PDA

View Full Version : US Power Plant CO2 Emissions Up 3%


jAZ
03-19-2008, 10:29 AM
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iqPhwOt3wFJGHbVmTpM0XzYlhVrwD8VG3J0G0

Power Plant CO2 Increases by 3 Percent
By H. JOSEF HEBERT – 18 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The amount of carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas, released by the nation's power plants grew by nearly 3 percent last year, the largest annual increase in nearly a decade, an environmental group said Tuesday.

The analysis of government emissions figures covered more than 1,000 plants including those burning coal, natural gas and oil.

The report by the Environmental Integrity Project, a Washington-based advocacy group, said that the 2.9 percent increase in CO2 releases outpaced a 2.3 percent year-to-year increase in electricity production.

"Carbon emissions actually increased faster than (electricity) demand," said Eric Schaeffer, the group's executive director. He said reduced efficiency of older coal-burning power plants that often are some of the largest coal burners may have been one reason for the CO2 increase.

The report said that Texas, Georgia, Arizona, California and Pennsylvania had the biggest one-year increases.

Bill Sang, climate issues director for the Edison Electric Institute, said the increase reflected greater demand for power last year and a shortage of hydroelectric power that forced utilities to shift to fossil fuels.

"We think as much as two-thirds of the (CO2) increase was due to increased demand for electricity," said Sang, whose organization represents utilities that generate 70 percent of the electricity.

Carbon dioxide is the leading so-called "greenhouse gas" that is linked to global warming. It is a product of burning fossil fuels. Power plants account for nearly 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions a year, about a third of the U.S. total.

"The amount that we're emitting today makes any long-term (reduction) goals that much harder to reach," said Schaeffer.

The group used data on 2006 and 2007 carbon dioxide emissions from the Environmental Protection Agency and the federal Energy Information Administration. Emissions levels are dependent on a variety of factors from weather to economic growth or decline.

Earlier this year, President Bush cited a 1.3 percent decline in overall CO2 emissions in 2006, compared to a year earlier. Much of that decline was attributed to a mild winter and cool summer, which resulted in less energy demand for heating and cooling.

The Scherer coal-burning power plant, operated by Georgia Power, produced the most CO2 in 2007, about 27 million tons, and showed a year-to-year increase of 2 million tons, the environmentalists said.

"Any increase in emissions that we have is due to increased electricity production," said Georgia Power spokeswoman Carol Boatright. "Georgia is one of the fastest-growing states in the country. Our demand for energy is growing."

Melissa McHenry, spokeswoman for Ohio-based American Electric Power, which has 25 coal-burning power plants in nine states, said her company showed a 2.8 percent increase in CO2 emission in 2007, but "we also saw a 3.6 percent increase in electricity demand." She said AEP is investing in wind generation and purchasing carbon "offsets" through a carbon exchange program.

According to the environmental group's analysis, the most CO2 in 2007 came from power plants in Texas, 262 million tons; Ohio, 138.6 million tons; Florida, 134.5 million tons; Indiana, 132 million tons; and Pennsylvania, 123.6 million tons. Those numbers did not take into account amount of power produced.

States where plants release the most CO2 per megawatt-hour of electricity generated were North Dakota, Wyoming, Kentucky, Indiana and Utah.

Donger
03-19-2008, 10:37 AM
Gee, who would guess that increased electricity production would lead to increased CO2 emissions?

Bootlegged
03-19-2008, 10:52 AM
Sweet. Operation Carbon Debits is successful.

penchief
03-19-2008, 11:38 AM
Gee, who would guess that increased electricity production would lead to increased CO2 emissions?

Thank God for the "Clear Skies Initiative."

Donger
03-19-2008, 11:44 AM
Thank God for the "Clear Skies Initiative."

And that has what to do with CO2 emissions?

Brock
03-19-2008, 11:59 AM
And that has what to do with CO2 emissions?

He has to figure out some way to blame Bush for it. It's OCD.

penchief
03-19-2008, 12:02 PM
And that has what to do with CO2 emissions?

You're right. I must have got that confused with Bush's campaign promise to cut CO2 imissions. My bad.

penchief
03-19-2008, 12:03 PM
He has to figure out some way to blame Bush for it. It's OCD.

Not blaming it on Bush. Just the mindset that he advocates.

Amnorix
03-19-2008, 12:06 PM
Can we please get on board with clearing the impossible hurdles to make nuclear energy viable again...

Donger
03-19-2008, 12:07 PM
Can we please get on board with clearing the impossible hurdles to make nuclear energy viable again...

Politically viable?

damaticous
03-19-2008, 12:40 PM
What do you expect? Duh!!!!

If we didn't expect to have more CO2 emissions then we should be building more nuclear power plants.

StcChief
03-19-2008, 12:56 PM
Just doing our part to support Al Gore's global warming argument

mikey23545
03-19-2008, 06:37 PM
Not that man has any effect on the questionable existence of global warming, but we would not have nearly as much CO2 emissions today if it wasn't for the wild-eyed fanatical resistance to nuclear power from the left-wing idiot parade...

BucEyedPea
03-19-2008, 07:50 PM
What's wrong with Co2. Y'all don't want to live in a tropical paradise? The dinosaurs loved it. Co2 was high in their time.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-19-2008, 07:53 PM
You know what's awesome:

Dragonflies that can haul away 5 year olds.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2008, 08:01 PM
Cool. Make it a fantasy island too.:D

StcChief
03-19-2008, 08:56 PM
Not that man has any effect on the questionable existence of global warming, but we would not have nearly as much CO2 emissions today if it wasn't for the wild-eyed fanatical resistance to nuclear power from the left-wing idiot parade...
3 mile island and the drunks in Russia with Chernobol. really put an excusable scare out, the Libs jumped all over it.

tiptap
03-19-2008, 09:20 PM
What's wrong with Co2. Y'all don't want to live in a tropical paradise? The dinosaurs loved it. Co2 was high in their time.

The building of civilization only took place with the settling down of the climate 10,000 years ago. The notion that the rise in temperature to duplicate Dinosaur times could take place without a great deal of displacement of both natural and human agricultural systems is naive.

Here is the recent information on GW.

The "good" news is that World Wide Average temperatures, over all the measuring systems, has seen a .75 degree drop in temperatures over the last 12 months. Many have declared this one year drop the death knell of GW claims.

But this drop has come with the minimum in Sun Spots. That is associated with lower temperature, and more importantly with La Nina effect in the South Pacific. This has shown a large correlation with relative lower temperatures for energy balance involved with earth's climate. But this lower average temperature has not abated any measurement of loss of glacial ice. The rate of melting of glacial ice has actually increased. Additionally the loss of OLD polar ice has accelerated at the North Pole. Old ice tends to be less salty and doesn't melt at the lower temperatures that salty ice melts. This means that the salty ice will melt easier. Last year the smallest polar ice size was reached. If this colder temperature is a reflection of something more basic than we should see building of polar ice cap and additionally increases in glacial ice.

I would add that all the anti GW blogs are glowing about the temperature drop. And none of those who collate that information, including Henson, the man who testified that GW was real back in 1994 or so, have ducked the findings. They haven't fudged with the data to fit their understanding. The data is all good for those who wish to misinterpret this short term event. So when the data reverses upon the re emergence of El Nino and the temperatures again jump, one should have confidence that these numbers are a real reflection of real changes in climate.

tiptap
03-19-2008, 09:29 PM
3 mile island and the drunks in Russia with Chernobol. really put an excusable scare out, the Libs jumped all over it.

