Energy Efficiency and Climate

Report
Energy Efficiency and ClimateFriendly Power Supply
Electricity 2020
Bill Grant
Izaak Walton League of America
No energy “free lunch”
•
•
•
•
•
•
Nuclear power – exposure, waste disposal
Hydropower – river impoundment, flooding
Oil – air emissions, availability
Natural gas – availability, price
Renewables – variability, price, bird kills
Coal – air emissions, toxic releases, mining
impacts, combustion waste, global warming
Efficiency: Minnesota’s Least
Cost Energy Source
• Electric use is growing at 2%/year; without
efficiency, we will need to add new supply
• Since 1990, Minnesota electric utilities have
saved 2,000 megawatts, the equivalent of
two large coal or nuclear power plants
• Savings have come at less than 2
cents/kWh; compare to new coal at over 6.5
cents/kWh
Benefits of Energy Efficiency
• Lowest cost resource
• Economic development and job creation
– 4,000 new jobs by 2010; $200 million in annual
economic output
• Reduces need for new power plants
• Reduces pollution
– 20 million tons of CO2 reduced with Governor’s
proposed goal of 1.5% annual savings
• When combined with new renewable energy
development, can meet new power needs and
reduce CO2 emissions
Meeting Minnesota's
Electricity
Needs inNeeds
2025
Meeting
Minnesota’s
Electricity
in 2025
100,000
90
Energy Efficiency
72
MillionMillion
kWh kWh
Electricity
80,000
Renewable Energy
54
60,000
40,000
Traditional Sources
18
20,000
0
2005
36
0
2010
2015
2020
2025
24%
Savings
from
Efficiency
Million Tons CO2
108
Carbon Dioxide
120,000
Climate Friendly Power Supply
• Renewable energy: Wind, biomass, solar,
hydroelectric, geothermal
– Proposed 25 X 25 renewable energy standard
will cut CO2 emissions by 17 million tons
(11%)
• Combined heat and power (cogeneration)
• Coal gasification with carbon sequestration
Fuels Used to Generate Electricity in MN
Wood
RDF
Cogen
Nuclear
Natural Gas
Coal
Wind/
Solar
75%
Hydro
Source: DOC
SOURCE: NETL.DOE
Proposed Midwest Coal Plants
2002 Minnesota CO2 Emissions
Agriculture
2%
Residential
9%
Commercial
6%
Industrial
11%
Transportation
34%
Source: MPCA
Electric Utility
38%
Carbon Dioxide
• No longer a question of if climate change is happening –
now a question of what the impacts will be
• Recently released IPCC report asserts that human activity
is likely the cause; urgent action on a global scale is
needed, but its not too late to avoid catastrophic warming
• Midwest (MN, WI, MI, IL, IN, OH) coal-fired power
plants are responsible for 8% of total U.S. CO2 emissions
and 2% of world total CO2 emissions
• North America’s mean temperature has already risen
1.25ºF, global mean temperature has already risen 1ºF
CO2 – economic impacts
• Climate change will impact traditional Midwest economic sectors –
agriculture, forestry, shipping, recreation, etc.
• Ships either carry less or need for more dredging (which will release
buried toxins) which may increase shipping costs
• Agriculture will experience some initial benefits due to longer
growing season, but over time, there may be a northern migration of
pests and plant diseases
• Recreation and tourism industries will also be impacted:
– Decline in winter recreation opportunities with shorter winters
– Lake ice cover in Madison, WI, declined from 120 days per year
in 1850 to 90 days per year today
– Summer recreation – boating impacts (lower water levels will
affect marina owners, increase costs)
The Clean-up Conundrum
• Spending millions of dollars to clean up old
coal-fired power plants has the unwanted
effect of extending plant lifetimes; creates
barriers to market entry for new, cleaner
technologies
• Adding controls for SOX, NOX, and
mercury may lead to even higher CO2
emissions
Gasification Overview
• 130 gasification plants in operation world-wide
– Most of these are in chemical production, not
electricity
• Technology is referred to as “integrated
gasification combined cycle” (IGCC)
• There are 16 IGCC plants that operate now or
have been in operation. Another 6 IGCC plants
are in development.
– These use a variety of fuels including oil, pet
coke,and coal
CO2 Emissions: IGCC v. Coal
• IGCC technology
“easily” captures CO2
from air emissions.
- Getting the CO2 out
of the IGCC
emissions stream is
“easy”, but
compression and
sequestration is
expensive.
• Conventional coal
plants can’t remove
CO2 from emissions at
any reasonable cost.
CO2 Em is s ions (lb/M Whr)
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Conventional Coal
IGCC no carbon sequestration
IGCC with carbon
sequestration
Notes:
1. Heat Rates for New Coa and IGCC are based on the average of the best and worst in the EIA
Annual Energy Outlook 2002. Heat rate for Mustang is 10,250 BTU/Kw-hr.
2. Coal CO2 emissions are 205 lbs per MMBTU for New Coal and IGCC, and natural gas emissions
are 120 lbs per MMBTU.
3. IGCC with CO2 sequestration assumes 88% carbon removal based on Howard Herzog,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, August 1999.
Implications
• Options to stop global warming could close if the next generation of
coal plants worldwide can’t capture carbon dioxide.
• Climate scientists generally agree on need to cut CO2 emissions by
80% before 2050. A full implementation of efficiency and renewable
energy cannot reach this target without carbon sequestration or some
combination of nuclear, fuel switching (i.e., natural gas), or carbon
sinks (forests, ag soils, etc)
• Need to establish IGCC with the option of capturing carbon dioxide as
the dominant coal technology in the United States and export that
example worldwide.
Carbon Sequestration
•
•
Terrestrial sequestration (forest and agricultural
crops)
Underground injection – a.k.a. geologic
sequestration – is not new:
– Current fluid injection practiced for a wide range of
industries, including summer natural gas storage,
enhanced oil recovery, hazardous waste, oilfield brine
– Geology of MN may not lend itself to geologic
sequestration – Canadian Shield granite
– Still many questions…
Underground injection is not new
The mass of current U.S. fluid injections is greater than the
mass of current power plant CO2 emissions.
10000
Large quantities
Long
Time
Frame
1000
100
~28Mt
Mt/year
Sub-seabed
Gases
10
1
FL Municipal Oilfield
Wastewater Brine
Hazardous
Waste
Acid
Gas
Natural Gas CO2 for OCS water
OCS
Storage
EOR injected for
gases
EOR and (e.g., NG)
Complied by EPP Ph.D. student E. Wilson with data from
brine
EPA, 2001; Deurling, 2001; Keith, 2001; DOE, 2001; DOE, 2001.
disposal
CO2 from
all US
power plants
Geologic Formations with Carbon
Sequestration Potential
State IGCC Experience
• States with existing IGCC power plants using coal as a
feedstock:
– Indiana: 192 MW Wabash River plant
– Florida: 262 MW unit at the Polk Station in Tampa, owned by
Tampa Electric Co.
• Other gasification plants produce chemicals, not power,
using coal, petcoke, petroleum, and/or gas. Examples:
–
–
–
–
North Dakota: Great Plains Synfuels
Texas: Houston Oxochemicals
Louisiana: Baton Rouge Oxochemicals
Tennessee: Eastman Kodak
In conclusion…
• Getting serious about energy efficiency
makes sense regardless of your views on
global warming – it is the ultimate “no
regrets” strategy
• Ditto for renewables, esp. wind and biomass
• Coal’s predominance in the electric sector
requires a “carbon-neutral” solution, e.g.,
coal gasification with carbon sequestration

similar documents