“Comprehensive state energy plan.” A phrase many of us became very familiar with during the last legislative session - regardless, whatever that plan ends up looking like, it’s good to get many different voices involved in the conversation.
Recently the Salina Journal has been running different guest editorials on what the energy future might look like for Kansas. Here’s two.
Many of you will probably disagree with parts or all of the following. But you might find points you agree upon, too.
************************************
Prof. Ruth Douglas Miller
“Solar, wind on the horizon”
What does the future hold for energy use and energy sources in Kansas? Our state is well placed to produce a significant part of the nation’s renewable energy within the next 20 years.
The western third of the state will have several hundred wind farms of 200 to 400 megawatts each scattered roughly along a north-south line from near Goodland down to Spearville, a line that soon will be the route of a major high-voltage transmission line.
A similar amount of solar energy will be feasible within a 50-year time frame through large-scale solar plants. If they happen, they will concentrate in the southwestern quarter of the state.
More importantly, to lower carbon dioxide production, most towns now large enough to own their own local gas- or oil-fired electricity generation will own one to three medium- or large-sized wind turbines.
And many homes will have enough solar panels, or in rural areas a small wind turbine, to produce a third or more of their individual energy needs.
We won’t burn oil for electricity, but natural gas plants paired with wind and/or solar generation will be fueled from renewable sources. When the wind dies, the gas plants will take over; when the sun shines or the wind picks up, the gas plants will be turned off.
We will probably still import coal from Wyoming, but we’ll export more than enough wind and solar-generated power to balance the coal imports. If we are really serious about global warming, we will add another nuclear plant somewhere in the eastern third of the state.
Within 20 years, the bio-ethanol and bio-diesel craze will be recognized as a dead end. We cannot produce 20 percent of current 2007 gasoline demand in ethanol even if we figure out how to convert all available biomass in the country to ethanol.
And we cannot grow enough oil seed (soy, canola, sunflower or others) to meet 20 percent of current diesel demand, either.
By 2020 it will be clear we do not have land, fertilizer or especially water to make ethanol work. However, we will have realized that manure and garbage are excellent sources of methane while they are decomposing enough to use as fertilizer. So much of our natural gas, probably still needed for heat and to balance wind and solar electricity generation, will come from sources such as feedlots and municipal landfills.
What will we be doing for transportation? Driving a lot less, biking more, and driving small, light vehicles that are either hybrids or pure electric cars, whose batteries are charged from solar panels on roofs.
Instead of driving from Manhattan to Wichita for a day conference, I expect I will sit at my computer, call my Wichita, Topeka and Lawrence colleagues on the phone and join them in a vivid videoconference in which we’ll feel we’re in the same room with each other.
Kansas will be more of a desert, but we will know, watching wind turbines spin, that we’re doing our part to undo the damage of the previous century.
Ruth Douglas Miller is an associate professor in the department of electrical and computer engineering at Kansas State University and a coordinator for the Kansas Wind for Schools program.
******************************
Stuart Lowry, KEPCo
“The clash of wants and needs”
The “climate crisis” is driving our energy debate. Recently Al Gore announced a goal that in 10 years, 100 percent of our nation’s electricity will be generated from renewable resources. For Mr. Gore and others who share his vision, this policy is necessary to save the planet and, therefore, cost is no object.
As the costs of such a policy become apparent, however, many will argue that we cannot afford it. Certainty about the scope of the climate crisis or low-cost energy solutions to solve that crisis would make energy policy work quite simple. If neither exists, developing sound energy policy will require reconciliation of what we need and what we can afford.
Energy efficiency — deriving the benefits of electricity while actually consuming less of it — will increase in the coming years as never before. Unfortunately, even the best energy efficiency programs will not lead us to the point of negative usage. We will still need electric supply, and that supply has to come from somewhere.
Renewable energy has an undeniable appeal to everyone — including electric utilities. At the risk of throwing cold water in the face of Mr. Gore’s dream, it is unlikely that renewable energy will provide all of our supply in the next 10 years — at least in the absence of a major technological breakthrough or a seismic shift in public policy.
We will see the use of more renewable energy, though. In Kansas, the renewable energy focus is primarily on wind energy. Electricity supply solely from wind, however, is like the wind itself: present some of the time and absent at others. Integrating wind resources into an electricity system while maintaining balance between electricity load and electric supply requires the continued use of traditional generation resources.
