Last Coal Fired Power Plants in New England to close

[woodgeek]

Therein lies the rub, if you believe the overwhelming worldwide scientific agreement that global warming is happening and that mankind can reduce the impact, then New England is doing the right thing making the transition now away from fossil fuel power to an expanding mix of renewables (and a nuke) using natural gas as ever decreasing bridge and avoiding the easy path of just piping in more natural gas. Painful as it may be currently, it will be far less painful in doing it later to meet climate agreements. When natural gas is displacing coal, its easy to hold up natural gas as solution to short term CO2 issues as it puts out considerably less CO2 per MWhr but once those coal retirements have occurred, then natural gas plants become the next technology that has to go.

So to be less verbose, I would say that in an era of innovation and rapidly decreasing renewable costs, being an early adopter of renewables or EVs is very costly. Many investments made during the transition end up being mal-investments, that look good at the time in a short term analysis, but end up being less good or even terrible in the long run. Like CFLs bulbs. Or PHEVs. Or Coal stack scrubbers or CO2 capture. Or the Tesla Model S.

In the future, we might decide that other things belong on this transitional malinvestment list. Like Combined Cycle gas plants. Or Rooftop Solar (in some markets). Or (small scale) onshore wind turbines.

I won't pretend to have a crystal ball. But if rooftop solar doesn't pay in some market, it doesn't mean that (e.g. utility) solar is not a solution. If a town puts up a small wind turbine and loses money, it doesn't mean large turbines in a better site are not a solution. If a person in MA can't pencil out an EV at $0.35/kWh rates, it doesn't mean that BEVs are not a solution. These are policy, not technology errors.

I say that Capitalism is a terrific (if still imperfect) way to determine the prices of things, while being a terrible way to decide what we should spend our money on.

So IMO the best way forward is to collectively decide to act (to decarbonize society as quickly as possible) while still allowing capitalism to pick the winners and details of the technology path for getting there. We collectively pick the end goal, and let capitalism pick the lowest cost path for getting there.

So my beef with the current New England approach is that they have fetishized being early adopters (for political reasons) to the extent that they have mandated and locked in costly tech/policy decisions that may actually lead them to be late adopters.

 

[peakbagger]

The problem is capitalism unless restrained fundamentally feeds into the tragedy of the common. Simplifed, capitalism cannot compete unless there are goalposts and currently the US power industry does not have a goalpost to head for. It did have one but the last administration took the short term approach and pulled the regulations. Even worse is various regions of the country are marketing themselves to draw in business by effectively guaranteeing cheap power regardless of the CO2 cost. In order to collectively decide to act, there has to be a basis and that basis was established in the last two decades that CO2 is major contributor to global warming by a world wide scientific consensus. Whether the US likes its or not, it has historically been a much higher per capita CO2 contributor than the rest of the world. International climate accords have been developed and even the US has signed on to them. In most cases the climate goals are no longer long term multi generational goals they are now short term in the order of decades. Therefore there have to be restraints (goalposts) imposed and that is government regulation that applies equally across the US. Once that restraint is in place that is where capitalism then gets to compete to meet those goals.

 

[stoveliker]

So IMO the best way forward is to collectively decide to act (to decarbonize society as quickly as possible) while still allowing capitalism to pick the winners and details of the technology path for getting there. We collectively pick the end goal, and let capitalism pick the lowest cost path for getting there.

Which is precisely what the (mileage) mandates are that I advocated for and that you said were a no go.

 

[EatenByLimestone]

Last month I checked the cost of my energy per btu. Electricity was 7x more expensive than natural gas per btu. It’s hard to sell electrifying my house if it’s going to increase the cost of my bills so much. I checked at the end of summer also and at that time electricity was only 2x more expensive. The reason for the change in price is the base fee is spread out by much higher gas usage during the winter, but fortunately/unfortunately it never reaches the price of electricity.

 

[EbS-P]

Last month I checked the cost of my energy per btu. Electricity was 7x more expensive than natural gas per btu. It’s hard to sell electrifying my house if it’s going to increase the cost of my bills so much. I checked at the end of summer also and at that time electricity was only 2x more expensive. The reason for the change in price is the base fee is spread out by much higher gas usage during the winter, but fortunately/unfortunately it never reaches the price of electricity.

There will be an increased cost to lower CO2 emissions initially. We’re going to pay one way or another. Insurers just ask to raise our home insurance rates by 70%. That about $2500 increase. Just this cycle. We’ve seen about 100% increase in the last 8 years. Housing market in Florida is teetering and if it hours over the edge it will get bailed out by tax payers. The re-insurance market is demanding climate change be factored in to the cost.

