November 2007 - Sustainability

[Sustain] Price: Renewable vs Fossil - With Big Caution On Waste Methane
by Eric Brooks 03 Nov '07

03 Nov '07

This great information! I do have one big caution however on waste methane. Since the CO2 that would result from burning waste methane is persistent in the atmosphere for centuries longer than free methane itself, even though methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas, the resulting C02 will actually generate more global warming than that which would result from just releasing the methane directly into the air. So, we should not promote directly burning waste methane. Instead, we should capture waste methane, split it into hydrogen, and then either burn the hydrogen in fuel cells and/or pipe the hydrogen to communities for heating and cooking. cheers Eric Brooks posted by: rfreeh <rfreeh123(a)sbcglobal.net> The following assume private investors own the facilities. > > *Natural Gas Baseload:* depends heavily on the ever changing cost of > natural gas. For 24 hour baseload power from an existing power plant > this is roughly 6.5 to 7 cents/kwh. (The state contracts that were > signed during the energy crisis, and are still in effect, are for 7.3 > cents/kwh; at the time this seemed outrageous--today it doesn't look > so bad.) The price to build brand new natural gas plants has gone up > significantly, so natural gas fueled power going forward may range 7 > to 8 cents/kwh. (It was 3 cents only a few years ago--how's that for > sticker shock) This does not account for increasing future natural gas > prices or potential carbon assessments. > > *Natural Gas Peaking:* can range from 10 cent/kwh to over 50 cent/kwh. > > *Wind:* costs 7 to 9 cents/kwh, but is eligible for a 2 cent/kwh > federal tax credit. For this reason actual wind contracts were until > recently selling for as low as 5.5 to 6 cents/kwh. > > *Solar Thermal:* Mid scale (under 100 mw) central power generation > using the heat of the sun (not for your roof) would be 25 cents/kwh > (or higher if not placed in a desert region), but the federal > government has a generous tax credit of 30%, bringing the cost closer > to 16 to 18 cents/kwh. Building to larger scale would reduce the cost > signficantly, as will development of the technology and market. It is > very close to cost competitive with natural gas. > > *Photovoltaic:* so called "solar panels" of the type that go on > rooftops or anywhere else you want, on average ranges from 25 to 40 > cent/kwh in locations with clear access to the sky and plenty of > sunlight (most of California would count for the latter). The lower > range would be for larger scale systems, while the higher range > applies to smaller residential systems. Commercial developers can > bring the cost down significantly due to 30% federal tax credits, as > can the $3 billion in state rebates currently being offered in > California. Photovoltaics serve the peak energy needs, and thus also > fall broadly within the range of peak natural gas generation. How to > measure this precisely is hotly disputed between advocates and critics. > > If CCAs finance renewable facilities with bonds then the cost usually > drops significantly. Photovoltaics is an exception, but this can > partly be offset by bulk purchasing, economy of scale, and the ability > to influence site choice and design. > > Another factor is that natural gas generation is highly volatile in > price, while renewables tend to be relatively fixed in cost once they > are installed. That is not to say there is no risk from renewables, > but inherent and potentially violent price volatility is not one of > them. Mitigating fuel price volatility carries a real economic cost in > the form of a hedge (market insurance) premium. So this is not merely > theoretical. > > The California Energy Commission came out with a draft report for cost > of all types of electric generation; and it clearly shows that a > number of renewables (for example, geothermal, wind, solar thermal, > waste methane) can be cost competitive with natural gas if they are > publicly financed. Local Power has also demonstrated this in a report > we did for the Environmental Health Coalition. > > Hope I did not overload you with information here. > > Robert F.

