This message is a response to Leigh's comments about energy problems versus
economic problems, etc.
I know a little bit about this since the county-wide environmental committee
I sit on is studying a new power plant scheduled to be built about 20 miles
from my home. On the other hand, I know little about this because it is a
very complex issue, and might not be exactly the same throughout the
continent. I would like to know more, so if the rest of you can comment on
what I say below, I would welcome the comment.
(1) Peak demand versus average demand:
I think we agree there is a difference between peak demand and average
demand, and sometimes peak demand is the problem. If we need sufficient
number and/or sufficient size of power plants to meet peak demand, this is
clearly a bigger number than average demand, and there is some cost in
meeting this peak demand. If the overall grid could easily meet peak
demand, power plants would "loaf" during non-peak times.
(2) Overall Capacity
Having more than sufficient capacity for peak demand, and being able to
operate at much less than capacity during lower demand, is both good and
bad. I think the ultimate bottom line is good.
Although over sizing or building too many power plants is costly, I think we
win in the long run as long as we don't overdo it, and as long as we have a
long range view. When all power plants runs at 100% there is no margin for
error. There is no time for emergency maintenance, and there certainly
isn't time for preventative maintenance. If no one can shut down for
emergency maintenance, we suffer blackouts when emergencies occur. If
preventative maintenance is delayed, we eventually have emergencies, and we
also have increased maintenance costs. (Emergency maintenance is always
more expensive that preventative maintenance.)
(3) Maintenance
In a long range view there has to be some level of "normal operation" that
is compatible with both the economics of sizing and the economics of
long-term maintenance. For example, we would spend too much money on
superfluous generating capacity if the average power plant operated at 25%
capacity. But we take too much risk of outage, and have increasing
maintenance costs if we run plants at 100% capacity.
It is my understand that the "good" number is in the ball park of 75-85%.
If the typical power plant operates at 80% capacity, we would have the
following benefits:
(a) less strain on the equipment resulting in less wear and less likelihood
of emergencies
(b) the ability for other plants on the grid to cover for a plant that goes
down for several hours (or even days) for preventative maintenance, without
throwing the operating plants into a stressful situation
(c) the ability to schedule preventative maintenance shutdowns in a rational
way so that all demands are met with no plant being overloaded and every
plant getting sufficient preventative maintenance at optimum intervals.
(4) Insufficient Capacity
It is my understanding that US-wide we are averaging plant operation at 90%
or more, which is too high, and this is causing many of our problems.
(5) Price gouging
Suppose I operate a plant that is running about 85% and my neighbors are
worse than that and are asking me to sell them power. What rate should I
charge them? Is it unfair price gouging if I charge them several times my
normal rate? Not necessarily. If I have to increase to 95% to help my
neighbor, I run a higher risk of emergency maintenance. I will probably
have to relax my preventative maintenance schedule. If everyone is doing
that, I have to ask who is going to cover for me when I go down for
emergencies, and what rate will I have to pay to buy electricity (for my
customers) when I am down. (I.e. I had better save up some money for this
event.) We also have to consider smaller things like: will I need to pay
employees more overtime pay. And we have to consider very big questions
such as: Gee, maybe I need to start planning and financing for a new power
plant.
Therefore, when I charge an exorbitant rate for stretching my operation to
"help" my neighbor, am I a greedy guy trying to make a fast buck, or am I
protecting my plant and my customers and my investors from the true cost of
helping my neighbor? (Note, I am not pretending to know the answer to this
for what is happening in the Western United State. I am just pointing that
it is a complicated issue.
(6) Environmentalism
I am an environmentalist. Yet I favor nuclear power plants. I think we
will eventually come to that. If we can't do it now, I favor coal
gasification to syn-gas running gas turbines followed by secondary steam
turbines. That's what's being built 20 miles from my home. But the extreme
environmentalists want zero new power plants. They want conservation.
Ain't gonna happen.
Okay, can't conserve, let's go with natural gas power plants. Oh no. Poor
choice. We'll just have more natural gas shortages and higher prices. The
technology is available for coal gasification, even mixed with garbage
incineration, with air emissions that can match natural gas.
Environmentalists are afraid of that.
But even with coal/garbage to syn-gas we have the global warming problem
from CO2 emissions. Ultimately we have to go nuclear.
I am afraid the CA problems are the tip of the iceberg.
Michael D. Edmiston, Ph.D. Phone/voice-mail: 419-358-3270
Professor of Chemistry & Physics FAX: 419-358-3323
Chairman, Science Department E-Mail edmiston@bluffton.edu
Bluffton College
280 West College Avenue
Bluffton, OH 45817