Why should environmentalists care about the electric utility industry? Because electric utilities create:
About 70% of sulfur dioxide (SO2 ) in the US atmosphere
Over 20 million tons per year is emitted by electric utilities. (Per EPA) Acid rain is caused by SO2 in the atmosphere. It kills trees and fish as well as producing other harmful impacts.
About 30 % of NOx in the atmosphere
Smog from nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the air causes respiratory disease in people, and other types of acid depositions with harmful effects.
About 30% of CO2 in the atmosphere
Carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas causing global warming. Over 70 million tons are emitted by the electric utilities in just Missouri. Global warming may have many harmful effects on all the wildlife habitats, beautiful streams, and old–growth forests as we know them today. Global warming also creates more frequent episodes of violent weather and flooding from rising sea levels, phenomena which are difficult for people to survive.
Fine particle pollution
A recent report released by the Clean Air Task Force found that fine particle pollution from electric utilities cuts short the lives of over 30,000 people each year nationally.
These major environmental and health impacts give us plenty of reason to pay close attention to the future course of the electric utility industry. They’re not just about light bulbs and cold beer in the refrigerator, regardless of what their ads portray.
One thing that could be helpful is the fact that this is a heavily regulated industry, although the regulators have focused on narrow economic issues in the past. We have been good at using environmental laws and regulations for protecting clean water and saving sensitive lands, but most Sierra Club members in the Midwest have not focused on the impact of the electricity industry in recent years.
| Missouri Electric Power Industry Emissions Estimates, 1988, 1993, and 1998 (Short Tons) | ||
| Emission Type | 1998 | Annual Growth 1988-1998 |
| Sulfur Dioxide | 265,000 | –11.8 |
| Nitrogen Oxides | 269,000 | 0.3 |
| Carbon Dioxide | 71,031,000 | 3.6 |
(from http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/missouri/mo.html)
Major Changes Recently
In the past three years the state of the electric industry has changed, mostly without much notice in the daily headlines.
Electric demand has grown faster than expected, due to factors such as the increasing use of computers. The result this summer was that the generating capacity became strained nationally. Now the US energy system is on the edge of blackouts anytime we have a demand peak from hot weather.
To make matters worse, the electric grid in most regions is at or near the limit of its capacity, and no new major transmission lines have been built recently due to uncertainty about the possible course of restructuring (frequently termed “deregulation”). The Chicago area has been cited as an example of a region struggling with this problem of insufficient grid capacity.
| What “Deregulation*” Means, boiled down: (*More accurately termed Restructuring) 1. Utilities are required to divest their generating assets 2. Retail customers can choose from competing suppliers |
Some new generating capacity is planned. Virtually all the new generating plants presently ordered are natural gas fired. For example, 36 new gas fired units are proposed in Texas.
But the existing gas pipelines are near the limit of their capacity. New gas pipelines are on the drawing boards from Alaska and Canada. Phillips Alaska plans a $10 billion pipeline expansion just from Alaska to the middle of Canada.
The new pipelines in the planning stages are not yet sited. Siting new gas pipelines may mean a swath of environmental destruction through northern forests. Since Canada and Alaska have natural gas reserves in the ground, we may be looking at corridors bulldozed through the forests in upper Minnesota, Wisconsin, or Michigan for new pipelines down to the Midwest and inner US.
The present system is structured around big centralized generating facilities, with an elaborate grid to carry power to homes and factories. Putting dispersed generators near the end–users might help the transmission problems at times of peak load.
But distributed generation might take the form of many diesel powered units, which would contribute lots of air pollution on hot days from the diesel engines. That would be a very undesirable situation, which might tip Kansas City into being a non–attainment area, and further exacerbate the air quality problem in St. Louis among the potential outcomes. The environmental community may get planning shifted to distributed natural gas peaking units in our region if we’re involved in the process.
Without distributed generation we can expect new big transmission lines to be constructed, with the potential for environmental destruction along the paths that would be carved out for their routes.
