It's not the coal industry that's fighting combined cycle units. Everyone I know in the industry thinks it's a great idea (and I've worked in the industry off and on for thirty years).

The people who don't like it are the -power- industry. So far as I'm aware, there is no power plant in the US that's owned by a coal company (though Peabody Energy has some in the works). Coal is guilty of a lot, but they don't make the decisions about how the power plants get built, they just fill orders. They'd love to see some of the gas peaking plants that got built in the 90's converted over to combined cycle.

Heck, they'd even love to see those old pre-clean air act plants closed and replaced. Newer plants consume just as much coal, and don't give them the PR headaches that sulfur/mercury/you-name-it belching plants that get a break under Bush's "Clear Skies" do.

But blaming the "coal industry" for the power plants is like blaming the steel industry for the kind of cars Detroit is making.

Reply

↓↑report

"If we're going to power our EVs with grid electricty, then shouldn't that juice be as clean as possible?"

No, not as clean as possible. As clean as possible would mean using only wind and solar power, and even those create pollution during the manufacturing process for windmills and solar panels. We can't afford to be as clean as possible.

We can, however, afford to be a lot cleaner, and the best way to do that is to assign a (possibly quite high) fee to each unit of pollution, and let power companies decide the cheapest way to clean up. If they don't clean up, we can make the fees higher.

Alternatively we could used tradeable emissions permits. They have worked quite well for SO2 emissions.

Both approaches have the advantage of achieving emissions reductions at the lowest possible cost, unlike the "you must use this particular technology" command-and-control approach that the U.S. has tended to use. What if integrated gasification combined cycle plants are not the cheapest way to reduce a given amount of pollution? What if there is a cheaper way to get rid of just as much pollution? We should find it, and given the right incentives, firms will do so for us.

Reply

↓↑report

In reference to the first comment it should be noted that the foot dragging attitude I noted in my article in the industry's "Coal Vision" document was produced by "America's coal-based electricity industry (producers, transporters, and electricity generators)". While some coal producers may support IGCC, do they support IGCC with carbon capture now? Doing so is likely to make coal uncompetitive when compared to wind power.

There are undoubtedly some progressive thinkers in the coal industry, however collectively the industry is engaged in "stuck thinking". This attitude is documented in far more detail than it is possible to go into in a blog post, in Jeff Goodell's book "Big Coal".

From the second comment:
"What if integrated gasification combined cycle plants are not the cheapest way to reduce a given amount of pollution?"

IGCC is a type of power plant, not a type of pollution control. IGCC enables carbon dioxide to be captured prior to combustion rather than after which is a much more effective way to capture carbon.

"We can, however, afford to be a lot cleaner, and the best way to do that is to assign a (possibly quite high) fee to each unit of pollution, and let power companies decide the cheapest way to clean up. If they don't clean up, we can make the fees higher."

I agree with you in theory. However the reality is that the politically powerful coal industry will lobby like crazy if they have already made huge investments in conventional coal pulverisation rather than building IGCC plants. Then either the taxpayer will foot the huge bill for decommissioning existing plants & building IGCC plants or change will be delayed decades.

James
Alternative Energy Blog

Reply

↓↑report

James,

A cleaner type of power plant IS a kind of pollution control. Any method of reducing pollution is pollution control, whether it is using cleaner burning coal, a scrubber, sequestration after combustion, or whatever. The method of emissions reduction is irrelevant, so long as emissions are reduced (and at the lowest cost). The question is, what is the cheapest way to reduce pollution? If IGCC is the best way, firms will choose it on their own, given the proper incentives.

Your second point is puzzling. Power companies are already fighting IGCC. They'll fight ANY proposal that requires some of them to reduce emissions. So if we're going to push for pollution cleanup, shouldn't we at least push for a kind of program that will reduce emissions efficiently, i.e., at the lowest cost? Why push for a high-cost pollution reduction approach, if it will face the same opposition that a low-cost approach faces?

Reply

↓↑report

You seem to be making an argument which is based on perfectly efficient markets, rather than the reality in the United States. If there were perfectly efficient markets, ethanol would not be being subsidised to the tune of a few billion dollars a year. Grandfathering in power plants has certainly happened in the past when new emissions legislation has come into force and it is likely to happen in the future.

I agree a market based mechanism for controlling carbon dioxide emissions is highly desirable. However taking into account political reality it seems unlikely this will come into force for at least a few years. In the meantime building coal pulverisation plants should be discouraged. I'm not aware of any studies or research that suggest adding carbon capture to coal pulverisation plants is likely to be nearly as efficient or as cost effective as adding them to IGCC plants.

Regarding your second point. Power companies are NOT against reducing emissions, they are against any regulation which would negatively impact their bottom line, many companies such as Exxon have reduced their emissions because greater efficiency has resulted in cost savings. Some power companies are fighting IGCC if it will affect their bottom line, others are saying they want to build IGCC plants but are looking to government to help fund the additional cost. In some cases public utility boards are forbidding power companies building IGCC plants because it would mean raising electricity rates for consumers (but not by much).

I really can't agree with your point when you say I'm pushing for a high cost solution. All the research I'm aware of shows adding carbon capture to IGCC plants will be much more cost effective than adding it to coal pulverisation plants.

James
Alternative Energy Blog

Reply

↓↑report

Ethanol subsidies don't have much to do with inefficient markets. They have a everything to do with inefficient government policy, supporting a very high-cost and unscalable way of reducing gasoline use.

Perhaps if environmentalists stopped wasting time pushing for command-and-control regulations, there would be more support for market-based solutions. Every dollar spent requiring plants to use a specific technology, such as IGCC, is a dollar that could be spent on a general, low-cost solution. Of course, if firms want to build cleaner facilities, I don't think anyone should stand in their way, including regulatory boards.

Perhaps IGCC IS the cheapest solution. But what if it is not? A market solution does not require us to even know the answer; the market answers the question for us. More importantly, requiring IGCC (or any specific technology) gives firms no incentive to find even better solutions, whereas emissions fees or permits do. With a market mechanism, any firm that finds an even better solution can save on fees or permit purchases.

Reply

↓↑report

Utility Maximizer, you're right. I'm agreeing with you that market based solutions are great. I'm a British citizen, not a U.S. citizen. So go get your government to implement a market based solution to carbon dioxide emissions with no special dispensations to particular industries and come back and tell us when you're done.

James
Alternative Energy Blog

Reply

↓↑report