UK Dereg Rethink?

February 4, 2010 by John Howley

Thatcher-era Britain provided the inspiration for the global effort to deregulate electricity markets, including Maryland’s 1999 reforms. Now the Brits are having a rethink.

When transmission, generation and distribution were broken up and privatized, a regulator called “Ofgem” was put in charge:

Energy experts said that the regulator’s proposals represented an “extraordinary volte-face”. Ofgem has been one of the biggest advocates of a liberalised energy market, arguing that companies could be left to build enough new power stations and low-carbon forms of generation to guarantee energy supplies and reduce carbon emissions.

But only a fraction of the estimated £200bn investment needed by 2020 has been made, because volatile energy prices, and the short-term supply contracts that have characterised liberalisation, have made spending such huge sums too risky.

Now Ofgem is recommending that energy companies receive guaranteed rates of return on the new plants they build.

Ogem’s consultation paper identifies a number of challenges that liberalization may not be able to meet such as needed new investment in generation and controlling carbon emissions.  The report acknowledges a key defect in the deregulation model:
Short term price signals at times of system stress do not fully reflect the value that customers place on supply security which may mean that the incentives to make additional peak energy supplies available and to invest in peaking capacity are not strong enough. (Page 2)
Perhaps Maryland could learn a lesson — or two — here.

O’Malley Advances Offshore Wind

February 3, 2010 by John Howley

The massive offshore wind resource on the East Coast holds great potential for tackling Maryland’s energy challenges.

Governor O’Malley is leading a steady march towards realizing this opportunity.  Last year, he joined other governors in a letter urging Congressional leaders to speed up offshore wind development, instead of promoting on-shore transmission only.

In November, O’Malley signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the governors of Virginia and Delware to promote offshore wind.  The Maryland Energy Administration has taken aggressive steps to clear the way, including mapping the offshore resource.  Maryland will purchase power from NRG Bluewater’s offshore wind project.

In November, Governor O’Malley joined with the governors of Virginia, New Jersey and Delaware to ask the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to order private transmission operator PJM Interconnection to consider transmission solutions that would facilitate the development of offshore wind resources.  (See FERC Docket No. AD09-8-00).

It’s great news that the Governor’s legislative agenda includes additional steps to move wind forward.  SB 282 “Off-Shore Wind Generation – Qualified Submerged Renewable Energy Line” will facilitate the construction of transmission connectors needed to bring offshore power to the onshore grid.

Meanwhile, Europe’s offshore wind industry powers ahead.

Our Neighbor to the West

December 4, 2009 by John Howley

It’s time for West Virginians to have a frank discussion about the future of their economy.  Mining and burning toxic coal hasn’t been all that great for the poverty-stricken state and the future doesn’t look much better.

Senator Byrd has called the question:

Change has been a constant throughout the history of our coal industry. West Virginians can choose to anticipate change and adapt to it, or resist and be overrun by it.  One thing is clear.  The time has arrived for the people of the Mountain State to think long and hard about which course they want to choose.

In his remarkable statement, Senator Byrd acknowledges that the practice of mountaintop removal cannot be defended:

It is also a reality that the practice of mountaintop removal mining has a diminishing constituency in Washington. It is not a widespread method of mining, with its use confined to only three states.  Most members of Congress, like most Americans, oppose the practice, and we may not yet fully understand the effects of mountaintop removal mining on the health of our citizens.

He rightly questions the suicidal notion of blocking health care reform to protect mountaintop removal:

I believe that the notion of holding the health care of over 300 million Americans hostage in exchange for a handful of coal permits is beyond foolish; it is morally indefensible.  It is a non-starter, and puts the entire state of West Virginia and the coal industry in a terrible light.

Senator Byrd wants his state to be part of the solution:

To deny the mounting science of climate change is to stick our heads in the sand and say “deal me out.” West Virginia would be much smarter to stay at the table.

Toxic coal represents the past, not the future.

In 1979, there were 62,500 coal miners in the Mountain State. Today there are about 22,000. In recent years, West Virginia has seen record high coal production and record low coal employment.

These words of West Virginia’s senior senator mark a turning point in the debate over how to get our country onto the low-carbon path.

The contrast with the mindless blather of his fellow senators like Inhofe (who pretends to believe that human-caused climate change is not happening) could not be greater.

NSA Call IBM for Reliable Power

December 4, 2009 by John Howley

The NSA (“No Such Agency”), located “in the vicinity” of Fort Meade, Maryland, is reported to be BGE’s largest single customer — and getting larger.

Agency officials anticipated the problem nearly a decade ago as they looked ahead at the technology needs of the agency, sources said, but it was never made a priority, and now the agency’s ability to keep its operations going is threatened. The NSA is already unable to install some costly and sophisticated new equipment, including two new supercomputers, for fear of blowing out the electrical infrastructure, they said. (“NSA risking electrical overload,” Baltimore Sun, August 7, 2006)

Tracking what everybody (you never know!) is doing on (and off) the Internet requires tremendous amounts of computing power and huge amounts of electricity.  And — big problem coming up — you need to make sure that the power doesn’t go off at an inconvenient time.  And you certainly don’t want to be dependent on powerlines and substations that can be easily attacked by terrorists.

