The EPA Carbon Plan: Coal Loses, But Who Wins?

Lasrick writes: Mark Cooper with one of the best explanations of some of the most pressing details on the new EPA rule change: 'The claims and counterclaims about EPA's proposed carbon pollution standards have filled the air: It will boost nuclear. It will expand renewables. It promotes energy efficiency. It will kill coal. It changes everything. It accomplishes almost nothing.' Cooper notes that although it's clear that coal is the big loser in the rule change, the rule itself doesn't really pick winners in terms of offering sweet deals for any particular technology; however, it seems that nuclear is also a loser in this formulation, because 'Assuming that states generally adhere to the prime directive of public utility resource acquisition—choosing the lowest-cost approach—the proposed rule will not alter the dismal prospects of nuclear power...' Nuclear power does seem to be struggling with economic burdens and a reluctance from taxpayers to pay continuing subsides in areas such as storage and cleanup. It seems that nuclear is another loser in the new EPA rule change.

Comments

No winners economically

[Langalf]

I think you can be sure no matter how this plays out, power is going to be more expensive. In addition, if the coal-fired plants are removed from the equation before replacement sources of power are in place, there will be power shortages.

Re:No winners economically

[TWX]

Why is the government supposed to pick winners?

I was under the impression that public health was a principal concern, not determining which industry gets to make windfall profits for the luck few that manage to hold stock.

What I think needs to happen is for power-generating companies to not also own the power grid. That's one of the problems right now with trying to get residential solar adoption going- the power companies want to throw up roadblocks to anyone else putting solar on and tying to to the grid. The "buy" excess power at the lowest possible price (ie, about what someone would pay for power if they have a time-of-use plan, if they were using their power in the middle of the night when demand is bottomed out) and they want to charge solar-producing customers extra fees to even be connected to the grid.

Power companies at least need their power generation units and power distribution units to be separate items on the customer's bill. That should hold true for all customers, even those that don't produce power themselves. Everyone should be charged the same grid connection price (relative to the kind of connection they have, a residential or light commercial 240V single phase center-tap-neutral should cost less than a 460V three phase industrial or commercial connection) and then their power's metered cost should be line-itemized separately. If a customer produces more power than they use, that should reduce the price they pay for their grid connection, and if they produce above and beyond that then they should receive payment, instead of a bill.

I am fairly heavily convinced that regulation like this would do wonders for residential solar adoption, which then do wonders for reducing fossil-fuel generation, at least in Southern states where peak demand is during daylight hours.

Re:No winners economically

[TapeCutter]

Why is the government supposed to pick winners?

The government is damned if it does pick winners (Solindra), and damned if they don't. These new rules target emissions without prescribing the solution, It has "free market" solution written all over it.

My own government (Australia) is disappointingly doing everything they can to avoid even talking about climate change, however they are taking a proposal to the G20 to eliminate the $500M or so of FF subsidies the G20 nations are currently providing to the industry. They are doing so on economic grounds since Australian coal would be more competitive against other nations without the subsidies. They are however ideologically opposed to mitigating climate change. For example, they are currently battling the senate to dismantle the clean energy fund. The fund doesn't provide grants, it provides loans to commercial clean energy projects at reserve bank interest rates and makes a modest profit for the taxpayer. There's no economically rational reason to dismantle a profitable scheme that performs a social good other than to protect their coal mining mates.

Re:No winners economically

[Jane Q. Public]

If you ignore external costs, yes.

Those "external costs" are unproven and in fact highly questionable. You don't get to just assume they are there, any more than others may assume they're not. Prove the case if you want us to take you seriously.

Many economists have said that even if those external costs are all true, that's still not the real question here. The real question is: how much will mitigation cost in proportion to how much good it does, and versus how much harm it causes. Because make no mistake: there will be harm.

If electricity will be priced below market equilibrium, yes.

"Market"??? Either you're a fool or you think we are. This isn't "market". This is government fiat. It would remove any remaining pretense of free market.

Re:No winners economically

[TubeSteak]

In addition, if the coal-fired plants are removed from the equation before replacement sources of power are in place, there will be power shortages.

When the Clean Air Act was amended in the 70s, coal plant emissions were grandfathered in.
The assumption was that, over time, the plants would either be retired or brought into compliance as major upgrades were made.

