By David Wagman, Managing Editor
To gauge the level of global greenhouse gas emissions 30 to 50 years from now, pay close attention to power plant ordering decisions made in the next three years.
After all, baseload coal plants have operating lives that stretch to 50 years and longer. With no commercially viable carbon capture and sequestration technology available at present, those plants will produce carbon dioxide as a byproduct of coal combustion for decades to come. Even after carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technologies emerge, few mechanisms exist to compel countries like China and India either to retrofit or shut down existing power plants.
And make no mistake. The major force driving electric power production in the coming decades will be Asia. Over the next 20 years, the world’s highest growth rates for electric power consumption will come from Asian countries. Average growth likely will grow at 4 percent a year. By 2030, the region will account for half of the world’s energy consumption. In practical terms, 100 GW a year of capacity will be needed, requiring an annual investment of $50 billion.
How to meet that growth prospect was addressed by Uriel Sharef, Executive Vice President of Siemens Germany, in an address to the World Energy Congress this past November.
Sharef said Asian power demand would be best met with a “broad and balanced mix” of generation sources, aided by energy efficiency measures. Even so, fossil fuels—and coal in particular—are forecast to comprise two-thirds of the region’s generating mix.
“Coal will be a strategic pillar for a long time,” he said.
But that pillar comes with a two-pronged problem. First, are the environmental consequences inherent in burning coal. And second is the likelihood of Asia becoming a net coal importer, leading to a worldwide coal price runup. For example, International Energy Agency (IEA) figures show coal prices rose from an average $60 a ton in 2006 to more than $120 a ton in late 2007.
Sharef said technology will improve power plant efficiency, helping to contain coal demand and emissions rates. Ultra-supercritical coal plants may soon be fitted with new turbine materials allowing pressures in excess of 300 bar and temperatures above 700 C. Efficiencies among lignite-fired plants could rise from 40 percent to more than 50 percent by 2020. Efficiencies among hard coal-fired plants could rise from 47 percent at present to 53 percent.
Besides coal, large-scale hydro and nuclear likely will play major roles as part of Asia’s baseload capacity through 2030. According to the IEA, China is likely to see its nuclear generating capacity grow from 8.6 GWe today to 40 GWe by 2020. India’s nuclear fleet could grow from 3.7 GWe to 25 GWe by 2022. Korea could see 22.6 GWe of nuclear power by 2017, up from 17.5 GWe today. And in Pakistan, nuclear could constitute 8.4 GWe of capacity by 2030, up from 0.43 GWe today.
Expanding economies in Russia, Eastern Europe and Latin America—in addition to Asia—will also be the focus of much new investment.
“That’s where the future is,” said Jeff Immelt, CEO of General Electric, who also addressed the Congress. For the first time in GE’s history, the volume of business done outside of the United States will exceed that done within the United States.
China and India’s economies will not grow without coal and nuclear technology, Immelt said. Deploying coal-fired generation with CCS capability may depend more on cost affordability than on technology. And China and India likely will take technologies such as integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) and CCS “down the road faster” than western economies.
“We need to drive the cost out of IGCC and CCS, then take it back to the developed world,” he said. FutureGen may be located in Illinois, but its full potential may be realized first in Asia.
Immelt called on the United States to begin work on up to six gasification plants and said the industry must “embrace coal so it is not an opponent.” A strategy focused on renewables and natural gas would be “too bad,” he said. Investment needs to be made in coal technology: “We have to get coal into this century.”
Immediate action is required to set clear and certain goals with regard to greenhouse gas emissions. Governments need to set up markets so industry can begin to innovate, he said. “The time is now to move.”
Reality Check
By Steve Blankinship, Associate Editor
In many ways, wind and nuclear represent opposite poles of the power generation spectrum. Yet they share three things in common—low fuel cost, high capital cost and zero emissions.
Wind generation requires no fuel at all. And the cost of fuel as a percentage of total cost of electricity from nuclear plants is far lower than for coal and almost negligible when compared to natural gas plant fuel costs. Reprocessing spent nuclear waste and ultimately using breeder reactors would all but make nuclear a renewable energy resource. Capital cost for the newest generation of nuclear reactors could run as high as $5,000/kW. Capital cost for wind projects is currently around $1,700/kW, but with a third the capacity factor of nuclear. Perhaps the most significant commonality shared by wind and nuclear is that neither produce air emissions, including carbon dioxide.
Most projections call for dramatic growth in wind capacity relative to its current small base. There is no reason to think that won’t happen. Passing a national law to create competitive renewable zones would facilitate coordinated development of wind capacity and related transmission enhancements and would further encourage new wind projects. Texas has already created such zones.
Meanwhile, more than a dozen U.S. power producers are poised to seek combined construction and operating licenses (COLs) for more than 30 new nuclear units. In September, NRG Energy became the first of those. Its application to build two reactors at the South Texas Project on the Gulf Coast has been accepted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In doing so, NRG also became the first independent power producer to file to build a nuclear plant. The trend of extending operating licenses at existing nuclear units and increasing their power by up-rates will also continue. Florida Power & Light (in addition to possibly building two new nuclear units at its existing Turkey Point nuclear complex by 2020) plans to add 400 MW to Turkey Point and St. Lucie for operation by 2012. Wind is less of an option for Florida, because there isn’t much of it.
Most of us who write about the power industry have known for a long time that when it comes to making electricity, there is no free lunch. No cheap lunch either. People in Kansas, New York, California, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, the Carolinas and other places are becoming increasingly concerned about the prospects of hundreds of wind turbines towering above their hilltops and rising above the sea a few miles offshore where ocean views were once unrestricted.
Imagine the pushback as the hundreds of 2 to 3 MW machines become thousands, tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands. At 2 to 3 MW each, that’s what achieving the amount of power envisioned by some wind proponents means. The figure most widely cited by wind proponents is that the United States could generate 20 percent of its electricity with wind by 2030. A comparison with nuclear is fairly linear because that happens to be the percentage nuclear power supplies today, even though nuclear makes up only 10 percent of U.S. installed generating capacity. That’s because the fleet performs at a 90 percent capacity factor. In 2006, nuclear produced 787.2 billion kWh of power from 100,334 MW of capacity.
At 2.5 MW per tower—close to maximum capacity for land-based wind turbines in the foreseeable future—a 9,000 MW wind farm would equal the output from a two-unit new generation nuclear plant. At 1,500 MW per unit, the nuclear plant would cover an area about the size of a large community college campus. The wind farm would require 3,600 turbines, each more than 40 stories tall with blade spans approximating the length of a football field. Such a wind farm would occupy about 450,000 acres. That figure is based on the low end of a planning range ratio of 50 acres per MW for 1.5 MW to 2.5 MW wind turbines. Actual site topography may dictate even greater spacing between turbines to achieve optimal turbine location.
Therefore, for wind to provide 20 percent of this country’s electricity, the amount of land required equals roughly 24,000 square miles. That’s the size of West Virginia. While wind proponents point to the fact that land used for wind generation can also be used for crops, grazing and other purposes, there’s little doubt that a wind farm dramatically diminishes use for those or other purposes. The wind industry has its work cut out for it if it thinks it can overcome the NIMBYism such a scenario purports.
Wind power’s lack of dependence on fuel and water, coupled with its ability to produce power without emissions, is not trivial. It can also ramp to follow load and is compatible to grid integration. Wind will play a critical and essentially emission-free role in any future power mix scenario. So will the thermal solar plants that will eventually cover vast expanses of our western deserts and photovoltaic panels that will cover homes, buildings and other surfaces in urban and rural areas. Those, too, will supply essentially emission-free—and inherently intermittent—power.