Any scenario of the future that does not envision the coming electrification of the ground transport, auto and trucks, in the next few decades is in my opinion unsupportable.

But even if you would debate that assertion, for the purpose of this post assume auto electrification is not only possible, but probable and coming in soon, within the next decade or two.

There are some unrecognized secondary and tertiary effects of the coming auto electrification age, that are unrecognized however...

Nationwide the US get 21% of its electricity splitting atoms, and 16% from falling water, with another half a percent or two from other additional, other sources.

So it is not extravagant to say that up to 40% of electric generation capacity is not fossil fuel based, generates little air pollution and no GHGs.

That coincidently is about the difference between "base load" and "peak load" for most utilities. So these most clean and most efficient plants run almost all the time as "base load" devices. The balance comes from "peaking plants" that provide the idling rolling reserve ,and that stand ready to deliver immediate demands for more power, and answer the needs for the few hours a day of "peak" demand.

What is a "peaking plant"? It is a designation always applied to a less efficient plant (or it would be declared the the "base load" plant and always on-line), and is usually older and amortized or completely paid for. This economic accounting leads to a freezing of technology, unfortunately.

Such a "peaking plant" is also likely then to be older, more primitive in its pollution controls, and probably burns fossil fuels in the dirtiest allowed fashions.

The utility is merely trying to get the last years of life out of their old clunker, just as some auto owners seek to obtain the last few cheaper miles out of their own clunkers. With the kind of accounting used by those who populate utility commissions today, it is very difficult to justify new capacity that "isn't really needed" except in peak load situations. Building "peaking plants" can seldom be economically justified.

The very same public utility commissioners who appeal to "consumers" also appeal to environmental activists who want a cleaner environment even as they prevent a utility replacing its relatively old, relatively dirty, now designated "peaking plant" with building a new "pollution generating" power plant, even if it were much cleaner than the antique that it is slated to replace.

Many have remarked that a benefit of so-called PHEVs, is that they will be fueled by already cleaner power provided by the electric utilities, from the cleanest 40% power, and the residual from relatively dirty other 60%, of generation. Even with that mix, it is cleaner than the cleanest ICE conventional vehicles. It has been noted by many that also the entire population of American ground transport vehicles could be powered at least in the electric miles, by the existing electric utility plants. This is so, but there are also some other consequences as well.

An unrecognized benefit is there would be an increase in the amount of electricity generated by the present inventory of electric generation plants, and raise base peak loads from 40% to perhaps 70% or so.

This will create a jolt to the economics of the utility business and will create demand for more "base load plants". One jolt will provide them new and substantial earnings; a second will provide borrowing power for newer equipment. Another is this new base load will create an unrecognized need for new capacity.

If the real "base load" has increased by the now additional "base load" and earnings generating load, of the electrified autos being recharged at night, the Utilities will seek to build the most efficient "base load" they can.

Why?

These new facilities, serving "base load", are much easier to justify economically to the utility commission commissioners, since they will be running and generating earnings almost all the time. In the vernacular, their "load factor" is more positive. That increased load factor also proves attractive to the Bond markets as well, helping to provide the money for building new capacity. It helps insure that the plant will be added to the rate base ands the bondholders will be paid.

As a side benefit is that these new "base load plants" built due to the new PHEV recharging load, will end up retiring many of the dirtiest existent plants now relegated to "peaking plants" status. You could ask, why not just resort to using the antiques more of the time?

They will, initially, for a while. Utility managements have always sought to build the best plants that they can for "base load" generation, to maximize their earnings. Utility commissions allow this as about the only way a Utility may increase its earnings and profits. This set of actions has always been the rational action of utility managements.

Secondly, these "peaking plant" antiques need lots of loving care to meet uptime requirements, just like an old car and frequently aren't reliable enough to any longer be placed in the status of a 'base load" facility; an almost always-on, always-producing electricity situation.

The net result will be a cleaner output from the replacement of the Nation's auto infrastructure by conversion to already clean electricity that everyone can for see.

But few for see that the nation's electric generation utilities will ALSO be MUCH cleaner, because it will generate electricity from a more modern, less polluting complement of generating plants, a short building cycle later.

A tertiary effect may come with the replacement of spinning reserve "peaking plants" with some form of Vehicle to Grid, "V2G", status as a a replacement or supplement for existing "peaking plants". Some people have spoken of this futuristic possibility and it will help to justify retiring other antiques, as well.

The combination will serve to replace about half of the polluting and GHG generating 60% of electric generation with newer and less polluting equipment. Little will be clean Hydro as it is almost wholly tapped out; although Quebec-Hydro has many 1000s of megawatts of potential hydro unbuilt at Churchill Falls, awaiting an export market. Some might be new nuclear, as even today eleven potential nuclear plants are seeking early licenses for construction, in th US. Some will be unconventional too, wind, wave and PV. Some will be conventional coal, but more modern, much cleaner coal generation, some might even be sequestered coal, eliminating GHGs.

