Report: Hydro emissions can rival those of natural gas
The Seven Sisters Dam in Manitoba. (Photo by Miss Barabanov via Creative Commons)
As states grapple with the question of whether to count hydropower as renewable energy, a recent report says dams can emit greenhouse gases at a rate far greater than wind and solar, and can nearly reach those of natural gas combined-cycle plants in their first years of operation.
Cambridge, Mass.-based Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. found that large scale hydropower using reservoirs have lifecycle emissions, as measured over a 100 year span, in excess of wind, solar, and run-of-the-river hydro. Reservoirs in northern climates can add substantially to GHG emissions if they cover land that is filled with boreal forests that serve as carbon sinks.
Commissioned by the Conservation Law Foundation, “Hydropower Greenhouse Gas Emissions: State of the Research” does not suggest hydropower pollutes more than traditional fossil sources such as coal, natural gas or diesel. But in the short term the GHG emissions from hydro – in at least three of the first 10 years of operation – exceed those of a natural gas combined-cycle plant, said Christophe G. Courchesne, staff attorney for the CLF’s Concord, N.H. office.
“In the short term, hydro is less impressive than had been assumed,” he said. “There are more short-term impacts in new projects than we expected.”
Synapse collected data from recent scientific research looking at hydro’s impact, much of it conducted in Canada, which receives a greater percentage of electricity – 59 percent – from hydro than all but two other countries.
Reservoirs are the main culprit behind high GHG emissions, which are especially intense in a plant’s first decade. A study of a Hydro-Quebec’s Eastmain 1 facility and reservoir, which produces 480 MW, found that newly flooded areas increase emissions due to the decomposition of organic material, he said.
Over the lifecycle of a large hydro plant – about 100 years – GHG emissions are still more per megawatt hour than wind, solar, nuclear and run-of-the-river hydro, the report claims.
Because flooding for dams takes out forest reserves “you eliminate a lot of carbon sinks” that absorb pollution, added Courchesne.
An imprecise science
However, there’s little consensus on hydropower’s climate impact, and both reports concede the science on some of the issues is relatively new, and novel.
In a response to the report published on the CLF website, Alain Tremblay, environmental advisor for Hydro-Quebec Production, said GHG emissions from 60 different generating stations differ greatly. Hydropower emissions are similar to those from wind power, one quarter of photovoltaic facilities, 40 times less than a gas-fired plant and 100 times less than a coal-fired one, he wrote.
The Center for Climate and Energy Solutions – formerly the Pew Center on Global Climate Change – wrote in a summary of data on hydro that its GHG emissions were less than energy from biomass and solar and about the same as emissions from wind, nuclear, and geothermal plants. The research cited, however, was more than a decade old.
The CLF’s report comes with political implications. The organization has been a vocal opponent of Northern Pass, a $1 billion proposal to build transmission lines from Hydro-Quebec’s operations to New England along a route in New Hampshire.
But it’s not the only report published recently to look at hydro’s impact. Edmonton-based Global Forest Watch Canada released in January a large, in-depth study that showed Canada reports just one figure for the GHG impact of hydro to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and it tends to be low.
“Those numbers are relatively low within the scientific range of possibility,” said Peter Lee, executive director. “What we learned is that there is a range of possible emissions and within that range it’s probably a lot higher than governments are reporting.”
For example, Environment Canada, a government agency, estimates the country’s hydropower plants emit 1.5 megatons annually for reporting purposes. The Global Forest Watch report suggests that may be as high as 17 megatons, and as low as 0.2 megatons.
“Our understanding of the cumulative watershed impacts of large dams is still poor,” the report says.
The CLF hopes the reports and other efforts will bring into question the claims of Northern Pass supporters who see Canadian hydro as a green alternative. Courchesne also fears Canadian hydro could stymie the growth of other renewable energy sources in New England, especially wind and solar. Locally, the Minnesota Legislature has debated whether to allow utilities to use Canadian hydro for the state’s RPS while Wisconsin allows it.
