Anthropogenic Global Warming . . . again

The part about the increase in coal generation in CA.

 

Not an increase, a continuation of coal use for California.​

Total Electricity System Power​

How can California use so much more coal than it burns in the state? A pretty simple loophole. They can import power, and it doesn't count the same way. The net effect of california importing power, coal impact iss probably is higher than the​

8.2% in 2011. That is because california public utilities also buy out of state low carbon electricity that counts towards there total, but these exporting states often build more coal, so they can export power to california​

​

Which makes you say, huh, if california were to produce enough power in state, than coal would automatically drop to the 1.6% produced in state and grandfathered into law. A regulatory regime that encouraged substitution of ccgt natural gas (the only type of natural gas power plant california allows) for imported coal electricity would reduce that coal pollution, and reduce ghg generation. Instead of that california passed AB32, which makes building natural gas plants more expensive and financially risky in state. ​

​

8.2% coal is much better than the bulk of the country, but california PUC makes it much easier to continue to buy coal electricity, than to build cleaner power in state.​

​

​

If California were to simply be neutral when it came to ccgt, then it would reduce pollution more in the utility sector, than its current policy. SCE would not be trying to turn back on San Onofre nuclear plant, which is one of the riskiest nuclear plants in america. It just wouldn't make financial sense if it had to compete with natural gas. Utility rates in California would likely go down also, but.... Owners of nuclear plants (SCE & PG&E), and owners of less efficient old thermal gas plants would lose.​

 

At a conceptually simple level, whatever would make a person in future indifferent to whether we burn the fossil fuels or leave them in the ground, would be a system dealing appropriately with externalities. One doesn't need to tax oil sands at all. The reason to tax them would be if they are creating costs for other people and not paying those costs.

Put another way, if YOU were personally liable for any and all damages caused by oil sands extraction, in perpetuity, up to and including harvesting your organs (and those of anyone else who benefited with you) to pay for those damages, what price would you be setting that oil at?

 

Here is where the problem lies. Not caring is not about externalities. There will be some that would still care at $1B/bbl.

Now there is pollution and health care externalities having to do with oil, as well as economic and national security issues. In our own back yard, the US can do a better job of handling environmental issues, but by taxing oil sands more than other oil it is likely that efforts increase externalities. Its a decission that we would rather have our neighbor Canada do its land pollution and ship the oil to China. It is a vote strengthening externalities of more reliance on OPEC, which hurts both economic and national security. I hope you can see the balancing act. If externalities include human rights and terrorism, these things must be priced well. Taxing and blocking oil sands also may in a longer run lead to more CTL, coal used for vehicle fuel, which is likely to cause even more pollution than oil sands. The best way to deal with these externalities of imported oil would be to tax all oil, and products made from oil. The taxes, and I agree with hansen here, should not just increase the size of government, but be used to reduce other taxes. The best place if externalities are about health would be to reduce the payroll tax for medicare, or rather help keep it solvent as it right now looks to be spending $2 for every one taken in.

Sure blame the consumer for poor government policy. Its likely I will be driving a wind powered plug-in in the next couple of years That is not an option for most though.

 

Not sure how you got there from what I said. Let me try again.

Imagine YOU are an oil company...
if YOU were personally liable for any and all damages caused by oil sands extraction, in perpetuity, up to and including harvesting your organs (and those of anyone else who benefited with you) to pay for those damages, what price would you be setting that oil at?

The point being, that the reason tar sands oil is not that price is because of shifting of costs from the oil company unto the taxpayers and the citizens (not even necessarily the consumers). Driving a wind powered plug-in isn't going to do you any good if 'most' ruin the world, or the economy, for you.

 

If I was an oil company, I would set the price at the OPEC rate The way to get oil companies to pollute less in extraction is through regulation and fines. Oil companies have lawyers and PACS, so its unlikely that an unconstitutional law could be passed against them. Since if the US boycotts oil sands, they will simply be sold to china, then the power to ask oil companies to be friendlier to the earth is hurt by a US boycott. Right now there not only isn't a boycott, there isn't any real pressure, and trucks bring the oil across the border.