I do think the stage is being set to hold the largest CO2 emitters financially liable. The science is exists to attribute individual climate events to global warming. There will be jurisdiction that will find some large corporation or counties emissions responsible and will require compensation in accordance with their emissions.

Developed countries will/should bear the financial burden to the global warming solutions.

 

[EatenByLimestone]

Insurance sounds like a self solving issue. Without insurance, you can’t get a mortgage. Without a mortgage, houses will be less expensive. Less expensive houses are more attractive to insure.

 

[stoveliker]

. The science is exists to attribute individual climate events to global warming.

I disagree.
The science shows there are higher probabilities for (weather) events to happen because of climate change.
But individual events cannot be causally be attributed to the change in something that is a long term average i.e. climate.

Judicially there can't be attribution of events to actions in this regard. (Though in a jury system theatrics can result in any outcome...)

 

[stoveliker]

Insurance sounds like a self solving issue. Without insurance, you can’t get a mortgage. Without a mortgage, houses will be less expensive. Less expensive houses are more attractive to insure.

No?
Insurance cost is not based on market value but on the probability to have to pay out and on how much that pay out will be.
And the pay out is not based on market value but on replacement cost, which is what insurance has to cough up if chit hits the fan.
For the latter, if the latter is lower (but why?), it won't be so low as to offset the much higher probability to have to pay in coastal FL.
A very high chance to have to pay out means high insurance premium.

 

[DBoon]

Re: insurance, we are seeing this play out in real time in Florida right now with homeowner insurance costs tripling or more on renewals(if it can even be obtained) as the repeated disasters are making insurers have to pay more out in Florida than they had planned. State governments may try to paper over the problem with their own state-funded insurance programs with lower rates, but these are just one disaster away from going bankrupt, and then the insurance industry will be in a death spiral in the state without Federal backstop/intervention, and if the Feds intervene then all we are doing is kicking the can just a little further down the road.

At some point, nobody wants to insure a house that is sure to be destroyed or underwater sometime in the next 10-20 years. Then the reality will set in.

 

[peakbagger]

Real estate developers plan for natural disasters to come along to clear out one batch of owners so they can sell an upscale redevelopment to more affluent folks. Been that way for years in Florida, a barrier island or shoreline gets wiped out in a hurricane and ten years later new hotels and condos are going in. There are a lot of folks who know they will probably be dead or in nursing home in 10 or 15 years and as long as someone lies to them that the big one will wait until after they are gone, they will gladly pony up the cash to buy their little slice of prepackaged paradise.

 

[woodgeek]

Last month I checked the cost of my energy per btu. Electricity was 7x more expensive than natural gas per btu. It’s hard to sell electrifying my house if it’s going to increase the cost of my bills so much. I checked at the end of summer also and at that time electricity was only 2x more expensive. The reason for the change in price is the base fee is spread out by much higher gas usage during the winter, but fortunately/unfortunately it never reaches the price of electricity.

Just to crunch some numbers...

If we assume that a heat pump gets a COP of 4 (units of heat out per energy in) when its above 40°F outside, and your nat gat furnace is 70% efficient (0.7 out for every 1 in), then rather than comparing 1 to 7, you need to compare 4 to 0.7*7. So for a given energy cost you get 4 units from a HP, or 5 from a gas furnace. The HP would cost only 25% more to run in the shoulder season, and not 600% more.

And if you switched to electric heat, the utility might give you a discount (don't know if you are including the base charge), so it could even be cheaper.

Not cheap enough to switch on a financial basis, but not ruinous by any stretch.

 

[woodgeek]

Which is precisely what the (mileage) mandates are that I advocated for and that you said were a no go.

I didn't say they were a no go. If I follow, you wanted to have a single MPG requirement for all light vehicles (effectively banning ICE trucks and SUVs, while making ICE sedans compliant), rather than the current system that has a fleet MPG requirement counted by maker. I was saying that I didn't think such a plan was politically feasible.

If I misunderstood you, or if you are arguing that they are politically feasible, please correct me.

 

[stoveliker]

I didn't say they were a no go. If I follow, you wanted to have a single MPG requirement for all light vehicles (effectively banning ICE trucks and SUVs, while making ICE sedans compliant), rather than the current system that has a fleet MPG requirement counted by maker. I was saying that I didn't think such a plan was politically feasible.

If I misunderstood you, or if you are arguing that they are politically feasible, please correct me.

