Blog

PM2.5: Going After Utilities is Misinformed

Jun 29, 2019

We are led to believe that PM2.5 particulate matter from coal-fired power plants will lead to 11,000 (or pick a number) premature deaths, as part of various permitting disputes!

Here’s one:

“The original rule required power plants to reduce emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants by more than 90 percent over five years. Mercury is a neurotoxin that can damage the brain and nervous system in young children, leading to lower I.Q. and impaired motor skills. The Obama administration estimated that the measure would prevent 4,700 heart attacks and 130,000 asthma attacks as well as 11,000 premature deaths by also eliminating fine particulate matter linked to those ailments.”

This is what PM2.5 particles look like:

I’ve often wondered, just how does one go about making such premature death rate projection?

If asked, here’s what I would do. I expect the analysts do something similar.

We have measured and reported primary data on the particulate levels for ⁓50 geographic areas in the U.S.

I also assume we also have primary death and death rates that generally indicate the cause of death. It would be unrealistic to expect that the actual cause of death could or would be identified specifically as PM2.5 particle, or even a bunch of PM2.5 particles, so these must be some sort of average rates.

These death rates can be compared across geographies to search for and explore anomalies. A premature death rate can be determined, based on comparative averages. I suppose that If one dies before the “average age”, within some range, it could be defined as “premature”.

The particulate level measured in any specific location, however, is not differentiated by source. The data can only be the mixed average of all particulate matter sources in that area. Sensors would not be able to differentiate PM2.5 particulate by source and, of course, that means that power plant emissions are lumped together with diesel exhaust, among others.

I expect that that these undifferentiated particulate measures are then compared to “premature” death rates to render a statistical relationship between the two.

That lead me to ask, “what are the sources of PM2.5 particles?”

The National Emissions Inventory (NEI) is a comprehensive and detailed estimate of air emissions of criteria pollutants, criteria precursors, and hazardous air pollutants from air emissions sources. The NEI is released every three years based primarily upon data provided by State, Local, and Tribal air agencies for sources in their jurisdictions and supplemented by data developed by the US EPA. The NEI is built using the Emissions Inventory System (EIS) first to collect the data from State, Local, and Tribal air agencies and then to blend that data with other data sources.

https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/2014-national-emissions-inventory-nei-technical-support-document-tsd

Here is their most recent data:

Fuel Combustion by Electric Utilities accounts for less than 3% of the PM2.5 emissions.

Call me “old fashioned”, but I am thinking that maybe we should go after the “Wildfires” and the “Miscellaneous”, which account for 75% of the PM2.5 problem, and quit picking on electric utilities!

45Q

Mar 13, 2019

The Clean Air Task Force published its “Impact of 45Q Federal Tax Credits” report in February 2019. The report was broadly characterized as “Carbon Capture & Storage in The United States Power Sector”.

The report summary offers that “45Q would lead to significant deployment of CCS, capturing and storing approximately 49 million metric tonnes of CO2 annually in 2030. It further states that “45Q could get us two-thirds of the way to the 2030 U.S. power sector goal, removing 49 million tonnes (0.049Gt), of CO2 from atmospheric release”.

Something did not compute. I could not reconcile this 45Q, 49 million tonne estimate, with the “two-thirds” of the 2030 U.S. 2°C Scenario (2DS) Power Sector Goal statement.

The 45Q tax Credit, as stated in the report:

“The 45Q tax credit for CCS first became effective in October 2008 and provided eligible corporations with an income tax liability reduction, the value of which depended on whether the captured CO2 was stored through EOR or stored in saline formations.

The value of the tax credits were $10 per tonne of CO2 for storage through EOR and $20 per tonne of CO2 for saline storage. These credit values continue to apply to projects that were placed in service before February 9, 2018, after which the expanded 45Q tax credit is applicable.

With the 2018 revision of 45Q, the tax credit for storage of CO2 through EOR and conversion of

captured CO2 into chemical products, increases from $10 to $35 per tonne of CO2. For storage in saline reservoirs, the tax credit increases from $20 to $50 per tonne of CO2. The tax credit value ramps up over ten years.

An International Energy Agency (IEA) assessment is cited, “to limit global temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius, U.S. power plants must remove 73.5 million tonnes of CO2 annually by 2030 through CCS. This power sector target rises steeply to 547 million tonnes of CO2 annually by 2050”. A caveat is offered that a policy pathway to fully meet the 2050 climate goal does not yet exist.”

Just last month, I commented on this mostly flat projection for CO2 emissions stated to be 1,600 million tonnes for the U.S. Power Sector in 2050. The 49 million tonnes of CO2 would represent only 3% of the 1.6Gt.

