CLEANING UP THE ACT: Calpine Corp. is set to build the first U.S. power plant with federal limits on greenhouse gas emissions in California.
Image: ISTOCKPHOTO/HANIS
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Calpine Corp. is poised to build the first U.S. power plant with federal limits on greenhouse gas emissions in California after clearing a final regulatory hurdle today.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District granted the Houston-based utility its final air quality permit today, allowing the company to proceed with the planned construction of a 600-megawatt natural gas-fired Russell City Energy Center. The 15-acre project site is in Hayward, just east of the San Francisco Bay.
The Russell City plant will produce 50 percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions than even the most advanced coal-fired plants, Calpine said, and will emit 25 percent fewer heat-trapping gases than the California Public Utilities Commission's standard. Construction on the facility plant is expected to begin later this year.
"We applaud the BAAQMD and Calpine for going beyond existing federal law and being the first in the nation to require an enforceable greenhouse gas limit," said Linda Adams, secretary of the California EPA. "This action furthers efforts at a statewide level to balance our economic needs while meeting our environmental challenges."
The Prevention of Significant Deterioration, or PSD, permit was issued with an eye on greenhouse gas restrictions set to be implemented in California in less than two years. The state's Air Resources Board is still in the process of putting together rules for a cap-and-trade market intended to help cut greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020; that market goes live Jan. 1, 2012.
Utilities like Calpine will most likely be participants in that market, though it is unclear how permits issued before the advent of the market might be counted under a regulated regime. Calpine is also promoting the project as a means to help achieve the state’s 33 percent renewable power standard by 2020, claiming gas-fired plants would back up intermittent sources like wind and solar. So-called peaker plants, which only run when demand is highest, are often older and powered by coal.
Calpine spokeswoman Norma Dunn said the company intends to run the Russell plant as baseload generation, selling its power to Pacific Gas & Electric Co. Terms of that deal were not disclosed.
When asked how a baseload plant could be considered "backup" power to wind and solar, Dunn said PG&E will retain the ability to use gas-fired generation when solar and wind are unavailable.
"They have dispatching rights, and they will balance the supply from Russell City with all of their other energy sources, including power from our own geothermal assets," Dunn said. "When they have contracts for wind or solar, they will need other supply sources to fill in during periods when their renewable supplies are not available."
The Calpine permit is coming against the backdrop of rising political pressure to suspend California's climate law, A.B. 32. Voters will most likely get to decide for themselves this fall whether climate regulations should go forward, as opponents of A.B. 32 are in the process of gathering signatures to place on the November ballot a measure that would tie the law to high unemployment levels. If the measure makes it onto the ballot, and voters approve it, California could see its climate law delayed until unemployment dips below 5.5 percent.
See what we're tweeting about
15 Comments
Add CommentNatural gas power plants produce about half the CO2 per kw-hr than coal-fired plants because coal is almost pure carbon, while natural gas is largely methane, CH4. The US could achieve significant and immediate reductions in CO2 emissions by better utilizing the currently installed natural gas-fired generating plants. The capacity factor for coal-fired electrical plants is often around 80-85%. Natural gas has traditionally been used for peaking power, as natural gas plants can more easily adapt to rapidly shifting power demands (like augmenting wind power). Currently, many existing natural gas generating facilities have very low capacity factors, 20-30%, suggesting substantial unused capacity. The recent large increase in US natural gas supplies from 'shale gas' has lowered and stabilized natural gas prices and increased availability. Combined cycle natural gas plants use the waste heat from the combustion turbines to generate more electricity, resulting in thermodynamic efficiencies significantly higher than even new coal-fired base load plants. Finally, natural gas facilities can be online in a few years and can be installed in modules as projected demand requires.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNg cogen plants can be 33% of coal plants CO2/ghg's as they are 55% eff vs coal at best 40% eff.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd why do not all NG, coal and nuke use geothermal low temp generators between the steam turbines and the condensers. This would up eff by 20% with no more fuel used. Plus it would cut the size, water use of condensers, a good size part of generating expenses plus power users.
cool article...great to see California leading the way again....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"while natural gas is largely methane, CH4"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNatural gas is mostly propane and butane, CH3-CH3 and CH3-CH2-CH3.
Yep. California is sure ahead alright. Wind farms are approved right in the path of the endangered California condor in Kern County. The planned solar plant will require more burros and the endangered Mojave desert tortoises to be removed from their habitat. It gets worse. In the same areas where these plants are being built, the County rezoned eastern Kern for industrial, residential, commercial and WE. Taxpayer money has paid for massive freeway improvements. I feel deceived that in such poor economic times money is being diverted for infrastructure so developers can continue building. The very fragile Mojave Desert, one of 4 contiguous deserts in CA and the United States.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFt Irwin is moving tortoises for the 3rd time for expansion. The first 2 moves were disasters.