No, it just bugs me that something was mentioned, and you discard it as politically infeasible, but a few days later it's part of your analysis once it fits your narrative.

 

[woodgeek]

I"m sorry I'm bugging you, but I think we are cross-talking.

I think the fleet average MPG, ratcheting up over time (which we are doing) has the desired effect of pushing makers to EVs, and is (apparently, since we are doing it) politically feasible. And its 'tech agnostic' and gives makes a LOT of freedom to figure out how to make money from a diverse line of products (large and small vehicles). And by trading carbon credits.

That is what I am advocating here, and before

But look at the 'ICE ban' talk in a few states for 2035. That is IMO absurd to be talking about in 2024. Serves no purpose except to build opposition to change, and feed fears that buyers choice will be taken away abruptly without substitutes (or affordable) in place.

If we had a flat MPG requirement independent of vehicle mass, I think we would have to have only BEV or PHEV pickups and SUVs now, which are not affordable in 2024. Conversely, we could just build tiny ICE cars or HEV sedans to be compliant. We would sell fewer BEVs than we do now, and truck buyers would look at the policy as a premature ban on trucks, since the alternatives would by unaffordable.

So what is gained by such a 'flat MPG' policy relative to the current one? Why does it make sense to force the EV transition from the largest vehicles to the smallest, rather than what we are doing now, going from small vehicles to large?

 

[stoveliker]

No, I said mileage mandates per weight class, because per fleet was dumb (because it allows for poorly performing (in terms of climate) heavy trucks being offset by smaller BEVs).
And that was "not feasible".

 

[EbS-P]

No, I said mileage mandates per weight class, because per fleet was dumb (because it allows for poorly performing (in terms of climate) heavy trucks being offset by smaller BEVs).
And that was "not feasible".

I"m sorry I'm bugging you, but I think we are cross-talking.

I think the fleet average MPG, ratcheting up over time (which we are doing) has the desired effect of pushing makers to EVs, and is (apparently, since we are doing it) politically feasible. And its 'tech agnostic' and gives makes a LOT of freedom to figure out how to make money from a diverse line of products (large and small vehicles). And by trading carbon credits.

That is what I am advocating here, and before

But look at the 'ICE ban' talk in a few states for 2035. That is IMO absurd to be talking about in 2024. Serves no purpose except to build opposition to change, and feed fears that buyers choice will be taken away abruptly without substitutes (or affordable) in place.

If we had a flat MPG requirement independent of vehicle mass, I think we would have to have only BEV or PHEV pickups and SUVs now, which are not affordable in 2024. Conversely, we could just build tiny ICE cars or HEV sedans to be compliant. We would sell fewer BEVs than we do now, and truck buyers would look at the policy as a premature ban on trucks, since the alternatives would by unaffordable.

So what is gained by such a 'flat MPG' policy relative to the current one? Why does it make sense to force the EV transition from the largest vehicles to the smallest, rather than what we are doing now, going from small vehicles to large?

It’s time for a federal fuel tax. One cent per gallon and double it every 2 years. Cap it at $1.28 adjusted for inflation?? Use the revenue to subsidize wind solar and battery infrastructure at grid scale.

 

[woodgeek]

No, I said mileage mandates per weight class, because per fleet was dumb (because it allows for poorly performing (in terms of climate) heavy trucks being offset by smaller BEVs).
And that was "not feasible".

Sorry, totally missed the 'weight class' idea. Pitch it to the EPA!

But if heavier vehicles get an easier pass, why can't I just heavyweight my compact cars?

 

[stoveliker]

The point is that one can categorize cars and apply mandates per class. You called one such class compact cars.

There's also a price incentive to make cars not heavier than they need to be, the actually achieved mileage.
That is where ebs-p s tax could come in (too) to ensure it's not appealing to make models heavier.

 

[woodgeek]

At the risk of bugging you again, I think we all agree (you, me and EBS-P) that the govt should use mandates, emission credits, taxes and tax rebates (in some combination) to achieve the same goal... reduced carbon emissions from light transportation and to speed to EV transition. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I am not a public policy expert or an economist. I will claim ignorance regarding the absolutely optimal way of achieving our shared goal.

I am old enough to remember the 70s energy crisis. There were lots of incentives for solar water heating, and small wind turbines you could strap to your roof. Some of the tech worked well, others didn't. Some of the tech lasted a decent amount of time, most of it didn't age well. There were a lot of scammers running around. The govt energy return on its investment was pitiful. I think those old incentives were a boondoggle, but I was just a kid fascinated by that tech at the time.

