Hey NRDC, It's the Jobs

Let's debate this (0.00 / 0)

First of all, the true cost of coal-based electricity, when the cost of cleaning up the damage done by mining coal, the cost of damage done to people's health from burning coal, etc., is far higher than 3¢/KwH.

Taxes and/or fees are merely one method of getting the money to pay for those costs; a better way might be to require the mining companies to clean as they go or put money in escrow in advance of mining operations, and to require power plants to clean the soot and greenhouse gases out of the post-burning air before letting it go.  Of course, then there's the question of who pays for the oversight, and how.

That said, most renewable energy sources still aren't cost-competitive with fossil fuels, and I agree that continual government subsidies aren't a solution.  The real solution is R&D.

Meanwhile, there is one form of renewable energy that is cost-effective right now in many places, and that is geothermal heat exchange systems.  These systems are generally warranted to last 25 years or longer, and often pay for themselves within 10 years.

In addition, we need to look at more efficient energy use.  There is a lot of waste, in transportation, in farming, and in our homes.  By becoming more efficient, we all save money, we create jobs (someone has to retrofit systems, replace old construction with new, etc.), we reduce our contribution to global climate change, and we make our air, water and land cleaner.  One more thing -- we can reduce the amount of oil we import, meaning a better trade balance and less money going to countries we don't like very much.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Fri Aug 20, 2010 at 15:48:13 PM UTC

Coal production costs and SUBSIDIES (0.00 / 0)

Dan,

Currently coal plants like the NRG Huntley facility, 400 MW in Tonawanda, can sell electricity for less than 3c/kw-hr and still eel out a profit. However, lots of external costs in coal burning, notably the social costs of CO2 pollution and the health effects of sub-micron sized particulates coming form coal burning, aren't costs to NRG. But when those are fully included, they would need about 14 c/kw-hr to eel out the same profit per kw-hr as they now can do at 3c/kw-hr, assuming coal prices stay the same.
See
http://wagengineering.blogspot...

Nb41

---

by: Nb41 @ Fri Aug 20, 2010 at 21:06:23 PM UTC

What about mining's "hidden costs"? (4.00 / 1)

First, you're beginning to help make my point for me; thank you.  But there's something you didn't address above:

My college economics professor was an Adam Smith fan.  When we got to the part about "hidden costs," the only example he could give was environmental damage.

Coal mining companies don't even begin to pay to replace the land they strip-mine or mountaintop-mine.  They don't even begin to pay for the water sources they destroy.  They don't even begin to pay for any cleanup costs -- including cleaning up the mercury.  Without knowing actual numbers (and perhaps you do), I'd bet long odds that if the mining companies were forced to pay the full cost of getting the coal out of the ground, then NRG would have to charge far more than 14¢/KwH.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Fri Aug 20, 2010 at 22:15:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Don't get distracted by the chump change items (0.00 / 0)

Strip mining and mountain top removal are the low cost way to extract mass quantities of coal. In the eastern part of the U.S coal is priced around $50/ton for 12,000 Btu/lb low to medium sulfur content coal. Out west, strip mined Wyoming coal goes for ~ $10/ton for ~ 8,000 Btu/lb lignite type coals. Across the country coal prices average $30/ton for ~ 1 billion tons/yr or $30 billion/yr in coal sales. Eastern coal is generally priced on how much it costs to transport Wyoming and Montana coal to the east by rail.

It is quite possible to properly deal with the land surface/cover up the crunched up mountains for ~ $5/ton of coal. Of course, we are talking about the likes of evil entities like Massey Energy here, so that won't happen unless either the CEO of Massey gets caught with a few under-aged boys doing sexual favors for him or else government legislation and judicial follow-through.

But the really significant external costs are the particulate pollution ($62 billion/yr) and the social cost of CO2 pollution(~ $190 billion/yr, or more). Most of the particulate costs come due after 20 to 40 years, and those CO2 pollution costs seem to be starting up already, but it may take 50 years before they really hit home.

