I am just dumbfounded that an increase from 2012 in 2030 is being called a large reduction. Yes 2012 was a low year as natural gas price to coal favored natural gas, but I thought this plan was supposed to include some costs for coal pollution by 2030, which should mean less coal not more. The average from natural gas is 1135lbs/MWh coal is 2249lbs/MWh according to eia. Clean Power plan considers new gas ccgt at 1000lbs/Mwh though it really is lower if run mostly between 40%-100% of capacity, new plants are only ineffiecient bellow 40%. A new fast cycling plant will produce about 750 lbs (340 kg) /Mwh at 40%-100% which it can do if its replacing a old coal plant (slightly more than 1/3 the ghg). 39% of virginia's power in 2014 was nuclear, 6.5% from renewables. In april 2015 natural gas was 33% while coal was 11.5%. BREDL - Coal-fired Power Plants coal ghg emissions went from 15,078,664 tons in 2012 to 20,613,469 tons in 2014 as SO2 decreased slightly It just looks like virginia needs to build new ccgt gas plants and retire coal as it would normally without the clean power plan.
Per EPA, we have 909 lbs/MHhr average on NG in VA already...I presume a really good one could be as low as 700-800 lbs CO2? Any chance? Yes I think Virginia is one of the biggest surprises. In the past we all used EPA Power Profiler which shows VA as a high carbon state. But when you say, let's just look at what's generated within the boundaries of the state it-self, all of a sudden we have very little carbon in-state. Va. gets very bad marks from the environmentalists, mainly they demand a minimum 20% wind/solar RPS mandate, so we Va. is slow there, but we are big on wood-buring so we already have 6.5% renewables. Virginia has a voluntary RPS target, which is a source of criticism, but I like it.
Yes new fast cycling ccgt natural gas plants if shut down under 40% utilization are about 750 lbs CO2 I would include imports, but it looks like you retired about 3 million tons CO2 of very old coal plants in state at the end of last year. Virginia and coal - SourceWatch I don't know if it happened though. That should be more co2 than the new plant from 2012. If I read source watch right virginia should still have 3.152 GW of coal older than 1970, and 2.176 built in the '80s or later. The youngest of those old plants will be 61 years old in 2030 and all should be retired. If they are replaced with fast cycling ccgt and the newer clearer plants kept, coal will not have much of an impact anymore in virginia. Build those plants and some wind in west virginia would be better, but in terms of ghg, SO2, and NOx the state will be very clean. I give the state bad marks for keeping all that old coal, simply because its grandfathered by the clean air act, doesn't mean people should breath polluted air. Retire the grandfathered stuff with the bad pollution controls and the state will be doing quite well. Join with neighboring states and give people choice to buy wind, and I bet in 2030 there is a good portion of wind imported.
Here is my corrected audit of the broad Clean Power Plan goals. Holy cow, it is really 32% reduction of 2005 CO2 levels - so that's one helluva task, approaching 45% per capita reduction: Since the EPA gives the states a mass-based (above calcs) or emissions-performance compliance options, it's possible the 32% might not be met exactly - but darn near, assuming states comply. If I use AustinGreen's alternate EIA CO2 data source, I actually get closer to 35% reduction. I am using the following source data: For USA 2005 and 2012 CO2: EIA - State Electricity Profiles For EPA 2012 to 2030 Planned Reductions: Clean Power Plan State-Specific Fact Sheets | Clean Power Plan Toolbox for States | US EPA 2012 data must be hand entered for each state, the 2022 and 2030 goals can be copied from various sources. I also did the Navajo Lands 2012 as a side-calc from the raw EPA data spreadsheets.
Here is a plot showing state % CO2 reduction vs. carbon intensity of the state. So the higher coal states have the biggest reduction. If you're below the line, maybe 2012 was an atypical year (I'll try to capture that later). Had to delete a few wildly negative (small) states. But wow 30% reduction in 15 years considering population growth is no easy task, I am thinking. This is change from 2012, not 2005.
The biggest lie in this plan is that it will lower you power bill. The calculation is based on a reduction of power usage. If you use the same power you use today you will have an increase of ?, meaning big bucks. The calculation is so deceitful its hardly worth regarding it has any value at all. The real question is ,is it worth raising your energy bill by a penny? Because your energy bill is going up a lot. Is 25-50% realistic ? A lot more realistic than the lie that you will save $85.