Oil is fungable, which makes it really hard to stop one kind from being produced, if you are buying it. Take Europe for example, which put in regulations to use lower carbon oil. They ended up with worse price spikes. They still really are responsible for the higher carbon stuff, they just buy refined products from US refineries. If we tax a certain oil, then oil companies are very good at moving production to avoid those taxes. In the case of the oil sands, an extra tax higher than shipping costs would in a few years get the stuff shipped to China, and create jobs in Chinese refineries. This would then shift the US to more shipped opec oil, or maybe more drilling in the gulf and Alaska. The only way to reduce use of oil sands is to reduce global oil demand. That may mean higher oil taxes, and actually shifting some oil related jobs back to the US.

Even if the US doesn't use any oil from the oil sands, the impact will be there simply from oil use, unless we want to go to war against canada or china.

We can see some great examples of oil company behavior in both the oil price controls and windfall profits tax of the 70s and 80s. When the government controlled the price of US produced oil well bellow market rates, oil companies shifted to importing more foriegn oil. The price controls increased demand for oil, stimulating even more imports. In the case of windfall profits tax on domestically produced oil, again oil companies shifted to foreign production to avoid the taxes. Both policies hurt the country. The opposite policy may actually help the country.

Externalities should be non-political. I don't know how a rational person would think that externalities of buying the oil sands, would be higher than externalities of buying opec oil that china would have bought, and having china buy oil sands oil. The true externalities come from oil use, not its source.

When we are talking about externalities in pricing the idea is to shift the public to buy less of it. These are helps to the invisible hand of capitalism. Oil prices are controlled by a cartel in a world market. The only way to decrease the use of one type of oil in the long run is to decrease the use of all oil.

Totally agree that me shifting away from petroleum is not going to make a sizeable difference. I was just pointing out that it is an individual act that we can make. A higher per barrel oil tax would help the invisible hand move more people to that choice.

 

This situation has occurred many times throughout history. The answer is the price is increased to pay for the extra legal fees necessary for the company to continue to operate. My favorite (mentioned before) is how early Mississippi rivership companies were declared responsible for all deaths caused by boiler explosions. Increased steamship explosion liability did not change anything...fare prices just went up to pay for legal liabilities. Eventually the local governments instituted a boiler requirements (relief valves) and inspection boards for steamships. Then the problem went away.

 

You said an increase in harmful emissions via an coal plant usage. And that's only going to happen if we use more coal in state

​

The facts show the opposite...
Electricity Forecasts

Since AB32 was passed in 2006, the electricity generated by coal has dropped 25% in CA.​

​

​

Again, the facts show the opposite has happened. Electricity production from coal has dropped since 2006. Very few new coal plants are being built, and many more are being phased out.

​

​

​

Poor poor natural gas. California is always beating up on it. If it wasn't for good old nat gas, astroturfers like you wouldn't have jobs roaming around the internet posting about how coal saved the forest, oil saved the whale, and AB32 caused more electricity to be generated from coal even though coal use is declining at the state and national level.

And the worst part? Those darn renewables are doing their darnedest to prevent the world from roasting alive via the best fossil fuel ever, Nat Gas!

 

Too bad the steamship companies didn't just invest in the politicians' campaigns...

But I am talking about PERSONAL responsibility. As things stand, company responsibility is a joke.

 

Austingreen, I am giving up on trying to communicate with you. NO offense, but it doesn't seem like what I think is making in any way into what you think I think. Even things upon which we agree aren't being communicated.
Thank you kindly.

 

Cheers sorry about that.

Many people perceive that if we cut off the oil sands from importing to america, that the canadians will stop producing oil from them. Alternatively others seem to believe if we build the keystone pipeline then the price of oil will go down. The price is set by a cartel, not the US or China, the big customers. Put in large cruel and unusual punishments for US corps from importing, and A) Foreign corps like chinook or BP will produce and send the oil to the US or china.

The idea of cruel and unusual punishment is unconstitutional. The US doesn't even look interested in prosecuting BP executives for criminal premeditated negligence for the gulf spill, when there is some pretty clear evidence. I am assuming what you really meant is that the US should ban import of the oil, not create some crazy new laws.

