Study: Green power worst way to cut CO2

Study: Green power worst way to cut CO2

 

cap n crunchThis is Part 1 of a two-part series.

Most people probably know more about Cap’n Crunch cereal than about California’s complicated cap-and-trade air emissions regulation program.  But according to a new study, perhaps Cap’n Crunch would be a better name for cap and trade, which “crunches” industrial C02 (carbon dioxide) emissions by requiring large industries to buy pollution allowances or permits.

A new study conducted by economist Charles R. Frank of the liberal-centrist Brookings Institution puts its conclusion in its title: “The Best Path to a Low-Carbon Future is Not Wind or Solar Power.”

Frank calculates the net benefit for replacing coal plants with wind, solar, hydro, nuclear and natural gas power.  His findings support the impartial California Legislative Analyst Mark Taylor’s conclusion that California’s cap-and-trade emissions program is unneeded and can be accomplished by other means.

California’s cap-and-trade program was established in 2012 by the California Air Resources Board and conducts  quarterly auctions of greenhouse gas allowances.

No net green benefit from wind and solar

First, Frank says policy incentives are biased in favor of wind and solar power and against hydro, nuclear and modern natural gas power; and that the bias is a very expensive and inefficient way to reduce C02, as shown below. Especially notice Line 5, in red:

Net Benefits of Replacing Baseload Coal and Peak Load Gas Simple Cycle
Line Item (a)

Wind

(b)

Solar

(c)
Hydro
(d)

Nuclear

(e)

Nat Gas

1 Value Avoided Emissions per megawatt hour $106,697 $69,502 $168,394 $405,574 $278,738
2 Megawatt Hours per Year 2,236.9 1,359.6 3,496.5 7,852.8 8,059.2
3 Emissions Benefits/Kilowatt Hours (in cents) 4.77 5.11 4.83 5.16 3.46
4 Net Costs per Kilowatt Hour (in cents) 5.64 18.74 (0.33) 1.04 (3.18)
5 Net Benefits per Kilowatt Hour (in cents) (0.87) (13.63) 5.16 4.12 6.64
Megawatt: 1,000 kilowatt hours
Kilowatt Hour: Electricity generated from 1,000 watts for 1-hour; or ten 100-watt light bulbs for one hour

Assumptions:

Cost of carbon $50/metric ton;
Cost of natural gas per BTU =16.5 cents.

Line 5 shows how much the comparative benefit is to replace a coal power plant for wind, solar, hydro, nuclear and natural gas power in cents per kilowatt-hour. Using parentheses means the “benefit” actually is negative.

Thus, switching to solar results in a 13.63-cent increase in costs.

Six solar farms, four wind plants to replace coal power plant

As Frank summarizes:

“The emission benefits of four of the five low-carbon alternatives per kilowatt-hour are roughly the same, about five cents per kilowatt-hour (see line 3). The benefits of wind and solar, minus their additional costs, are negative (line 5, columns a, b). The net benefits of the other three alternatives are positive and substantially higher (line 5, columns c, d, e). Gas combined cycle ranks number one in terms of net benefits while hydro and nuclear rank two and three.”

Here’s how Frank explains why wind and solar are losers:

“A wind or solar plant operates at full capacity only a fraction of the time, when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining. For example, a typical solar plant in the United States operates at only about 15 percent of full capacity and a wind plant only about 25 percent of full capacity, while a coal plant can operate 90 percent of full capacity on a year-round basis. Thus it takes six solar plants and almost four wind plants to produce the same amount of electricity as a single coal-fired plant.”

Cap and trade not needed to reduce pollution

In 2015, the California Air Resources Board will intentionally reduce the amount of allowances sold to meet reduced air pollution goals.  This will increase the price of the allowances sold at auctions. But Frank warns:

“Recent prices in trading systems in California have been around $12. … However, the price of emissions need only be about $12 to $22 per metric ton to tip the longer-term balance in favor of investing in a new gas combined cycle plant than a new coal plant.”

In other words, the best way by far to reducing C02 emissions would be to shift to hydro and natural gas power. But hydropower in California  does not count in meeting C02 reduction goals (source: CARB, page 18).

A new study by the U.S. Department of Energy Water Power Program has estimated California has enough untapped potential hydropower resources possibly to double its power generation from that source. And many of its natural gas basins are not associated with oil deposits and can be drilled by conventional methods.

Part 2 of this series will be about cheap, clean or cleaner power imports.

3 comments

Write a comment
  1. Bill Gore
    Bill Gore 3 June, 2014, 15:02

    Not a single mention of geothermal power.
    I’ll spell it in caps, in case you’ve never heard of it: GEOTHERMAL power, and guess what: California is a global hot spot when it comes to geothermal resources.

    From the bubbling hot mud holes of the Imperial Valley to the world class resource of The Geysers in norcal, California has enviable geothermal resources that it won’t even consider. Clean, unlimited baseline power just sitting under our feet for the taking.

    IMHO geothermal power is a victim in the USA of the following cultural/ economic perspectives:

    1) Need for immediate payoffs/short term obsession
    2)Our penchant for complexity/vastly over engineering everything
    3) Utter conceptual lazyness about how to tap the resource: insisting on natural steam sources, which once tapped into get depleted, refusing to look at closed loop systems.
    4) Tyranny of the engineers, who refuse to leave their comfort zone, like physicians 150 years ago who refused to wash their hands…..

    Reply this comment
  2. Bud Led Ted S.
    Bud Led Ted S. 3 June, 2014, 19:52

    I just have one word for you.

    Just one,

    P l a s t i c s

    Reply this comment
    • Bill Gore
      Bill Gore 4 June, 2014, 06:33

      haha yes, sarcasm, rules for radicals, shut down serious discussion, i get it…..

      “where did you go Joe DiMaggio, our nation turns its lonely eyes to you, woo woo woo….”

      Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published.
Required fields are marked*



Related Articles

Unique “behested” campaign donations prop up nonprofits, political endeavors in growing numbers

Donations to special interests on behalf of statewide officeholders have grown from $250,000 in 2000 to $4.9 million so far

CA charts own course on marijuana

With outright legalization headed toward the ballot this coming election year, government and business alike have begun hardwiring marijuana into California law

State in use-it-or-lose-it mode with $4B in bullet-train funds

The California bullet-train project — stalled for years by legal fights over land acquisition and the state’s business plan, uneven progress