Stupid idea: Run an extension cord nearly 300 hundred miles to the John Amos Toxic Coal Power Plant in Putnam County, West Virginia.  Someone has actually proposed this “solution” — it’s called the PATH project.  Sounds like something the Cheney Administration dreamed up.

Here’s a smart idea: Build computing centers that are not connected to the grid.  Generate your own power for electricity, heating and cooling.  And use a lot less energy at the same time.  IBM and Syracuse University have teamed up to do just that:

Heat from the microturbines, meanwhile, will be captured and funnelled into a double-effect absorption chiller that will convert the heat into chilled water. That chilled water will then be utilized to cool down the computers. Air conditioning can take up half of the power delivered to a data center. Waste heat by contrast is arguably free energy. The turbines and chillers will allow the university to run the data center off the grid.

In fact, it’s already built and ready to go.  Take a video tour.  Can’t say the same for PATH!

Montgomery County Delegation Urged to Challenge “Coal-by-Wire” Transmission

November 19, 2009 by John Howley

Montgomery County has led years of efforts to make Maryland a leader among states in combatting human-caused global over-heating.  The County’s delegation to Annapolis holds its annual “Priorities Hearing” in Rockville this evening.

Maryland Energy Report submitted a statement urging legislators to ask tough questions about the PATH proposal that would bring more dirty, coal-fired power from West Virginia to Maryland.

Another Alternative to the Risky Power Grid

November 18, 2009 by John Howley

EBay will install five natural gas fuel cells with a total capacity of 500 kilowatts at its facility in San Jose.  The city approved the permit in July.  The fuels cells are made by Bloom Energy:

CNN Money in 2007 placed Bloom on its list of 15 companies that will change the world, and it said Bloom’s fuel cell could disrupt the idea that power has to come from central power plants. Sridhar’s plan calls for making fuel cells that can run on any hydrocarbon fuel, including ethanol, biodiesel, methane or natural gas.

The fuel cells turn natural gas into electricity with much higher efficiency than large combustion generators.   These small fuel cells could power single homes, neighborhoods or commercial facilities and could feed power back to the grid.  The National Renewable Energy Laboratory published a study in 2003 explaining how widespread distributed generation could interact with the grid.

The U.S. military will be very interested.

Bloom was started by K.R. Sridhar who aims to bring the benefits of electricity to the billions of people not connected to any power grid — and likely never will be.

Build Nukes Or Stabilize Climate?

November 17, 2009 by John Howley

Maybe you are one of those folks who decided not to worry about the new wave of applications to build nuclear power stations.  After all, nuclear plants have low carbon emissions which is good for stabilizing our grandchildren’s climate, right?

Time to think again, according to a new report from Environment Maryland entitled Generating Failure How Building Nuclear Power Plants Would Set America Back in the Race Against Global Warming. The report was announced at a press conference on the steps of Constellation Energy Group who is planning to build a third nuclear reactor at Calvert Cliffs with a French partner.

New nuclear plants are not the most cost effective way to cut carbon emissions.  According to a new report from the Calfiornia Energy Commission:

But it gets worse.  Not only is new nuclear a wasteful way to avoid carbon emissions, it’s actually counter-productive.  Here’s why: delay and diversion.

Based on the historical record, it will take six to ten years to complete construction following permit approval.  While we are waiting and waiting and waiting to turn on our shiny new nuclear plant, carbon dioxide emissions continue to built up in the atmosphere.  CO2 “hangs around” for a hundred years or more.  Having allowed the build-up to continue while we wait for new nuclear, we will be forced to make more drastic and costly cuts later.

Then there’s the diversion of funds.  Building the proposed 100 new nuclear plants would cost upwards of $600 billion dollars.  Regardless of whose budget this comes out of, resources devoted one task cannot be used for another at the same time.  Public opinion remains confused about climate policy, it’s not reassuring to take the least cost effective route.

According to Moody’s Investor Service, “…nuclear generation has a fixed design where construction costs are rising rapidly, while other renewable technologies are still experiencing significant advancements in terms of energy conversion efficiency and cost reductions.”

Generating Failure also challenges myths about the reliability of nuclear plants.

…when power is supplied in huge blocks by large central station power plants, the failure of any individual power plant or power line carries a great risk of widespread electricity supply disruption. at another 35 reactors resulted in one or more outages of at least one year… it can take days or weeks for a nuclear reactor to return to full output after an emergency shutdown.

Time to Focus on Coal

November 10, 2009 by John Howley

The UK Guardian newspaper reports that whistleblowers at the International Energy Agency have challenged that agency’s “cover-up” of “peak oil.” (Peak oil is the simple idea that annual oil production will be lower in the future because we have used up the easy-to-produce reserves.)

