Federal energy regulator said coal plant closure could be 'potentially catastrophic'
A power grid operator that serves millions of Americans across the mid-Atlantic is warning that a planned coal-fired power plant shutdown will severely threaten electricity supplies and occur before new power sources come online.
PJM Interconnection — which coordinates the movement of wholesale electricity in all or parts of 13 states and the District of Columbia, serving 65 million consumers — said the forthcoming shutdown of Brandon Shores coal power plant located outside of Baltimore will disrupt the reliability of the region's grid. The plant's operator, Texas-based Talen Energy, intends to deactivate the plant in June 2025 as part of a settlement with the left-wing eco group Sierra Club.
"There has been a strong push for quite some time to get coal power out of Maryland," Christopher Summers, the founder and president of the Maryland Public Policy Institute, told Fox News Digital in an interview. "In this accelerated timeline of exiting from coal-fired power plants in the coming 12 to 24 months, I think it's going to create a major reliability concern for the state."
"The loss of power poses a real danger to the well-being and livelihoods of Maryland families and businesses," Summers said. "Until these current risks to our grid are fully dealt with, it's a mistake to close reliable, baseload power plants too soon. That should be a concern to consumers in Maryland and businesses in Maryland that rely on dependable power."
In 2020, Talen Energy announced it had reached an agreement with Sierra Club to shutter Brandon Shores and two other major coal power plants in the region. The decision was made in exchange for an agreement from the Sierra Club which aims to avoid future litigation or permit disputes related to coal at Talen Energy's "transitioning sites."
Ralph Alexander, the then-CEO of Talen Energy, said at the time that his company's move was part of its transition to green energy and its broader environmental, social and governance (ESG)-focused future. According to the company's current ESG commitments, it plans to entirely eliminate the use of coal in its wholly-owned generation facilities like Brandon Shores, which generate more than 5,000 megawatts of power nationwide.
However, according to PJM Interconnection, prematurely shutting down Brandon Shores — which has a capacity of 1,295 megawatts, enough to power more than a million homes — would spark an imbalance in the grid. Shuttering such a vital power source requires the regional grid operator to divert electricity generated elsewhere, but transmission upgrades in Maryland aren't expected to be finished until 2028, three years after the planned Brandon Shores closure.
"The PJM region and the state of Maryland are facing future reliability challenges as a result of the announced retirement of the Brandon Shores units," Jeff Shields, a spokesperson for PJM Interconnection, told Fox News Digital. "Specifically, PJM analyses showed that the deactivation of the Brandon Shores units would cause severe voltage drop and thermal violations across seven PJM zones, which could lead to a widespread reliability risks in Baltimore and the immediate surrounding areas."
"Therefore, there is an urgent need to upgrade the transmission system in order to maintain reliability and the flow of power to the 65 million people we serve," Shields said. "The chosen transmission solutions include in-service estimates in the 2027-2028 timeframe."
Because of the tight timeframe, PJM has requested that Brandon Shores remains in operation through 2028 under a so-called Reliability Must-Run Agreement until transmission upgrades are completed. However, Shields noted Talen Energy's agreement with Sierra Club prevents such an agreement from moving forward.
Additionally, while Talen Energy previously said it would convert Brandon Shores to rely on another, less emitting fuel source, it ultimately abandoned that plan and opted to completely close the facility, potentially increasing future reliability concerns.
Both PJM and Talen Energy confirmed they are currently engaged in negotiations with the Sierra Club and Maryland state officials to find a solution.
"Talen is currently in discussions with PJM and others regarding the reliability issue claimed by PJM," Taryne WIlliams, a spokesperson for Talen Energy, told Fox News Digital in an email.
"We are always mindful of regional electric system reliability and how it relates to electricity consumers in Maryland," added Maryland Public Service Commission spokesperson Tori Leonard in a statement, noting that PJM is responsible for reliably operating the regional transmission grid.