I did a little digging and here is what I found in the IEA Energy Technology Perspectives (ETP) 2017, available for sale at https://www.iea.org/etp2017/:

“The 2°C Scenario (2DS) lays out an energy system pathway and a CO2 emissions trajectory consistent with at least a 50% chance of limiting the average global temperature increase to 2°C by 2100.

Annual energy-related CO2 emissions are reduced by 70% from today’s levels by 2060, with cumulative emissions of around 1170 gigatonnes of CO2 (GtCO2) between 2015 and 2100 (including industrial process emissions).

To stay within this range, CO2 emissions from fuel combustion and industrial processes must continue their decline after 2060, and carbon neutrality in the energy system must be reached before 2100.

The 2DS continues to be the ETP’s central climate mitigation scenario, recognizing that it represents a highly ambitious and challenging transformation of the global energy sector that relies on a substantially strengthened response compared with today’s efforts.”

The ̴1170Gt estimate seems to comport with the magnitude of the IPCC AR5 “carbon budget” assessment, if not the timing. From the AR5:

This is the data associated with the target 73.5 million tonnes of CO2 in 2030 to achieve the 2°C objective, where the 49 is, in fact “2/3 of the 73”. It’s the 73 that’s the problem.

There is not much difference between the cases on the TWh consumption. I wonder how this “no growth” TWh forecast can accommodate the “electrification” of our lifestyles that seems embedded in most scenarios.

And, what is not readily apparent is the seismic shift in power generation mix needed to support the 0.073Gt 2DS scenario target.

Take a look.

  • The combination of coal and natural gas is 50% in the Reference Case moves to only 8% in the 2DS, and then, only with CCS.
  • CO2 from Power Generation is virtually eliminated. This is the major reduction of CCS’s contribution and therefore, why the 0.049Gt represents such a large percent of the forecast.
  • Total wind doubles from 13% to 26%.
  • Solar more than doubles from 11% to 28%.
  • Nuclear doesn’t go away, but maintains its 20% contribution.
  • Hydro remains constant at 7%.
  • Unabated natural gas continues to rise throughout the forecast period, peaks reaching ̴30% of the generating capacity by 2050 in the Reference Case, but declines to 3% in the 2°C case.
  • Unabated coal is eliminated by 2030.
  • Coal with CCS begins in 2025 and peaks in 2050 and declining to ̴25% of the reference case.

I now understand the numbers and the calculations.

What I don’t understand is why it takes so long to deploy CCS on both coal and natural gas??? The technologies exist. We need to get on the learning curve to drive costs down, not wait.

There is no reason to wait.

Mostly Flat!

Mar 11, 2019

“EIA’s recently released Annual Energy Outlook 2019 projects that the U.S. electric power sector emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and carbon dioxide (CO2) will remain mostly flat through 2050, assuming no changes to current laws and regulations.

…..CO2 emissions in the U.S. electric power sector have been generally declining since their 2007 peak of 2.4 billion metric tons (mt).”

The Outlook itself offers a few numbers to support its case. I have extracted the specific numbers for CO2 Emissions as I did in November 2018 in a piece entitled “We’re wasting time”

(http://www.base-e.net/blog-24-quot;were-wasting-timequot).

We’re still wasting time, and the “mostly flat” term seems to be an attempt to put a positive “spin” on the fact that CO2 emissions are flat.

And, the starting point for the commentary remains the 2007 peak period and generates a “feel good” reduction. But, this is not a “feel good” outcome.

I don’t want to over complicate things. Flat is bad….down is good!

We need absolute reductions.

The Reference Case numbers are virtually the same as they were in November. Some of the side cases have been moderated, but the reference cases, normally representing the best of the estimates, are virtually unchanged.

And, the impact of the much less talked about Clean Power Plan remains minimal at 259 million metric tonnes (0.259Gt). This projected reduction is only 5% of the Reference Case.

CO2 emissions need to drop to ¼ of where they are currently projected to be on the 2°C trajectory, not flat. (http://www.base-e.net/blog-24-quot;were-wasting-timequot).

Sadly, the report continues to offer CO2 Emissions Intensity, or MMmt CO2 per capita improvement as part of its narrative. This narrative argues for emissions increases with economic growth. The only good news here is that the narrative is similar to that of both China and India, suggesting that a common ground for negotiating real reductions might be available, when we get serious.

You will know when we are serious when we start putting Carbon Capture on the NGCC plants, an initiative that is way overdue.