“There has been an active movement to qualify these projects (for RPS),” Courchesne said. “But we believe there is no justification for qualifying large-scale hydropower for RPS treatment. The RPS statute was meant to incentivize new technologies and not economically mature technologies that are viable without subsidy. That’s where large hydro is.”
Minnesota builders divided on energy code update
(Photo by kingdafy via Creative Commons)
The home builders association in Minnesota is on the offensive against an updated state energy code currently being considered by state regulators.
The Builders Association of Minnesota claims the set of efficiency-related code changes would add more than $7,000 to the cost of building a typical home in the state.
But some of its members — builders who already use energy saving methods and materials in their construction — say the association is exaggerating the costs.
The rules, known as IECC 2012, would require better insulation, tighter ductwork, and mandatory blower door tests on all new homes. If adopted, they would replace the state’s existing energy code from 2007.
The home builders association held a meeting in St. Paul three weeks ago to outline the problems it foresees for the industry if the code is adopted. Costs will surge, buyers will be priced out of the market, and moisture problems may occur in some homes.
The claims didn’t sound right to Ray Pruban, whose company, Amaris Custom Homes in White Bear Lake, specializes in building highly efficient homes that cost about the same as conventional ones.
“They were mixing some facts with misinformation,” whether on purpose or not, said Pruban.
Pruban later described his concerns in a letter to the editor published in the Duluth News Tribune. Fresh Energy, which also publishes Midwest Energy News, has advocated for the code changes and encouraged Pruban to tell his side.
Meanwhile, six other builders signed an open letter accusing the association of misrepresenting the cost of complying with the code.
“[T]he Builders Association of Minnesota’s publicity machine has been hard at work, and unfortunately they are grossly misrepresenting and confusing issues for a purpose that does not serve Minnesotans or those builders who believe in building responsibly,” the letter said.
Updating the code
Every three years, the International Code Council publishes an updated version of its International Energy Conservation Code, a set of suggested rules for state and local governments to use for encouraging energy efficient home building.
States aren’t required to adopt the rules. Some don’t have energy codes at all and leave it up to local governments to set standards. Others have codes based on IECC versions from 2006 or earlier.
Recent updates to the model code have included significant efficiency improvements. One study determined that a home built to the 2012 code would be 30 percent more efficient compared to the 2009 code.
Those big gains have caused energy-efficiency advocates to campaign for states to adopt newer versions of the code. In every state, they’ve faced strong opposition from state home builders associations.
In Minnesota, the state’s labor and industry department last fall started soliciting feedback from builders, efficiency advocates and other stakeholders about IECC 2012. As in most states, the energy code is changed through an administrative rule-making process rather than going through the legislature.
The Builders Association of Minnesota released materials that claim moving to the 2012 code would create thousands of dollars in new costs as well as durability issues for some homes.
In materials handed out at the association’s event earlier this month, the association says a typical 2,500-square-foot home is going to cost $7,300 more to build under the 2012 rules compared to the state’s existing code. More than $4,600 of that, the association says, would come from meeting new wall insulation requirements.
Numbers challenged
The only way to arrive at that number, Pruban said, is to assume for several worst case scenarios.
“They took the worst of the worst of the worst possibilities,” said Pruban, who suspects the calculation might reflect a misunderstanding of how newer insulating materials are actually used in building projects.
One of the materials called for in the suggested 2012 code is a rigid, exterior insulation. When used correctly, the hard panel insulation allows builders to use less of other materials, such as lumber and plywood, Pruban said.
“It’s not costing us anything,” he said. And in some cases, he’s actually able to save money using the improved insulation.
The counter-claims by individual builders that the association is exaggerating costs are supported by an analysis from the Building Codes Assistance Project (BCAP), funded by the pro-efficiency Alliance to Save Energy.
The BCAP paper projects the cost of complying with the 2012 code will be in the range of $2,700 to $4,000 per home, and that home owners will save between $19,000 and $23,000 in energy costs over a 30-year mortgage.
The builders association wrote a letter to BCAP demanding that it retract its analysis, which it says understates costs and overestimates savings.
