Net effects of green energy and old coal on new electrical demand

+1

Exactly. I get the feeling those arguing against credit really would rather keep the status quo, than improve the system. Its a statement that well the only way to do this is to have the Public Utility Commission (PUC) set an amount and pick who builds the power, then decides how every one gets charged. We have systems like that and choice systems, and choice systems seem to build a lot more renewable energy for a lot less money. I guess if you really want to make these systems more costly and less effective you can legislate against the EPA and various programs giving credit, but that just seems mean spirited. Well I guess congress is pretty mean spirited on many issues, but why be that way here? Don't we all want more renewables for those that wish to pay for them?

I frankly am a little confused by your pure water analogy. Most places in the US have reasonably healthy water, especially if you filter it. It is not like say burundi, where I work with a charity to provide pipes and treatment for healthy water. Now I guess in your analogy, the gazelles foundation can't claim credit for the water, because its members only occasionally drink it while in burundi, that those that we are helping really get the credit. I don't think that would help with fundraising or help as many families though.

On your second point absolutely, the energy should be audited and listed by an independent organization. My power is certified by green-e
Welcome to Green-e!

From my utility which makes sure the power is built in ercot and there are lines running to Austin, but power is often used elsewhere. They overbuild so that there is a buffer to include grid losses and hot years where more is consumed.

They also charge me variable grid and maintenance charges along with the fixed charge for my portion of the wind farm. The grid infrastructure improvements are subsidized by other customers in ercot and the federal government. The wind electricity is also subsidized by the federal government.

 

I have to say the federal tax credit is quite off topic here, as that is more of a political question not one of scientific facts. I understand USB's point of view I'm sure many people want to get rid of or reduce plug-in subsidies, and they often claim greenhouse gas or coal. I think there is a thread in fred's house of pancakes for the politics, so let's ignore the politics here,, but talk about the green house gas impact of the cars. The majority of the country would like to reduce ghg, but very few would like to require gasoline vehicles to average over 34 mpg combined epa.

#1 one goal of the plug-in subsidy was reduction of oil use, but let's just see how they do on today's grid and how they will do tomorrow. USB has given us the data in this excellent link.

What Are Electric Cars? | Union of Concerned Scientists
The regional grid with the worst ghg emissions is rmpa the rocky mountain regional grid. Here the UCS has said a 104 mpge plug-in that isn't buying green energy will produce about the same ghg as a car getting 34 mpg. Cool. We can talk about if someone in denver buys wind from a good choice program what that person's carbon footprint will be. I would think if someone put up solar and sold the RECs to the utility they would get that same 34 mpg equivalent ghg. Here is a analysis of wind and transmission lines on cost and wind on that regional grid.

http://www.uwyo.edu/ser/_files/docs/conferences/2012/power_gen_powerpoint_presentaions/godby.pdf

Then the question is is that person with purchased wind, or solar on their house dirtier with that plug-in or not. What about if they don't.

Let's say instead of a 117 mpge leaf they get a 40 mpg camry hybrid. I would say they produce less ghg than their camry hybrid neighbor if they purchase wind, but more if they do not. Will the leaf make them produce significantly more ghg than a prius? It depends on how much you think is significant. A gen II volt on that grid will produce less than a regular camry, and if that first issue was significant, then imagine how much cleaner a Tesla 70d is on that grid than a Lexus LSh.

Now lets look at california where about 40% of plug-ins are sold. That 104 mpge average plug-in produces less than half as much ghg as that camry hybrid..

The hybrid market was less than 3% of cars sold last year. The odds are even in that dirtiest regional grid in america the plug-in was chosen over a car that gets less than 34 mpg.
The EPA’s Clean Power Plan: Setting the Record Straight on the Benefits and Costs - The Equation

 

I think we have a few points here. Let's take them one by one, and I had had sagebrush blocked, but opened it up to see what these strange responses have been.