In response to the widespread adoption of PHEVs, we can expect a reduction in pollution by quite a bit of the little that is of what's left;, and GHGs will be reduced by 50-60% from the auto industry. An unrecognized consequence is that the pollution by the nation s' inventory of electric generation, would plunge by more than half, if only 30% of the 60% of fossil fueled generation were to be replaced in a decade or two as a response to the PHEV. It would be the dirtiest third of that remaining fossil fueled 60% of electric generation that would be economically unfrozen and retired.

Even if we were to agree that anthropomorphic GHGs are responsible for a global warming, something I do not agree will occur a hundred years hence, these simple and expected normal reactions to the advent of auto electrification and the PHEVs will eliminate 60 -75% of GHGs of that provided by auto and trucks, but also an unrecognized 50-60% of that produced by power plants...

Care to discuss?

While you are correct about the US electrical generation, the US uses a huge amount of gasoline, far more than any country in the world. That's were I see a huge change in the future. Hopefully, a lot of SUVs will bite the dust.

While it may not be true nationwide, contrary to your "only the newest,cleanest power plants will be built scenario", the only new electric generating plant proposed here in Texas are nineteen coal fired plants. And we're not talking high grade, relatively clean anthracite coal either. These plants will burn high sulfer bituminous coal and lignite, with the absolute minimun pollution abatement that they can ram through a bought and paid for state regulatory agency! So much for cleaner new plants.

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

But at the same time Rick Perry is proposing 7,000 MW of wind power. Regardless how feel about global warming, his proposed coal plant idea is making a lot of people angry.

One more thing to add, no matter how "Clean" coal technology is, it is pretty much still burning pure carbon, and thereby produces only CO2 as a by product. IIRC, it's energy per pound is the lowest of any fossil fuel.

Well, this claim is pretty far from reality. Coal and nuclear plants are the "base load" capability, and run almost constantly. They are difficult to start up and shut down, but great for steady state generation. The ones that are turned on for peak capability are actually the cleaner and more efficient gas turbine (natural gas) and hydroelectric generators, as they are simple and easy to start up and shut down. So, despite the fact that it is not as efficient or environmentally friendly, the dynamics of the power plants cause the coals to stay on almost 24/7.

What the State of Texas wants is immaterial. The EPA will allow no new plant to be constructed without employing the "best available technology" i.e. scrubbers.

Just because its coal generation, doesn't mean its as dirty as old coal generation. And that is why you can and should spend your time demanding that these new coal plants should be IGCC plants for both thermal and environmental efficiency.

Of all the places in the country that could have ready places to desire to sequester CO2, I can't think of a better place than old Texas oilfields to both sequester the CO2, and also extend the life of the seconday oil recovery.

Go get 'em Captain K

If that is the way your Utility functions then the local Public Utility Commission should be riding on the Utility management really hard. they would in most circumstances and areas.

A lot of Gas Turbine generation has been added because its cheap to build and small in incremental units of generation. For a relatively mature utility, wiht little growth, the price for a small increment of generation, could be justified to the Utility commissions, and only in small justifiable small increments.

It became fashionable to build small increments of generation to satisfy commissioners who would penalize a Utility management for building a plant that provided too much "unneeded" capacity in one chunk. Better to build five tiny 100MW plants over a ten year period, than a single bigger 1000MW plant in year one, that you grew into need over the ten years.

Its correct that it is difficult to cold startup and cold shutdown a plant. But for a plant on-line and operating at 60% output, swinging it momentarily to meet instantaneous demand momentarily is exactly what they are designed to do. When "peak demand" can be 60% greater than base load, a large on line swing plant, IE the old antique, is sometimes used and the gas turbine generation provide the balance of the peak.

But if base load becomes 60-70% of peak the old big plant is not so useful anymore. Now you only need "peaking plant" for perhaps 30% of base load, more easily met by your modern and smaller GT generation.

Not all the GT generation contracted for, over the last few decades, has even been completed; you can find lots of bankrupt half-built gas turbine generation. It is not that the thermal efficiency of gas turbine generation is bad, or even that the pollution is bad, its not. Its just that Natural Gas prices have made these small plants uneconomic due to fuel pricing.

De facto, they have become "peaking plants" but that is not what they started out to be. You are quite correct that they are more modern than the other antiques but that is an accident, since they have been relegated to their status as "peaking plants" as economic pink elephants, not because they are inefficient or pollution free.

It's not untypical to have a utility consider its nuclear and hydro as "base load" generation and relegate an old big dirty coal plant from the 40s or 60s as a "peaking plant" and because of the price of NG, the new smaller Gas Turbine as a "peaking plant" as well. But from an efficiency and pollution standpoint, the GT plant qualifies as "base load " type plant.