It wasn't just liberals. I got my lessons against Nuclear Energy from my Uncle. He was the lead Electrical Engineer for Kansas City, KS. And lost that position for his strong opposition to the Wolf Plant Nuclear facility. He is as Republican as you can get and conservative religiously. We had long discussions about the merits of generating systems back then. CO 2 was not one of the parameters. That has tip for me the need to increase Nuclear plants. But if we choose to continue to use the Centralized Energy model rather than also to incorporate the dispersed distributed systems of solar/wind, then we will miss the chance to provide access to energy systems modeled after distributive computer models.

2bikemike
03-20-2008, 01:24 AM
Being a power plant operator I can guarantee you that if we start trading Co2 credits the way we are trading Nox credits the price of electricity will go through the roof.

Nuke Plants are a great alternative to fossil fuel but rediculously expensive and to permit, license, and build.

Solar is still quite a ways off from being economical to do on a large scale. It also requires a huge foot print.

Wind turbines the hot ticket right now also are fairly expensive and require large foot prints to do on a large scale.

tiptap
03-20-2008, 07:34 AM
So here we can ask as a Plant Operator, how much capacity is on the grid at night to meet charging up electric cars? If capacity is there, could we meet charging electric cars without increasing the CO 2 footprint from the coal fired plant and reduce total CO 2 output by foregoing burning fossil fuels in our cars for daily commutes? Can we do so without raising our electrical rates astronomically?

Just an opinion.

RINGLEADER
03-20-2008, 08:34 AM
Can we please get on board with clearing the impossible hurdles to make nuclear energy viable again...

Amen.

RINGLEADER
03-20-2008, 08:36 AM
3 mile island and the drunks in Russia with Chernobol. really put an excusable scare out, the Libs jumped all over it.

I think I could build a safer nuclear reactor in my oven then the Russians did at Chernobyl.

RINGLEADER
03-20-2008, 08:37 AM
So here we can ask as a Plant Operator, how much capacity is on the grid at night to meet charging up electric cars? If capacity is there, could we meet charging electric cars without increasing the CO 2 footprint from the coal fired plant and reduce total CO 2 output by foregoing burning fossil fuels in our cars for daily commutes? Can we do so without raising our electrical rates astronomically?

Just an opinion.

If even a fraction of the auto usage went electric the grid would collapse.

tiptap
03-20-2008, 08:57 AM
If even a fraction of the auto usage went electric the grid would collapse.

Strange, that is not what I understand

http://www.ornl.gov/info/press_releases/get_press_release.cfm?ReleaseNumber=mr20080312-02

OAK RIDGE, Tenn., March 12, 2008 — A growing number of plug-in hybrid electric cars and trucks could require major new power generation resources or none at all— depending on when people recharge their automobiles.

A recent Oak Ridge National Laboratory study, featured in the current issue of the ORNL Review examined how an expected increase in ownership of hybrid electric cars and trucks will affect the power grid depending on what time of day or night the vehicles are charged.

Some assessments of the impact of electric vehicles assume owners will charge them only at night, said Stan Hadley of ORNL's Cooling, Heating and Power Technologies Program.

"That assumption doesn't necessarily take into account human nature," said Hadley, who led the study. "Consumers' inclination will be to plug in when convenient, rather than when utilities would prefer. Utilities will need to create incentives to encourage people to wait. There are also technologies such as 'smart' chargers that know the price of power, the demands on the system and the time when the car will be needed next to optimize charging for both the owner and the utility that can help too."

In an analysis of the potential impacts of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles projected for 2020 and 2030 in 13 regions of the United States, ORNL researchers explored their potential effect on electricity demand, supply, infrastructure, prices and associated emission levels. Electricity requirements for hybrids used a projection of 25 percent market penetration of hybrid vehicles by 2020 including a mixture of sedans and sport utility vehicles. Several scenarios were run for each region for the years 2020 and 2030 and the times of 5 p.m. or 10:00 p.m., in addition to other variables.