1 0

[Sustain] Crucial SFPUC CT Hearing Video Finally On The Web
by Eric Brooks 02 Nov '07

02 Nov '07

Hi again, The three hour SFPUC Oct 19 Special Hearing on the CTs, in which we and Commissioners Sklar, Hochschild, and Normandy complete deconstructed and debunked the SFPUC staff's presentation on the CTs is -finally- on the City web site at http://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=22 Click on the hearing next to the date 11/1/07 to watch it. peace Eric Brooks Our City & SF Green Party 415-756-8844

1 0

[Sustain] 3 Point Media Message On CTs
by Eric Brooks 02 Nov '07

02 Nov '07

Hi again all, Now that this campaign is gearing up and becoming public, it will be very important for us to start using a tight media message that will get repeated over and over again in the press. It is very important that such a message be very short and contain no more than three very basic concepts. Here is my recommended message (please reply with improvements, especially if they will make it even shorter): First, here are just the titles of the three points, put together, which can be said out loud on their own if you only have 15 seconds. 1) Three Old Diesel Turbines At Mirant Are The Problem & Can Close Now 2) The New Plant Costs Hundreds Of Millions For The Same Pollution 3) Let's Just Replace -All- The Old Plants In 3 Years With Clean Energy Now the actual talking points: 1) The Utilities Commission says we need to build this new plant to close the older Mirant power plant. But if we shut down the 3 -really- dirty diesel turbines that make only 3% of Mirant's electricity, air pollution from the old plant compared to the new plant would be the same. 2) It makes -no- sense to spend 200-500 million dollars in public and ratepayer funds on fossil fuel plants that will emit the -same- pollution, and will actually do so -longer- because the contract for these plants lasts for decades. 3) The City's clean energy projects and environmental laws will let us close Mirant in just -three- years. We need to spend that 200-500 million dollars to build the clean energy now, not to build more polluting power plants. -- IMPORTANT - Main Rebuttal Point: Our opposition will respond with - "The CTs will only run for reliability, so they will pollute less." Our response is simple. "The Federal Energy Commission, California Utilities Commission and the California Independent System Operator are in charge of reliability, -not- San Francisco. Since Mirant is already running for reliability because those agencies demand it, they will still require the CTs to run just as much. - end - If you decide to use these points, print them out on a single sheet so you have them right in front of you when you talk to the press. peace Eric Brooks Our City & SF Green Party 415-756-8844

1 0

[Sustain] New Anti-Power Plant Organizing List
by Eric Brooks 02 Nov '07

02 Nov '07

Hi all, Because the campaign to stop the Combustion Turbines is heating up and we need to be able to very easily and quickly email and keep in touch with eachother, I have created a new email list for the STOPPP! (Stop Polluting Power Plants) coalition, and added you to the list. For the most part I and a couple of others are the only ones who have been copying the rest of you to keep you tied in to the campaign, so this list won't likely result in much crosstalk or spam. (SF Green Party Sustainability members, please note that I have added our working group to this list because the SFGP has joined the coalition and our involvement as a working group is very important to the success of the campaign.) So now all you have to do to contact everyone in our circle is to send one email or reply to the address: stoppp(a)our-city.org Note: I have not added public officials to this list, so if you want electeds like Kim-Shree Maufas (or others) to be kept in the loop, please email them a -separate- copy of specific emails. Very Important: Please do not post this email list address on any web page, blog, or web paged email group, because this would allow marketing spammers to copy it and send so much spam that we would have to change the list address. If you decide that you would prefer to not be on this list, send an email to me at brookse32(a)aim.com Thanks all, Eric Brooks Our City "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara

1 0

[Sustain] Update: SFPUC Passes Sham CT Resolution -Worse- For Bayview & The Planet
by Eric Brooks 01 Nov '07