“The IEA in 2005 was predicting oil supplies could rise as high as 120m barrels a day by 2030 although it was forced to reduce this gradually to 116m and then 105m last year,” said the IEA source, who was unwilling to be identified for fear of reprisals inside the industry. “The 120m figure always was nonsense but even today’s number is much higher than can be justified and the IEA knows this.”

Conventional petroleum is useful and valuable; humanity will burn all it can find.  If we are smart, we will find ways to use it more sparingly.

What we cannot do is burn all the coal we can find because that would release too much carbon dioxide into the earth’s atmosphere.  The result would be runaway climate instability and a very, very unpleasant life for our grandchildren.  NASA climate expert James Hansen has been hitting this point for some time now:

What is clear is that we cannot burn all the fossil fuels.  There is a limit on how much carbon we can put into the atmosphere. …we must phase out all coal emissions rapidly, not develop the unconventional fossil fuels, and not even go after every last drop of oil on the planet.  In that case, our children and grandchildren have a chance of inheriting a planet that is not spiraling out of their control.

In reality our governments are continuing to build new coal-fired power plants, develop unconventional fossil fuels, and encourage the search for more oil.  Instead of taking a strategic approach, governments pretend that they will solve the problem by setting “goals” for large emission reductions for some future date – say 80 percent by 2050 or some other target.  They say that they will set “caps” on emissions to achieve the emission reductions.  Our governments are lying to us, or, if you want to be generous, they are kidding us. [Emphasis added.]

Power Grid Risks Exposed

November 9, 2009 by John Howley

60 Minutes gave us a taste of current thinking about the vulnerability of the U.S. power grid to hostile action. It ain’t pretty: Cyber War: Sabotaging the System.

First, we learn that Internet attacks on private financial systems and secure government computer systems are now routine, significant and ongoing.

We also learn that the top concern of national-security officials is the power grid.  Here, the danger is that unauthorized access could be used not merely to monitor or steal data, but to take control of physical systems like large generators or transformers to make them malfunction and self-destruct.

The destruction of such hard-to-replace assets could leave parts of the country without power for long periods of time.  Building new, unneeded high-voltage transmission projects like the proposed PATH power line would leave us even more vulnerable to attack.

The 60 Minutes report concludes by highlighting the work of the House Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity, and Science and Technology which has been stymied by the “private sector” in its efforts to draw more attention to the problem.  In a statement, Representative Bennie Thompson, chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, said:

Most of the electric industry had not completed the recommended mitigations, despite being advised to do so by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation. This effectively left many utilities vulnerable to attacks. Furthermore, in spite of existing mandatory cybersecurity standards, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (“NERC”) recently reported that many utilities are underreporting their critical cyber assets, potentially to avoid compliance requirements.

How many remember the days before 9-11, when the airline industry stonewalled efforts to improve airport security?  And after 9-11, that same industry was bailed out by the federal government and protected from liability.  The power industry probably expects to get the same deal from Washington in the event of a cyber-attack or other hazard that takes out parts of the grid.

One key point was missing from the 60 Minutes story.  The impression was created that only foreign governments were capable of launching attacks on our critical infrastructure.  That’s comforting.  After all, the Chinese are pretty rational and probably won’t attack our grid so long as we don’t attack them.  (They like selling us televisions.)

A more insidious danger comes from non-state actors, including terrorist groups or criminal gangs.  The unpleasant truth is that these unpredictable non-state actors may also have the capability to inflict serious harm on our power grid.  The 60 Minutes story does mention cases of blackouts in Brazil that were probably caused by criminal gangs.  (The Brazilian government is disputing the report.)

No wonder the Pentagon is so anxious to get off the grid.

Competition from Offshore Wind

November 8, 2009 by John Howley

Offshore wind sounds nice to those of us who use electricity.  It’s clean and abundant:

[The Cape Wind Project] would with 130 wind turbines, well off the Cape shore,  produce power equivalent to ¾ of the base-load of Cape Cod, Marthas Vineyard and Nantucket.  …the Woods Hole Research Center’s 100 kw turbine, has in the first few days of operation produced about 7% of the total annual use of energy by the entire institution. It is expected to produce annually an excess of energy above the institution’s demand. While the total energy production of all of these machines is not yet known, it will take but little in addition to the Cape Wind Project  to make the Cape and the Islands a net source of electrical energy for the New England region, a powerful example for the nation and the world.

Sounds great for the grand-kids!

But what about the incumbent power generators?  Those poor guys have to purchase coal, uranium, and natural gas to keep the turbines turning.  Then they have to clean up the resulting mess — nuclear waste, coal ash, etc. — or leave it for the rest of us to clean up.   How can they possibly compete?

They can’t.  Which is why they are fighting to hard to block the development of the massive wind resources on the Outer Continental Shelf.  The United States still has no commercial scale offshore wind project.