This special interest group is for professionals to connect and discuss all types of carbon-free power alternatives, including nuclear, renewable, tidal and more.

Bob Meinetz's picture
Nuclear Power Policy Activist, Independent

I am a passionate advocate for the environment and nuclear energy. With the threat of climate change, I’ve embarked on a mission to help overcome the fears of nuclear energy. I’ve been active in...

  • Member since 2018
  • 6,980 items added with 268,351 views
  • Nov 11, 2020
  • 696 views

In his victory speech, President-elect Joe Biden said he would govern as an American, not as a Democrat, and work as hard for people who didn’t vote for him as people who did. And yet, at the top of his agenda, is to spend $2 trillion on climate change, almost entirely on renewables, which Republicans in Congress overwhelmingly oppose.

A better approach would be a Green Nuclear Deal.

“If Biden wants to unite Americans he should seek legislation to raise nuclear energy from its current 19 percent of electricity to 50 percent by 2050,” argues Madison Czerwinski, founder of a new group, Campaign for a Green Nuclear Deal. That may seem counterintuitive. After all, polling shows that solar and wind are more popular with the public than nuclear energy. But most of the resistance to industrial wind and solar projects comes from people who live in rural areas which overwhelmingly voted for President Donald Trump.

Discussions
Matt Chester's picture
Matt Chester on Nov 11, 2020

After all, polling shows that solar and wind are more popular with the public than nuclear energy. But most of the resistance to industrial wind and solar projects comes from people who live in rural areas which overwhelmingly voted for President Donald Trump.

I would imagine a large part of this resistance is because people in these areas, such as Wyoming which is cited in the article, see solar & wind projects as being antithetical to the fossil fuel industries that have long been the backbone of their economy, and thus nuclear energy would pose the same threat to them. I understand the argument of scenic areas being sullied by industrial hardware that's cited, but I don't know that that explains the entire story in these types of areas and their opinions on renewable tech. 

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Nov 11, 2020

Though solar and wind projects might be viewed with dismay by residents, fossil fuel interests view them as a useful marketing tool for exporting coal and gas-fired electricity.

Berkshire-Hathaway's PacifiCorp, with 95% of its electricity coming from plants powered by coal or gas, is paving the way for opening California's grid to Wyoming electricity. How? By building a few wind turbines and pointing to them as the source of electricity from a coal plant, they've found Californians are naïve enough to believe them.

Joe Deely's picture
Joe Deely on Nov 13, 2020

Berkshire-Hathaway's PacifiCorp, with 95% of its electricity coming from plants powered by coal or gas, is paving the way for opening California's grid to Wyoming electricity. How? By building a few wind turbines and pointing to them as the source of electricity from a coal plant, they've found Californians are naïve enough to believe them.

Bob,

Lucky for us whenever you make a comment like this the opposite happens.

I thought a few of the PacifiCorp coal plants in WY might make it till 2035 - but after reading your comment I can be assured they will all retire by 2030.

We are now down to 25.7GW of coal remaining in Western US. It will all be gone by 2030. Replaced by Solar/wind/storage and maybe a little nuclear in Utah/Idaho.

 

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Nov 13, 2020

After reading your comment I can be assured you've never read PacifiCorp's IRP, which includes a disclaimer wide enough to drive a coal hauler through:

"The narrow scope of the coal study, which focused on unit-by-unit analyses with prescriptive retirement timing assumptions, was never intended to inform retirement decisions, but rather to inform the more in-depth and refined analysis in the subsequent portfolio-development process."

Tailor-made for naïve California renewables advocates, who will believe pretty much anything they're told.

Joe Deely's picture
Joe Deely on Nov 14, 2020

Bob - you never show data - just crystal balls.

Not a good year for coal out West in 2020 - the closure in 2019 of huge Navajo plant in AZ and smaller Nucla plant in CO as well as Unit 3 at Naughton in WY( owned by PacifiCorp) put a real dent in production. I thought you said PacifiCorp wouldn't be closing coal?

