An article in a Tampa, FL area newspaper decries that state’s plan to require 20% renewable electricity production in an unspecified number of years.Rates May Soar If Green Electric Bills Are Passed

Here is yet another example of obstruction of renewable energy development by scaring people on account that their electrical expenses might go through the roof. Adjectives like “soar”, “through the roof”, and “skyrocket” are used to describe 10-20% increases in electric bills. $5 per year flat tariffs are being described as a hardship. The time frame for the mandate has not even been developed yet and people are already blowing up about it.

It is FLORIDA, you don’t need to heat your home, and I am sure you can cut back on the air conditioning a few degrees. Open up a window, get some fresh air. Hang your clothes out to dry in the beautiful weather! Put some clothes on in winter, and take some off in summer. Dim down the artificial suns in stores, offices, and along the street. Cut back on the outdoor illumination. Get rid of some of those ridiculous 500 watt wallpack lights that are on every single building (and some homes! ) nowadays. I know that at some convenience stores it is indistinguishable between night and day. Businesses ought to think about adjusting their dress code so that their offices don’t have to be refrigerated during the summer.

So much for the angry part…

The claim that slightly increased electricity costs will hurt businesses and cause job losses seems to be a moot point when you see that California is the spot when it comes to good-paying jobs and high-tech industry, all with highest-in-the-nation renewable mandates and 50% gas-fired power, the most costly form of conventional generation. The same goes for New York City and New England, which have much more expensive electricity than the Midwest and South which have already been gutted of their industrial base and mainly deported to Asia where human resources and allowance to pollute (among other things) are very cheap or free. The extractive coal industry in Appalachia does not appear to be providing very much to the people in those states, according to the statistics.

Electrical energy accounts for a very small portion of a business’s total expenses. Electric-arc steelmakers, which use electricity as the source of energy for melting steel, usually see something like 10% of their expenses going to electricity. Aluminum producers and electric-arc steel are probably the most electricity-intensive industries, and the intelligent thing to do would be to site these near hydroelectric power stations or build dedicated cogeneration plants for them, not to rely on the electricity “market” where utility companies seem to be more profitable than ever despite higher costs for gas, coal, and uranium. Run the steelmaking furnaces at night, take advantage of all of that idle generation that is sitting around!

In the case of small businesses, the electrical costs often don’t even come close to the wage for a single employee. A single full-time employee making a $5.25 minimum wage will cost $11,000 per year. This is equivalent to 110 MWh of electricity per year at 10 cents per kWh, or a sustained load of 12.5 kilowatts, 17 continuous horsepower, or 1,000 40-watt fluorescent tubes illuminated for 8 hours per day. You’ve got to be doing some serious stuff (e.g. light industrial) to be drawing that kind of juice. My Point: Electricity is Cheap, DIRT CHEAP.


http://www.steelonthenet.com/steel_cost_eaf.html.

This electric arc steel cost analysis sample is for electricity priced at $70/MWh. That’s equivalent to about 7 cents per kWh, and in the South there are the nation’s dirtiest coal plants that are producing electricity for as low as $8/MWh (and turning around and selling it for $30). In the coal-fired and hydro regions, 7 cents is a high residential rate, let alone compared with the bargain-basement prices that industrial consumers get. Notice that out of the $400 or so for the whole process, only about $30 goes to electricity.

I did some rough calculations of my own to verify this information:

Electrical Energy to melt one tonne of steel:
(assuming 100% efficiency of the melting furnace)

Ambient temperature of scrap: 20 C (293 K)
Specific heat of iron: 0.45 J/gK
Latent heat of fusion: 13.81 kJ/mol
melting point of iron: 1181 K

Temperature Raising: 0.450 J/gK (specific heat of iron) * (1181 - 293) * 1e6 g = 399.6 MJ

Melting: 13.81 kJ/mol * (1e6 g / 55.85 g/mol) = 247.0 MJ

Total electrical energy (MJ) = 647 
Total electrical energy (kWh) = 179.6
Total cost in dollars at 10 cents/kWh: $18
This is about equivalent to the amount of electrical energy used by the average American home in one week.



