Natural Gas, Good or Bad?
Energy Outlook has a review and response today to a Wall Street Journal editorial:
Today’s Wall Street Journal (subscription required) includes an excellent editorial explaining some of the reasons why natural gas has become so expensive in this country, when it seemed so cheap and plentiful only a few years ago. The Journal paints a picture of a conflicting welter of environmental arguments that have shifted the perception of gas from the fuel of choice to a hazardous despoiler, but cannot even get solidly behind one of cleanest energy technologies on the planet, wind power. Building on this, I would like to offer a radical proposal for the environmental community that would enhance its standing and make it a greater force for positive change.
The Energy Outlook response goes on to cover a fair amount of territory, but I think it is interesting to note that that Environmentalists (in the “organized” sense) do seem to be attacking LNG terminals, when they provide one of the cleanest available fuels. The key word here is “available.” The alternatives presented are generally dreams and not practical realities. Here is the link to the Sierra Club’s fight against the Long Beach (CA) LNG terminal as an example:
http://www.sierraclub.org/ca/coasts/lng.asp
If I were to bash the green side of the energy and environment debate, it would be over something like this. As Energy Outlook concludes (and I agree):
If environmentalists want industry to do the right things, they must speak consistently and recognize the long-term nature of investments in this area. If gas is better than coal, for example, then gas must be available in sufficient quantities to displace coal, even if that means drilling off the coast of Florida and bringing LNG into Long Beach harbor. Simply saying “no” to everything is no longer good enough, because we have exhausted all the options that don’t require some kind of tradeoff–if they ever really existed. Some carefully-considered yeses, now, would lay the groundwork for enduring partnerships with industry that would benefit both consumers and the environment.
From my days in the power plant emission monitoring business, I know that these facts are correct. California burns as much natural gas as it can to meet its needs, and when that fails it imports coal-based power from out of state. Southern California Edison even operates coal plants just across the border in Nevada for this very purpose.
I’m pretty sure that plant is in Nevada because it would not be legal in California.
May 3rd, 2005 at 10:19 am
LADWP gets 50% of its power from coal generation in Utah, built there because until recently it was impossible to build power planst in California. Using western coal and with the cleanest technology available when they were built, this plant is nothing like the 50+ year old horrors still operating in the mid-west. (Perhaps you have information comparing emissions for new coal plants with natural gas because this is not my area of expertise despite 30 years working for electric utilities.)
You make a very good point about environmental groups using the Nancy Reagan policy of “Just say no.” I think it is damaging their credibility.
May 3rd, 2005 at 3:08 pm
Hi, as I touched on in the “coal” post, I’ve been to a few of these coal plants. Some were newer generation Midwest plants, and one east coast plant that was originally built (IIRC) in the 30’s.
You are absolutely right that they vary greatly. As we saw, they can do a lot of good things to mitigate pollutants(via water sprays, electrostatic precipitators, bag houses, etc.).
I am not going to take my experience too far though. It might touch on proprietary information of my former employer, and the power companies with which we worked. I think I can report that the general feeling was that the coal plants were “across the river” because that put them under Nevada rather than California law … but heck, I was pretty much a software guy on an environmental project. I deferred to the true experts, the people who studied the CFRs, on the real issues.
And I do keep that little “Power Label Content†tag from SCE on my desk. Down here, in Orange County, it seems that the “projected†is 15% power from coal, and the “actual†for 2003 (the most recent tag I have) was 19%. That’s still sizable.
I guess I’m pro-clean coal, if someone we can trust is really defining “clean.†But even then natural gas (while it lasts) is going to be a cleaner alternative.
May 6th, 2005 at 7:25 am
Item from the APPA newsletter today. Notice that OPPD thinks that coal is more economical than natural gas.
Contract clears way to build
new coal-fired power plant in Neb.
The Omaha Public Power District has cleared the way for construction to begin in September on the district’s first new major coal-fired electric generating plant in almost three decades. Seven other public power entities will be partners in the plant.
OPPD signed a contract with Nebraska City Power Partners on April 27 to engineer, procure and construct the plant in eastern Nebraska, just south of Nebraska City. The $629 million contract is the largest single contract ever awarded by OPPD.
The new plant, Nebraska City Station Unit 2, will be built next to an existing coal-fired plant. It will generate up to 663 MW. OPPD will use half the output for its customers’ needs; the remainder will be used by the project partners: Nebraska Public Power District, Grand Island Utilities, Falls City Utilities, and Nebraska City Utilities, all in Nebraska; Independence Power and Light in Missouri, Missouri Joint Electric Utility Commission; and Central Minnesota Municipal Power Agency.
OPPD found a few years ago that a coal plant would be more economical than natural gas-fired generation, said utility spokesman Jeff Hanson. OPPD is relatively close to the Powder River Basin in Wyoming, a source of inexpensive, low-sulfur coal, and the Nebraska City site already has a rail line, he said.
The plant is projected to go on line in 2009.
May 6th, 2005 at 2:49 pm
I think I’m being convinced that natural gas might stay in tight supply. So even if I’d rather burn it, it might not be there … or as Mr. Pickens suggests, we might want to run it in our cars.