What would be the effect? Not much in the price of oil, Canada might produce a little less and Opec a little more to keep supply at their target price. This would be a wealth transfer from Canada to Opec countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran. Canada would ship the oil to china, creating some refinery jobs in China, instead of pipeline jobs and refinery jobs in the US.

How about pollution? I doubt that air and water pollution would change much in Alberta. According to environment canada air pollution is about the levels as a city like Toronto, much lower than LA or Houston. Water pollution is more troubling, and this is a failure of regulation in Canada. The water pollution seems much lower than water pollution stemming from mountain top removal in the US. According to the US government well to wheels oil sands produces about 17% more ghg than conventional crude. Say the shift caused about 10% of the US oil use to be opec oil instead of Canadian, that would be a drop of 1.7% in US oil based ghg emissions compared to business as usual.

I think you and I agree that canada should be doing more to reduce water pollution in this oil production. It will be creating this pollution whether the US buys the oil or china. I don't think the US as a country has any standing to boycott this oil on that account though. We can't even stop mountain top removal in this country. I think you also agree that this practice should be stopped.

Which brings us to externalities. Almost all the exteralities have to do with burning the oil. If you tax the oil enough to reduce its use oil 2%, you will be doing more to reduce the ghg externality than boycotting oil sands oil. Forbes seemed to think about $20/bbl would do much more than this. Going in a slowly rising $50/bbl would actually reduce the cost of cafe standards compliance, as buyers would be willing to pay more for the more efficient cars anyway. If you use the tax money to offset other taxes you reduce the risk of creating other externalities like unemployment.

IMHO those that seem to want to stop importing oil sands seem to have some wishful thinking that the US is the only customer that matters. We live in a global economy, and its not our oil. We can try to lead by example by using less. Or we can try to tilt at windmills.

 

Wth? In all my years reading discussions on climate change and energy on forums around the Web, this is probably the first intelligent discussion I've seen. Not an ad hominem attack in sight. Just commenting. I don't want to hijack your discussion.

 

This is a game politicians like to play. If the coal is not burned in the state, but the coal is burned to provide power to the state, it just doesn't count. If we manufacture a widget in china instead of california, and the chinese produce twice as much ghg producing and shipping said widget, the state wins because even though the widget is still produced and used, it is getting used somewhere else.

It is an increase versus what would happen in a business as usual case. The law helps continue the out of state pollution. I am sure that if the federal cap and trade on ghg was enacted, people would claim the reductions that have happened because of the switch to natural gas from coal from business as usual were part of the law.

The facts show the oposite only if your eyes are wide shut compared to what would have happened if there was proper regulation instead of the law that was passed. More natural gas would have been built instate, there would be more grid infrastructure, and less coal and natural gas would have incurred transmission losses being created out of state. The reduction of coal instate had nothing to do with AB32, it had to do with other PUC regulations that like regulations in other states helped allocate pollution to coal costs and shut them down because they were not economically viable.

This is the note from your link, which clearly shows that they think imported coal is undercounted today.

You will note that a lawsuit in 1998 brought about closing the Mohave Generation Station in Nevada in 2005. That plant was a major polluter of the grand canyon.

This isn't about pushing a natural gas agenda, its about actually regulating well.

In california, they have decided to import coal and natural gas power, instead of building enough power in state. It would be great if they would build enough clean power, what ever that is, but it does not look like they are doing that. By choosing to count differently for out of state versus in state, they are increasing not only ghg, but mercury, particulates, SO2, and NOx. I'm sure you don't really want that do you?

Obviously you have failed to watch or understand the video, and I am sorry for your ignorance. My family has actually been involved with reforestation, and I would think has a deeply negative carbon foot print.

We should celebrate that coal use has been going down. It just would have been going down faster if it was not for poor regulation.