Experts in both the wind and utility industries believe that we can reasonably expect to integrate roughly 20 percent of our energy from wind in the future. Utilities in Kansas have made steps toward that goal. Wind power could be generated in Kansas and exported to regions that do not have renewable energy alternatives. The transmission lines and facilities needed to move bulk power, including wind energy, between regions will need to be more fully developed.
If less than 100 percent of our power is generated from renewable resources, the remainder will likely come from new versions of generation resources that build on established technologies — coal, nuclear and natural gas in combination.
Concern with carbon dioxide emissions and global climate change resulted in the current Kansas debate about the use of coal generation. If this concern drives our energy policy, it would predict a movement toward more nuclear energy, which does not have the emissions of coal plants. Proposals for more nuclear energy will likely bring equal, but different, objections from the same people that oppose the use of coal. Improvements will continue to be made in both coal and nuclear technologies. With coal, technological innovations to sequester or reduce carbon emissions will develop. Nuclear has a strong safety record and the industry will build on that success.
Any discussion of the energy future in Kansas should include consideration of the cost. Ascertaining the cost we are willing to bear requires that we discern our priorities. If we want more renewable energy, need to limit carbon dioxide emissions and want to maintain reliable service, we can do that.
If we want to provide the most reliable service at the lowest possible cost, we can do that.
The correct policy answer is found at the intersection of what we want and what we can afford.
Stuart Lowry is executive vice president of Kansas Electric Cooperatives and a member of the Kansas Energy Council and the governor’s Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Busybusybusy, here’s the highlights of climate and energy news lately, especially as it affects KS and the Midwest.
Note first: Everyone here is talking about the weather. Tornados, floods, crops harvest commodities it’s all about the weather. And bemoaning or boasting about the state of our tomato plants after said weather. I’m fighting blossom drop. too much wet.
News:
More on the KS connections of sustainability architects working in Greensburg - Salina Journal. Quotable: “ After all, Hardy said, while nothing might be left of grandma’s house, many people still feel an attachment to the land it was on — and wouldn’t want to be told it was going to be the site of the new city hall, library or park. The property lines were still intact, Wedel said, and “if a plot of land has been in the family for four or five generations, going back through your parents, grandparents and to your great-grandparents who settled it,” that plot retains some importance. “We quickly learned that without any buildings, what you think of as a community, the community is still there,” Hardy said. “All of what you think of as a community is gone, but the relationships are still there.”
East Kansas Agri-Energy, LLC, Garnett, Kan. wins award from EnergyStar/ EPA for cutting greenhouse gas emissions - EPA press release
Utilities scrambling as floods compromise railways and delay coal shipments; prices could rise even further as a result - CNNmoney
Controversy over financing coal plants with bonds - Reuters - Even new coal plants with up to date pollution standards are at risk due to upcoming changes in regs re CO2 emissions. Quotable:” Thompson called on the federal government to investigate how tax-exempt bonds are used in building the plants because current plans are “based on outdated assumptions and a suspension of disbelief that the risks will be managed or wished away.”… But Moody’s, which gave the bonds a “A1″ rating, also warned that there are “no assurances that environmental regulation will remain the same. Any federal legislation that addresses greenhouse gas emissions could have an adverse impact on the cost of coal-fired generation.” Changing environmental regulations, including limits on the pollutants, or greenhouse gases, released into the atmosphere, is one threat to all coal plants’ viability, Thomson wrote. “Plants constructed under current rules will incur new financial obligations to curb greenhouse gases,” he wrote. He also said that AMP-Ohio is “proceeding based on the assumption that ratepayers will simply pay any price increases without question.” Problems could arise if they rebel against the increases.”
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
News update
February 27, 2008
Working from home in rural Jefferson County at the moment. Sun is shining. Birds are singing. Ice on the lake is popping and spalling in weird underwater echoes as the sun hits the east side, while the west side is still cool and in shadow. Dogs are outside barking hysterically at my poor neighbor.
If I can figure out/ find out when the next conference committee meeting is on the Holcomb/ energy bill is today, we may have live blogging from Topeka later. If not, tomorrow holds a special treat - the KCC has decided to host a round table on nuclear power !!! (.pdf) I guess we weren’t having enough fun with coal. The event goes all day, so don’t expect live blogging, but I will take notes and post them later. Seriously, I am excited - very interesting speakers lined up.
For now, the news.