Earlier this month, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) intervened and greenlighted PJM's nearly $800 million emergency plan for transmission upgrades to blunt the Brandon Shores closure.
FERC Commissioner Mark Christie said on Nov. 8 that, without proper upgrades, the shutdown could cause "severe voltage collapse in Baltimore and the surrounding zones, including Northern Virginia, the District of Columbia, Delaware and southeastern Pennsylvania," adding such a scenario would be "potentially catastrophic."
"Closing an efficient, low-cost energy producing plant like Brandon Shores is just one more way America is surrendering our energy advantage to China and Russia," Rep. Andy Harris, the sole Republican member of Maryland's congressional delegation, told Fox News Digital in a statement.
"It is foolish to think that anything will come of this short-sighted energy policy, cooked up by the out-of-touch liberals who run Maryland, other than even more expensive electricity bills for hard-working, over-taxed Maryland families," he said.
****************************************************
28 draft agreement omits plan to phase out fossil fuels, angering Pacific leaders
Attempts to forge a historic deal to phase out fossil fuels at this year's UN climate talks are hanging by a thread after a draft agreement dropped references to the policy.
Leaders from countries in favour of a phase-out, including Australia's Pacific neighbours, were left stunned when the draft text for COP28 omitted any mention of phasing out fossil fuels.
There had been suggestions a deal on a policy to phase them out was within reach amid efforts by a large bloc of countries to negotiate a breakthrough.
But a draft document released following days of intense negotiations stopped short of that ambition.
Rather, it set out a plan for "reducing both the consumption and production of fossil fuels".
The document said such a reduction should be made in a "just, orderly and equitable manner so as to achieve net zero [carbon emission] by, before, or around 2050 in keeping with the science".
It also called for action to "accelerate efforts globally towards net zero emissions energy systems, using zero and low carbon fuels well before or by around mid-century".
If agreed by the almost 200 countries involved in the summit, the text would nevertheless be the first time a COP text referred to fossil fuels in such an explicit way.
What is COP28 and why should anyone care?
Talks about how to wean the world off fossil fuels are taking place in one of the globe's leading petrostates. Massive increases in green energy and who should pay will be up for discussion.
At a press conference in the wake of the release, summit president Sultan al-Jaber was hailing the draft as a significant strengthening of the global drive to cut emissions.
Dr al-Jaber called on delegates to show "even more flexibility" as they entered the final days and hours of negotiations while acknowledging that "gaps" remain on many issues between countries.
However, he insisted progress was being made.
'We will not sign our death certificates'
Despite the upbeat tone, leaders of countries pushing for a phase-out were deeply unhappy about the draft text released overnight.
Cedric Schuster, the Minister for Natural Resources and Environment in the Pacific Island nation of Samoa, was damning.
He said the draft text went nowhere near far enough and would risk undermining efforts to limit temperature rises to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
As a consequence, he said small island states like his own would be imperilled.
"If we do not have strong mitigation outcomes at this COP then this will be the COP where 1.5C would have died," Mr Schuster said.
"We will not sign our death certificates.
"We cannot sign on to text that does not have a strong commitment on phasing out fossil fuels.
"We have been asked throughout this process, what is at stake if these negotiations don't return a strong outcome that keeps 1.5C alive?
"How can you not understand it is our very survival that is at stake?
"This is why in every room our negotiators have been pushing tirelessly for decisions that align with staying under 1.5C of warming.
"That is why if parties continue to oppose the phase-out of fossil fuels and fossil fuel subsidies they must stop and question their own commitment to this process."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-12/draft-cop28-text-omits-fossil-fuel-phase-out/103216494
*****************************************************COP 28 is not a democracy
Reading the breathless Green coverage of the soon-to-be COP 28, the UN conference on climate change (CFACT is on the way!), I noticed a fundamental fallacy occurring endlessly. The analysts seem to assume that decision-making is democratic, such that what you need to pass a rule is a majority vote along the lines of Congress or Parliament.