Did you actually look at california's renewable useage since 2006? 2006


Renewables
30,514
1,122
579
32,215
10.9%

Biomass
5,735
430
120
6,285
2.1%

Geothermal
13,448
0
260
13,708
4.7%

Small Hydro
5,788
448
0
6,236
2.1%

Solar {1}
616


616
0.2%

Wind
4,927
244
199
5,370
1.8%


2011
Renewables

33,244​

16.6%​

5,398​

2,751​

41,393​

14.2%​

Biomass

5,777​

2.9%​

419​

-​

6,195​

2.1%​

Geothermal

12,685​

6.3%​

-​

574​

13,259​

4.5%​

Small Hydro

6,130​

3.1%​

6​

-​

6,136​

2.1%​

Solar

1,058​

0.5%​

29​

130​

1,217​

0.4%​

Wind

7,594​

3.8%​

4,945​

2,047​

14,585​

5.0%​

The biggest increase was from importing wind energy from out of state. Let me repeat that. AB32 did not cause a big increase of building renewables in california.

It would be great if the policies did increase renewables. It would be even better if renewables replaced coal. A quicker step is for natural gas to replace coal, then at the same time to draw down natural gas burning by adding renewables.

 

What are the two different percentages in the later table?

 

Sorry my cut in paste lost formatting. Here is 2011
Total Electricity System Power
Columns are california GWH, percent of generation in California, Northwest imports to california, Southwest Imports (GWH), Total use genertion + Imports in california, percentage used in california.

Here is 2006
2006 Gross System Electricity Production

It leaves out the second column in 2011.
You will also see the footnote over coal in 2006. It gives a strange accounting for what counts as in state, and subject to state regulation and out of state and not. 2007 shows a shift in accounting and increase in imported coal electricity.
Total Electricity System Power
In 2009 we have anouther change in accounting with some of the coal labeled as other
2009 Total Electricity System Power
This makes it look like coal dropped, and it may have, we don't know, but it did not drop to this extent. What happened is if a california utility did not have a contract specifying coal it was counted as other. It gets counted as other even if the only way to satisfy the contract is coal.

Most of the strange details don't matter that much.

Some of the coal California was importing was shut down because of lawsuits. There have been accounting changes to not specify coal if a california utility did not specifically have a contract for coal. One good regulation adopted is that California utilities can no longer create new contracts specifically for out of state coal, but they do not need to drop coal either, and many contracts extend out for 20 more years. The biggest coal user percentage wise is LADWP at 44%. LADWP is likely to end its contracts early, not because of AB32, but because politically it is loser, and the current mayor promised to reduce coal in the election. These contracts were written with clauses that allow LA to opt out. Hansen has chimed in on AB32, and thought it would not do much of anything to reduce ghg in California, but would transfer wealth. With all these coal accounting changes is there any question that its not about reducing ghg when it comes to oil or coal power plants. A pretty simple oil tax would work on gas and diesel, and California will have the highest gas tax in the country when new rates change in July. Utilities would stop importing coal right away if out of state coal electricity had a 2 cent/kwh surcharge. Those things might even help renewables and ccgt to be built in the state. The bankers, politicians, lawyers, and utility executives would not make as much money though if people were allowed to keep more of it. A complicated, likely to fail system was created, when a simple one could have been done.

 

How much is CA power (roughly speaking as a state overall average - Don't need a long answer) and why is it so much? Looking at the data, I don't see anything showing why it would need to be higher than most other regions.

 

Lots of people is why it uses that much electricity.

http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA
14 GWH of electricity in February the most recent month EIA reported.

 

Whoa. There you went and answered the question I asked. (When will I learn to ask the intended question?? It's like I asked why does a heavier person weigh more.....) I actually meant to ask why the price was higher, not the consumption.

 

Sorry, it costs more because of the regulation. Most of the bad regulation, was called deregulation and was started by republican Pete Wilson, and continued by democrat Grey Davis. Bipartisan bad regulation greatly raised the price of electricity, and Davis locked in high rates with long term contracts. I believe some of these contracts end about 2021. Building too little power instate also has an impact to increase rates.

Most of the bad politics ended with Davis being thrown out in favor of the governator.

Some references for hindsight
NAE Website - The California Electricity Crisis: Lessons for the Future
THE ENERGY CRUNCH / A YEAR LATER / State's deregulation folly is no laughing matter / Consumers face inflated bills for years for failed electricity plan - SFGate

Currently there are some additional costs like san onofre being down for botched maintenance, and large amounts of power imported because not enough is built in California. 10 years from now with proper regulation california could have lower power prices than much of the country.