With a substantial increase in "base demand" from auto electrification, unlike small incremental growth, the larger old dirty coal plant, with its poor thermal efficiency and pollution problems, is the one that goes to cold standy and then eventually to the wrecking ball. And a new generating plant replaces it. The GT serves a modern, clean "peaking plant" for the new situation of a now much smaller "peaking load".

Again, that is how all coal plants work. Coal plants are designed to run continuously, not turned on and off with demand, and work much more efficiently if they are constantly run at high power output. This is simply the nature of a coal plant - when something takes 4 or more hours to do a cold start up, and at least an hour to shut down, it will not be something that is cycled often. Gas turbine generators are quite easy on the other hand, and can be turned on or off in a matter of minutes. Hydroelectric is also easy, as the water to the penstalks can be easily and quickly turned on or off. The nature of the generation means that this is simply how it works. Certainly you can make all these claims, and look at the ideal situation, but the fact is that anywhere you look, a coal plant is impractical if not impossible to use as a peaking plant, while hydro is perfectly suited to this job. That is simply how it works. If you tried to use a coal plant for peak generation, you would spend so long firing it up and shutting it down every day that the efficiency would plummet and the costs would skyrocket. It simply does not work.

Yes, nuclear are base load plants as well, as they have similar start up and shut down times to coal plants. It would be wonderful if all the base load was nuclear, but this is unlikely to happen anytime soon. Currently, though, the system is simply that coal and nuclear (primarily coal) provides the base load capability of the system, with the natural gas and hydro providing the peaking capability. If solar and wind happen to be running at any time (as it isn't easily controllable whether they are generating or not), they simply replace some natural gas or hydro power (usually natural gas).

Carbon sequestering can make coal (or Gas or Oil) a zero emissions technology. However, you lose about 15%-20% of the plant’s efficiency in the carbon capture process. In IGCC and other “clean” technologies the plant is 15-20% more efficient to begin with, so it is possible to match traditional pulverized coal in fuel costs while still being zero emission. The trick, of course, is to match pulverized coal in capital costs

Largely accurate, but you have to consider the price of Natural Gas has tripled since the mid 90s. Back then, it looked like Gas Turbines might be competitive as a base load solution, especially given the permit situation for new nuclear and coal. Also, the energy bubble in the late 90s was largely driven by peak energy demands, not necessarily baseload, where the electricity could be sold for a high enough price to offset natural gas prices. Shortsighted investment in “cash cow” gas turbines is now haunting the industry. True baseload investment is finally back in vogue, though.

Newer coal plants (ie IGCC) may be very different, as aside from the gasifier, they operate similarly to a gas turbine plant. However, IGCC coal plants will have the fuel costs of coal with emissions (before carbon capture) comparable to natural gas, so I doubt they’ll ever be running much below 100% even at night.

I’ve never heard of a pulverized coal peaker, at least by a strict definition. What some utilities do is run their Coal plants well above their rated output during peak hours. The higher sale price of the energy relative to the cost of coal covers the wear-and-tear on the equipment.

Also, some utilities—and even more often industrial sites with their own steam boilers—only run their older plants for part of the year and obviously in the highest demand seasons. Typically that is because of pollution caps though, not because of swings in demand. They’d run them all the time if they could. That is quite different than starting up to meet demand during peak hours on a daily basis.

Something of an understatement—the market totally and completely tanked. Support industries like turbine suppliers were caught off guard, IMO, because they were used to being a long cycle business. The good news is that all of those modular but half-empty power plants will eventually be brought up to full capacity, but at a more logical pace. Somewhat ironically, the current “bubble” is in wind turbines.

Bearing in mind that hydro is often at least partially pumped storage, which helps level the load for baseload plants.

__________________
Do try not to take me too seriously.

demigrog,

You confirm much of what I said. Especially regarding the Gas Turbine pink elephants.

I certainly did not mean to say "pumped Hydro" was anything but a Peaking technology use of Hydro. Here in AZ, we have effectively no pumped Hydro.

Palo Verde's nuclear plants, and the Hydro of the Colorado River, and the "Silver necklace" of the dams on the Verde and Salt Rivers, constitute most of the base load generation.

Peaking is done with older thermal plants.

I have not studied the heat rates for IGCC generation, but I did not realize that the efficiency was that much, (10-15%) better than old coal. But on reflection it is obvious as the high heat stages are in fact Gas Turbine generation and an IGCC plant is really a gas combined cycle, GCC, plant with a coal gasifier on the front end.

This only serves to emphasize that Old Coal is no where near as efficient as modern coal. When peaking loads become much smaller, these old coal plants are not only inefficient and polluters; they are too big.