I've been able to make almost complete sense of the EPA Clean Power Plan state targets. All states fall on a single operating line of CO2 reduction targets, as follows: When you look at the raw data without adjustment, it looks funny. For example, Virginia@1500 lbs.CO2/MWhr shows zero CO2 reduction. But that's because Virginia is apparently planning a 50-60% increase is MWhrs versus the population growth rate of about 15%. Assuming Virginia were to hold at 15% power growth, the CO2 reduction target is as hard, if not harder, than everyone else in the cohort (about 25%). Therefore the state CO2 targets reflect the state plans to grow or shrink electricity production. So an apparent "easy" CO2 reduction mass goal, could in reality be difficult. What that says is your state must first reduce CO2 mass to a much lower base number, which results in greatly reduced carbon intensity per MWhr. Then if you want to increase elec production, you can do so, but at the greatly reduced carbon intensity. The growth element gives the false impression of a "powder puff" CO2 target (in the case of Virginia).
Here's an even better correlation (Figure-P70): View attachment 84297 This says everyone has a big CO2 reduction job, some states have ultra hard job. If you make the same amount of elec in 2030 as 2012, this is how much %CO2 reduction you need. If you choose to make more elec in 2030, fine but it must be at this lower carbon intensity. The CO2 mass targets are hard to understand because it has to do with elec growths plans which vary from state-to-state. The average state is increasing elec about 18% by 2030 (in the subset of power plants the EPA is regulating). Some states are expanding 50-60%.
The jobs part is the big lie. These plans always produce less jobs than they pretend. One reason costs will go up less than industry claims is unit labor per MWH is much lower in ccgt, wind, and solar than in coal. As we are replacing 40+ year old coal plants though there will be construction jobs during the transition. No one knows if prices will be lower in 2030 or higher. The plan assumes costs go up in the business as usual scenario and will go up less if we are smart about how we replace those old coal plants. Closing the worst of the plants, those grandfathered into the clean air act, will definitely save health care dollars. Adjusted for inflation the improvements since 2005 have done half the work, at the cost of less than $0.0025/kwh Absolutely some bills will go up 50% or more, some bills will go down. Bills have been going up in some areas like California, Massachusetts, Connecticut without the plan. To me this plan is fairly cheap, and may actually save rate payers versus business as usual. Say you had no plan and built a lot more coal to replace the grandfathered plants, and in 10 years we decide we have to cut ghg a great deal more. Those new plants will end up with less than a 10 year useful life, making them much more expensive than wind or natural gas. Leaving uncertainty about future changes is costly to the american economy, and no plan quickly might become a much more expensive plan.
Inherent in the state CO2 targets is EPA's elec growth assumption for your state based on 2012. it averages around 15% elec growth ( I still need to do a MWhr weighted avg) which is similar to the population growth predictions, You can get this value by dividing your state CO2 mass numbers by the CO2 rate (lbs CO2 per MHhr). Looks like this: AR 4.2% RI 10.8% CT 12.2% NV 12.2% NY 12.2% SC 12.2% AL 12.2% OK 12.2% IA 12.2% AZ 12.2% W V 12.2% MD 12.2% WI 12.2% NE 12.3% ME 12.3% NM 12.3% NH 12.3% GA 12.5% MI 12.5% WY 13.5% ND 13.6% TN 14.4% KS 14.8% OH 15.2% IN 15.4% KY 16.4% PA 18.3% TX 18.4% LA 18.8% CO 19.7% MT 19.9% FL 20.4% CA 22.1% MI 22.5% UT 22.6% IL 22.7% MO 23.4% ME 29.4% DE 34.1% MN 34.5% NC 37.2% NJ 46.7% VA 58.5% OR 103.9% SD 112.3% WA 132.5% ID 136.0% So if you compare TX mass CO2 targets vs. say VA or NC, you get the impression that VA and NC got "powder-puff" easy CO2 targets. But in reality every state falls on the same degree-of-difficulty line (see Post #70). The growth rate multiplies to state carbon intensity to give final CO2 mass targets. If every state were static since 2012, not building any plants, all of the state targets would fall on the same exact equation. But in reality some states are static while some states are already off building new plants (moving targets- shall we say). So EPA tried to make the state targets jibe with changes since since 2012. I have yet to determine if VA was treated fairly, or maybe we got harder targets, not getting full credit for NG plants already in progress (my hypothesis - we got nailed) Note: this only growth rate only applies to regulated portion. If you look at VA for example, a whole lot of power is imported, and a whole lot also comes from smaller facilities (eg; landfill gas ) so the growth rate I am talking about is just the subset that EPA is looking at (big utilities).