01 Nov '07

Hi all, Yesterday's round in the Combustion Turbine (CT) battle was lost to the Mayor. The SFPUC Commissioners unanimously caved and voted to pass a resolution that ok's a sham deal just set up by Mayor Newsom that will make fossil fuel emissions and planet heating CO2 emissions worse for THREE decades longer than with the current Mirant plant, and spend hundreds of millions of public and rate payer dollars on 30 more years of fossil fuel investments when those hundreds of millions could instead be spent solely on clean renewable energy to replace Mirant within just a few years. The JPower CT deal will extend fossil fuel electricity use and grid dominance in San Francisco 30 years longer - directly competing with the Community Choice renewable energy project by gobbling up 200 megawatts of energy capacity and linked grid transmission line capacity that could have been given exclusively to the Community Choice renewables. So we have more work to do. Michela Alioto-Pier, likely side by side with Ross Mirkarimi, will hold hearings soon to develop a 100% clean energy alternative to Mirant and the CTs. We can help them get the Supervisors to vote for a clean energy solution. Lets roll up our sleeves and get to it. Here are the deeper details on why this CT deal is so bad.. Why The Deal Is Far Worse For The Bayview 1) Lower Smoke Stacks That Are Closer To The Neighborhood: The CT plant will have -much- lower smokestacks that will be four blocks closer to Bayview. This means that carbon particulates and smog generating chemicals will disperse much more directly and quickly to the Bayview, than the pollution that comes from Mirant. 2) At Least 13 More Years Of Pollution When Mirant Would Close On Its Own In 3 Years, Or Even Sooner!: Only the Mayor's office, the amazingly deceptive SFPUC staff, and Cal ISO could be so cynically clever as to convince us that the Bayview will get -less- toxic exposure if we set up a polluting power plant deal with JPower for at least 13 more years of fossil fuel generation in the Bayview, when Mirant's highly polluting diesels will be forced by the Clean Air Act, strong local activism, and lawsuits to close by 2009 or sooner. And the 206 megawatt Mirant natural gas turbine will be made obsolete by both the 360 megawatts of local renewables and efficiency that will be installed under the Community Choice energy project by 2011, and the 400 megawatt Transbay Cable which will be built by 2009. And if we don't waste hundreds of millions of ratepayer and taxpayer dollars on the CTs and instead spend that revenue on building even -more- renewables faster, those renewables will allow us to close Mirant's gas generator even sooner. Don't forget that clean water regulations will demand the closure of Mirant's natural gas plant by 2009. If we have enough renewables online by then, we can use those clean water regulations to sue for the immediate closure of Mirant! 3) Another Possible Toxic Gentrification Project Like The Lennar/Redevelopment Project: Mayor Newsom's office has been working hard behind closed doors to work out a deal with Mirant that will get their agreement to close. So we are about to enter into a for-profit real estate deal with Mirant on a currently polluted power plant site; and Health Dept. Director Mitch Katz was at the Board of Supervisors this week with the SFPUC staff claiming that this CT project deal will result in -zero- pollution... Sound familiar? 4) Fewer Jobs: Vastly fewer jobs will be created with the small scale four acre installation of three existing CT gas turbines, when we could instead immediately move to construct and install solar panels, wind mills, and efficiency projects all over the Bayview and the City. Under legislation being created by the Ella Baker Center and other groups, a -lot- of those jobs would come to the Bayview. Why The Deal Is Worse For Workers, Other Oppressed Neighborhoods, And The Planet 1) JPower Is NON-Union. 2) Polluting Other Workers And Neighborhoods: The JPower deal will install a Combustion Turbine at the SFO airport that will be allowed to run for commercial purposes until at least 2038! The pollution from that turbine will fill the lungs of workers at the airport and low income residents in neighborhoods near the airport. 3) JPower is in Burma! SFPUC Commissioner Normandy revealed yesterday that JPower has operations in Burma. The Board of Supervisors -just- passed a resolution directing the City to refuse business with any company doing business in Burma. 4) More Global Warming: Because the JPower CT project will run at least 10 years longer in the Bayview than Mirant, and for at least 30 years at the airport, the Planet will get decades more climate crisis amplifying CO2 and leaking methane (natural gas) much of it from inefficient and dangerous Liquid Natural Gas imported from overseas. The airport is about to install solar panels on its roofs. Why does it need a natural gas turbine..? 5) Less Solar And Wind: The 200 megawatts of CT fossil fuel power that will be in place for -decades- longer than Mirant, will reduce the need to switch immediately to a renewable energy infrastructure. 6) Higher Cost Energy: The world's supply of natural gas has peaked, and the price of natural gas will skyrocket and never go back down. So the CT project will rob us of millions more public dollars as it moves forward. Millions that could be spent on stable priced renewable energy instead. 7) The Worst Possible Message To A Fossil Fuel Addicted World: The entire world looks to San Francisco for innovative examples on energy and social justice. We would send the worst possible message to the world by building a fossil fuel power plant in our own city limits, at the very beginning of what must be a renewable energy century... The fight is not over. We can, and will, stop this travesty in the Board of Supervisors. I'll send an email soon about organizing. Please continue to join in! peace Eric Brooks Our City & the SF Green Party http://our-city.org 415-756-8844

1 0