The BCAP cost estimate is closer to what builders like Pruban said they have experienced, but even its numbers are on the high end, they said. There does appear to be a flaw in BCAP’s cost savings calculations, however, stemming from the fact it compared energy use to a national average, Pruban said. Minnesota homes are already far more efficient than the national average, meaning actual savings would be less.
An honest dialogue?
Michael Anschel, owner and principal of Otogawa-Anschel Design Build in Minneapolis, thinks the builders association’s opposition is more about politics than good policy.
“I think the association is looking to show its members that it’s fighting government and fighting regulation,” Anschel said.
In this case, though, Anschel believes regulation will be beneficial. Most of what’s in the code are things responsible builders already do, such as making sure duct work is sealed. Making them requirements will level the playing field so they don’t have to compete will cheap, corner-cutting contractors.
Anschel, who wrote the critical letter signed by himself and five other builders, also thinks the association is using one flaw in the code as a red herring to attack the entire work.
The 2012 code contains a rule that involves insulation coming into contact with basement walls in a way that might cause moisture issues in cold climates. Anschel said everyone involved in the Minnesota process recognizes that it won’t apply here and needs to be amended, but the association continues to attack it.
In an interview Wednesday, Pam Perri, executive vice president of the Builders Association of Minnesota, focused at length on the basement insulation flaw and said she was frustrated with criticism from builders like Anschel.
“We’re the only ones doing their homework,” Perri said. “It’s our job to be detail-oriented. We can’t afford to not pay attention to what the details of the code say.”
But builders are a diverse group with different opinions, Anschel said. While the association does good work on many issues, this is one where he believes the association is acting on its own and not representative of its members.
Pruban said he’s requested a more detailed breakdown of how the association arrived at its cost projections, but so far he hasn’t received them. He said he’s disappointed his industry has decided to defend the status quo rather than push for better quality homes for Minnesotans.
While he believes the association is being disingenuous with some of its cost projections, he also says some environmentalists seem willing to push for efficiency gains at any cost.
“I do believe there’s a middle ground here that does make sense,” Pruban said. “I just think let’s at least get the right facts on the table so there can be an honest dialogue.”
Report sees dim prospects for Illinois coal plants
The Will County Generating Station in Romeoville, Illinois, is one of four plants the Sierra Club will no longer be economically viable to run. (Photo via Midwest Generation)
Two months after the parent company of Midwest Generation told investors it may shut down all its coal plants in Illinois, a new study by the Sierra Club says the plants aren’t necessary for grid reliability, and won’t be profitable to run under new pollution rules.
The Sierra Club’s report [PDF] – issued on Thursday, the day of Edison International’s annual shareholder meeting – found that Edison subsidiary Midwest Generation has no financial reason to continue running its six Illinois coal-fired plants. Two of those plants – the Fisk and Crawford facilities in Chicago – will be shut down over the next two years under an agreement with city officials.
Prospects for the four plants also got a little brighter as a result of the deal wherein Midwest Generation agreed to close the Chicago plants: Environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, withdrew their Clean Air Act lawsuit alleging all six Illinois plants had emitted unlawful amounts of particulate matter.
However, based on electricity price projections and the cost of pollution controls mandated by state and federal rules that will kick in by 2018, the Sierra Club study posited that none of the remaining plants will make a profit; and their closure will also not affect reliability on the PJM Interconnection, where the company sells its energy.
The Sierra Club is a member of RE-AMP, which publishes Midwest Energy News.
Midwest Generation spokesman Doug McFarlan dismissed the Sierra Club’s findings. He said the future of the four remaining Illinois plants is still being decided, and recent investments in pollution controls indicate at least some interest in keeping the plants running.
“We’re focused on the environmentally responsible operation of our plants and on helping lead the transition to new energy sources as the sixth largest developer of wind energy projects in the country,” said McFarlan. “We don’t rely on the Sierra Club to tell us what our costs are or what technologies to use. It is not relevant or useful to our decision-making or analysis…We are comfortable with our ability and expertise to judge the economic viability of our generating units and make decisions on retrofits or unit retirements. We have no interest in commenting on a study commissioned by an organization whose publicly stated objective is to shut down all existing coal plants.”
