Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Coal and Houston

Expand Messages
  • mark r. johnson
    ... That s ironic, on a board devoted to clean and renewable energy, very much wanting to look toward the future, I earn the guru title for the most
    Message 1 of 25 , Jul 5, 2003
      --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Christie" <mchristi@f...> wrote:
      > Mark,
      >
      > I vote to give you the title of "HREG Coal Guru".

      That's ironic, on a board devoted to clean and renewable energy, very
      much wanting to look toward the future, I earn the guru title for the
      most traditional, dirtiest fuel in widespread use! But I am flattered
      anyway. In several ways it fits me. Like I have said, I am interested
      in all forms of energy, including the dirty ones because "we" the
      world have an obligation to find a way to clean things up.

      Being centered in South Texas, it is one of the few areas in the USA
      where it is easy to imagine *not* burning coal for energy. Wonder if I
      would feel better about coal burning if I lived in say, Ohio <g>.
      Probably not.

      Thank you -- Mark J.
    • mark r. johnson
      ... continuing ... problems ... Texas ... blow-by-blow ... but you ... Thanks Charlie for summarizing it for me. I am sincerely interested in studying what
      Message 2 of 25 , Jul 5, 2003
        --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, chasmauch@a... wrote:

        > This happened a long time ago - in the 1960s as I recall. It was a
        continuing
        > story in most newspapers in south Texas for several years about the
        problems
        > between SA, Corpus Christi, and other south Texas towns vs Coastal.
        Texas
        > Monthly did a detailed, feature-length article that gave the best
        blow-by-blow
        > description I know of. Don't know if their archives go back that far
        but you
        > might find it in a library.

        Thanks Charlie for summarizing it for me. I am sincerely interested in
        studying what Wyatt did wrong -- already I have learned that the Fort
        Bend County library has no books written about Oscar Wyatt or Coastal.
        Texas Monthly sounds like just the iconoclastic source to learn from,
        since nobody has written a book (have they?).

        Your summary sounds like it centers around natural gas (NG)
        shenanigans, and that coal and lignite use plays a role mainly as a
        way to avoid NG purchases. That is less far-out than my original
        impression, in fact easy to believe for a couple of reasons.

        Could the whole episode have been situated in the 1970's? Because the
        whole issue of NG not being in good supply, arose along with the
        energy crisis sparked by the 1973 Arab oil embargo (according to what
        I think I know). Along with the economic mis-allocation caused by
        Nixon's price controls, the world truly failed to understand the basic
        truth of energy supply and demand.

        Oil spiked in price and then fell to low levels. There were great
        worries about NG supply, and they created that multi-tiered system of
        price controls, "old" gas and "new" gas. In fact the world found it
        easy to believe we were running out of all sorts of resources, and
        lots of us believed the world was at a turning point. At the time I
        tended to believe it too, from 2003 I see a lot of the 1970's
        attitudes as the height of folly.

        One semi-unintended consequence of the NG rules was to spur
        construction of a number of new nuclear plants to provide replacement
        energy, including our own local STNP nuke. What you probably don't
        know is there were about SIX MORE nuke plants on HL&P's drawing
        boards, and I figure we got off lucky they weren't built. It was
        around the same era the root decisions were made to build the Parish
        coal plant and the Central Texas lignite plant which I accuse of being
        mediocre projects (keep in mind I could be wrong there). From that era
        we have Jimmy Carter's energy policies which have not worked out well
        in practice at all, including some expensive synfuel research and
        production projects.

        About nuclear projects: many were conceived and built in the 1960's
        and those had their problems with safety and reliability but their
        cost was reasonably low. During the 1970's construction costs zoomed
        for all sorts of construction projects including nuclear plants, so
        cost over-runs became legendarily huge. Our STNP was born in a year
        when damn near all the "good" nuclear engineers were already assigned
        to existing projects, so HL&P had the devil's choice between going
        with a second-string team of engineers from an experienced company, or
        with Brown and Root which had never done such a project before. They
        went with Brown and Root which in hindsight was a decision which cost
        them dearly.

        One thing to know about those years is the Houston area was growing
        very rapidly and there was genuinely a problem of having enough future
        generating capacity. They had to build something or else have their
        service territory reduced by the regulators (don't know if the PUC
        existed yet, but prior to the PUC there was a similar regulatory
        function centered around the cities). The choices were basically Texas
        lignite, non-Texas coal, and nuclear energy -- each would be one plant
        built, and each the first on a nontrivial learning curve for HL&P.

        The company's argument is like this: they had no choice but to design
        enough non-NG plants to replace 100% of their generating capacity, so
        the actual decision to go nuclear was sound. But they had no choice
        better than to use Brown and Root -- a decision which has been
        defended successfully in a number of legal challenges. I don't
        actually say HL&P made the wrong decision there, but suggest they
        might have needed a way to kill the project rather than persist until
        it cost about 10X its original cost estimate. To be balanced you
        cannot single out HL&P for poor decisions, since other companies
        building plants at the same time had similar cost overruns.