The climate is changing. Out here in farm country, the 2009 growing season wasn't great. The weather didn't get hot enough for long enough. Many people up and down the coast complained their crops and garden plantings like tomatoes ripened about a month late (Oct/Nov) and the produce was dried out. The San Joaquin valley grows much of the country's produce and could experience crop losses that will affect us all.
This is my personal perspective based on living in sight of at least 125 turbines. They're very loud and clobber lots of birds. Clean energy to me means that equipment is built from recycled metals and has 0 impact on the very forests and virgin lands that is man's life line. Please join me in helping to stop big business (person) from ignoring the impacts to our survival, possibly in our lifetime. Hunger and inadequate water security will happen without diligence from us all. Peace.
sandcanyon- Are you againest any form of electricity production, or only those that effect the environment near you? People want/need large amounts of electricity, so it is simply unreasonably to believe that zero harm to anything is possible if electricity is to be produced.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would be interested in how you believe it should be produced??
One dumb idea (spending resources on limiting CO2 emissions) on top of another (using natural gas to make electricity) makes a good idea? Leave it to California to lead the way in expensive "solutions" to non-problems. Anyone else remember the electric car mandate of the 90s?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo serious progress will be made in our energy policy until nuclear becomes a key feature of electricity generation.
Gburneske wrote: "One dumb idea (spending resources on limiting CO2 emissions)..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf reducing pollution is a dumb idea what exactly do you think is a good idea?
"Anyone else remember the electric car mandate of the 90s?"
Yes, I remember California taking bold steps to reduce automobile pollution only to end up in court with Bush's big oil sponsored White House administration.
"No serious progress will be made in our energy policy until nuclear becomes a key feature of electricity generation."
I hate you burst your bubble but Nuclear will never be back on the table and here's why. Nuclear reactors require Uranium-235 but 99.3% of the Uranium we mine is U-238.
World supplies of Uranium-235 are already running low so putting new reactors online hardly makes sense.
Of course we could always mine for more Uranium which generally involves massive open pit mining operations.
Natedog, One tonne of depleted uranium, will fuel a 1 GW, GenIV nuclear reactor for 1 yr.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“…Did you know that our uranium waste is our nation’s #1 energy resource? In fact, just in the depleted uranium (DU) waste alone (the stuff left over after natural uranium has been enriched), we have more than 10 times the extractable energy than we have from coal in the ground!…”
“…the energy content contained in LWR spent fuel and depleted uranium resulting from weapons production and enriched LWR new fuel production exceeds all the known oil reserves in the world….”
551,000 tonnes of DU would supply all the current USA electricity production for 1160 yrs.
The Traveling Wave Reactor – Burner of Depleted Uranium:
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/files/TerraPowerGilleland.pdf
A Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LIFTR) will produce as much energy from one tonne of natural Thorium as 2.9 million tonnes of Coal and 13 million barrels of Oil. With current (largely unexplored) reserves of Thorium at 4.4 million tonnes, that would supply the entire World's energy needs for 825 years.
The Thorium Molten Salt Reactor would fuel a 1000 MWe power plant for 1 year with 1000 kg of Natural Thorium and generate 1000 kg of waste, 83% of which is valuable for industrial instrumentation, agricultural irradiation and medical cancer treatment and diagnostic imaging. The remaining 170 kg of radioactive waste only needs containment for 300 yrs. The equal sized Coal Power Plant Thorium waste would run the equivalent Thorium Nuclear Power Plant for 11 years.
See Kirk Sorenson video on LIFTR:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZR0UKxNPh8
and PowerPoint presentation here:
http://www.energyfromthorium.com/ppt/LFTRGoogleTalk_Bonometti.ppt
Some Facts about Nuclear Fuel Supply:
“…There has been no major new uranium exploration for 20 years, but at current consumption levels, known uranium reserves are predicted to last for 85 years. Geological estimates from the IAEA & the OECD show that at least six times more uranium is extractable – enough for 500 years’ supply at current demand (3). Modern reactors can use thorium as a fuel .. “
And the one that blew up this week in Connecticut killed FIVE humans! More dead than the entire U.S. Nuclear industry!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course, not counting Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
So, Ban! Natural Gas.
Problem of clean energy it is a problem of correct extraction her from a fuel. At A?>;L7>20=88 fuels, always energy comes from only from one making element. Therefore, before extraction of energy, a natural fuel needs to be specially prepared by the new method of division of matter. Only so, through a new cluster fuel maximal, clean energy and extrass is extracted will zero
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://rubix.co.in
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://rubix.co.in
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost CCS reviews only consider capturing carbon in the form of CO2 AFTER combustion. But there is a second route open. This is to seperate carbon from hydocarbons or natural gas BEFORE combustion. This leads to the production of hot water vapour and hydrogen, both of which are ideal for electricity generation. In this way, we transform our fossil fuel carbon-based Society into an all hydrogen one. The carbon is safe to put into landfill. Lookup 'PYROLYSIS' .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, I remember California taking bold steps to reduce automobile pollution only to end up in court with Bush's big oil sponsored White House administration.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this