Cargill has canceled a proposed $200 million ethanol plant outside of Topeka due to the high price of corn (TCJournal). Christian denominations gathered for a “creation care summit,” a term popularized by evangelical Rev. Richard Cizik (Christian Post). Cizik spoke at the event, calling global warming “an offense against God,” and saying that “America needs our biblical outrage. We as a nation will face a judgment from God if we don’t do this.”
The wind industry is facing a shortage of qualified workers due to the enormous increase in demand (Seattle Times). Go, Cloud County Community College, and other Kansas community colleges who are developing wind technician training programs! The country needs you. Kansas needs you, too, to help spur rural economic development opportunities.
The following is not news to any of us, probably, but the USA Today has caught on that wind development is contingent on construction of new transmission lines, and that the grid in windy areas of the country is horribly congested. Why do I mention it, then…? Because I have a crazy fringe theory. The story supports my belief that the transmission issues in Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, etc., are going to draw more and more national attention as pressure mounts to develop renewables. There is also a provision in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (I think that’s the date) that allows the federal government eminent domain to build transmission in corridors of “national interest.”
My fringe theory: Either we develop more transmission, fast, or within a decade or so we could face the federal government perhaps deciding to do it for us.
But I could also be crazy.
NPR produced a harrowing story about the history of a yellow fever outbreak in Memphis in 1878. Yellow fever is one of the many diseases spread by mosquitoes. Long spells of hot weather provide a longer breeding season for these insects. Such spells are one of the many risks posed by climate change, which mainstream scientists agree is affected by human actions, such as burning fossil fuels.
Editorial. Randy Schofield of the Wichita Eagle whacks the pro-Holcomb folks on one hand for misrepresenting “regulatory uncertainty” (the Holcomb plant is the only air quality permit KDHE has ever denied, and regulatory uncertainty about greenhouse gases and carbon regulation on the national scene created that unique situation). On the other hand, he points out that in the aftermath of the decision, Governor Sebelius and Sec. Bremby haven’t been open enough about how they are developing GHG regulations. (Don’t get mad at me, I just offer a synopsis). Quotable:
Granted, there are legitimate concerns — we share them — about where state and federal carbon regulation is heading.
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and Bremby have been far too quiet about how the Holcomb decision fits into larger efforts to reshape the state’s energy policy in light of looming federal carbon regulation and growing uncertainty about the economic viability of coal plants.
They need to move this dialogue forward more aggressively and show business leaders and lawmakers where they’re heading.
All the same, there’s no cause for panic. Bremby has made clear that his decision should be seen as limited and narrowly crafted to the energy sector.
One permit denial out of thousands does not add up to regulatory anarchy.
A guest editorial in the KCStar points out that all of the Kansas’ electricity picture is affected by the decision to put a coal plant, in the face of future carbon regulation structures such as cap and trade. Quotable:
If southwest Kansas goes with coal, then the rest of the state will have to make up the difference by assuming the burden and cost of developing new resources…. With (Sunflower Electric’s) coal plants employing newer technology, Kansas would be forced to achieve reductions at other utility plants, such as Westar, Kansas City Power & Light and BPU.
The necessary emission reductions may not be feasible on older plants, forcing them to invest in expensive alternative solutions. Our exposure is substantial because these utilities rely heavily on coal.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
fact checks from Holcomb hearings, part III
February 7, 2008
More questions that have emerged from the hearings - and hey, BTW, I don’t come up with all of these answers by myself. Awesome volunteers and blog readers help me out immensely. Thank you, team.
Q: What are greenhouse gases and why do they matter? Is water vapor one of them?
I am taking most of this straight from the CEP main website’s FAQ section, and the following links are to our Glossary.
Greenhouse gases are gases in the earth’s atmosphere that trap solar radiation and keep it from reflecting back into space. Greenhouse gases are important because when they build up in the atmosphere, they trap heat and warm up the earth, a process known as global warming. Global warming leads to climate change. There are many different kinds of greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, various fluorinated gases, water vapor, etc. Many greenhouse gases also occur naturally. However, recent human activities have shifted their balance in the atmosphere. During the past two hundred years or so since industrialization, humans have generated and circulated far vaster quantities of GHGs than normally existed in natural processes like the carbon cycle. In particular, these gases result from the burning of fossil fuels.
Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. It is accounted for in all climate models. According to the EPA Climate Change Glossary’s definition of water vapor: “The most abundant greenhouse gas, it is the water present in the atmosphere in gaseous form. Water vapor is an important part of the natural greenhouse effect. While humans are not significantly increasing its concentration, it contributes to the enhanced greenhouse effect because the warming influence of greenhouse gases leads to a positive water vapor feedback. In addition to its role as a natural greenhouse gas, water vapor plays an important role in regulating the temperature of the planet because clouds form when excess water vapor in the atmosphere condenses to form ice and water droplets and precipitation.”
Q: How do you compare the jobs from the coal plants to jobs gained from developing renewable energy, like wind?
A: We can borrow a great example from Representative Tom Sloan, that he used in the hearings on Wednesday. He asked how much wind power it would take to replace the Holcomb plants. (He used the figure of 1,500 MW, instead of the 1,400 MW of the proposed Holcomb plants, so we are going with 1,500 as well). He calculated that to create 1,500 MW of wind power, presuming a 40% capacity factor, that would mean about 2,500 turbines of the 1.5 MW size each.
That’s a lot of turbines. That’s also a lot of jobs - more than the 110 permanent jobs to be created by Holcomb. Taking Rep. Sloan’s numbers, and applying them to NREL’s wind economic development numbers, this is how it works: Every 100 MW wind farm creates a minimum of six full-time operations and maintenance jobs - good-paying jobs - so that is 150 permanent jobs. Wind farm construction jobs run anywhere from 100-200 jobs per 100 MW (although CEP expects that contractors would emerge who would cover most of those jobs, just like steel workers). Landowners also receive between $2,000-$4,000 in lease payments per turbine. The county also receives ongoing payments in lieu of taxes.
Also, 2,500 turbines would be spread over possibly as many as ten counties. That spreads out a lot of economic development. The coal plants would be located in one county. In addition, President Bush has set a goal of the country generating 20% of its electricity from wind by 2030. Kansas’s share of this total would come to around 7,100 MW. That’s a huge amount of permanent jobs.
According to a press release from EERE’s Windpowering America, developing wind has already contributed greatly to rural economic development. In the words of Allen Rider, a member of 25x ‘25:
“This is one of the few times that I’ve seen the opportunity for more jobs, good paying jobs, in rural America. We had a study done by the University of Tennessee for an economical analysis, and they’re talking about in the neighborhood of five-million jobs associated with the development and the production of renewable energy. Typically we’ve been talking about bigger farms, less people, less job opportunity. So as a consequence, this is a big deal in rural America.”
In fact, from the rural development standpoint, Rider says this is one of the most exciting things he’s seen for the agriculture industry in his entire lifetime.
“For many years, one of the biggest problems in the agricultural and forestry industry is rural development, where people can have jobs and work in rural communities. Renewable energy generation, whether it be wind or one of the other types, does employ people and it provides an opportunity to have a strong, robust economic environment in a rural community, which in the past has not been there. So it can be a real boost for a rural economy, particularly in small farmer communities where there have not been opportunities for people to get jobs and stay in the area.”
Q: What is the connection between developing ethanol plants and building more coal-fired power plants?
The argument is that if ethanol plants do not have access to cheap, coal-fire generated electricity, then they will not locate in Kansas. The concern is that without cheap electric power, there will be no economic development. This is absolutely an important concern. Encouraging economic development is a complicated recipe with lots of ingredients, and messing up one could indeed risk spoiling the whole dinner.
However, the national statistics do not bear out the idea that economic development and cheap power are necessarily linked. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), California has some of the highest energy prices in the nation (almost double those of Kansas). However, it also has one of the largest economies in the world.
This issue of cheap power and economic development is also bigger than ethanol. All businesses face a similar challenge: under federal carbon regulation, the price of all fossil fuels burned for electrical generation will increase. Businesses are meeting this challenge in a variety of ways. Some are implementing aggressive programs of energy efficiency. Others are adding renewable energy generating facilities to their operations, to help wean their dependence from the grid and high-carbon fossil fuels.
— Maril Hazlett
Want to know more about climate and energy in the Midwest? Check out www.climateandenergy.org.
biofuels
January 11, 2008
Super-important report on the sustainability of biofuels, just out yesterday from the Ecological Society of America. Quotable from the press release:
“Current grain-based ethanol production systems damage soil and water resources in the U.S. and are only profitable in the context of tax breaks and tariffs,” says ESA. “Future systems based on a combination of cellulosic materials and grain could be equally degrading to the environment, with potentially little carbon savings, unless steps are taken now that incorporate principles of ecological sustainability.”