The reality is extremely different. Every member Country has veto power. This dramatically changes what is possible. The analysts consistently miss this, especially by talking about possibilities that are, in fact, impossible.
A good example is a recent Washington Post article discussing the possibility that COP 28 will adopt a decision calling for the phasing out of not just coal but all fossil fuel use. They correctly report that some countries are all for this while others are strongly against it.
The presently crazy Biden U.S. is for it despite being the world’s biggest per capita user of fossil fuels. Russia is sanely against it as fossil fuel exports are their primary revenue source.
It is then consistently reported as a maybe yes, maybe no situation, like Congress debating a controversial Bill. The obvious reality is that absent a miracle, this measure has no chance whatsoever. It is, as the saying goes, dead on arrival.
An even better example is the ridiculous proposal from France and, again the U.S. that the member countries all agree to, somehow, stop the private financing of coal-fired power plants. Given that China and a number of big developing countries are betting their electrical future on coal this is clearly nothing more than political posturing. Even a miracle could not save this nonsense. But it is dutifully reported and analyzed as a real possibility. At least it is here in America and likely in France, too.
Wishful COP 28 thinking is not news nor analysis, but it fills the pages. The reality is that none of these big-ticket issues that we read so much about have the slightest chance of happening.
The one big issue where something might actually happen is loss and damage. But it will be small, hyped as huge.
Recall that at COP 27, there was reported to be a great advance, creating a Loss and Damage Fund. This is where the developed countries will pay the developing ones something toward their supposedly climate-caused losses and damages: crop losses and food damages, for example.
In reality, all that was created is a name, an idea if you like. A Committee was established to give, or at least propose, form and substance to this nebulous idea. That has not happened because the issues are overwhelming. After all, every county gets bad weather. The U.S. has said it will donate millions of dollars while developing countries are talking trillions.
However, this loss and damage concept is so vague that there is room for moving forward without being so specific or dangerous, that we start getting vetos.
For example, they might agree on where this little fund will be established. This is presently controversial but probably not a deal breaker because the developing countries want to see money moving.
Or they might all agree that the first, small funds go to the Least Developed Countries or maybe to the poorest Small Island States. This is a feel-good first step that makes the fund real. It carefully avoids the issue of who gets how much of them trillions.
This is how COP diplomacy works. Find little steps that everyone is willing to allow while pushing the big issues down the road. Then, report these small steps as big breakthroughs. Of course, there is truly serious green stuff going on, but that is at the national level. COPs are just a carnival.
So, as you watch yet another COP play out, keep in mind that the grand schemes endlessly reported and analyzed at great length are going nowhere fast. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Or as they say in Texas, all hat, no cattle.
Be amused, not angry.
https://www.cfact.org/2023/11/29/un-cop-28-is-not-a-democracy/
*************************************************COP28 fantasy shows emission targets can’t be reduced to zero sum game
The COP28 summit in Dubai has provided marvellous entertainment. It has illustrated the complete fantasy of so much Australian climate policy and debate for the past 20 years.
Holding it in one of the main oil-producing regions meant a couple of disagreeable collisions with reality. For the big energy producers just laughed out loud at the idea that they were going to eliminate fossil fuels.
The only people who believe that are climate activists. I don’t even think governments that say it believe it.
According to the Energy Institute Statistical Review for 2023, fossil fuels provide about 82 per cent of the world’s energy, which is about where it has been for a decade or more.
But right back to the Gillard government years, we in Australia were constantly berated for what laggards we were and how the rest of the world was switching en masse to renewable energy.
In fact, far from the Coalition years costing the nation by delaying necessary change, they gave us another decade to accumulate wealth. Being a late adopter of technology is smart when the technology in fact has not yet been invented. It’s still true that when the Coalition ran on energy policy it won elections.