I also think the rooftop solar incentives that Germany designed 10 years ago for places with crazy cloud cover were a similar boondoggle. Even as their onshore and offshore wind incentives were not. I think sunny places like Spain and Italy also had issues with scammy solar installs and leases at that time.

So, I am wary of incentives, as much as I want them. I think it is easy to make up incentives that are open to scamming and loopholes. I would add that bans, which seem like they are loophole proof, are certainly not either. Think Prohibition and illegal weed.

You (I get) think that the current CAFE and emissions trading system IS a GIANT loophole. You are probably right. But I am worried that by trying close that hole, you might be creating a raft of smaller loopholes that could be exploited in other ways.

 

[EbS-P]

The EPAs new heavy duty truck emissions requirements were just released. If you wanna look at loopholes look at the difference between a tractor with and without a sleeper cab, I predict will be selling a lot more sleeper cab trucks. How much space do you need to sleep? Loopholes….. the full document was over 1100 pages.

https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-03/420f24018.pdf

 

[peakbagger]

The Europeans do not drive small cars because they like them, in general they had little in ground fossil fuel in economic quantities and have always imported fuel (Nazi Germany had lots of issues with running out of liquid fuel). They have had more and earlier "oil shocks" and all that money leaving the countries to third world countries caused big trade imbalances. Therefore they let the fuel prices go up to reduce demand and taxed gasoline substantially more as diesel engines got better gas mileage than gas engines. There is also the issue that European cities are not designed around cars, they were around long before cars versus most US cities that are designed to some extent for cars (Boston being a big exception ). Conveniently, the transition to small diesels caused an unplanned issue and that is that PM emissions from diesels are quite high with a major health impactin urban areas. On a large diesel the losses caused by adding particulate filters and nox catalysts can be dealt with but on small high speed diesel the losses are quite high (as VW and other companies knew leading to various "dieselgates") Europe also long ago invested in extensive public transport. The US had more public transport pre WW 2 but the size and growth of the country and economic decisions led to what public transport that was built to be abandoned and a car based economy was developed.

Europe is therefore far more interested in EVs as a way out of their self imposed diesel pollution problem, as they sure do not want to switch back to gasoline an send more money elsewhere (like Russia). Note that much of eastern Europe has far less public transport and far more reliant on motor fuels but the population of the EU tends to be far more urban and they make the rules. I know of many folks who live and visit Europe and they rely entirely on public transportation. Much of Europe will fit in large US state so the scale is different.

 

[woodgeek]

The Europeans do not drive small cars because they like them, in general they had little in ground fossil fuel in economic quantities and have always imported fuel (Nazi Germany had lots of issues with running out of liquid fuel). They have had more and earlier "oil shocks" and all that money leaving the countries to third world countries caused big trade imbalances. Therefore they let the fuel prices go up to reduce demand and taxed gasoline substantially more as diesel engines got better gas mileage than gas engines. There is also the issue that European cities are not designed around cars, they were around long before cars versus most US cities that are designed to some extent for cars (Boston being a big exception ). Conveniently, the transition to small diesels caused an unplanned issue and that is that PM emissions from diesels are quite high with a major health impactin urban areas. On a large diesel the losses caused by adding particulate filters and nox catalysts can be dealt with but on small high speed diesel the losses are quite high (as VW and other companies knew leading to various "dieselgates") Europe also long ago invested in extensive public transport. The US had more public transport pre WW 2 but the size and growth of the country and economic decisions led to what public transport that was built to be abandoned and a car based economy was developed.

Europe is therefore far more interested in EVs as a way out of their self imposed diesel pollution problem, as they sure do not want to switch back to gasoline an send more money elsewhere (like Russia). Note that much of eastern Europe has far less public transport and far more reliant on motor fuels but the population of the EU tends to be far more urban and they make the rules. I know of many folks who live and visit Europe and they rely entirely on public transportation. Much of Europe will fit in large US state so the scale is different.

Looking at density and affluence, the only part of the US that is a decent match for Western Europe is the I-95 megalopolis, running in an almost straight line from DC to Boston. The rest of the US looks very different.

I grew up in and then moved to a different part of the megalopolis. I take a commuter train into a dense city every day, and drive a compact EV. If I lived elsewhere, who knows?

 

[EbS-P]

Will shutting g down the last coal plant in NE change peoples’ habits? I don’t think so. What another 10-20% increase in electricity cost at this point? The consumer is (mostly) powerless Take the free money being offered even if it comes with debt is about the best one can do.