Westar signs agreement to reduce carbon dioxide emissions / LJWorld.com

Archive for Friday, February 29, 2008

Pact first of its kind between state, utility

Associated Press

February 29, 2008

Kansas' largest electric utility has signed an agreement with the state to voluntarily reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

The agreement is the first of its kind between a utility and the state Department of Health and Environment.

The agreement doesn't set specific targets for reductions. But Westar does agree to inventory its CO2 emissions and evaluate how to reduce them at its power plants.

The state's secretary of health and environment, Rod Bremby, has said he wants to pursue such voluntary agreements. He says the state can't ignore the dangers posed by global warming. Many scientists link climate change to CO2 emissions.

Westar Vice President Kelly Harrison said Westar's customers expect it to be good stewards of the environment.

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

29 February 2008
at 5:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

Westar should begin phasing out our very dirty coal plant in favor of Bio Mass energy which would create a need for cash crops from local farmers such as switch grass.

Coal plants require bringing in coal from say Wyoming. Why do that when Kansas farmers could grow switch grass?

Hey Westar go local!!
29 February 2008
at 5:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

toefungus (Anonymous) says…

Westar is full of gas.
29 February 2008
at 5:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Merrill, what are you going to do with switchgrass?
29 February 2008
at 5:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Logan5 (Anonymous) says…

Merrill, I assume that you are doing your part by buying green tags for your home and business, right?

https://www.greentagsusa.org/greentag…

I didn't see Merrill's Professional Blogging Services, LLC. on their list of customers.

https://www.greentagsusa.org/greentag…
29 February 2008
at 5:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ralphralph (Anonymous) says…

Clean. Safe. Nuclear.

Wise up … nuke is the way to go.
29 February 2008
at 6:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mooner (Anonymous) says…

Nuke is not the way to go.

I 'd rather go w i t h o u t , or with less.
29 February 2008
at 7:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

yankeelady (Anonymous) says…

It's nice to see the glimmer of compromise. Now maybe the legislature will move on some of the more pressing issues at hand. And I don't mean any of Kinzer and friends pet causes. Things like health care, the smoking ban and education funding would be nice. Maybe raises for state employees and work on some of the deferred maintenance we hear so much about.

29 February 2008
at 7:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

overplayedhistory (Anonymous) says…

Nuke is still safer. The French boosted their economy in the eighties sold power to the English with nukes. Oops, did some one say the French, where is Mitt.
29 February 2008
at 7:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Dracul (Bill Chapman) says…

Without a set goal, ANY reduction in CO2 gas will satisfy the agreement. Even an amount such as 1 part per billion would allow Westar to say ” We did it! We lowered our CO2 emissions.”
Then, later on, to the state senate -
“So can we get so state tax money to build more coal power plants so Westar (and it's investors) can make more money without investing more of our own money?”
29 February 2008
at 7:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

belexus73 (Anonymous) says…

This announcement is much ado about what they were going to do anyway. Westar is fully aware that there will be a penalty on carbon use coming from the federal government in the next year or so. Westar is also working hard at the KCC to make energy efficiency investments worthwhile from the corporate point of view. The quickest way to reduce CO2 emissions is guess what-energy efficiency. What would be surprising is if they did anything else based on their CO2 emissions as of now. Of course, future emissions can be offset for awhile with another investment in wind energy which we should see from them in the next few years.
1 March 2008
at 10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mike123 (Anonymous) says…

Nuke v Coal. Biomass, solar, and wind all good options. What will we use when the sun is not shining or the wind isn't blowing? Base load generation has to come from somewhere. What is the choice? Nuke waste or CO2 from coal?
1 March 2008
at 10:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Logan5 (Anonymous) says…

“What will we use when the sun is not shining or the wind isn't blowing?”

Energy storage facilities are currently in use an should be expanded. Produce and store solar and wind power during the day for use at night by using compressed air or hydro storage. Most coal plants only produce 45% of their peak load over the course of a year since the load varies so much from day to night and season to season. Storing energy is an excellent strategy even using coal plants that are not easily throttled. That is why the following examples are in use today.

The concept of compressed-air energy storage to help generate electricity is more than 30 years old. Two plants currently exist - an 11-year-old plant in McIntosh, Alabama, and a 23-year-old plant in Germany, both in caverns created by salt deposits.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/de/compres…

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/2001/ph162/l1…
1 March 2008
at 10:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mike123 (Anonymous) says…

How will load be served during the day when we are using the energy to operate pumped storage operations for the off peak hours?
1 March 2008
at 10:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Logan5 (Anonymous) says…

Peak load occurs during the day when solar and wind also peak. However, as we switch to using a higher percentage of renewables the question is what do we do at night. Energy storage is a great answer.
1 March 2008
at 10:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mike123 (Anonymous) says…

So just to get your position straight i may be confused… Wind and solar will be used during the day… when will you fill the pumped storage? On peak hours (6am to 10pm) are typically the times when the pumped storage is used and filled in the offpeak. How will wind and solar accomplish both load serving and pumped storage?

1 March 2008
at 5:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Logan5 (Anonymous) says…

The initial question you posed was:

“What will we use when the sun is not shining or the wind isn't blowing?”