The rest of the world was not decarbonising. China is responsible for 30 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. Sometime next decade its historic emissions will be so great it will be responsible for the lion’s share of historic emissions as well, so the essentially nonsense argument that the West caused the problem and therefore should pay disproportionately for its solution will not apply in any way.
But China has also dominated the market in manufacturing the hard objects of renewable energy – wind turbines, solar panels, electric vehicles. One reason China has such a price advantage in producing such products is that it uses cheap electricity generated by coal. That’s true, by the way, of all the consumer goods we buy from China too. The West deindustrialises to reduce emissions and all the same products are made by coal-fired electricity in China. China uses more coal than all other nations combined. China and India use two-thirds of all the coal used in the world.
Once on the ABC Insiders’ program I earned a passionate interjection by the normally well-mannered Annabel Crabb for saying a hi-tech coal-fired power plant would be a good idea in Australia (a position Malcolm Turnbull once advocated). No, she protested, coal was on the way out. The ABC audience was outraged at my pro-coal remark, as if I’d brought eye of newt and toe of frog, wool of bat and tongue of dog to a Salem witch trial.
What of reality? In 2022, increased demand for thermal coal in China, India and Indonesia more than offset the decline in demand in the US, the EU and Japan. So consumption of coal in 2022 hit an all-time high. So, too, did greenhouse gas emissions.
The US Energy Information Administration reports that on all its realistic scenarios, it expects greenhouse gas emissions to rise until 2050 at least.
I’m not arguing that this is a good thing. But every so often it’s worth trying to think of policy in the framework of reality. If you accept more or less the anthropomorphic warming idea, then you want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
But if it’s absolutely clear that the rest of the world is going to massively increase emissions, and that anything Australia does one way or the other will have no discernible effect on global warming, then it’s only reasonable that you temper the urgency of your efforts a bit. Still reduce emissions by all means, but not at any cost.
If that’s what Australia really wanted to do, it would focus on gas in the short term and nuclear in the long term, with a chunk of renewables thrown in as well. Gas replacing coal does reduce emissions. And nuclear in the long run gives you reliable base-load power forever at more or less zero emissions, after accounting for the emissions involved in constructing the power stations.
All of our current policy is based on fantasy. For example, you can’t have net zero plus immigration, and I want immigration.
The world is not moving to net zero. Where big reductions have occurred it’s in rich nations which, until now, have been willing to pay the massive subsidies renewable energies still need, and, more important, to pay for the back-up capacity you have to have for when renewables don’t work. And yet there’s more. They also have to pay for vast work connecting renewables to electricity grids.
According to one calculation, achieving net zero through renewable energy would require 80 million kilometres of new power lines, or wrapping the Earth 2000 times.
The Economist, a great supporter of net zero and green actions, dolefully reports in its latest issue on the commercial disarray in green energy and finance. The projects are so expensive that they are falling over, in both the US and Europe.
The S&P global green energy index, it reports, has fallen by 32 per cent across the past year while global stockmarkets have risen by 11 per cent.
The Economist doesn’t say it but what those figures represent is that even in rich countries the gobsmacking cost of moving to renewables is such that they are running out of the money to spend on that type of energy.
The Wall Street Journal recently listed a swag of indicators that point to what it calls “the collapse of the net-zero agenda around the world”. Among these: the EU’s green deal has essentially collapsed, with key elements impossible to be implemented; Britain has abandoned an electric vehicle mandate and has also embarked on new licences to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea; Geert Wilders, who repudiates climate action, won a slashing victory in the Dutch elections following regional election victory for a farmers’ party opposed to emissions restrictions in agriculture.
There are countless other straws in the wind. Argentina has just elected a president who rejects costly climate action. If Donald Trump becomes president he will do the same for the US, although even under Joe Biden the US is now the biggest producer and exporter of natural gas and in September produced 13.2 million barrels of crude oil a day, a record amount.
By all means reduce Australia’s emissions, but don’t send us bankrupt going at breakneck speed. And just occasionally acknowledge the reality in the big bad world.
***************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment