Exelon, politics and Illinois’ low-carbon future
This article offers excellent insight into how policy (politics) influences energy and energy costs.
Government is the only entity that can impose priorities on energy. That is, without environmental laws, energy production would be governed by cost and perhaps by convenience.
So when the Government (state or federal) imposes or doesn’t impose a tax or subsidizes an energy utility, it’s important.
Illinois has a history of supporting coal with tax advantages which historically has provided jobs and low energy costs; however, both have declined and could decline further due to carbon emissions and nuclear power.
Illinois has halted its support of renewable energy (created from wind, solar or water) with tax advantages. When they have supported renewables, it has favored larger utility scale renewables over smaller installations.
This article shows how two large corporations are presenting their case for economic assistance from the State of Illinois. Which one do you think deserves assistance?
In the interest of full disclosure, let me say that Realgy has built and operates four solar photovoltaic power plants in Illinois. Realgy received State and Federal tax subsidiaries and would not have done so without them.
Read the full Renewablesbiz article, “Exelon, politics and Illinois’ low-carbon future”
Justices Back Rule Limiting Coal Pollution
The use of coal in electric generation is an issue where, on a national level, we should determine the optimum balance for the nation’s mix of energy used, air quality, and cost.
In producing electricity, coal plants emit carbon dioxide and other gases/particles that flow along the prevailing winds. These winds blow predominantly from West to East. Consequently, coal generation in the Mid-West accumulates higher concentrations of those emissions on the East Coast. This results in lower air quality and restrictions on what East Coast states can emit because their air is then already considered unhealthy.
The ruling by the Supreme Court will cause EPA to issue rulings that, when implemented, will try to rebalance coal usage (which is still our most abundant fuel) with air quality and cost.
One result will be greater reliance on natural gas for power generation. Generally the emissions are less and costs are less, but depending on a single source of energy (be it coal, wind, natural gas or nuclear power) puts the nation at greater risk of a single event causing widespread interruption.
Take this winter as an example; between January and March 2014 the phrase “winter vortex” was coined to describe a FIRST of its KIND EVENT for the tri-states of Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana. Such severe cold weather caused a simultaneous spike not only in natural gas (and propane) but also in electric costs because 30-60% of peak electricity is generated from natural gas. A move to retire existing coal-fired power plants and replace them with natural gas will further concentrate the impact that severe weather conditions or a natural gas pipeline disruption could have on consumers.
That balance will have to be agreed upon and with it will come a variety of different outcomes.
Please let us know what issues you think should be taken into consideration to achieve a workable balance.
Read the entire New York Times article, “Justices Back Rule Limiting Coal Pollution”
In Response to “Natural Gas a Raging Bull in Its Battle With Coal”
Written by Michael Vrtis President of Realgy Energy Services in response to the CNBC article “Natural Gas a Raging Bull in Its Battle With Coal”
The thinking has always been that the US will lead in coal use as we have the largest supply in the world. In our history, coal has contributed no less than 50% of our total electrical energy needs.
Today with the technology of “fracking” the US has discovered an abundance of recoverable natural gas. So much so that US natural gas prices are nearly $2.00 less than the average world price for natural gas (this is a huge economic advantage when you consider our cost for natural gas is about $3.00).
So abundant natural gas drives the cost lower, and so with the lower cost and long term supply natural gas takes market shares from its closest rival; coal. The benefits of this economic decision have environmental benefits.
All sounds great right?
Diversity in our generation supply (a mix of natural gas, coal, nuclear, wind, solar, wave, etc) makes our electric supply gird stronger and more competitive. Consider if we had discovered this natural gas field and had not developed the technology to generate electricity from it more efficiently.
Nothing last forever; while 100 year supply sounds great. Its only one lifetime! This is where US Energy Policy has to step forward. The US should continue to invest in new technology that will not let us deplete the natural gas richness of this country and leave our children more dependent on electric energy without developing a replacement.
Check out the CNBC article: “Natural Gas a Raging Bull in Its Battle With Coal”