Q) Is the US group of regional grids getting cleaner?
A) Most if not all of the 26 regional grids have not only reduced their per capita pollution, but their absolute emissions of harmful pollutants (SO2, NOx. particulates, and mercury) as well as greenhouse gasses since the ghg peak in 2007. Public policy should ensure this continues, but we could be doing it even faster. A few may have gotten worse (honolulu?) for regional specific regions (population growth, no natural gas).
http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec12_9.pdf
Drilling through the numbers just of ghg, which is the subject of this thread we see since 1990 when laws forcing coal for base power were removed, ghg went up with the new power already planned was added to the grid, as changes take time. Still per capita have shrunck.
2014 power produces 12% more ghg than 1990 which is 12% lower per capita
2014 power produces 15% less ghg than 2007 which is 28% less per capita

The grid has been cleaner in per capita and per kwh terms since 1990. The cap and trade of some harmful emissions which started in 1995 was a key in reducing the unscrubbed coal intensity of the grid.

Q) Is fracking the only reason the regional grids are getting cleaner? Isn't this temporary as when fracking is more heavily regulated or the gas is played out the grid will go back to coal and produce just as much ghg

A) Fracking has made the transition much cheaper and faster than it would have been without the less expensive natural gas. The main drive in the direction have been actually making coal plants scrub their emissions, and repealing a '70s era law that said base power had to be coal or nuclear.

Methane though can be made from any biomass or even from gmo microorganisms and sunlight and water. We are not going to run out quickly as they feared in the late 1970s. It can also be made from excess wind
Audi Says Synthetic 'E-Fuel' From Microorganisms Is Better Than Gas Or Diesel - Forbes

That means fracking is speeding up the transition, but the regulatory costs of scrubbing for particulates, mercury, sulfur, etc. would have eventually made a transition to less coal and more natural gas and wind.

Speaking of wind it is now producing over 4% of electricity consumed and that number should continue to grow. Iowa got 28.5% of its electricity from wind, Kansas 20%, texas 10.6%.Even Solar at less than 1% of the grid it is growing fast because of falling prices. Solar was 32% of nameplate capacity installed last year, natural gas 42%, wind 23%.

Q) Have plug-in incentives reduced incentives to clean the grid.
A) No. They were swept into the budget in 3 bills, all of which added more money to clean the grid. 2012 was the big year to look back as politics was against both plug-in and green energy subsidies. There were definitely legitimate issues like solyndra and fisker, but here is a more balanced look at all the spending. I don't think demonizing the volt and tesla helped mitt romney's presidential bid..
A closer look at Obama’s “$90 billion for green jobs” - The Washington Post

The $6B includes the spending on fuel cells and clean diesels as well as the plug-ins. All told it was only 6.7% of this budget. 23% was on solar and wind, 32% on energy efficiency, only 11% on modernizing the grid. 3.3% was pissed away on clean manufacturing tax credits. These bills have to give something to different congress critters, and a lot of that $90B was wasted. Advanced vehicles only got 1/3 of the money high speed rail got. Its a discussion for fred's house of pancakes, but cutting advanced vehicles isn't going to get washington to do what it takes (coal tax, end mountaintop removal, modernize grid, streamline regulations to reduce cost of installing solar) to speed up cleaner power.

Absolutely you can't spend a dollar twice.

If we look at buyers of plug-in vehicles, it seems that over 30% of them put in solar or buy wind. That is much higher than the general population, but they also have more money than the general population. Perhaps after deciding on the plug-in they are taking the money they would have spent on gasoline to change their home over to solar or wind.

 

The country started building a lot of natural gas power plants in 1990. The reason they stopped in the 70s and 80s wasn't the business community, it was government regulation in favor of coal, and coal until very recently was heavily favored over natural gas by the government. Power transitions take a great deal of time. Now today the government favors old coal plants and new renewable and natural gas plants.

The price in North America is far bellow the international price for natural gas. Over say the next 20 years these should equalize, sending natural gas prices higher as the US either exports lng or products made from natural gas.