Why is it that the electricity industry says that new coal-fired units will bring rates down and renewables will make them “skyrocket”? This case was illustrated in Kansas last year when the permit to build two coal units was revoked. New coal is more expensive than the current cost of electricity in most every part of the country, especially in the areas where it is being proposed. Renewables apparently are a few cents per kWh more, but they will produce a stable-priced output once built since almost all of the expense is in the capital cost of building the plant rather than buying coal and other fuels over the entire life of the plant.

The electric industry also must understand that renewables don’t exactly work the same way that big coal and nuclear does; it needs to be distributed over a wide area with a fine network of transmission lines in between (a “mesh topology” ), opposed to a massive (and inefficient) power plant in the middle with heavy transmission wires going outward to users (a “star topology”, although a “tree topology” might better describe it for the trunk is the long distance between the generation and the consumption).

A similar measure in Pennsylvania to add a $5/year tariff to residential electricity consumers’ bills to fund renewable energy was also met with outrage, and PA even has the lovely distinction of considering energy from “waste coal” (anthracite culm and bituminous gob) as part of the acceptable “renewable” energies (though not as preferred as true renewables such as wind). As I have said before, for many people this means buying one less pack of cigarettes or one less Quarter Pounder with cheese from McDonalds each year. In this world of consumerism and multi-billion dollar profits from it, a $5/year tariff for renewable energy is a small price to pay. It seems to be fine for companies to run all kinds of enticing advertising to get people to buy useless junk and prescription drugs that they probably don’t need, but paying a little bit for clean energy that we will all benefit from is somehow wrong. I can’t connect with that logic…

From the Tampa article:

According to industry estimates, the cost of generating electricity from a coal plant is about 4 cents a kilowatt-hour, 7 cents from a natural gas plant and 0.4 cents from a nuclear plant. The cost of generating electricity from a solar plant is about 10 cents a kilowatt-hour and 8 cents from a biomass plant that burns wood or plants. Wind power, though, is competitive with coal- and- gas-fired power, costing 4 cents to 6 cents a kilowatt-hour.

Damn, I’d like to know where that 0.4 cent/kWh nuclear plant is at! Even hydro, the cheapest electricity source available, costs more than that. I think someone was off by a factor of ten or so. Maybe in 1960 a nuclear plant could produce for that much. I believe that the decommissioning fund alone for nuclear energy is 0.1 cents/kWh.

The solar number is also for thermal solar using a power tower or mirror trough system, not with photovoltaic panels which are more expensive.

Maybe it is time that we stand up and say NO MORE to the fossil fuel industry and their control of our government and our world. The environmental and renewable energy movement is about freedom - freedom to use and capture the natural forces which fall from the sky every day, freedom from greed, pollution, and centralized control of our lives. If that means paying a little more for electricity each month to fund the development of this NEW energy infrastructure and way of thinking, then that is what is needed. When you buy a new car, you have to pay for it. When you buy a new house, you have to pay for it! The same goes for energy infrastructure. Replacing all of the 1960s-era coal plants with something new will cost something! Even with $100/bbl oil, 60% imports, climate change, and unsustainable consumption we are debating whether or not we should be using renewable energy? Something is dead wrong with that picture.

We could just take 1% of the annual national military budget and devote it to renewable energy development. We could also take the $13-billion or so in subsidies away from the oil and gas industry. and provide them to renewables. In this case, no one has to pay a single dime more. If that’s not enough, then we can bite more into that military budget. I honesty don’t think they will miss a few billion dollars, not when a single F-22 aircraft costs something like $130 million, let alone the $62 billion spent to develop the thing. Develop renewable energy, and no wars have to be fought to secure unsustainable and polluting fossil energy supplies. I think it is money well spent.