renewable energy mandates

[CPL.Luke]

recently the Massachusettes state legislature passed a bill that will provide a mandate for the state to produce 20% of its energy through clean and renewable energy. My problem with the bill is that it prevents the state from investing in or developing clean coal technologies, and because of this it is likely that the bill will produce dirtier air on a watt for watt basis.

 

currently Massachusettes produces its energy with a heavy slant on natural gas.

 

now most of these power plants are going to have to be rebuilt soon as power plants are built with a 30-50 operational lifetime in mind and a large portion of these facilities are coming due.

 

Now this is Mass so keep in mind that the state is extremely liberal, in 2020 assuming that the state has fulfilled their mandate 20% of the power will be coming from renewables while the remaining energy will have to come from coal due to the fact the state will most certainly not build any more nuclear plants and the existing ones will have been shut-down. oil and natural gas will boath be seen as increasingly untenable options due to the rapidly rising cost of both of these things.

 

I did the math out a while ago on a scenario where a state uses eastern coal standards and produces 80% of its power from coal and 20% from renewables and found that this actually makes the emissions from the state worse than what they presently are in mass.

 

this is just a recent example of enviromentalism trumping smart economics and good legislature.

[iNow]

Smart economics doesn't trump long-term environmental impact, though. That's the rock which crushes your scissors. It doesn't matter how much gold you have left to spend if there's no where left to spend it.

 

Also, "clean coal" is an oxymoron. It's like saying "desirable AIDS."

[waitforufo]

Washington State passed a similar law but hydroelectric cannot be considered renewable. Wind yes, Hydro no. Go figure.

[insane_alien]

you do realise that clean coal pumps out slightly more CO2 than 'normal' coal. this is due to the fact that there is no soot(it is turned into CO2) also in removing the impurities you increase the density sso you get more CO2/kg.

 

renewable stuff will reduce the CO2 especially if it is 20% of the energy requirements.

[Sisyphus]

I'm not sure I follow. By your reasoning, anything that isn't renewable is going to be coal. I very much doubt that, but I'll go with it for now. So you should be comparing 20% renewable/80% coal vs. 100% coal, not vs. status quo.

[bascule]

Would nuclear reactors fall under this bill?

 

you do realise that clean coal pumps out slightly more CO2 than 'normal' coal. this is due to the fact that there is no soot(it is turned into CO2) also in removing the impurities you increase the density sso you get more CO2/kg.

 

renewable stuff will reduce the CO2 especially if it is 20% of the energy requirements.

 

It depends what "clean coal" technology you're talking about.

 

Technologies like IGCC:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_Gasification_Combined_Cycle

 

...produce substantially less CO₂ than simple coalfire plants and have a much higher efficiency. They work by first converting coal to a gas, then both burning the gas and using the waste heat of the process which synthesizes the gas to turn turbines. The resulting waste comes in the form of slag, water, and CO₂, but at levels substantially less than simply burning the coal.

[CPL.Luke]

also they are doing substatial work on carbon sequestration, where they bury the CO2 underneath the site, thus bringing the CO2 emissions down to near zero

 

Bascule

 

unfortunatly this is mass so nuclear is considered dangerous, I've been trying to do some work on getting the local masspirg to support nuclear initiatives.

 

sisyphus

the reasoning behind the all coal 20% renewables was that with clean coal off the table, then it being mass the state would be forced to switch to coal for its primary source of power, as oil, and gas would be uneconomical, and nuclear politically unsavory. Whereas the natural course of things would have seen increased use of wind (it now is as economical as coal) and an increased use of clean coal technologies, and possibly a continued role for natural gas as the state wouldn't be faced with rising energy costs due to a forced adoption of cleaner technologies.

[Sisyphus]

Why would clean coal be off the table? If they really are forced to use coal, I should think they would require it to be as absolutely clean as possible. And why would natural gas? If they're artificially raising energy prices with this initiative, wouldn't that make more options competitive?

[CPL.Luke]

If they're artificially raising energy prices with this initiative, wouldn't that make more options competitive?

 

under normal circumstances it would, however the state is under constant pressure to lower energy prices and increase enviromental standards, as the price of energy is artificially raised the state comes under increased pressure to reduce costs, if energy is expensive it makes sense to fill any gaps with cheaper sources of energy, and natural gas is more expensive than coal, and will be increasing in price.

 

clean coal is off the table due to a provision in the law, now this may alow for legal loopholes that would allow them to implement clean coal as long as they don't call it that, or no one would ever notice when the new coal plant contains IGCC technology or something similar.

 

however I believe the law included a provision against carbon sequestration. a couple words from the enviromental lobby and wind and solar lobby's probably got that put in. remember the slogan "dilution is not the solution"

[bascule]

Bascule

 

unfortunatly this is mass so nuclear is considered dangerous

 

That's pretty silly. Have you tried informing them that it's more dangerous to drive a car than to live near a nuclear reactor?

[CPL.Luke]

yeah but a car is largely considered to be under your control a reactor failure isn't viewed in the same manner (very similar to how people view flying as more dangerous than driving),

 

It doesn't help that most people think a nuclear meltdown is equivalent to a nuclear explosion which in the publics mind are capable of single handedly destroying the east coast.

 

and if you can convince a person of these aspects are false than they turn to the waste issue even though a standard coal plant emits more nuclear bydproducts into the atmosphere than a nuclear plant puts out as waste. and then most enviromental types will say that we need 100% wind and solar never mind how much it costs.

[Sisyphus]

The law prohibits cleaner coal? Are you sure have that right?

[CPL.Luke]

the last information I saw on it stated that it would prevent the development of "clean coal" and as I said I believe there was an explicit ban on carbon sequestration.