I'm conservatively estimating 2020 output based on YTD 2020 data  - coal was down 22+ TWh thru Aug.

So we only have 130 TWh of coal generation that needs to be replaced by renewables before 2030 - easy peasy.

In 2020, we have already had 2 units close at Colstrip in MT as well as Boardman coal plant in OR. Later this year, a unit at Centralia in WA will close, Escalante in NM will close and unit 4 at Cholla in AZ will close. Wait a second, that is also owned by PacifiCorp. What's going on?

PacifiCorp tells Arizona Public Service it will retire Cholla unit 4 by year-end

Bob, can you give us the name of a Western coal plant that will still be open after 2030?  Four Corners in NM? Dave Johnson in WY, the remaining two units at Colstrip in MT?  Whatcha got?

 

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Nov 14, 2020

"they will all retire by 20XX....It will all be gone by 20XX..."

Uh-huh. Where there's a 'will' there's a way, right? Seems I've heard that before:

"By the end of this century [the 20th], I want our Nation to derive 20 percent of all the energy we use from the Sun...it is attainable if we have the will to achieve it." - President Jimmy Carter, 1979

Why would anyone expect renewables to replace coal after "the energy we use from the Sun" failed President Carter so miserably twenty years ago?. Except for the intermittent contribution of a few pretty windmills spinning in the breeze, whatever isn't still provided by coal in 2030 will be provided by that other fossil fuel - natural gas. PacifiCorp's 2019 IRP:

"While the preferred portfolio includes new natural gas capacity beginning 2026, this falls outside of the 2019 IRP action plan window, which provides time for PacifiCorp to continue to evaluate whether non-emitting capacity resources can be used to supply the flexibility necessary to maintain long-term system reliability."

Note PacifiCorp's "preferred new natural gas capacity" is conveniently timed with the shutdown of Diablo Canyon Power Plant. Coincidence? Of course not - PacifiCorp will be continuing to "evaluate their action plan window" in 2026, in 2046, in 2086, etc., until every last cubic foot of methane is sucked from the ground. Or would be, if renewables advocates are allowed to call the shots...

 

Joe Deely's picture
Joe Deely on Nov 16, 2020

Gotcha Bob,

There is not one coal plant you are willing to say will still be open in 2030.

That's too bad because we could be assured that any plant you mention would close even sooner.

In 2017 you said:

No Joe, coal in New Mexico won’t “be gone by 2031”. A lawsuit challenging a 25-year extension for Units 4 & 5 of Four Corners has been dismissed, authorizing 1,540 MW of operation through 2040. The Plains Escalante plant (233 MW) is going nowhere.

The Escalante plant closed in October and PNM just announced they are getting out of Four Corners by 2024.

How about Arizona Bob - can you name any coal plants in Arizona that will still be open in 2030?

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Nov 16, 2020

You're fixated on coal, Joe...what about gas? Did you really think New Mexico residents would be willing to let the lights go out every time the wind stops blowing?

Joe Deely's picture
Joe Deely on Nov 17, 2020

You're fixated on coal, Joe...what about gas?

Its just a matter of priorities Bob and coal is a higher priority. That's how you solve problems - work on the highest priority first. 

Coal generates far more pollution and coal plants have higher fixed costs so we need to get these plants to close.

Once coal gets near zero - the 50+ TWh of new annual renewables generation will start to replace NG. This will be much easier because NG plants have lower operating costs and they can flexibily run when needed. Their capacity can "stick around" and serve as a backup. Keep an eye on UK over the next few years to watch NG generation "disappear" off the grid.

Here is latest on CO2 from coal/NG for US:

Did you really think New Mexico residents would be willing to let the lights go out every time the wind stops blowing?

With coal gone in NM - obviously NG will serve as backup to growing wind and solar. But PNM also gets some nuclear generation from Palos Verde. Plus over time storage will eat into most of the NG generation. Pretty simple.

Here are some initial NM projects.