As you can see, compared to the $30 billion/yr in sales of coal, and the (maybe) $5 billion/yr in land reclamation, the particulate and the CO2 pollution are far greater costs to society. So maybe it would be wiser to concentrate on those freebies. And then there is the $12 billion in avoided taxes that coal companies can avoid via subsidies/"R&D", etc, which also also more than the surface reclamation. Of course that should be done, and the money to do it should be paid for by coal consumers (mostly utilities), which would raise the cost of coal slightly (average of 16%, and that might raise electricity prices by 0.1 c/kw-hr to 0.2 c/kw-hr. Yeah, that sounds insignificant, by try getting those costs passed along, especially these days.

As for your earlier comment about R&D, that will probably no longer cause a drop in costs, though it may actually slow down any rate of cost rises for the dominant reasonably priced renewable energy resources in NY, which are (in order of importance), wind, hydro, tidal and then biomass. While it may tick people off that renewables aren't free and that you can't operate renewables as a charitable  money losing system, it costs a lot to assemble renewable energy systems, and the people doing it can't be expected to do this for free/at a huge loss.

Finally, yes, geothermal is a great way to extract heat suitable for living and working spaces. For about 1 kw-hr (or Btu) of energy input, between 3 to 6 low grade thermal units of energy output can be extracted and used. However, it still takes electricity to operate the heat pump, and it takes materials and energy and labor to manufacture and install these systems. Thus, a wind - pumped hydroelectric storage back-up - geothermal heat pump would be a great way to provide heat for most of the residences in NY and a lot of the commercial buildings/some industrial. No doubt about it. But, where does the $10,000 to $20,000 per sub-urban house to do this come from? Until the price of natural gas spikes upwards towards the present price of oil, the motivation to install these by and large is not there. And it will do that and more so, but the question is when - 2 years from now, or 10, or 20. This would also put lots of people to work (also a good thing), but "goodness" and money often don't seem to be synonamous with each other.

Nb41

---

by: Nb41 @ Sat Aug 21, 2010 at 16:23:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A conversation with my sister (0.00 / 0)

My sister graduated from college some years ago with an environmental studies degree.  Before she left for Morocco (in the Peace Corps), I took her to lunch.  She claimed that in order to "save the world" we had to educate them ... she couldn't see what was wrong with that concept.  Upon returning from Morocco she talked about finding ways for businesses to make profits through environmental methods; that was when she was able to start saving the world.

Thanks for the numbers on coal cleanup -- I'll be studying them later for details, and may ask some followup questions.

Regarding GHE systems, as I understand it (and perhaps I'm wrong), the energy extracted can be converted to electricity and used to power the pumps, etc., even in low-use facilities such as individual homes.  It's not always cost-effective right now, but over 600,000 homeowners across America can't all be Birkenstock-wearing tree huggers.  GHE can also be used to heat water in the summer, as well as providing some electricity for the home.  I'm still searching for specific numbers, but have been sidetracked by many other things.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Sat Aug 21, 2010 at 17:19:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Heat pumps and ORC's (0.00 / 0)

In a heat pump, groundwater (average temp around 50 F), the water is used as a heat source, and the temp is boosted with a refrigerant and a compressor so that the groundwater leaves the heat pump cooler than when it went into the heat pump. The fluid warmed by the compressing of the refrigerant can then be used for useful heating purposes.

An Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) system would take really hot groundwater (170 F or more) as the heat source, and it would be used to boil a pressurized liquid refrigerant (working fluid), and then the hot pressurized gas would be forced through a turbine and that would spin a generator. The lower pressure gas would then be condensed, and in the process warm up the cooling fluid, which could then be used to warm rooms or buildings.

Two different type systems, sort of operating with similar equipment and working fluids, depending on what the groundwater temp resource is.

Nb41

---

by: Nb41 @ Sun Aug 22, 2010 at 02:18:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]