Efficiency is obtained in any plant by running near its rated condidtions. It is even more inefficient when run at only half the designed output.

Thsi conversation only tends to confirm that the old coalers go to cold standyby and the wrecker's ball. Something we all should want.

jrk,

Remember its not what goes in, its what comes out (of the smokestack). Green field new coal plants are legally required to use the best technologies available, to clean the air. This is federal not state law.

Using hard anthracite coal is an earlier primitive, method to avoid installing pollution control equipment. It is sometimes resorted to, for old coal plants with the the minimum of pollution control equipment, to allow them to try to eke by the emissions requirements.

Its sort of like burning unleaded gasoline in your old clunker, that didn't have a catalytic converter so you lessened the lead pollution output. An old clunker without a catalytic converter even burning unleaded gas, is a worse polluter than 995 new cars.

But that higher priced coal drives up the operations cost of the old coaler, making it an even poorer reason to keep it running.

You ought to be happy that the old generation is being replaced with new coal and wind. New coal plants don't qualify for this anthracite exemption and frankly don't need it.

Its sort of like burning unleaded gasoline in your old clunker, that didn't have a catalytic converter so you lessened the lead pollution output. An old clunker without a catalytic converter even burning unleaded gas, is a worse polluter than 995 new cars.

Do you have a source for the 995 number? A few years ago, I read somewhere that a new car was roughly 400 times less polluting than an old car that didn't have emissions controls. I've been trying to locate that reference for some time. I'd appreciate it if you could point me to a good source. If true, then perhaps one thing we could do to reduce emissions would be to outlaw those old cars, perhaps using a buy-back program for people who can't afford a cleaner car.

I think this discussion about energy sources in the future is quite fascinating, but it seems very limited, given the scope of the topic here -- believable future scenarios. I have little doubt that our sources of energy and the way we generate it will change quite significantly (I'm a bit surprised no one seems to have brought up geothermal), but the future is surely a grander subject than this. What about -- I don't know -- artificial intelligence, or quantum computing (although Robert Laughlin poured some persuasive rain on the idea in A Different Universe), or advances in genetic engineering, or even foreseeable cultural shifts, like the steady decay of the "nuclear family"?

We're all almost certainly going to be wrong anyway, so why not have a bit of fun?

Have you considered the fact that starting this month China is bringing online one new coal plant a week for the next several years? The end goal at the moment being 2500 new coal plants.

__________________
"The beauty of that discussion of averages is that you don't have to be an expert in Apollo or in photography in order to see where this time study "analysis" breaks down. You just have to be, well...not an idiot." -JayUtah

It is not hard to find that justification. You just have to go back to sources around the early 1980's. As a matter of fact that 99.5% removal rate was for the first generations of catalytic controlled autos, circa 1985. Today's new emissions requirements are more like 99.95 % (equivalent to 9995 modern cars equals 1 uncontrolled non-catalytic car).

Don't believe the propaganda that the world is worse than it used to be.

Another way of phrasing this is to put some perspective on it. We hope someday in a hundred years when their are no undeveloped countries anymore, and everybody on Earth can live like a middle class American of today, should they choose to, and they do; there would be about 1.5 vehicles per person. That might translate to about 18 Billion vehicles for a population of 12 billion.

There were 250 million American autos of the era in 1980 - just before catalytic converters. These polluters would be equivalent to 250 Billion modern auto enough for 20 vehicles per man in the world's future population.

We will never needs that many, perhaps 1/20th of that number. (it includes commercial vehicles to deliver food, clothing and goods to your to your markets etc. USA average today is about 1.5 vehicles per person) Then we would have the air 10 and a half times cleaner, than it was in American cities in 1980, everywhere in the world including the polluted cesspools of the third world.

And despite the environmental concerns, thousands or millions of bodies were not lying unattended all over American streets, having asphyxiated from the bad air back then.

Mankind has come a long way and the job is almost done. That is how far we have come in cleaning up the world's vehicles even without changing to other inherently cleaner cars then the old gasoline ICE engine, the source of the predominate amount of air pollution.

Todays "SULEV-PZEV" gasoline powered autos are clean. They are so clean that you could almost breath the output from the tailpipe, (if it were cooled) with little ill effect, except, of course, that its is a little short of O2.

"Super Ultra Low Emission Level- Partial Zero Emissions Level", "SULEV-PZEV" is a mouthful of a bureaucratic acronym. If you consider that title, for a depressing moment, and think of all the bureaucratic work for ever harder regulations promulgated it took to create that ridiculous acronym.

To proceed from at first "Low Emission Level" to sometime later,"Ultra Low Emission Level" ; to then later, "Super Ultra Low Emission Level" only to add today "Partial Zero - Super Ultra Low Emission Level" it should be prima facie evidence enough to confirm to you that the CARBites bureaucrats have been in business waaaayyyy too long.