The impact of new pollution rules
The Sierra Club study, carried out by the firm Synapse Energy Economics, predicted that the cost of installing either of two types of technology to control sulfur dioxide emissions would make Midwest Generation’s plants unprofitable. Under a 2006 state of Illinois agreement and the federal Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), the plants would all need to install sulfur dioxide controls by 2018.
The Sierra Club study also analyzed increased operating costs per megawatt hour for SCR (selective catalytic reduction) limiting nitrogen oxide emissions, activated carbon injection to reduce mercury emissions, bag houses to reduce particulate emissions and upgraded cooling systems.
Holly Bressett, of the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign, said their estimates were based on the costs of installing new technology and operating and maintaining it on a daily basis. The specific cost estimates were based on data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Chicago engineering consulting firm Sargent & Lundy. She said their analysis took into consideration whatever pollution control improvements the company has already made, according to its filings with the government.
McFarlan said all the plants have already installed activated carbon injection, “a technology we helped develop,” though two plants need upgrades. He said the company has also already invested $110 million in SCRs to achieve fleet-wide nitrogen oxide reductions required by a state law that took effect this year and is stricter than the federal CSAPR, which is under appeal in federal court.
In all, McFarlan said, the company has invested about $400 million in pollution controls on its Illinois plants since acquiring the fleet in 1999. The company would need to invest $860 million more, he said, to install technology to meet state and federal standards for sulfur dioxide and new particulate standards under the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule, which takes effect in 2015.
Bressett said the Sierra Club analysis assumed capital costs of about $200 million for sulfur dioxide removal, a significantly lower estimate than McFarlan offered, meaning the plants could be even more uneconomical using the company’s own cost numbers.
“We have not yet made final decisions on any of these installations,” said McFarlan, adding that the company has obtained construction permits and done preliminary work for pollution control upgrades at its Powerton and Waukegan stations.
The Sierra Club report noted that Illinois’s relatively strong environmental provisions, including the state agreement with Midwest Generation, would put the company at a competitive disadvantage in the PJM spot market auctions, compared to generators in other states.
What about reliability?
The Sierra Club study also examined whether the closure of all six of Midwest Generation’s Illinois plants would affect the stability of the grid or the availability of electricity. Based on PJM predictions, it concluded that if Midwest Generation’s combined 6 GW of electricity were taken off-line, it would not cause electricity shortages or grid stability problems. There is already an oversupply of electricity available within the PJM and predicted supply will be more than enough to meet predicted demand in coming years – even without figuring in expected improvements in energy efficiency and demand-side management, the study said.
PJM has already analyzed the likely impact of closing Fisk, Crawford and several units at the other Midwest Generation plants, and found no risk to reliability.
In keeping with its national Beyond Coal campaign, the Sierra Club study concluded that there are economic – as well as environmental and public health – reasons for Midwest Generation to close all its Illinois plants:
“Synapse’s analysis strongly suggests retrofits will only make MWG’s plants less competitive and more uneconomic. Without the ability to competitively sell power, the company could face stranded investment in aging coal plants. The better outcome for public health and the environment, and arguably for the company, is to put the remaining MWG plants on a reasonable schedule for retirement.”
Bressett added:
“In a deregulated market like Illinois, the market chooses generating resources and the market is not choosing dirty and increasingly expensive coal…The old coal-based business model that MWG has used in the past has no place in this energy future.”
A map of the Midwest energy system
Does Illinois produce more coal than it consumes?
What percent of Iowa’s electricity comes from wind?
What’s the average electricity price in the Midwest?
They’re all questions than can be answered in the Power Almanac of the American Midwest, a web guide published Thursday by the World Resources Institute and Great Plains Institute.
Nicholas Bianco, a senior associate with the World Resources Institute, said the goal was to create a resource to help policymakers and the public better understand energy issues.