Update: Regarding the growth factors above, looks like EPA assumed 12% growth (similar to population growth) by 2030. If your state shows over 12% megawatts growth in the State-at-a-Glance summary sheet, that's probably because you're looking at the wrong base case ( you need to be looking at EPA's "adjusted" base case for your state). Kind of strange, but EPA put the raw 2012 base data in the state summary sheets, so now I gotta be the one to tell everyone the true base case is the EPA adjusted 2012 base case. which is not shown in the state summary sheet. The adjustment is necessary because, due to new plant start-up activities etc, the 2012 raw data is not really valid without making some adjustments, for some states. If your state 2012 raw data was fine, then OK the raw data from 2012 works without adjustment. How do you know if you got the good 2012 base case for your state? If the growth in megawatts = 12% from 2012 to 2030, you have probably arrived at the true 2012 base. Note that EPA did not explicitly put the megawatts on the summary sheet either, but they gave CO2-tons and CO2 lbs/MWhr, so it is in fact there, you just gotta calculate it for yourself, Also, every state (as adjusted) will show less-than-expected mass CO2 reduction than Figure-P70 above, because EPA multiplied every state's CO2 mass target by 1.12 (12% inflation). If you have the wrong (unadjusted) base case, then you could see a crazy looking looking final CO2 mass target (60% inflated in Virginia 2012 raw data for example). There may be a few exceptions to above, if EPA knows you are shutting down a plant permanently or something. But in general 12% growth is apparently assumed.
I'm still confused about enforcement. Would the EPA levy a fine against the energy companies or the state government or both? The reason I ask is Alabama only checks the VIN when the vehicle is registered and has no annual (or any other) check of safety and emissions. Also, we get a lot of energy from the TVA that is a 'funny' entity. Thanks, Bob Wilson
I assume we are talking court action to require a State to comply. What's unique is EPA is managing the CO2 within state boundaries, so you are only being held responsible for the power plants in Alabama. I am familiar with the "novel" idea of controlling an issue within state boundaries. That's how we in New Jersey solved the trash importation issue we had in the 1970s and 1980s. But eventually the US Supreme court ruled against New Jersey saying that interstate commerce cannot be controlled. However, by then NJ was sending all it's trash to, yes...wait for it, Virginia! Control within state boundaries can be a powerful tool to solve a problem, assuming the courts allow you to do it!
Normally enforcement is poor of these plans. With cap and trade they had amount to buy the pollution credits, then someone else complied. With interstate pollution, they have the power to shut down individual plants if the state is out of compliance, but as was the case recently epa need to follow rules, and the last time they didn't and lost in a law suit. I do believe that for a plan this long though, the epa can follow the rules and shut down plants if states are out of compliance and won't do it themselves. Coal power plants are big things, and hard to hide in your garage. TVA is one of those "bad" utilities that had to be sued to close plants out of compliance with the epa standards. Normally it is environmental groups that do the suing to shut these things down. In this case it was four state governments and the sierra club that forced tva to comply. Tennessee Valley Authority to close 8 coal-fired power units - The Washington Post
I don't know about the four states but there was a recent news article about one coal plant shutdown: TVA to close last unit at Widows Creek coal plant, 90 jobs lost | AL.com Unit 7, the sole operating unit was scheduled to be shut down in 2019, but TVA Chief Operating Officer Chip Pardee told the board the early closure would be much more favorable for TVA financially, than continuing to operate it. Coal had long been TVA's primary source of power generation, but with increased federal standards for plant emissions and the falling cost of natural gas, the utility's future plans call for less reliance on coal. I am pretty sure the coal trains that rumble by the dog park are headed to this plant. I won't miss them. Bob Wilson
These tva plants, like many in virginia were built before the clean air act, and were grandfathered in without out requiring even 1970 standard pollution control devices. EPA instituted cross state pollution regulaltions, and those are the regulations for the tva lawsuit. It was 2 years ago and I don't remember which 4 states were suffereng from the cross state coal pollution, but tva was ordered to put in pollution controls on these 50+ year old plants or close them down. Clean power plan is different. The only carbon dioxide emirrions control is carbon capature, which is not a mature technology, but may be before 2030. Even if ccs is developed well, it will be expensive on these grandfathered plants, and much cheaper on a new plant. I see no environmental or economic reason to allow plants 50+ years old to continue to pollute, while putting strict controls that makes new plants more expensive. If the clean power plan survives the lawsuits in tact, the cheapest thing to do is to replace the grandfathered plants with ccgt fast cycling gas + renewables. Now if congress was not divisive, they might have said something like once a plant is over 50 years old, it loses grandfathering, effective 6 years from now, but states with old plants like coal pollution.
History shows the right kind of regulatory pressure results in the right kind of technology solutions. This legislation provides the motivations for developing utility level power storage. The technology could be batteries, flywheels, H2 systems, or whatever works. With pollution restrictions, the lowest cost solution could easily end up replacing dirty plants with storage so the clean plants could run vastly more efficiently.