Photovoltaic systems on individual homes are ideal to mitigate this problem. Hot sunny weather maximizes the output from photovoltaic systems.
Widespread distributed photovoltaic generation for hot summer weather could greatly reduce the load on the electric transmission grids. However, that strategy is considered off the table by the mainstream regulators, and utilities because it presently costs about 5 times as much per levelized* kilowatt–hour as natural gas. (Approx. $.25 vs. $.05).
The external costs of environmental pollution have not been considered. Leading thinkers such as the Union of Concerned Scientists have argued for years that the costs to society of acid rain, smog, and mercury depositions from coal fired electricity should be considered in computing the true economic costs of generating facilities. (We now know that the costs of global warming should be added to the computation as well.) If that is done, the case for renewable energy sources such as wind and solar becomes much stronger.
Also, the greater value of maximum generation at times of maximum demand has traditionally been overlooked. It also is an argument in favor of photovoltaic generation investments.
The growing use of wind power is a bright spot. Levelized costs for a utility–scale installation are down to about 5 cents/Kwh, so it is now roughly competitive with fossil fuel generation. Approximately 450 megawatts of wind installations are being developed in Minnesota, Iowa has over 200 megawatts of wind power on line, and Wisconsin has several utility scale installations. Modern wind systems are much more reliable
Not enough of it is presently planned to have much impact — the wind generation equipment manufacturers do not have large scale production capability yet, nor have the utilities begun ordering enough systems as yet to get past 5% or so of the power generation coming from wind.
We need to promote wind power whenever possible. Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas have a lot of wind resources.
RESTRUCTURING MAY BE STALLED
San Diego’s price shocks this summer were a major blow to the restructuring “deregulation” proponents. The utility serving the area ran out of generating capacity during hot spells and had to buy more on the spot market. The high demand sent prices skyrocketing upward during the peaks. California’s restructuring/deregulation law allowed a direct pass–through of the higher costs to the retail customers. Homeowners in San Diego received bills with triple the charges they had previously paid. Many complained bitterly.
Legislators in states that have not “deregulated” such as Missouri, do not want their constituents to have such an experience, and will presumably be very cautious about considering such proposals now.
What we should do:
1. Promote efficiency.
Anything we can do to reduce the use of electricity from coal burning generation is a big plus for the environment. Most observers believe that our use of electricity could be reduced by close to 50% if our society really made a concerted effort to use the best technology and good insulation standards to all buildings (well insulated buildings can consume much less electricity for air conditioning, for instance). On the consumer level, everybody can use and promote compact fluorescent bulbs in their homes. A 15 watt compact fluorescent bulb can be expected to save at least $30 over the equivalent 60 watt incandescent bulbs, will last for 10,000 hours (greatly reducing the hassle of replacing burned out bulbs), and can be purchased for about $8 from WALNMART. If you put in enough efficient bulbs to cut your average monthly bill at home from $80 a month to $72 a month, you will reduce CO2 emitted on your behalf by 2,323 lbs. a year. Other opportunities like changing to a more efficient refrigerator, washing machine, or air conditioner all offer major efficiency improvement possibilities. Spread the word!
2. Promote renewable energy.
Every little bit of wind and photovoltaic generation that supplants coal–fired electricity helps. Policies at the state government level can have a major impact on how fast renewable energy is adopted. Representative Joan Bray had a renewable tax credit in one of the major state budget bills last session. It was cut out as the process moved to conclusion, but if legislators have heard from many constituents that we need renewable energy, such policies may be adopted. Bend the ear of your elected representatives.
*Levelized cost means that sum of the original capital costs, operating costs, maintenance costs, interest, and cost of fuel are all computed and the stream of income that would pay off those costs over the planning time frame is calculated. I see numbers of about 5 to 7 cents per Kwh levelized cost for new coal generating facilities with scrubbers, about the same for state of the art efficient natural gas units, and now wind, also in the same cost range depending on how strong the wind is at a given location.