Except there was a loophole of sorts... plants did not have to comply with the new emissions rules if their upgrades were less than XY% of the plant's value. The result was that plant operators never ever made any major upgrades. Instead, they used incremental upgrades in order to stay under the legal requirements for coming into compliance.

The end result is that most coal plants in America date back to the 1970s, specifically because of this regulatory loophole.
I have little sympathy for an industry that could have spent the last 40 years reducing their emissions.

Re:No winners economically

[sgtsquid]

As a CSU alum, I wouldn't put much faith in anything coming out of there. Most of the admins have Ernie Guevara posters in their offices and a lot of the "research" coming out of there is just laughable. I mean that literally, I have had some good laughs from what passes as research there. When I did my work there I had to pay for it out of my own pocket since I'm not the right race and my work had nothing to do with "social justice". It's been taken over by Mexican nationalists and turned into a 3rd world school.

Re:No winners economically

[drfred79]

Perhaps it would be worth it to make the distribution grid a public utility - as you say it's already paid off, often with the aid of large government subsidies. If the power companies wont play fair with independent power generation and storage entrepreneurs then perhaps it's time to cut them out of the equation. Inform them the cables have been claimed via eminent domain and will be paid for at an amount of (materials - subsidies) amortized over the next N years. They still control the bulk of power generation, at least at first, and get paid the same rates as everyone else. It would probably raise energy prices at first, but I don't see any way to get off fossils that doesn't, and it would facilitate a much faster and market-driven adaptation period.

You're forgetting the huge legacy maintenance costs. PG&E is scared shitless because the price they've been charging customers has been below the cost necessary to maintain leaky natural gas pipes. PG&E had to raise rates and is now undertaking a massive generational renovation process. The grid takes a constant life cycle maintenance plan. The fixed cost of installation is minuscule and already the risk had been borne by the installer. That's like the government saying "this Gmail experiment worked; Google thanks for the memories, eminent domain bitch."

First of all, I don't think you know what the word subsidies means. Credits and subsidies are two different devils. I honestly think someone smart explains this for each overreaching governmental naysayer. Subsidies is what solar panel producers, like Solyndra, receive. They are cash money and they are given to companies to distort the energy market. Credits are money you have earned that you don't have to pay to the government. You are paying the government less money you have earned. Its an offset to tax. Tesla makes a larger proportion of its revenue from subsidies and credits. If we were to equally apply your winners and losers strategy to all companies, lets start with companies that receive more of their revenue from the government than they do from actual sales. That's fair right? Nationalize a company that makes over 51% of its revenue from profiteering off the government?

But let's be honest with ourselves. You're not looking for equality in the name of the law. You support crony capitalism "for the right reasons." Playing fair has a lot of meanings. One definition of playing fair is not hiring lobbyists when you can't compete in a fair capitalist market. Another one that is much more subversive is a fair price. That's the fair you mean. When the government has already picked its winners and losers the producer who charges the lowest energy cost to the poor is not always the winner. You're interested in factoring in government kickbacks.

Let's do a Reductio ad absurdum. The producers aren't playing fair. They are charging the price of their costs plus profit plus government interference. Well since you plan on setting prices for the cost of energy all businesses are going to go out of business unless the government forces the cost of the inputs, oil, natural gas, silicon, et al. You can't just set the price of the end result. So let's go farther, to retrieve these natural resources takes capital and labor. Guess which one will be less costly to cut over the long run? I can make an automated natural gas miner a lot more economically efficient than I can cut the wages of employees.

Suddenly we not only have a cut in the labor force but we've subjected the poor to higher energy costs. Is that the end game? Because at this point I kinda feel that we're intentionally keeping the poor poorer with this false effort to man-make the temperature the same. Oh wait? Even if we enact these changes we don't expect to change the direction of the climate's increase (which hasn't increased for 20 years)? Wow than go ahead and explain sustaining the proletariat to me. Because you are better at it with government fiat than any capitalist selling $2 cream cheese at Walmat ever could be.

Re:No winners economically

[AmiMoJo]

China is investing far more in renewable and clean energy than most western countries. Only Germany can really hold a candle to them. They have vast amounts of wind, solar PV, solar heating and, if you count it as clean, nuclear already in place or being built.

China has a long way to go, sure, but they are doing it. Part of the reason is to shake off their bad image, part of it is to look after the people (despite the propaganda they do try to make things better for citizens) and part of it is because the EU demands they clean up if they want to sell us stuff.