Your question now:

“How will wind and solar accomplish both load serving and pumped storage?”

This assumes that there will not be sufficient surplus power produced during the day to allow for storage so that it may then be used at night. Why not?

There is an interesting article in the February issue of Scientific American that was written by a team of scientists that tried to determine just what it would take to power the entire country with nothing but solar power. They even included transportation. Though this is not a very likely scenario, they set out to see if it could be done. The came up with some very interesting positive results using current technology. The article includes cost and time estimates.

They basically proposed huge solar plants located in the deserts of New Mexico and Arizona, a new DC grid from there to the East coast, and compressed air storage at many points inbetween. Electric cars would be recharged at night during off-peak.

They showed that the system could be built for about $440 billion, (far less than the current farm subsidy) that would get our nation to complete energy independence by 2030.

Currently, solar panels are very expensive, about $5-6 per watt. But new technology is currently creating new panels that are about $1/watt. This puts them on par with coal.

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/flat/bow…

http://www.celsias.com/2007/11/23/nan…
1 March 2008
at 6:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snowWI (Anonymous) says…

logan5,
You have some interesting information. Thanks for the links.
1 March 2008
at 6:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Logan5 (Anonymous) says…

You are most welcome. That Nanosolar stuff is really cool. You can bet they are going on my house as soon as they are available. The future is not as bleak as some think. There is some great technology already out there, and I'm sure much more is on the way. I feel our greatest hope is with solar power. It has the advantage of being able to use rooftop panels spread out over the country which greatly reduces the costs and inefficiencies of the power grid.

Unfortunately, our state is way behind the curve. No incentives, no reasonable net metering policy, etc. Rep. Tom Sloan is working hard to correct this situation, but it is an uphill battle to say the least. He needs our support. Next time you see him around town, let him know you appreciate the job he is doing.
2 March 2008
at 6:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mike123 (Anonymous) says…

Those are some interesting articles. I formely worked in the energy industry and have seen some interesting things in green energy development. Here is a recent article dealing with wind energy in ERCOT (Texas Control Area).

http://www.snl.com/InteractiveX/artic…
2 March 2008
at 10:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Logan5 (Anonymous) says…

An interesting article Mike.

…the report summarized: “Wind has the greatest impact on hour-to-hour net load variation in the late spring and summer, [but] variations in the winter and early spring may be more operationally significant : due to low net load levels.”

As these mega wind farms and solar facilities are relied upon to produce a larger percentage of our energy generation, (especially when overall load is low) problems like this will occur unless the entire system is designed with this in mind. Energy “capacitors” like the hydo and pneumatic storage facilities I alluded to earlier are an essential part of the overall system.

Germany and Spain are installing huge amounts of solar because of large subsidies offered by their governments.

http://www.wired.com/science/discover…

Last year in April, the Social-Democratic/Green German government introduced the Renewable Energy Act (EEG) to boost the planned switch to renewable energy sources. Producers of renewable energy get 43 cents for each kWh (kilowatt per hour) of solar power generated and 7 cents per kWh of wind energy generated.

It is not surpising that Nanosolar's main solar panel plant is in Germany. A 647,000 sf. facility. As this facility increases its production, no doubt Germany will need to reconsider the generosity of their subsidies.
2 March 2008
at 11:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Logan5 (Anonymous) says…

Looks like Texas is already on top of the problem:

http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/re_wi…

Each year, Texas generates more electricity from wind than any other state. While researchers have discovered the secret to pulling kilowatts out of the wind in the Lone Star State, they still working on a way to make that power source available at any time. On average, wind farms operate at peak capacity only about 30 percent of the time. That drops even lower during the hottest summer days in Texas, when wind drops at the same time electricity demand surges. As a result, a wind-power provider must arrange a backup supply from another generator or rely on the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) to buy power to make up for a shortfall, which can get expensive during peak demand.

To address wind energy transmission constraints in areas such as McCamey, the Texas State Energy Conservation Office (SECO) conducted a CAES (Compressed Air Energy Storage) study to determine what benefits CAES would have for the transmission challenges in these areas. Excess power could be used to pump air underground for later use in generating electricity.

Summary Results, June 2005
The study was able to show significant benefits from the use of CAES to integrate large quantities of wind energy onto the grid. In particular, the study was able to show that CAES can add value in the following ways:

-significantly improve the delivery profile of renewable energy to the grid.

-ameliorate the impacts of wind energy on system ramping.

-provide transmission benefits in excess of the cost of any transmission upgrades required by the CAES plant itself.

Energy storage can transform an intermittent, renewable energy resource into one that has firm capacity value and that can be dispatched in accordance with load and market prices for energy.
2 March 2008
at 11:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Logan5 (Anonymous) says…

In Alabama. . .

PB Energy Storage Services constructed the U.S.'s first CAES facility for peak-shaving in Alabama's McIntosh salt dome, where a 20-million cubic foot cavern supports a 26-hour, 110 MW power generation plant.

http://www.pbenergy.com/caes.htm

Germany is thinking ahead. . .

KBB constructed the world's first CAES salt dome storage cavern project at Huntorf, Germany, where two 10-million cubic foot caverns support a 2-hour, 290 MW power plant.