  • Arroyo Solar - 300 MW solar & 150MW/600MWh of storage
  • Jicarilla Solar - 50 MW solar & 20MW/80 MWh of storage

Here is a possible second batch:

  • Shiprock Solar - 360 MW solar & 186 MW/744 MWh of storage
  • San Juan Solar - 598 MW solar & 300 MW/1200 MWh of storage
  • Four Corners Solar - 400 MW solar & unknown storage

This is just for the next few years. Expect a lot more to come.

One last thing Bob - you seem to think that NG is a likely replacement for coal out West. However, overall NG capacity in Western states has actually dropped a few GWs in the last 5 years. Looking at future builds out West - there are plans for 2.1GW of new NG but there are also plans for 3.9GW of NG retirements. Hope you not betting on NG out West...

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Nov 17, 2020

"Plus over time storage will eat into most of the NG generation..."

"Over time"? How much time, Joe? We don't have time for more empty renewables promises - time's up.

Right now there's no basis in economics or physics, much less evidence, that storage will eat into anything except the wallets of electricity consumers...that it's anything but another renewable pipe dream.

"Hope you not betting on NG out West..."

Who cares what I (or you) bet on? PacifiCorp is betting on it big-time:

"While the preferred portfolio includes new natural gas capacity beginning 2026..."

Joe Deely's picture
Joe Deely on Nov 18, 2020

"Over time"? How much time, Joe? We don't have time for more empty renewables promises - time's up.

We will need about 50-60 GW of renewables to eliminate the remaining coal generation out West - will also need a lot of storage to replace lost capacity.

9GW of renewables coming online in Western States in 2020 - another 13 GW are scheduled so far for 2021/2022. More being added every week. 

You also said:

"Hope you not betting on NG out West..."

Who cares what I (or you) bet on? PacifiCorp is betting on it big-time:

As per usual Bob the facts are not on your side.

1,150MW of the 9 GW in renewable projects I mentioned for 2020 above are being developed for PacfiCorp.

A 400 MW wind project in Converse County, Wyoming, which will be built by NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, with half of the project owned and operated by PacifiCorp, and half of the project owned and delivered by NextEra under a Power Purchase Agreement.

A 161 MW wind project in Uinta County, Wyoming, which will be built by Invenergy, LLC, and owned and operated by PacifiCorp. 

A 500 MW wind project in Carbon and Albany Counties, Wyoming, which will be built, owned and operated by PacifiCorp. 

A 250 MW wind project in Carbon County, Wyoming, which will be built, owned and operated by PacifiCorp.

Those are just the projects coming online this year. PacifiCorp also released an RFP for 3,742 MW of new renewables along with 595 MW of storage.

Oregon-based PacifiCorp is seeking competitively priced resources which can connect into its 10-state transmission system. It’s most recent integrated resource plan calls for contracting 1,823 MW of new solar capacity, 595 MW of new energy storage and 1,920 MW of new wind by the end of 2023

I couldn't find any mention of nuclear in their plans. In fact, I don't see new nuclear coming to any Western utility/state over the next 3 years.  Did I miss something? or is nuclear just a pipe dream? an empty promise?

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Dec 2, 2020

"I couldn't find any mention of nuclear in their plans. In fact, I don't see new nuclear coming to any Western utility/state over the next 3 years.  Did I miss something? or is nuclear just a pipe dream? an empty promise?"

No, you probably missed that renewables were the empty promise. If PacifiCorp gains access to the California market, it will disappear as quickly and mysteriously as generation from a windfarm when the wind suddenly dies.

PacifiCorp won't build nuclear when they can earn $billions on the sale of gas to gullible Californians, who open their wallets whenever they see a few shiny turbines spinning in the breeze. They don't even need to generate electricity!

You do know our Public Utilities Commission allows utilities to charge customers for their cost of fuel, and that cost includes a profit for themselves?

Bob Meinetz's picture
Thank Bob for the Post!
Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.
More posts from this member

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network® is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »