We Shouldn’t Build Those Dirty Power Plants!

In recent years it has become difficult to build some types of power plants in the US. There were plans by various power companies to build a total of 151 coal-fired plants to meet rising electricity demand and also to compensate for the expected retirement of older plants that had outlived their useful lifespans.  However, as of 2011, one hundred of these proposed plants have been cancelled due to permitting issues, rising costs, and public opposition. It may be fair to say that the rising costs were to a large degree an effect of needing to comply with environmental regulations.  Coal is seen as a dirty power source and some vocal groups desire to shut as many down as possible. In a similar fashion, it is nearly impossible to build new nuclear plants in the U.S. for fear that they might leak radiation or that their waste will poison the land for millennia to come.

Figure 1: Electricity Generation in the US During 2010

Source: Energy Information Administration

The pie chart in Figure 1 shows the current mix of fuels used to generate electricity in the United States. If we decide that coal and nuclear are too dirty and dangerous for power generation, what will we use in its place? The choices are natural gas, dams (hydroelectric), biomass (wood and other plant material), wind, oil, and solar. Going down the list we see that some of these options cannot grow in magnitude as much as we would like. 

Hydroelectric dams cannot grow much in the US because many of the rivers that can be dammed are already dammed. In addition, many environmentalists would very much like to tear down the existing dams because they interfere with wildlife. 

Biomass usage may grow somewhat, but wood and plant waste are already being used to generate 2% of our electricity. It would be a fallacy to believe that plant waste is not already being used for useful purposes, so increasing electricity production from burning biomass would mean hampering other recycling efforts or changing land use. There is also the issue that biomass is a disperse energy source. This means that unlike oil and gas wells that produce large quantities of energy in a small area, plants grow over wide areas of land. It requires great expenditures of energy and releases particulates, nitrogen compounds, sulfur compounds, and carbon dioxide to gather, process, and transport so much plant material. 

Wind generation is environmentally unacceptable because the huge turbines kill wildlife such as birds and bats and it is visually unpalatable to neighbors such as Edward Kennedy, who don’t like windmills spoiling their view. Wind is also too unpredictable to generate reliable grid electricity. Yes, wind generates electricity, but not always when it is needed meaning that it does not contribute as much as people want to believe. Oil is too valuable for other purposes to be used to generate electricity. Finally, solar farms are put up not to generate electricity, but as giant green billboards. Solar power is like a giant two page ad in a major newspaper, we don’t expect media ads to generate power, they are there to send a message. Solar power farms are put up for the same reason; their use is more for sending a green message than actually generating power and that is why they generate less than 0.1% of the electricity in the country. Don’t get me wrong, solar cells on calculators are great, but no one should seriously expect them to power a house or factory.

Figure 2: Electricity Generation in the US

Source: Energy Information Administration

If we seriously look at our options for generating sufficient electricity, our only three choices are coal, nuclear, and natural gas, which is why they currently make up the majority of electricity production. It is not a conspiracy that wind, solar, and biomass are small players, it is just that they are unsuitable, at this point in history, for meeting significant portions of our nation’s electrical demand. I can imagine that some readers will be irate that electricity sources other than coal, nuclear, or natural gas are seen as unable to contribute much more than they currently do.  These other energy sources will be more closely investigated in coming weeks to clarify why their potential is limited.

Of coal, nuclear, and natural gas, the American people have decided that two of our three serious generating options are dirty and dangerous, which leaves just natural gas to take up the slack and this is what has grown for more than ten years. In Figure 2 we see that natural gas has grown while coal has declined and nuclear has remained flat. If coal and nuclear power will not grow, or even decline due to environmental concerns, then natural gas consumption must increase to accommodate population growth, economic recovery, larger televisions, and more central air conditioning. Can natural gas really meet this demand? The answer is far from clear. 

Before 2000, natural gas was described as “clean, cheap, and abundant”. As environmental laws became more strict, coal plants grew less desirable for electricity generation and as gas turbine technology improved, large numbers of gas-fired power plants were built. This quickly rising demand for natural gas hit a wall when supply could no longer meet demand. By 2003, natural gas prices began to increase and it became clear that conventional natural gas production was in decline due to dwindling geological reserves. Gas no longer seemed to be cheap and abundant. It was at this time that coal and nuclear plants began to again seem like a good idea. However, new implementation of fracking technology caused a surprisingly large increase in unconventional gas production and natural gas prices dropped. As it stands today, natural gas is expected to remain more affordable than just about any other energy source for decades to come.

Is it possible that gas, including unconventional gas, is not as abundant as currently believed? A few recent articles in the national media have hinted that reported reserves may be inflated for political and business reasons. As demand for natural gas increases due to ever more strict environmental laws, supply might not be able to keep up. What will the US do then? If there are not enough power plants to light all of the US houses, businesses, and factories, or if there is not enough fuel to keep the existing one running, the US power supply will become unreliable. If gas cannot meet these needs, coal and nuclear will be needed to bridge the gap. A healthy energy infrastructure has abundant spare capacity and a diverse fuel mix, so that when one electricity generation source becomes scare for a myriad of possible reasons, the other can take over. As it now stands, environmental laws are becoming strict enough to kill off coal and nuclear plants. If we ever reach a day when natural gas supplies are interrupted, which will the American people choose, strict environmental laws, or a vibrant economy?  We may discover the answer to that question in the coming years.