The report found that the need for added generation would be most critical by 2030, when hybrids have been on the market for some time and become a larger percentage of the automobiles Americans drive. In the worst-case scenario—if all hybrid owners charged their vehicles at 5 p.m., at six kilowatts of power—up to 160 large power plants would be needed nationwide to supply the extra electricity, and the demand would reduce the reserve power margins for a particular region's system.

The best-case scenario occurs when vehicles are plugged in after 10 p.m., when the electric load on the system is at a minimum and the wholesale price for energy is least expensive. Depending on the power demand per household, charging vehicles after 10 p.m. would require, at lower demand levels, no additional power generation or, in higher-demand projections, just eight additional power plants nationwide.

For more information on this study and other energy-related research at ORNL go to www.ornl.gov/Review. Oak Ridge National Laboratory is operated by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy.

tiptap
03-20-2008, 08:58 AM
It is all about the timing of the charging.

Donger
03-20-2008, 08:59 AM
In the worst-case scenario—if all hybrid owners charged their vehicles at 5 p.m., at six kilowatts of power—up to 160 large power plants would be needed nationwide to supply the extra electricity, and the demand would reduce the reserve power margins for a particular region's system.

And that's precisely when they would do it. Get home from work and plug in the car.

tiptap
03-20-2008, 09:13 AM
And that's precisely when they would do it. Get home from work and plug in the car.

But you could have some timer on that particular car tied to a clock that only allows charging after 10 and you could still plug it in when you get home. Please.

Donger
03-20-2008, 09:19 AM
But you could have some timer on that particular car tied to a clock that only allows charging after 10 and you could still plug it in when you get home. Please.

Could people? Sure. Will people? I doubt it.

I believe it would be somewhere in between, of course. So, we would still have to build ~80 major plants.

pikesome
03-20-2008, 09:19 AM
It wasn't just liberals. I got my lessons against Nuclear Energy from my Uncle. He was the lead Electrical Engineer for Kansas City, KS. And lost that position for his strong opposition to the Wolf Plant Nuclear facility. He is as Republican as you can get and conservative religiously. We had long discussions about the merits of generating systems back then. CO 2 was not one of the parameters. That has tip for me the need to increase Nuclear plants. But if we choose to continue to use the Centralized Energy model rather than also to incorporate the dispersed distributed systems of solar/wind, then we will miss the chance to provide access to energy systems modeled after distributive computer models.

This isn't directly related to the topic but the story, as my mother tells it, is that my father's mother's dad was responsible in large part for Wolf Creek getting approved/built. I don't know if that's true, just throwing that out there.

tiptap
03-20-2008, 09:24 AM
Could people? Sure. Will people? I doubt it.

I believe it would be somewhere in between, of course. So, we would still have to build ~80 major plants.

No, the circuitry is manufactored in the car circuit itself. If you set the clock to the right time then it should be ok. Come on Donger we can easily engineer solutions that would be highly effective.

Boon
03-20-2008, 09:25 AM
Could people? Sure. Will people? I doubt it.

I believe it would be somewhere in between, of course. So, we would still have to build ~80 major plants.

If the price of the electricity was tied to the time it was used, I think people would take the cheaper rate thus charging at night when demand is lower.

Donger
03-20-2008, 09:26 AM
No, the circuitry is manufactored in the car circuit itself. If you set the clock to the right time then it should be ok. Come on Donger we can easily engineer solutions that would be highly effective.

Sure, it could be done. And people would love being told, while needing to go to the store for milk, "No, you can't charge now, because demand would be too high. Sorry, please check back in a few hours."

tiptap
03-20-2008, 09:26 AM
This isn't directly related to the topic but the story, as my mother tells it, is that my father's mother's dad was responsible in large part for Wolf Creek getting approved/built. I don't know if that's true, just throwing that out there.

Man you make me out to be really old as this would be your great grandfather that was involved.

Donger
03-20-2008, 09:27 AM
If the price of the electricity was tied to the time it was used, I think people would take the cheaper rate thus charging at night when demand is lower.