Re:No winners economically

[AmiMoJo]

the truth is use of fossil fuel has increased human lifespan, health, and driven civilization forward, far outweighing the downsides.

False dichotomy. Had we fully understood the consequences of so much fossil fuel use from the start we could have developed cleaner alternatives early on, and still had all of the benefits.

Missed one

[roc97007]

We freeze in the dark.

Water Reactors are Teh Suck

[Scottingham]

Of course nuclear power doesn't seem viable if you look at it's current state! All the reactors we have now were designed in the '50s. They use water as a moderator (ie thermal neutrons) and coolant, requiring complex assemblies of fuel rods and control rods. Thermal neutrons also cause way more incidental nuclear waste (irradiated steel cores, wires, etc). They use
It doesn't have to be that way! The most recent design for a fast reactor seems to be the most legitimate and feasible new design to date. It's called the dual fluid reactor. http://dual-fluid-reactor.org/

It separates the fuel loop from the coolant loop. This has numerous advantages. You can alter the rate of either independently to best suit the current need. The coolant used isn't liquid sodium. Which, aside from not playing nice with air and water has a low boiling point and high neutron cross section. This reactor uses liquid lead as its coolant. Its so stable and resistant to radiation that the coolant loop can be piped into the non-containment area for power generation. In the papers I've read they mention coupling it to an MHR generator then a super-critical water loop en route to turbines.

It is engineered to run at 1000C, which at that temperature, makes it possible to do pyro-chemistry with electrodes to filter out the daught products in line with the fuel loop. The separated daughter products are then sent to a passive cooling chamber (the super short lived ones are hooked up to the coolant loop where it contributes to energy production) where they remain hella hot for a few hundred years. Then they become inert. There are supposedly lots of valuble metals after about 90 years that make the waste itself a hot commodity.

The reactor is designed to be a 2 meter cube, for simple production there are no bowed parts, only 90 angles with straight pipes. A reactor this size can put out 1500MW thermal.

Couple this with the recent advancement of laser-based particle accelerators and you wouldn't even have to start with enriched fuel! The power required to drive the laser would be
As Elon Musk would say (probably): Seriously guys, it's the 21st century, act like it!

Re:Oy You!

[riverat1]

Because of our dear President's own stance, we will not be opening new nuclear plants until he's gone.

Perhaps you can explain why the two new units at the Vogtle Plant in Georgia were allowed to go through then and even offered federal loan guarantees.

(From the article): On February 16, 2010, President Obama announced $8.33 billion in federal loan guarantees toward the construction cost,

Would Obama have done that if he was against nuclear power like you believe?

Nuclear is the cheapest per megawatt power source we currently have.

What have you been smoking? The main reason so few nuclear plants have been built in the US since the 1970's was that it was far more expensive than building a coal plant. Now planned coal plants have been cancelled because they weren't expected to be able to compete with solar when they were finished.

I agree with you that we should reprocess the spent fuel rods.

Re:only winners are

[riverat1]

Solyndra was just a talking point for the Republicans to pound the President on. The program that the Solyndra loan was a part of was budgeted for a 10 or 11% loss rate and even with Solyndra it still had less than 5% losses. Solyndra lost out because of the unexpected drop in prices of solar modules from China that it couldn't compete with. It's unreasonable to expect that everything that gets tried like this will work out.

For fuck's sake, how does this get a 5, Insightful

[stomv]

> I think you can be sure no matter how this plays out, power is going to be more expensive.

No, you can't be sure of that. Wind power in the central portion of the country is cheaper than coal now. PV is cheaper than market power in the Southwest and the Northeast now. Many coal plants in tUSA are 50+ years old -- they're going to retire soon one way or another. And, not for nothing, wholesale electric power is cheaper now than it was five years ago due to cheap natural gas (and, by the way, switching from coal to gas helps comply with 111(d) and saves money).

> if the coal-fired plants are removed from the equation before replacement sources of power are in place, there will be power shortage

If my aunt had nuts, she'd be my uncle. There's absolutely no chance that 111(d) will result in reliability performance below the industry standard 1-day-in-10-years. Just won't happen. Retiring a unit requires years of planning. Google "integrated resource plan IRP" for your favorite utility and hunker down to a ~120 page report, produced every 3-5 years, laying out the company's plan, including projected retirements, new units, new transmission, etc.