At a community forum between Douglas County KS voters and their legislators, energy issues dominated the discussion. More speculation about whether all issues in the upcoming legislative session will be held hostage to those legislators who want to push the Holcomb coal plants through and remove powers from KDHE, which denied the air quality permits for the proposed plants (LJWorld).
The Topeka Farm Show featured green energy this year (Topeka Capital-Journal). I sighed longingly when I read about the geothermal systems. Also, via the CEP network (you know who you are, and thank you) a really neato article about digital tools that can help you conserve energy (NYTimes).
Last, an interesting review of Energy Autonomy, a book I’ve been dying to read - that pause is there, actually, because I just had a brief moment of hysterical laughter. Read a book! When am I going to have time to do that? Okay, better now. But the review is tiding me over for now. Read it; it’s good.
Remember that I am biased, however, in favor of anything that uses the word “decentralized.” And since I like that word so much maybe I didn’t read the review as critically after I saw that. Sorry, it’s a human nature thing. We all have our hot buttons or happy buttons that, when pushed, usually turn off our brains.
(read the review anyway!!)
— Maril Hazlett
Want to know more about climate and energy issues in the Midwest? Check out www.climateandenergy.org.
energy, ice, climate - watching, wondering…
January 10, 2008
News first: this year’s Kansas City Home Remodeling Show is going green, with an emphasis on energy efficiency and renewable energy. The event will be held at the American Royal Building February 8-10.
Ethanol producers are looking for transportation options for their product, and the existing oil infrastructure looks quite attractive (Reuters). I’ll admit - I read that article’s headline and first thought, oh dear, that’s like when my cat fell in love with a stuffed animal and the two of them just were not compatible for a long-term relationship.
However, it now appears that there are some technologies underway that could make it possible for ethanol and oil products to share the same infrastructure. My poor cat never got so lucky.
Via my awesome web designer Ramsey, a post from the GreenTech Pastures blog on the potential of switchgrass. Funny headline: “Fifty million buffalo were right.” Part of switchgrass’s appeal is that it can be treated as a perennial crop. This has the added benefit of its intensive root system keeping carbon fixed in the soil. Quotable re its other benefits:
A five-year federal study found that switchgrass can produce 540% more energy than it takes to farm it. Wow, that’s very different from the heavily subsidized and fertilized corn crop now being used to produce ethanol biofuel. Corn produces only about 25% more energy and even soy-based biodiesel is less than 100% more energy productive. Switchgrass could also be used to produce ethanol. That would reduce greenhouse emissions compared to current gasoline.
Lovely rainy day out there. Good moment to get philosophical. I’ve mentioned the recent Kansas ice storm once or twice on the blog, and it came up again the other day when I was talking to Dan Nagengast, director of the Kansas Rural Center.
One of the effects of the storm, of course, was that it took down big chunks of the grid. Lots of people lost power, some for weeks. Oklahoma was in even worse shape. Utility linemen from all over the country poured in to help our region out. This week, those same guys are probably in California and Utah, picking up after the storms out there. Next week, who knows where else they will be.
Well - Dan and I were wondering about the human costs to their families, having a loved one gone so unpredictably all the time. And how climate change could increase human costs like this, in ways that are very hard to quantify and track.
As the wife of a firefighter-paramedic, I feel I have some insight into this problem. I’m not crazy about tornado sirens to begin with (who is) but when they go off, his beeper goes off, too, and away he goes. Heavy rains, high water, heavy snow or ice accumulation - these are events that I often handle on my own, because he is helping other people. Linemen and linemen’s spouses are probably in a similar situation.
And on one hand - sure. We’re used to that. I’m used to it. I knew it when I signed up, so to speak. There’s times I’m not too pleased, but that’s part of life. Instead, you just concentrate on when you get to have him back.
However - what if the frequency and intensity of these sort of extreme weather events changes? (That article links to a study about the possibility of increased tornado frequency with climate change, from Scientific American.)
Like I said, the human costs - the impacts on families - would be very hard to quantify and track. Unfortunately, that does mean they would take any less of a toll.
— Maril Hazlett
Want to know more about climate and energy issues in the Midwest? Check out www.climateandenergy.org.