Here’s a link to my 2007 article in these pages entitled “Passing Gas”, lest you forget.

http://www.base-e.net/pulsepro/data/files/Passing%20Gas.pdf

We have already lost 12 years in debate, and we’re not yet debating it, even now!

Flat doesn’t cut it!

New Source Performance Standard 2019

Jan 07, 2019

The Valmont Generating Station in Boulder, Colo. The single remaining coal-fired unit at the plant is scheduled to be retired in 2017. Valmont will continue to generate electricity with natural gas.

They called it “111(b) Revisions to Advance Clean Energy Technology”, but in English it is an EPA-proposed elimination of the implied requirement to deploy CCS on coal plants.

The proposed NSPS-2019 applies to greenhouse gas emissions from new, modified, and reconstructed fossil fuel-fired power plants and by revising its determination of the best system of emission reduction (BSER) for these plants.

This proposal includes four distinct actions based on a revised BSER:

−To revise the standards for newly constructed steam units as separate standards for large and small units.

−For large units, the proposed emission rate would be 1,900 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour on a gross output basis (lb CO2/MWh-gross).

−For small units, the proposed emission rate would be 2,000 lb CO2/MWh-gross.

−To create separate standards of performance for newly constructed coal refuse-fired units.

−Regardless of size, the proposed emission rate would be 2,200 lb CO2/MWh-gross.

−To revise the standards for large modifications of steam generating units to be consistent with the standards for large and small newly constructed units.

EPA is also taking comment whether and how to address concerns raised by stakeholders regarding the increased use of simple cycle aeroderivative turbines, including as back-up generation for wind and solar resources, whose operation may exceed the non-base load threshold described in the 2015 rule. Any follow-up regulatory actions would be achieved through a separate and subsequent regulatory proposal.

I authored the following table in 2014 for the original NSPS using the DOE Baseline data. It is not hard to see how the proposed 2019 NSPS sets its thresholds. In a word “Unabated” or in modern day jargon, “Whatever!”

I think not! 

I don’t see any public utility making such a decision.Given how things work these days, the EPA will proceed. The question is whether this will induce any public utility to actually commit to build a new coal plant? The NGCC plants are 1/3 the first cost, 30% more efficient and with less of an abatement overhang.

One day in the not too distant future, this will all change. We will come to the collective realization that we cannot live without fossil fuels, but to do this, CCS will be required on all new and existing fossil fuel power plants.

This new attempt at rulemaking is just more political theater!

"We're Wasting Time!"

Nov 13, 2018

The U.S. Energy Information Agency recently published their estimate of the Power Sector CO2 emissions in 2017 at 1,744 MMmt, claiming a 28% reduction from the 2,416 MMmt in 2005.

The results of their analysis are summarized in the following graphic.

The “applause” that has followed seems artificial.

It is important to understand that the starting point for the policy and the claim is 2005, the highest level in recent times. It is always good to start at the “high point” when claiming percent reductions.

The narrative also offers a projected 2% demand growth scenario of 3,043 MMt CO2 in 2017, using the same carbon intensity to assign the impact of three factors, as follows.

The analysis states that the reduction is primarily the result of reduced demand growth (50%), fuel-switching from coal to natural gas (25%) and the increase in noncarbon sources (25%). The analysis attributes the substitution of natural gas for other fossil fuels as “largely…. market driven…(by the) ample supplies of lower-priced natural gas and the relative ease of adding natural gas-fired capacity.”

The “relative ease” comment means that a Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) power plant can be permitted without abatement. In other words, not having to deal with its CO2 emissions. This concession has been in place, either implied or explicit, since 2007, when I wrote an op-ed titled “Passing Gas” (http://www.base-e.net/pulsepro/data/files/Passing%20Gas.pdf).

Unfortunately, that same energy projection, the U.S. EIA forecast for U.S. CO2 emissions, remains flat or increase through 2050 at 5,279 MMmt in the Reference Case and as high as 5,814 MMmt in the High Economic Growth Case.

What is not mentioned is that with these “successes” in 2017, the U.S. trajectory is still 4x what is required to meet our contribution toward the 2℃ “goal”, and seems more in line with the 6℃ trajectory.

Other sources indicate that China and India are projecting emissions more in line with the 4℃ trajectories, well ahead of the U.S. efforts. And, the commentary again introduces the notion of carbon intensity, when we need absolute reductions.

Most importantly, the two things we need, Nuclear Power and CCS, continue to be made totally uncompetitive by those same EPA “gas friendly” emission standards that allow natural gas to be permitted without abatement.

We’re wasting time!