It most certainly would be, sure. It already is in some places. But would everyone? No.

Americans like conveniences.

tiptap
03-20-2008, 09:30 AM
Sure, it could be done. And people would love being told, while needing to go to the store for milk, "No, you can't charge now, because demand would be too high. Sorry, please check back in a few hours."

This is what I don't understand. You are making people out to being pretty petty. That somehow the original capacity in the vehicle will automatically run out as soon as they pull in the driveway. That they wouldn't stop on the way home. That there isn't access to a hybrid for such emergencies.

Brock
03-20-2008, 09:33 AM
A big no thank you to the motor laws.

Donger
03-20-2008, 09:34 AM
This is what I don't understand. You are making people out to being pretty petty. That somehow the original capacity in the vehicle will automatically run out as soon as they pull in the driveway. That they wouldn't stop on the way home. That there isn't access to a hybrid for such emergencies.

I'm saying that people are used to instant gratification. You don't really think that everyone using a plug-in will only charge their vehicles off-peak, do you? If not, more plants will have to be built.

tiptap
03-20-2008, 09:40 AM
I'm saying that people are used to instant gratification. You don't really think that everyone using a plug-in will only charge their vehicles off-peak, do you? If not, more plants will have to be built.

And you formulate the specific instance when I must conceive that the person just is able to get home from work on the full charge and has only the one option. This extreme set as an argument against solutions that should make rational sense economically for the individual is obstructionist and self serving as one who would have gain in defending increase oil use.

tiptap
03-20-2008, 09:41 AM
A big no thank you to the motor laws.

No laws Brock simply a timer engineered in the charging circuitry.

Donger
03-20-2008, 09:42 AM
And you formulate the specific instance when I must conceive that the person just is able to get home from work on the full charge and has only the one option. This extreme set as an argument against solutions that should make rational sense economically for the individual is obstructionist and self serving as one who would have gain in defending increase oil use.

I'm being extreme? Aren't you the one who suggested that people would only charge off-peak?

I don't think that everyone would charge on-peak or off-peak. It would be somewhere in between. Therefore, more plants would have to be built.

Brock
03-20-2008, 09:43 AM
No laws Brock simply a timer engineered in the charging circuitry.

As long as I can change the timer to whatever I want, okay.

Boon
03-20-2008, 09:44 AM
I'm saying that people are used to instant gratification. You don't really think that everyone using a plug-in will only charge their vehicles off-peak, do you? If not, more plants will have to be built.

More plants will have to be built if we go with electric cars or not.

tiptap
03-20-2008, 09:50 AM
I'm being extreme? Aren't you the one who suggested that people would only charge off-peak?

I don't think that everyone would charge on-peak or off-peak. It would be somewhere in between. Therefore, more plants would have to be built.


It isn't people, it is a time circuit. And yes if you are willing to set the time in your car to London time you could change the charging time and actually charge up your vehicle right then and there (It might be Tokyo actually) but in most instances you wouldn't have to think about it accept to plug it in sometime before 10. You guys must never use the timing options on your alarm clocks or dishwashers or radios or anything.

Mr. Kotter
03-20-2008, 09:53 AM
I read this morning that spring is coming 8 hours earlier each year since 1982. That means spring is coming 8 days earlier than it use to come.

Sounds good to me. ;)

Donger
03-20-2008, 10:00 AM
It isn't people, it is a time circuit. And yes if you are willing to set the time in your car to London time you could change the charging time and actually charge up your vehicle right then and there (It might be Tokyo actually) but in most instances you wouldn't have to think about it accept to plug it in sometime before 10. You guys must never use the timing options on your alarm clocks or dishwashers or radios or anything.

What I am saying is that people will not accept that inconvenience.

pikesome
03-20-2008, 10:32 AM
Man you make me out to be really old as this would be your great grandfather that was involved.