111(d) doesn't require any coal plants to retire. It requires our fraction of electricity generated from coal to be reduced. The coal plants can still be "plugged in" and operated during times of peak load (weekday summer afternoons and winter mornings); what they can't do is operate much the rest of the time. Instead, a combination of new energy efficiency measures, new renewable energy production, more frequent operating of combined cycle natural gas generators, and squeezing even more MWh out of existing nuclear units through uprates or reduced downtimes will be the way states will comply with 111(d).

Seriously slashdot. Pithy remarks more frequently display ignorance than insightfulness.

Peak?

[stomv]

Peak demand isn't as close to daylight as you might expect in the South. In fact, many systems are winter peaking (central Florida and Appalachia come to mind). Those systems peak winter 7-10am. Sure, the sun is just starting to come up, but PV isn't going to have a significant impact on that peak. Similarly, peak is 3-6pm. PV produces it's best power at high noon. As more PV comes on the system, the "net"-peak will push to 4-7pm, then 5-8pm. Again, solar contributes to meeting some of that peak, but depending on geography it isn't always going to align as well as you might think, including in the south.

Re:Stupidity is keeping nuclear back

[Chas]

Yes. Because STORAGE was the problem at Fukushima.

Sorry son. Shitty MANAGEMENT and lazy engineering practice, plus a metric fuckton of "Mother Nature Always Wins"

The plant actually SURVIVED a magnitude 9.0 earthquake.
The reason it finally overheated was because the asshats at TEPCO ignored the calls of real engineers for a MUCH higher sea wall. So the tsunami set off by the TÅhoku quake may as well have had valet parking at the reactor when it hit land.

Right now we have the ability to build reactors that are PASSIVELY safe. It means you don't have to worry about failures in ACTIVE, mechanical cooling systems. When such a reactor is shut down, it dumps its fuel into a dump tank and the entire reactor simply cools off. No need to worry if the generators will kick in. No need to worry if the facility loses power. Natural, powered by a little thing we call GRAVITY. It's about as idiot proof as you're going to get until we figure out how to spot-reverse gravity.

And yes, there's always going to be SOME waste.

The stuff that they're pulling out of reactors today? Mildly radioactive. And will be for hundreds or thousands of years.

The stuff you would pull out of a liquid fuel reactor?

1: Medically useful.
2: Shitty bomb-making material.
3: Scientifically useful (and an element we actually can't get any more of).
4: HIGHLY radioactive. But INCREDIBLY short-lived. Some of it is gone within hours of extraction. The longest lived stuff will be a few years cooking off. As opposed to MILLENNIA with current solid-fuel reactors.

Ideal application for reactors such as these is to take them and bury them in concrete. Let them run their usable lifetime and then decommission them. Once it hits EOL, you drain the device and cap it. Then give it a decade or two to cool off (radiologically speaking).

Maybe we CANNOT guarantee that we can build a facility that'll last thousands of years, through god-knows-what. But storage bunkers intended for product with a 10-50 year shelf-life? Pfft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

Half a century (plus) and counting.

And remember, these things can be fairly compact and relatively light (they were initially designed as a power system for a plane). These things could replace diesel generators and even small hydro installations. WORLDWIDE.

Yes. Dropping one into the San Andreas Fault, or Yellowstone National Park, or the New Madrid Fault would probably be a FUCKING DUMB IDEA.

So here's a smarter one. We don't DO that. We drop them in more geologically stable areas instead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

Re:only winners are

[riverat1]

The government has been running different programs like that for a long time (more than 50 years) to help encourage new technologies to get off the ground. They always write in a 10 or 15% loss rate into them and the programs seldom reach that rate. In fact the boost to the economy for the ones that do succeed probably far outweigh any losses in the programs.

Re:For fuck's sake, how does this get a 5, Insight

[Enigma2175]

The coal plants can still be "plugged in" and operated during times of peak load (weekday summer afternoons and winter mornings); what they can't do is operate much the rest of the time.

The problem with this is that coal plants can't operate this way. A typical coal plant takes 4-8 hours to reach full power from a warm start and can take 24 hours to cold start. This is why we currently use them for baseload power and use other sources (mostly natural gas and hydro) for load following.