The Generation Professionals Group is for utility professionals who work in biomass, coal, gas/oil, hydro, natural gas, or nuclear power generation fields.

Publication

Reasonable Transition

image credit: NCPA.com

John Benson 208,245

Senior Consultant, Microgrid Labs

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Microgrid Labs, Inc. Advisor: 2014 to Present Developed product plans, conceptual and preliminary designs for projects, performed industry surveys and developed...

Member since 2013
1,037 items added with 676,309 views

Contact

Profile

Mar 29, 2022Mar 29, 2022 2:57 pm GMT
648 views

Access Publication

I try to read from a wide range of sources, in an attempt to better target future papers to my primary readers (members of Energy Central and the therein members of the Energy Industry). Since this audience is also part of the general public it is reasonable that, if the general public is confused about a given energy-related issue, this is also a subject I should write about.

There is a debate in Europe regarding what constitutes a renewable electricity source, and specifically whether natural-gas fired plants should be considered “renewable” under reasonable conditions. Natural Gas is labeled as a “transition fuel”, and investments in a natural gas plant will count as “green power” if:

The plant emits no more than 270 grams of CO2 equivalent greenhouse gas (GHG) per kWh of electricity produced
The natural gas plant must replace a plant with higher GHG emissions per kWh

The key point here is this discussion regarding natural gas seems to be an “either or” discussion. In fact, a modern combined cycle plant fueled with geologically sourced natural gas can evolve to very low GHG emissions in the future. I had researched this subject about a year ago and put a few of paragraphs on this subject in a post. Unfortunately I had buried these deeply in a paper that was really on a (somewhat) different subject. I will put these subsections in this post and add some additional information.

Discussions

Sign in to Participate

Bob Meinetz on Mar 29, 2022

John, it isn't clear whether these are your opinions or EU's, but I already disagree with the following premise:

"Investments in a natural gas plant will count as green power if...the natural gas plant [replaces] a plant with higher GHG emissions per kWh."

Given:
• Natural gas consumption (and CO2 emissions therefrom) have grown steadily everywhere renewables have been introduced;
• There is no example of a gas plant being permanently retired - i.e., replaced - with zero-emission renewables;
• Historically, the average life of a gas plant (U.S.) is 43 years;
• Natural gas is now the second largest contributor to U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (after gasoline) -

I fail to see how building a methane-fired power plant in 2022 can, in any rational analysis, be regarded as "green" (?).

"In fact, a modern combined cycle plant fueled with geologically sourced natural gas can evolve to very low GHG emissions in the future."

Depending on your definition of "very low", any energy source can evolve to very low GHG emissions in the future. The unfortunate truth, however, is that emissions from burning methane will never be zero, the hard requirement IPCC has set for the year 2100. So we can continue to argue whether emissions from burning methane are "very low", or very, very low", or what constitutes "net-zero", or "carbon-neutral", or "I gave at the office zero". Or, we can set about reducing them to plain, old, boring "zero", because anything else is failure.

John Benson on Mar 30, 2022

Hi Bob, thanks for the comment.

First of all, there is no such thing as a "zero-emission generation source," if you include the full life cycle (including construction emissions) and consequential emissions. Thus, I tend to use "very low" when most people would tend to use "zero."

Also, when you replace a generation source with one that produces less GHG, that is a positive for climate change. Furthermore, as I presented evidence for in this paper, modern combined cycle (CC) plants have a documented path to greatly reduce their current GHG emissions in the future through fuel substitution. Since the GHG from construction for the roughly 30 CC plants currently in California is already in the atmosphere, this cannot be added into our net GHG in the future, and the CC Plants will be a very low GHG emitter for the next 20 to 30 years if the modifications suggested in the paper are made in the next few years (yes, there will have a GHG emissions cost for these mods, albeit very small). Also, since the CC Plants are dispatchable, they can offset the long-term variability of wind energy.

-John

Bob Meinetz on Mar 31, 2022

"First of all, there is no such thing as a "zero-emission generation source," if you include the full life cycle (including construction emissions)..."

John, that's one of the oldest and weariest of arguments against nuclear energy, but since you've gone there: when people speak of zero-emission energy, they're commonly referring to emissions generated from the production of energy itself. And in that commonly-accepted definition, nuclear energy produces no carbon emissions. None. Anyone can add externalities - construction of the plant, of uranium mining, exhaust from the cars of workers driving to the plant, the emissions from cars of people driving to protest the construction of the plant, etc etc etc., but since they are forcing the discussion onto their turf, I say: fine. Show me evidence that the full lifecycle of nuclear energy creates more emissions, per megawatthour, than natural gas, or wind, or solar. Because we're using your definition, however, that burden is yours.

Another common argument, this one used to support gas vs. coal, is the ratio 1:2 - gas produces 1/2 the emissions of coal per unit of energy. Though I typically accept the argument on a strict process-of-generation basis, I'm biting my tongue as I listen. Recent evidence shows that up to 3% of extracted gas is leaked into the air, and that fugitive methane has anywhere from 28 to 90 times the carbon footprint of CO2, depending on which time frame you choose. If we choose a median value of 59, and fugitive emissions from gas are 3%, the total carbon footprint of gas is (.03 x 59) + .5 = 2.27 per unit of energy, for coal it's 1. Including fugitive emissions, gas emits 2.27 times as much CO2e as coal, per unit of energy produced.

"Also, when you replace a generation source with one that produces less GHG, that is a positive for climate change." If so, we're going backwards on climate change - we should be building plants that burn coal, not gas. Or should the impact from leaked gas bound for California's 30 CC plants be ignored?

Methane and other GHGs are emitted from coal mines, but the total impact of those emissions is inconsequential compared to that from burned and leaked natural gas, and the discrepancy grows greater by the day. Meanwhile, if you have an argument supporting the idea construction of a nuclear plant, per unit of energy over it's lifetime, creates 2.27 times more emissions than any other source of energy on the same basis, I'd love to hear it. It's a burden I sure wouldn't want to bear.

John Benson on Mar 31, 2022

Thanks for the response, Bob.

Regarding your first paragraph (after the quote), GHG emissions are GHG emissions, regardless of where the come from. However I do agree that nuclear power is a renewable source of generation, and as the newer more efficient to construct reactors find market niches were they can economically compete with other renewables, they will expand.

Second paragraph: I agree that methane emissions are a major, major problem. My post next Tuesday will drill into this.

Third paragraph: There is no such thing as "clean coal generation." The good news is that coal plants are very complex, and if you include the cost of building them, mining and transporting the coal, include decommissioning them (coal ash is a major issue) and mitigating all of their emissions, their economics really suck. This is why no one is willing to invest in them.

-John

Bob Meinetz on Apr 1, 2022

Thanks for your response, John, and you make a good point about coal - NOx and SO2 emitted by natural gas combustion doesn't come close to the toxicity of coal ash. Ash from U.S. coal plants includes an estimated 50 tons of mercury that's dumped into the environment each year. Together with arsenic and emitted particulates, there's a good reason why coal can be blamed for ~13,000 annual fatalities, mostly from lung cancer and other respiratory diseases. Not to mention the uranium in coal ash, which disperses hundreds of times more radioactivity to the environment than nuclear plants.

"...and as the newer more efficient to construct reactors find market niches were they can economically compete with other renewables..."

Given the marginal cost of running a nuclear plant, per unit of energy, is less than every other source (except for large hydro), it's necessary to look at other possible reasons why U.S. nuclear can't economically compete with other renewables.

First, the cost of building gigawatt-scale nuclear plants in other countries is a fraction, typically 1/3 to 1/4, of what they cost here. Last month the Netherlands, deciding it wasn't going to wait for "advanced nuclear", committed to building two new GW-scale nuclear plants by 2030 - ones with Gen 3 technology that's been available for two decades.

Second, every large nuclear plant operating in the world today was built by a consortium of private industry and government. Why? Private investors, with an investment timeline of 5-10 years, don't have the patience to wait 40 years for their capex to be paid off. Though it isn't always the case, governments are more likely to consider large plants an investment in their country's future.

Do you really think building units 3 & 4 of Plant Vogtle in Georgia would take three times as long as it took to build the Hoover Dam if the U.S. had ponied up $10 billion of taxpayer funds to get the job done? Of course not - that's how candidates lose elections.

The economics of nuclear don't suck, it's expecting free-market capitalism to come up with a solution that benefits society. That sucks, and always has.

Joe Deely on Apr 3, 2022

Last month the Netherlands, deciding it wasn't going to wait for "advanced nuclear", committed to building two new GW-scale nuclear plants by 2030 - ones with Gen 3 technology that's been available for two decades.

Bob,

I wasn't aware that Netherlands had committed to 2030 for go-live on those two proposed nuclear plants. Great news.

These could give nuclear a 25% share in The Netherlands. When combined with the massive build out in offshore wind that could mean eliminating almost all the current fossil fuel generation.

Martin Cohen on Apr 4, 2022

There's confusion in this post about what is public vs private. Public power entities are owned by communities or members not shareholders. Public uilities are investor owned but state regulated. Independent power producers operate competitively. And retail power marketers are largely unregulated, as in Texas. The question of who is best equipped for optimal development of renewables is a good one.

John Benson on Apr 5, 2022

All good comments guys:

The current problem with nuclear reactors in the U.S. that the costs of building them is not predictable and will not be until we actually build a sample of the new designs. My guess is that NuScale Power will be the first to go critical, and they are also the lowest risk design. Once they have a working plant with few problems, then additional orders will come. The good news is that there appears to be broad support and a surprisingly well-developed infrastructure for these reactors.

I have a Nukes 7 mostly complete and scheduled to post on May 3. This is on "Micro-Reactors", which per energy.gov, a single (micro reactor) unit typically generates 1 to 10 megawatts electric. The one surprising thing I found is that there are no viable light-water reactors in this category. I did find three designs that sort of looked viable, and one particularly stood out, but all were unconventional.

There will be a huge need for these in the far north.

Hold any questions on Nukes 7 until after I post it.

-John

Thank John 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.

Follow Profile

PV & Storage Late-Summer 2023

This post will contain the following content: Technology

Zoning ordinances are scrambling to address rapid renewable growth.

There are a growing number of local building ordinances focused on renewable energy, but what is the impact?

EHB | 2040

Hydrogen Europe Position Paper September 2023 | REPowering the EU with Hydrogen Valleys

Hydrogen Europe Position Paper September 2023 REPowering the EU with Hydrogen Valleys (roadmap)

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.

Start a Post » Learn more about posting on Energy Central »

EnergyBiz® Network

Generation Network

Energy Management Network

Intelligent Utility® Network

Grid Network

Energy & Sustainability
Network

Reasonable Transition

Discussions

Sign in to Participate

More Posts

PV & Storage Late-Summer 2023

Zoning ordinances are scrambling to address rapid renewable growth.

EHB | 2040

Hydrogen Europe Position Paper September 2023 | REPowering the EU with Hydrogen Valleys

Get Published - Build a Following

Related Content

Recent Comments

The Power Industry Network®

Reasonable Transition

Discussions

More Posts

Get Published - Build a Following

Related Content

Recent Comments

Sponsors & Partners

The Power Industry Network^®