He was pretty damn old when he would have been involved. He was one of those guys who had 10 careers that he did well at over the years.

tiptap
03-20-2008, 03:38 PM
What I am saying is that people will not accept that inconvenience.

And who are you to say without a real life demonstration that it is an inconvenience rising above that of normal frustrating incidences that come along in life. "Oh I ran out of gas" "The store closed"

It isn't my responsibility that you can't organize your life. I shouldn't have to be responsible to cover every bumble in life. To collectively pay for your convenience.

Donger
03-20-2008, 04:23 PM
And who are you to say without a real life demonstration that it is an inconvenience rising above that of normal frustrating incidences that come along in life. "Oh I ran out of gas" "The store closed"

It isn't my responsibility that you can't organize your life. I shouldn't have to be responsible to cover every bumble in life. To collectively pay for your convenience.

Again, what I'm saying is that you seem to have the opinion that EVERYONE would comply with the "order" to only charge at off-peak. That won't happen. Therefore, we would HAVE to build more plants to increase the demand.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-20-2008, 04:26 PM
Considering that Oak Ridge used as much electricity as Los Angeles during Nuclear Weapons construction, I do find that study a bit :) invoking.

Donger
03-20-2008, 04:31 PM
Considering that Oak Ridge used as much electricity as Los Angeles during Nuclear Weapons construction, I do find that study a bit :) invoking.

You got it right this time. Good chap.

tiptap
03-20-2008, 04:35 PM
And you are of the opinion that the increase in demand couldn't be met by non fossil fuel sources if there was a concerted effort to hold down peak electrical demand. Where you around when we removed Pb from gasoline. There were all kinds of people who swore they weren't giving up leaded gas. They cut bigger holes in the gas tank, they swore they were truly inconvenience in their choice. I don't hear that now and the result was that Pb levels in the city air dropped a 1000 fold in less than 5 years. I am not saying that there won't be protests. Look at Brock's comments. But to continue to underpinned the Wannabe Sunni Sect of Saudi Arabia or the Shiite fundamentalists of Iran when we can hurt them economically is to miss the real opportunity to strike against the Middle East.

I am one person and I can come up with a supported answer to reducing oil demand without minimal impact by using several attacks. It is you who say it is impossible for America because we are gluttonous to oil alone. I say we are only gluttonous to a advanced life style that recognizes the limits to oil and looks to move in a new direction.

tiptap
03-20-2008, 04:48 PM
Considering that Oak Ridge used as much electricity as Los Angeles during Nuclear Weapons construction, I do find that study a bit :) invoking.

You know I grabbed the first source along this line. Can't help that Oak Ridge was on war footings. The TVA was rolled together with Oak Ridge and the TVA has always been about flood control (my mom was born during the Nashville flood) and power generation, not consumption. I think solar and wind can make up the difference. But why don't you and Donger find the estimations that there is no capacity at any time to meet charging cars.

Donger
03-20-2008, 05:01 PM
And you are of the opinion that the increase in demand couldn't be met by non fossil fuel sources if there was a concerted effort to hold down peak electrical demand. Where you around when we removed Pb from gasoline. There were all kinds of people who swore they weren't giving up leaded gas. They cut bigger holes in the gas tank, they swore they were truly inconvenience in their choice. I don't hear that now and the result was that Pb levels in the city air dropped a 1000 fold in less than 5 years. I am not saying that there won't be protests. Look at Brock's comments. But to continue to underpinned the Wannabe Sunni Sect of Saudi Arabia or the Shiite fundamentalists of Iran when we can hurt them economically is to miss the real opportunity to strike against the Middle East.

I am one person and I can come up with a supported answer to reducing oil demand without minimal impact by using several attacks. It is you who say it is impossible for America because we are gluttonous to oil alone. I say we are only gluttonous to a advanced life style that recognizes the limits to oil and looks to move in a new direction.

I said nothing of the kind.