Energy Efficiency and Climate-

Friendly Power Supply

Electricity 2020

Bill Grant

Izaak Walton League of America

No energy “free lunch”• Nuclear power – exposure, waste disposal

• Hydropower – river impoundment, flooding

• Oil – air emissions, availability

• Natural gas – availability, price

• Renewables – variability, price, bird kills

• Coal – air emissions, toxic releases, mining impacts, combustion waste, global warming

Efficiency: Minnesota’s Least Cost Energy Source

• Electric use is growing at 2%/year; without efficiency, we will need to add new supply

• Since 1990, Minnesota electric utilities have saved 2,000 megawatts, the equivalent of two large coal or nuclear power plants

• Savings have come at less than 2 cents/kWh; compare to new coal at over 6.5 cents/kWh

Benefits of Energy Efficiency• Lowest cost resource• Economic development and job creation

– 4,000 new jobs by 2010; $200 million in annual economic output

• Reduces need for new power plants• Reduces pollution

– 20 million tons of CO2 reduced with Governor’s proposed goal of 1.5% annual savings

• When combined with new renewable energy development, can meet new power needs and reduce CO2 emissions

Ca

rbo

n D

iox

ide

M

illio

n T

ons

CO

2

24% Savings from Efficiency

Meeting Minnesota's Electricity Needs in 2025

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Mil

lio

n k

Wh

Energy Efficiency

Renewable Energy

Traditional Sources

108

90

72

54

36

18

0

Ele

ctr

icit

y

Mill

ion

kW

h Meeting Minnesota’s Electricity Needs in 2025

Climate Friendly Power Supply

• Renewable energy: Wind, biomass, solar, hydroelectric, geothermal– Proposed 25 X 25 renewable energy standard

will cut CO2 emissions by 17 million tons (11%)

• Combined heat and power (cogeneration)

• Coal gasification with carbon sequestration

Fuels Used to Generate Electricity in MN

Coal

Natural Gas

Wind/Solar

Hydro

Nuclear

CogenWood

RDF

75%

Source: DOC

SOURCE: NETL.DOE

Proposed Midwest Coal Plants

2002 Minnesota CO2 Emissions

Source: MPCA

Commercial6%

Residential9%

Agriculture2%

Industrial11%

Transportation34%

Electric Utility38%

Carbon Dioxide• No longer a question of if climate change is happening –

now a question of what the impacts will be• Recently released IPCC report asserts that human activity

is likely the cause; urgent action on a global scale is needed, but its not too late to avoid catastrophic warming

• Midwest (MN, WI, MI, IL, IN, OH) coal-fired power plants are responsible for 8% of total U.S. CO2 emissions and 2% of world total CO2 emissions

• North America’s mean temperature has already risen 1.25ºF, global mean temperature has already risen 1ºF

CO2 – economic impacts• Climate change will impact traditional Midwest economic sectors –

agriculture, forestry, shipping, recreation, etc.

• Ships either carry less or need for more dredging (which will release buried toxins) which may increase shipping costs

• Agriculture will experience some initial benefits due to longer growing season, but over time, there may be a northern migration of pests and plant diseases

• Recreation and tourism industries will also be impacted:– Decline in winter recreation opportunities with shorter winters– Lake ice cover in Madison, WI, declined from 120 days per year

in 1850 to 90 days per year today– Summer recreation – boating impacts (lower water levels will

affect marina owners, increase costs)

The Clean-up Conundrum

• Spending millions of dollars to clean up old coal-fired power plants has the unwanted effect of extending plant lifetimes; creates barriers to market entry for new, cleaner technologies

• Adding controls for SOX, NOX, and mercury may lead to even higher CO2 emissions

Gasification Overview• 130 gasification plants in operation world-

wide– Most of these are in chemical production, not

electricity

• Technology is referred to as “integrated gasification combined cycle” (IGCC)

• There are 16 IGCC plants that operate now or have been in operation. Another 6 IGCC plants are in development.– These use a variety of fuels including oil, pet

coke,and coal

CO2 Emissions: IGCC v. Coal

• IGCC technology “easily” captures CO2 from air emissions.

- Getting the CO2 out of the IGCC emissions stream is “easy”, but compression and sequestration is expensive.

• Conventional coal plants can’t remove CO2 from emissions at any reasonable cost.

Implications• Options to stop global warming could close if the next generation of coal plants

worldwide can’t capture carbon dioxide.

• Climate scientists generally agree on need to cut CO2 emissions by 80% before 2050. A full implementation of efficiency and renewable energy cannot reach this target without carbon sequestration or some combination of nuclear, fuel switching (i.e., natural gas), or carbon sinks (forests, ag soils, etc)

• Need to establish IGCC with the option of capturing carbon dioxide as the

dominant coal technology in the United States and export that example worldwide.

Carbon Sequestration• Terrestrial sequestration (forest and

agricultural crops)• Underground injection – a.k.a. geologic

sequestration – is not new:– Current fluid injection practiced for a wide

range of industries, including summer natural gas storage, enhanced oil recovery, hazardous waste, oilfield brine

– Geology of MN may not lend itself to geologic sequestration – Canadian Shield granite

– Still many questions…

Underground injection is not newM

t/ye

ar

1

10

100

1000

10000

FL MunicipalWastewater

OilfieldBrine

HazardousWaste

AcidGas

Natural GasStorage

CO2 forEOR

OCS water injected for EOR and

brine disposal

OCSgases

(e.g., NG)

Large quantities

Long Time

Frame

Gases

~.5

Gt

~2

Mt

~34

Mt

~28

Mt~

150M

t

~2.

7 G

t

~6M

t

~1.

2 M

t

Sub-seabed

The mass of current U.S. fluid injections is greater than the mass of current power plant CO2 emissions.

Complied by EPP Ph.D. student E. Wilson with data from EPA, 2001; Deurling, 2001; Keith, 2001; DOE, 2001; DOE, 2001.

CO2 from all US

power plants

~1.

7 G

t

Geologic Formations with Carbon Sequestration Potential

State IGCC Experience• States with existing IGCC power plants using coal as a

feedstock:– Indiana: 192 MW Wabash River plant

– Florida: 262 MW unit at the Polk Station in Tampa, owned by Tampa Electric Co.

• Other gasification plants produce chemicals, not power, using coal, petcoke, petroleum, and/or gas. Examples:– North Dakota: Great Plains Synfuels

– Texas: Houston Oxochemicals

– Louisiana: Baton Rouge Oxochemicals

– Tennessee: Eastman Kodak

In conclusion…

• Getting serious about energy efficiency makes sense regardless of your views on global warming – it is the ultimate “no regrets” strategy

• Ditto for renewables, esp. wind and biomass

• Coal’s predominance in the electric sector requires a “carbon-neutral” solution, e.g., coal gasification with carbon sequestration