where wind costs 6.4 cents per kWh more than existing coal-fired power plants, it would cost Americans an additional $223 billion each year. (See note)

Just as lower gasoline prices helped fuel the American economy, higher costs for electricity will be a drag on the economy.

Gasoline at $2 per gallon, rather than $3, saved Americans $140 billion and had a beneficial effect on the economy. (Americans used 140.43 billion gallons of gasoline in 2015 according to the EIA.)

Imagine the negative effect on the economy if Americans spent an additional $379 billion for their electricity by using PV solar.

And $2 gasoline is temporary, while the high cost of electricity would be permanent.

Not only would the average American be paying more for electricity, over $3,000 per household for PV solar, they will have fewer job opportunities due to the effect of higher energy costs on the economy.

While it’s physically impossible for wind and solar to replace all base load power generation, the use of wind and solar in place of coal-fired or NGCC power plants increases the cost burden on all Americans. This burden is made even greater if a carbon tax is added to the cost of generating electricity.

CAISO Duck Curve

CAISO Duck Curve

About the ISO “Duck” curve:

  • California ISO “Duck” curve showing negative impacts of adding wind and solar to the grid. (a) Gutting base load power plant output (b) Dramatic need for storage to prevent huge ramp-up when sun sets

In addition, the higher percentage of wind and solar on the grid, as demanded by the government, will require storage, and storage costs were not included in the IER study.

It’s a fact that wind and solar will be an economic burden on all Americans if current efforts to cut CO2 emissions continue.

Wind and solar are bad for Americans.

LCOEs may be boring, but they are important and can demonstrate how different energy policies can have a huge impact on Americans.

 

Note about cost comparisons:

If the comparison was between new wind and solar versus new coal-fired and NGCC power plants, the extra financial burden on Americans would be lower. For example, $306 billion rather than $379 billion for NGCC power plants, because the new build cost for NGCC plants is 5.5 cents per kWh rather than 3.4 cents for existing NGCC plants. The IER report made no LCOE calculation for new coal-fired power plants, because EPA rules prohibit building new coal-fired power plants.

* * * * * *

Nothing to Fear, Part 2, Renewables, explains why wind and solar cost more and why they adversely affect the grid, and, using the California ISO “Duck” Curve, how they endanger the ability of utilities to survive.

Nothing to Fear is available from Amazon and some independent book sellers.

Link to Amazon: http://amzn.to/1miBhXy

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

* * * * * *

NOTE:

It’s easy to subscribe to articles by Donn Dears.

Go to the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription. Click and enter your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know people who would be interested in these articles please send them a link to the article and suggest they also subscribe.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.