        Those awkward decisions of the 1970's came to a head during the
        1980's, when plants nationwide came to be finished at great cost, and
        utilities went to their regulators for enough income to pay the
        mortgages. In some cases the plants were *not* finished, ever, and
        still the companies needed to ask for rate hikes because they still
        had that mortgage on a huge project. They needed the cash flow badly,
        and a number of utilities had to endure cutbacks and dividend cuts
        after an unsympathetic public did the Monday Morning Quarterback
        analysis of the decisions of the 1970's.

        So to recap, what really happened after the panicky decisions of the
        Carter years? Rather than becoming nearly extinct as planned, NG only
        became cheaper and more plentiful -- throughout the construction of
        STNP, HL&P relied on forecasts of much higher NG prices just around
        the corner. While utilities could not legally build NG plants,
        non-utility generators had a huge legal advantage because they could
        burn it and force the utility to buy much of their electricity at
        prices representing HL&P's "next" plant on the drawing board (which
        NEVER WAS BUILT). So much non-utility supply became available, all of
        it burning cheap NG, that HL&P really didn't need STNP for electricity
        supply. But it was started, it was huge, and if they didn't finish it
        then HL&P would never get paid back its investment.

        All SORTS of important things happened which were completely contrary
        to forecasts made during the 1970's.

        Generally the Midwest utilities which wound up burning coal, ended up
        financially in great shape because they simply didn't get on the
        nuclear bandwagon. Those with non-growing population in their service
        territories, also ended up pretty well off because they were not
        forced to make hard choices where every choice was in hindsight, not
        the right one. But utilities building nuclear plants, had to endure
        many changes from the original design after Three Mile Island -- the
        regulators were paralyzed with uncertainty and indecision, and no
        amount of change orders seemed too much to ask. HL&P claimed that
        about 75% of STNP's cost overruns were to comply with mandated design
        changes while the plant was still under construction.

        Oh well, I seem to be going for a second crown as guru of nuclear
        energy on this board <g>. I really do enjoy reading accounts of the
        Oscar Wyatt follies, and hope you enjoy these too.

        Regards -- Mark J.

        P.S. Regarding conservation, I see the best way to effectively
        motivate that is to have the energy price go up, something which is
        clearly happening this year. If gas and oil worldwide are getting hard
        to find, then this will be more of a step change than a roller-coaster
        cycle. Higher prices will tip a number of renewable energy projects
        into feasibility. I don't see renewables growing into the majority,
        but we can share some pleasure at seeing them grow a lot from the
        present level.

        P.P.S. I am cheering at the technology of LNG imports. That is what we
        already know how to use, just price has been a limiting factor until
        the recent price rise. If NG prices stay where they are now, then LNG
        can emerge as an important source of supply -- from what I have read
        maybe 10-15% of the nation's NG needs, not 50-75%. At least NG in any
        form is cleaner than the majority of other fuels.
      • jclem412@aol.com
        For more information, I m sure there are many books and resources. Good idea. I can recommend the video tape, GIANT with James Dean - a wonderful synopsis of
        Message 3 of 25 , Jul 6, 2003
          For more information, I'm sure there are many books and resources. Good
          idea. I can recommend the video tape, GIANT with James Dean - a wonderful
          synopsis of TX oil. It is excellent. Also, read Blood & Money for more history of
          the Wyatt's. James Michener's TEXAS is also good. I'm sure many of these seem
          outdated for some of y'all but this is a start for you. Follow-up w/ the TX.
          Railroad Commission.

          I could use more suggestions too. ~ Diane Clemens
        • David Funk
          ... switched ... plant ... wrong ... no problem! mercy is granted! It s called pulverized coal firing and can be adapted to natural gas boilers with
          Message 4 of 25 , Jul 7, 2003
            --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "mark r. johnson" <mrj53@m...> wrote:
            > > Older folks will remember
            > > the details but anyway SA and some other south Texas towns
            switched
            > over from
            > > gas to coal and have been using it ever since.
            >
            > I guess by now I am one of the older folks, and this is specialized
            > knowledge that we *don't* all remember. Actually, I want to express
            > real skepticism that Wyatt was that influential in the building of
            > lignite/coal plants in Texas. One cannot "convert" a natural gas
            plant
            > to coal, as coal requires some elaborate and expensive machinery to
            > handle it. I try to stay aware of electric generating technology and
            > have never heard of a gas plant being converted to coal. If I am
            wrong
            > then please have mercy and point me to some education.
            >



            <GRIN> no problem! mercy is granted!

            It's called "pulverized coal firing" and can be adapted to natural
            gas boilers with 'minimal' modifications to the boiler itself.

            However, there is extensive, elaborate and expensive machinery
            required to stock pile the coal, move it to the pulverizer, then
            inject the very fine, finer than talcum powder, powdered coal, almost
            like an atomized mist, into the burner. Advantages are complete
            combustion, minimal to no ash. Sulfur in the flue gases can be
            treated by passing the flue gases through limestone creating gypsum
            and carbon dioxide. We know gypsum as sheetrock.


            David, CEO
            The GREAT Grand Funk Northern
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.