Bianco was joined on a conference call Thursday by Illinois and Minnesota energy officials, who said they hope the almanac will help improve energy policy discussions.
“One of the great challenges always is getting agreement on a common set of facts,” said Rolf Nordstrom, executive director of the Great Plains Institute.
The almanac pulls data comes from more than 50 sources and overlays them on a clickable Google Map, which is supplemented with a series of charts and graphs.
The map layers show generation facilities such as power plants and wind farms, as well as the location of resources, from sun levels to gas and coal deposits.
It’s all information that’s available elsewhere on the web, mostly on various government websites, but this is an attempt to put it all in a centralized, easy-to-use format.
The almanac will be regularly updated, as often as monthly for some data.
And if you’re wondering the answers to the questions at the top, the answers are:
1) No. Illinois produced 783 trillion BTUs of coal in 2009 but consumed 1,015 trillion BTUs.
2) Wind accounted for 15.95 percent of Iowa’s electricity generation in 2010.
3)The Midwest’s average electricity price in 2009 was 8.06 cents per kWh.
The Great Plains Institute is a member of RE-AMP, which also publishes Midwest Energy News.
Is the EPA out to ‘crucify’ oil and gas companies?
This week, Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe is promoting a video clip he says supports contentions by EPA critics that the agency is capriciously targeting fossil fuel industries.
Conservative websites, and even Politico, are running with Inhofe’s claims that the EPA is using “a ‘crucify them’ strategy” as it enforces pollution rules.
The clip in question features EPA Region 6 Administrator Al Armendariz describing Roman military tactics as an analogy for how an agency can enforce regulations with a small staff – to “hit them as hard as you can” and “make examples out of them.”
I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff…the Romans used to conquer little villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go into a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they would crucify them. And then you know that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.
And so you make examples out of people who are in this case not compliant with the law. Find people who are not compliant with the law, and you hit them as hard as you can and you make examples out of them, and there is a deterrent effect there.
And, companies that are smart see that, they don’t want to play that game, and they decide at that point that it’s time to clean up.
Inhofe says the comments are proof that the agency is conducting a “war on fossil fuels.” Glenn Beck’s news website The Blaze also carries the narrative, saying the video “seems to confirm what many conservatives have long suspected: that the EPA is at war with the oil and gas industries.”
But if you actually watch the video, you’ll notice a few things. First, Armendariz doesn’t mention the oil and gas industries, or any particular industries at all (see update below). Second, and more importantly, what he’s describing is a deterrent effect – “making examples” of a handful of violators to encourage everyone to comply with the law. It’s the same reason all laws – from the speed limit to financial regulations – are selectively enforced (as opposed to having a police officer on every corner), and is a common rationale for, say, capital punishment, which Inhofe supports, incidentally.
Even The Blaze concedes that “it’s obvious Armendariz is simply using over-the-top imagery to deliver a somewhat entertaining (albeit macabre) analogy.” Armendariz has since apologized for the remarks.
So is this a damning indictment of the EPA or a political canard by Inhofe? I encourage readers to watch the video and decide for themselves.
UPDATE: The Daily Oklahoman provides more context for the clip, which came from a meeting in which Armendariz was addressing residents’ concerns about pollution from fracking operations:
According to media accounts of the 2010 town meeting, Armendariz was in Dish [TX] to address residents’ concerns about air emissions from oil and gas drilling in the Barnett Shale in northern Texas. He also spoke about hydraulic fracturing at the meeting, although he does not specifically mention fracking in the video clip released by Inhofe.
In a statement released Wednesday, Armendariz said, “I apologize to those I have offended and regret my poor choice of words.
“It was an offensive and inaccurate way to portray our efforts to address potential violations of our nation’s environmental laws. I am committed to fair and vigorous enforcement of our nation’s environmental laws.”
Milwaukee program helps boost efficiency retrofits
Cross-posted from EarthTechling with permission
By Susan DeFreitas
Milwaukee, one of the greenest cities in the country? Scoff all you want, Left Coasters, but the city has announced that it will be leveraging funds it received through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to provide up to $60 million in enhanced private-sector financing for building owners to pursue energy-efficient retrofits and renovations.
The program, known as the Me2 Clean Energy Financing Program, works to connect property owners with energy contractors and private lenders, eliminating those upfront costs that keep so many of those who’d like to make energy efficient improvements from pursuing them. As with other such financing programs we’ve seen (for instance, in Louisiana), costs are then recouped via the savings that result from reduced energy use.
The program has secured a high-profile partner in Johnson Controls, which brings extensive experience in building efficiency upgrades to the table, having led or participated in numerous retrofit projects around the world, including the Empire State ReBuilding project expected to decrease the iconic New York City highrise’s energy bills by 38 percent and save $4.4 million per year.
The first Me2 project has already launched at The Newport, a co-op project located at 1620 N. Prospect Avenue in Milwaukee, where Johnson Controls is implementing the removal of existing heating, ventilating and air conditioning systems and replacing them with more energy-efficient equipment. A new building automation system will also be installed to control the HVAC equipment that serves the building.
The overall goals of the Me2 program—which, it has been emphasized, is conducted entirely without the aid of local public funds—are to reduce pollution, create hundreds of private-sector green jobs in the area, reduce energy bills and improve the commercial buildings and houses in Milwaukee. More about the program is available online.
Triple your money with a contribution today
Sure, the payout may not be good. But the odds are 1:1. (Photo by jarsyl via Creative Commons)
Today – and today only! – donations of $10 to $50 to Midwest Energy News (and/or Fresh Energy, the organization that publishes the site) will be matched not once, but twice.
Here’s how it works. Make a contribution via our GiveMN page, and it will automatically be doubled, thanks to a commitment from three anonymous individual donors to Fresh Energy. Then, if you tweet about it or post to your Facebook page (be sure to tag @MWenergynews or our Facebook page so we see it), the donation will be tripled (so, $20 turns into $40 and then $60, just so we’re clear on the math).
Also, four donors will receive $50 donation cards to GiveMN to donate to any organization they choose. Those winners will be chosen based on the creativity of their Twitter or Facebook posts, as judged arbitrarily, and probably capriciously, by the Fresh Energy communications staff.
The offer ends at midnight tonight.
The donations go to Fresh Energy, but all money designated for Midwest Energy News will go toward the editorial mission of this website. That includes original reporting from our outstanding freelance journalists, as well as our daily aggregated report highlighting the best energy reporting from around the region.
This is an exciting time for Midwest Energy News. Since we launched a little over two years ago, our audience has grown dramatically, and our original reporting has been featured in Grist, the Huffington Post, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, InsideClimate News, EarthTechling and other outlets. We’re in the process of redesigning the website to better highlight our original content, and we’re hiring our second Journalism Fellow, a part-time reporter who will focus on Michigan and Ohio.
While individual donations make up only a small part of our revenue stream (the rest of our funding comes from the Joyce, Kresge and Garfield foundations), every little bit helps. In addition to supporting our efforts, your donation is a signal to our funders that the service we provide is valuable and important to readers.
And if financial support isn’t workable for you right now, there are other ways you can help out. Follow us on Facebook or Twitter, or encourage friends and colleagues to sign up for our daily email digest.
As always, thanks for reading!
Are we flushing a heat source down the drain?
(Photo by Evan Long via Creative Commons)
A northern Minnesota start-up company wants to recover a waste heat source that’s currently flushed down the drain.
Hidden Fuels of Brainerd, Minnesota, is trying to develop a municipal sewer heat recovery system, which would heat buildings using warmth from the city’s sewers — minus the stench.
Jeff Aga, one of the company’s principals, said it would work similar to geothermal, but that sewers have an advantage of warmer starting temperatures than ground wells.
“We did some tests throughout their system and found where there’s good heat that can be captured,” Aga said.
The company placed temperature sensors throughout the city’s sewer system as part of a 16-month, federal stimulus-funded feasibility study that was completed in January. They found temperatures ranged from 38 to 78 degrees, but were mostly between 45 and 60 degrees. The warmest temperatures were found near a commercial laundry facility.
Aga said they’ve identified the police department as a good potential customer for the system, which might also be able to heat the local high school and a nearby apartment high rise.
“The fact that no one else has really thought about tapping into that until we did this study, I thought, was kind of fascinating,” says Scott Sjolund, technology supervisor at Brainerd Public Utilities, which sponsored the study after the city was approached by Hidden Fuels.
The company believes the system would be the first of its kind in the United States, though Vancouver built something like it as part of its 2010 Olympics village. The New York Times reported that the Vancouver project was the first district energy system in North America to draw heat from untreated wastewater, and that three others existed in Oslo and Tokyo.
The fact that so few systems exist is probably a sign of their challenging economics, said John Whitehouse, vice president of business development for Recycled Energy Development, an Illinois company that designs, builds, owns and operates cogeneration and waste heat recovery projects around the country.
“Unless you have really high energy prices, it’s going to be a hard sell,” Whitehouse said of the concept in general.
Low natural gas prices mean the payback time is likely to be long, he said. That’s especially true for projects that will involve retrofitting buildings rather than incorporating systems into new construction.
And while there is heat in sewers that’s technically recoverable, “there’s just not that much there,” Whitehouse said. His company normally looks for opportunities where the temperature is at least 180 degrees.
Hidden Fuels has presented the results of its feasibility study at public meetings in Brainerd. Next, it hopes to find funding to build a system at the police station.
Natural gas: The ‘atomic bomb’ of the energy debate
A drilling rig in the Barnett Shale in Texas. (Photo by jermlac via Creative Commons)
The growing role of natural gas in the U.S. energy mix continues to confound and divide renewable energy experts and investors. Is America’s abundant supply of shale gas a boon for the renewable industry, or undercutting it?
That was the recurring question panelists sought to address during a talk, “Renewables: Boom or Bust?”, during a conference hosted by The George Washington University’s Planet Forward project in Washington, D.C on Tuesday. The energy industry panelists – who had previously worked as academics, investors, military leaders, or regulators – were sharply divided on the issue. To varying degrees, they all expressed support for natural gas, but some were more eager than others to overlook its drawbacks.
“It’s a godsend. America is drowning in natural gas,” said Robert Hefner, the 76-year-old founder and CEO of GHK Companies, a pioneering Oklahoma-based natural gas and oil firm. “The price is terrific for the United States.”
New drilling techniques like horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing — or fracking, as it’s more commonly known — have contributed to a near doubling in the past decade of technically recoverable natural gas reserves in the U.S., according to Energy Information Administration’s 2011 forecast. Increased extraction of these previously uneconomic shale reserves has caused U.S. natural gas prices to plummet from a 2008 high of nearly $13 per thousand cubic feet to below $2 — the energy-to-cost equivalent of $15-per-barrel oil.
This low-cost fossil fuel source gives the U.S. “an incredible competitive advantage over Asia and Europe,” where natural gas is less abundant and more expensive, added Hefner, who is also a member of Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. “That boost, I believe, is one of the significant things that’s driving our economy forward and keeping us going.”
But falling natural gas prices cuts both ways for U.S. renewable energy proponents.
Natural gas power plants can be cycled on and off more quickly than coal plants, making them better suited as “peaker” units to balance intermittent wind and solar power. They also burn cleaner and produce fewer planet-warming greenhouse gases than coal-fired plants and are less prone to catastrophic risk than nuclear reactors. Currently, natural gas accounts for about a quarter of U.S. electricity generation.
With natural gas prices so low, it’s extremely difficult for renewable energy to compete on cost. In Wired magazine’s January 2012 examination of “Why the Clean Tech Boom Went Bust,” the cripplingly low price of natural gas was cited as one of the main reasons.
“Natural gas is to the political debate about energy as the atomic bomb was to World War II,” observed Reed Hundt, the 64-year-old CEO of the Coalition for Green Capital, a renewable energy investment group. Not only does it radically reshape the balance of power, he said, but “we have no idea what’s going to happen next.”
Like the nuclear nonproliferation regime that evolved in the aftermath of destruction at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the natural gas boom requires new policy approaches, the panelists said. “I think there’s this perception that innovation is restricted to widgets,” said New York Times environmental blogger Andrew Revkin, who was moderating the discussion. “Innovation is needed here in policy — if anything, more than in the widgetry.”
“We don’t have an energy policy in this country,” Revkin added.
But even now, retired Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn believes, the government has three options at its disposal that could be used to encourage renewable energy and alleviate the environmental concerns associated with fracking: Tax policy, direct or indirect investments, and mandates. “As we move forward in trying to achieve an energy strategy that makes sense not just for the next election cycle, but for the next five, ten, [or] twenty years, we need to carefully consider what are the best ways to employ those,” he said.
That plan should still include emission-free, clean energy, added McGinn, who is now president of the American Council on Renewable Energy. “Renewables have a wonderful price of fuel — essentially zero,” he said. Meanwhile, the natural gas cannot stay at $2 per thousand cubic feet for decades. “There’s gonna be a lot of eventual upward pressure on the price of natural gas.”
McGinn also said natural gas fracking needs better regulation. “It’s not presently being done universally in a responsible way. It’s kind of a Wild West out there with independent wildcatters.” While some companies “know how to do fracking right,” he said, “it’s much better if we have some level of regulation at the state and, where necessary, at the federal level to be able to extract this great source of energy in a way that doesn’t do a lot of damage.”
Hundt, a former Federal Communications Commission chairman, echoed McGinn’s concerns and noted a few of the issues raised by fracking opponents: the risk of groundwater contamination, the increased occurrence of earthquakes (which are believed to be linked to disposed fracking fluid migrating into fault lines), and the effects of fugitive emissions. Hundt also cast doubt on governments’ abilities to resolve these issues: “We do not have an effective, well-thought-through national regulatory scheme.”
The challenges raised by McGinn and Hundt were flatly dismissed by Hefner, who has long promoted natural gas as a bridge fuel to sustainable energy. “The entire problem with fracking has been drumming up fear by those who are opposed of it without much scientific basis,” he said.
EDITOR’S NOTE: An earlier version of this story misspelled Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn’s last name.
Smoothing out the bumps of compressed-air storage
The University of Minnesota has licensed a new technology that could be used to smooth out many of the peaks and valleys in wind and solar power generation.
The invention, by mechanical engineering professor Perry Li, is a method for setting up a compressed-air energy storage system that releases energy at a constant rate.
Compressed-air energy storage typically involves using excess electricity to pump air into an underground cavern. When electricity is in higher demand, the airflow can be reversed, spinning a set of turbines with a stream of air as the container depressurizes.
One drawback is that the intensity of the energy released constantly declines. It’s like filling balloons with a helium tank. As the tank empties, it gradually takes longer to fill each balloon.
There’s inefficiency and variability in that type of system — two qualities that are undesirable when it comes to managing an electricity grid.
Li came up with a configuration for an above-ground storage system, using a set of tanks and vessels, in which the pressure inside stays nearly constant, which means the energy output stays consistent, too.
“It’s really about the configuration — how you put it together,” says Li. “The idea is to allow the system to operate at more constant pressure, rather than at varying pressure. That’s the key to the invention.”
Li imagines the systems could be installed on individual wind turbines, where they could regulate the electricity output to a rolling eight-hour average.
The project, which was funded by the National Science Foundation, started out as a search for storage solutions for hydraulic hybrid vehicles, which capture energy from braking and store it in a vessel containing pressurized fluid.
What they came up with, however, appeared to be better suited for larger energy storage systems instead of vehicles, so Li turned his attention to wind and solar applications.
The technology has been licensed to SustainX, a New Hampshire company that’s developing above-ground isothermal compressed-air energy storage systems.
For those who want to delve into the technical details, you can find the patent information here.
