Denver Mariott – IGCC: Asking the Hard Questions
February 5th, 2007
Not to be confused with “IGCC: Essentials for Utility Leaders” at the Denver Mariott!!!
IGCC: Asking the Hard Questions
Can Coal Ever Be Clean?
Monday, February 12, 2007
Denver Marriott City Center, 1701 California Street
Downtown Denver
10 a.m. to 8 p.m.
FREE & OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
Please join Ratepayers United of Colorado (RUC) and Clean Energy Action (CEA) for an educational seminar to look at the many unanswered questions regarding Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) or so-called clean coal. No charge.
10:00 to 11:00 a.m. IGCC What Does It Really Cost?
Carol Overland, Esq. – Attorney for Mesaba (Minn) Plaintiffs on IGCC
11:00 to 11:45 a.m. IGCC: You Want to Do What to My Mountains?
Scott Gollwitzer, Esq. – Appalachian Voices
12:10 to 12:30 p.m. Press Conference with Hunter Lovins and All Speakers (Open to the Public)
12:30 to 1:15 p.m. KEYNOTE SPEECH: Fossil and Nuclear Free, Can We Do It?
Hunter Lovins, Internationally Known Speaker and Author, President Natural Capitalism, Inc.
1:30 to 2:10 p.m. IGCC: What Can We Learn From Present Coal Plant Campaigns?
Mary Jo Stueve, Clean Water Action and Big Stone II
2:10 to 2:30 p.m. IGCC: What Do We Know About Money, Politics and Fossil Fuels?
Elena Nunez, Colorado Common Cause
2:45 to 3:45 p.m. IGCC: What Will We Do With All that Carbon Dioxide?
Alison Burchell, Geologist – Carbon Capture and Storage Specialist
3:45 to 4:45 p.m. If Not Coal, Then What?
Concentrating Solar Power for Carbon Free, Baseload Generation
Leslie Glustrom – Clean Energy Action
4:45 to 7:00 p.m. Open Question and Answer session.
7:00 to 8:00 p.m. IGCC: Is it Worth the Risk?
Panel Discussion: Carol Overland, Scott Gollwitzer, Mary Jo Steuve,
Alison Burchell and Leslie Glustrom.
For more information, please contact Nancy LaPlaca at nancylaplaca@yahoo.com, or 303-588-3937.
Ratepayers United of Colorado and Clean Energy Action are dedicated to promoting non-polluting, renewable resources for our energy needs and building an energy infrastructure that will minimize problems for future generations.
February 5th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
YOu need someone to provide some balance?
February 7th, 2007 at 9:35 am
There is critical information missing from this program and I’m NOT talking about utility perspective. I am talking about economics, basic power supply v. demand and engineering. I am THE biggest proponent of renewable energy you will encounter. The bottom line is that renewables can’t get it done right now. Especially, when you try to build a wind farm and then, oh, what’s that? It’s NIMBY. Solar is great but is feasible in a fraction of the U.S. Colorado has been fortunate enough to see political and financial backing for new solar and wind power recently but this in not the case in most of North America. When EVERYBODY installs new ultra-energy efficient appliances in there homes, goes totally off grid with solar roofing and DG, and rides their bike to (yeah, even the light rail runs on…you guessed it COAL!) the Marriott on Monday/Tuesday then let them cast stones.
Tah tah
Eric Brown
February 7th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
I totally disagree. As does GRE which is doing a wind/gas combo to utilize transmission infrastructure and reservations. As does Xcel which is fulfilling its baseload requirements with a wind/hydro combo.
Economics? That’s what the Mesaba proceeding is all about. It’s a cost docket, where Excelsior is trying to force a PPA on Xcel to by overpriced power that they don’t need.
Cost? $2,155,680,783 for a 600MW plant, $3,593/kW. That’s competitive with Solar. The Dept. of Commerce analysis found it by far the most expensive option, and that’s without CSS factored in (which isn’t happening anytime soon according to the DOE).
Economics — $3,593/kW. That’s why AEP went back to the drawing board.
See ya in Denver!
Carol
February 7th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Is it possible to build 600 MW of reliable solar in MN? I haven’t seen anything that supports that. I haven’t seen anything to support the development of enough solar to meet baseload anywhere except maybe in small areas of the SW. I reference solar because it is the only alternative referenced in your program. The wind/hydro program you reference is mainly imported hydro from Canada with a minimal investment in domestic wind.
Please keep my statements in context. I mention that your program needs an economist. I never mentioned that IGCC is the most economical alternative for power gen. Forcing ratepayers to subsidize experimental projects is in my opinion not right. However, this isn’t about opinions.
February 7th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
I’m just a small part of this, I’m doing the cost section based on what we’ve learned in MN, particularly the Commerce analysis and EPRI Texas Feasibility study. The costs of IGCC are difficult to address because utilities (Excelsior, NRG in DE) are working hard to keep the info “non-public” so I’ve made the effort to find public sources, but know that the numbers in the Mesaba project are MUCH worse than the public info. Commerce, Xcel and Minnesota Power use the Mesaba cost info that my clients dug up in DOE records — I’m not making it up, despite the extreme nature of the $2,155,680,783 cost of 600MW! That’s the DOE figure. $3,593/kW is way beyond all other generation except solar and it’s very close to solar!
My “solution” is to site wind at every natural gas plant to take advantage of the transmission infrastructure and transmission reservations — wind primary and kick in the gas only if needed. We’re doing that and utilizing the infrastructure, but the contractual arrangements to make wind primary and natural gas only when necessary hasn’t been worked out, but that’s what Dog gave us lawyers for! We can do it. Minnesota needs can easily be met. Remember, in the MAPP region, they’d been overestimating need in anticipation of nuclear relicensing, that’s through legislature, and so utilities are back down to earth, as the NERC report shows, we’ve got plenty of generation and adequate transmission, and we’ve OVERBUILT. It’s the 70’s all over again. IGCC now is as nuclear was in the 70’s — check Komanoff’s Power Plant Cost Escalation — an economist who well knows…
Solar has its uses — here in Minnesota PV should be on the top of every big box and every public building, that would cut enough peak off to keep us from needing any more way beyond that 2015 Xcel need. And simple passive solar heat should be on the wall of every house in the state. It’s so cheap and easy that even I can do it, yesterday I committed to getting it done and it’ll pay for itself in the first year.
We sure don’t need IGCC at $3,593/kW, and we sure don’t need IGCC on the government dole. If I am spending that kind of capital on generation, I want to spend it very differently.