Throwing Good Money After Bad

The above expression has always struck me as a bit esoteric.  Its an expression I have seen and heard a lot and yet the meaning of it never quite seems to fit the words themselves. The best definition I have seen of this expression is as follows:  "To spend more and more money on something that will never be successful."  The best example I have seen lately of this expression comes, not surprisingly, from our friends in the coal industry. 

It seems that Kentucky Power Company, a privately held power company serving the eastern counties of Kentucky has proposed spending $980 million of the public's dollars in order to update its 800 MW Big Sandy Power Plant near Louis, Kentucky in order to meet the recent regulations on air pollution which are finally being enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

We have to admit that this is a good news/bad news type of story. The fact that coal-based utility companies are finally being held accountable for the tons of pollutants they have been putting into the atmosphere is a very good thing.  We are thrilled that the EPA is, at last, being allowed to do their job by the Obama administration given that they were completely hog tied during the administration of George W. Bush, the oilman. Still, nearly a billion dollars spent on a single power plant that will only be marginally less polluting after this is all done?  Isn't this a perfect example of throwing good money after bad, and in this case, a whole lot of good money?

I realize that a billion bucks probably is not what it used to be, but that's one thousand million dollars and that's still a pretty good chunk of change. Why isn't Kentucky spending that money on a renewable energy plant, either wind power or solar power, instead of trying to retrofit an old coal plant that has already seen too much use.  Kentucky has plenty of sun and given the incredible price drop in the cost of solar panels in the last couple of years Kentucky Power could build one heck of good solar power plant or wind farm for what its planning to spend to put lipstick on one very ugly pig! 

Solar has gone through an unprecedented decline in costs in recent years and solar plants are going up all over our country.  One big solar project currently under construction is the Topaz solar project in San Luis Obispo County, California.  This plant will be a 550 megawatt plant and will cost $1.2 billion to construct, only a little less than what Kentucky is proposing to spend just to clean up an already well aged coal plant.  The solar PV plant will put out no pollution, zero, have no significant environmental impact, will not contribute to global warming and will last at least 50 years.  When you look at all energy costs (see Dr. Paul Epstein's recent Harvard study on coal costs) the energy from a solar or wind plant will cost less than the energy from the coal plant. Moreover, solar photovoltaic plants are incredibly straightforward in design and require very few people to maintain them.  The maintenance costs alone would be a fraction of what they would be for a coal plant.   Wouldn't that be a better deal for the people of Kentucky!

The numbers are about the same if Kentucky were to look at building a modern Wind Farm instead of fixing an old coal plant.  Eastern Kentucky has plenty of wind resource.  A large wind farm could easily provide the same amount of electricity at less cost than coal. Costs for modern wind turbines have also gone under significant decline and the current cost of a megawatt of wind energy appears to be just a little over $1 million per megawatt.  That means that for a couple of hundred million less than they are now planning to spend to clean up the old coal plant Kentucky could have a totally non-polluting wind farm that would last much longer than a coal plant and produce the same amount of energy.  Once again, it would put out zero pollution, no contribution to global warming and could move Kentucky into the modern energy era. Once again, a better deal for the people of Kentucky!

There is a saying that there is nothing so powerful as an idea who's time has come.  I would like to believe that is true since renewable energy is definitely an idea who's time has come.  However, it may be the case that it has run up against an even more powerful force, the power of human inertia, the tendency of senseless humans to keep on doing what they have always done even when it no longer makes any sense.  The plans of Kentucky Power strike me as a perfect example of inertia.  They are going forward with spending massive amounts of public money on coal, even when coal no longer makes any sense, either for the people of Kentucky or the people on our planet. 

The time has come to realize that if we are really going to stop global warming we are going to have to do something about coal.  Coal is without a doubt the single biggest contributor to global warming.  It is not enough to build new solar farms and wind farms. If we are going to escape the ravages of a too warm planet, we must eliminate coal from our energy vocabulary.  To do that we have to stop throwing good money after bad and start replacing, not repairing, the thousands of coal-fired energy plants that are killing us and our planet.

True Costs

The last twelve months have been a critical and hopefully enlightening period in the energy world. It has been a period when the true costs of our current energy policies became abundantly clear. Let's take a quick look back at three events that occurred in the last 12 months which should impact our thinking about energy policy:

The Gulf Oil Spill

On April 20th in 2010 the BP oil platform called Deepwater Horizon which was drilling a well at about 5000 feet under the water erupted in a huge explosion which killed 11 men and seriously injured 17 others. Within a couple of days the well platform had melted and collapsed into the ocean. However, a piece of equipment called a blowout preventer which was supposed to cut off the oil flow in the event of a catastrophe such as this failed to work and oil began to spew from the wellhead. The preventer had never been tested at these depths.

For weeks, then months, the world was transfixed by videos showing oil pouring from the wellhead into the ocean. The amount of oil leaking from the well became a topic of much contraversy with BP, for obvious reasons, radically underestimating the true amount of the spill. At a minimum, according to the Department of Energy, the well was probably leaking around 2,600,000 gallons of oil per day and this went on from April until July 15th when the well was finally capped. The spill devastated the gulf fishing industry and covered more than 320 miles of coastline with oil slicks and tar balls. The cost of this spill is impossible to determine. To BP alone the combination of payouts, law suits and stock leases is estimated to be over $50 billion dollars. The impact on gulf fishing and tourism is estimated to be at least $4 to 10 billion dollars. Its hard to put a price tag on the ecological impact of the spill but millions of plants and animals were killed and hundreds of miles of coastline massively impacted.

San Bruno Pipeline Explosion

The 2010 San Bruno pipeline explosion occurred at 6:11 p.m. PDT on September 9, 2010, in San Bruno, California, a suburb of San Francisco. The accident occurred when a 30inch diameter steel natural gas pipeline owned by Pacific Gas & Electric exploded in flames in the Crestmoor residential neighborhood 2 mi (3.2 km) west of San Francisco International Airport near Skyline Boulevard and San Bruno Avenue. The death toll was eight people. It took more than 200 fire fighters to bring the fire under control. The ensuing fire destroyed more than 38 homes and seriously damaged many others. The fire damage was estimated at in excess of $38 million dollars. PG&E will probably be in court for years to come with law suits.

The Fukishima Nuclear Accident
On March 11, 2011 a devastating earthquake struck northern Japan followed by an even more devastating tsunami. The combination of the two caused massive failures at several of Japan's nuclear plants, particularly the coastal Fukushima nuclear plant. As of this writing four of the plant's nuclear reactors have experienced significant damage. At this time reactor number #3 is leaking significant amounts of highly radioactive water into the ocean and into the atmosphere. The radioactivity has already impacted food supplies in the region and has the potential to spread to huge populations in Tokyo. The Japanese nuclear program is one of the most well established in the world. The plants were built with a knowledge that earthquakes are frequent in the area and Japanese nuclear experts said the plants were built with multiple backup systems and could withstand anything nature could throw at it. The nuclear experts were wrong!

Considering True Costs

At Energy Bible we are constantly working to find accurate data which will allow consumers to make intelligent decisions about energy policy. It is often a frustrating process. Nearly all the data comes from some type of energy lobby and is designed to show that their form of energy, whether it be oil, gas, nuclear energy, solar energy, wind energy, etc. is the cheapest. Probably the most accurate data comes from the U.S. Energy Information Administration which has some good charts comparing different types of fuel for home heating, but the data is still pretty limited in scope.

The challenge is that understanding the real costs of energy alternatives is not simply a matter of looking at fuel pricing charts and traditional cost comparisons. Even the best government or industry data on energy costs doesn't begin to scratch the surface of the true costs of our addiction to non-renewable forms of energy. One of the images that has stuck in my mind from the recent nuclear disaster in Japan is from an interview NBC news did of a woman pouring through the rubble of what used to be her home town in Japan. The interviewer asked her what she was most afraid of, and despite the fact she was sitting in the midst of immense devastation, her fear wasn't another earthquake, it wasn't another tsunami, it was the fear of the unseen radiation coming from the Fukushima nuclear plant.

How do we put a price on that kind of fear? How do we put a price on the millions of plants and animals destroyed in the BP oil spill? How do we put a price on the fear of millions of homeowners in California who live near a PG&E gas line? I really have no idea but it seems to me we have to try. We have to find some way to take these things into account when we make practical decisions on energy policy both locally and nationally. We have to look at the true costs of continuing our current dependence on non-renewable energy!

Passion, Politeness and Politics

On Saturday morning (January 8) I was going through my normal morning routine of slowly dragging myself into consciousness with the aid of significant quantities of caffeine, and reading the morning paper. Two things in the paper that morning struck me. First was a quote from a top aide (an ex radio talk show host) to newly elected Representative Allan West of Florida. The aides quote was "If ballots don't work, bullets will". The idea that one of our Representatives would endorse such a point of view was shocking to me.

The news that morning also contained an article about the sad state of affairs in Pakistan where recently the Governor of Punjab, Salmon Taseer, was assassinated for having failed to support the blasphemy laws of Pakistan which basically allow any citizen to accuse another citizen of blasphemy against Allah and then have them summarily executed. What in many ways was even sadder then Taseer's execution was the reaction that followed it. The man who assassinated Taseer, Malik Qadri,, was then treated as a hero by radical Muslims throughout the country and the Pakistani press, in fear for their own lives, refused to counter it.

I think my reaction Saturday morning was probably typical of most Americans. I found the whole state of affairs in Pakistan sad and worrisome, but part of me thought, thank God that can't happen here. I was wrong. It can happen here and is happening here! By now most of you are aware that later that Saturday morning U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords, a federal judge and 17 other people were either killed or wounded by a clearly unstable man named Jared Loughner.

Following the assassination FBI Director Robert Mueller said "hate speech and other inciteful speech" presented a challenge to law enforcement officials, especially when it resulted in "lone wolves" undertaking attacks. He's right! I am constantly shocked by the vehemence and vitriol that is taking place in the media. From Fox News to MSNBC the degree of polarization and viciousness in the media is truly disturbing. We have experienced a little bit of it ourselves in some of the emails we get here at EnergyBible.com.

The primary purpose of our Web site is to inform the public about renewable energy. But we have never shied away from advocacy when we felt it was in the public interest. At times we have been strongly critical of the Republican Party for its positions on global warming and energy policy. At times we have been critical of the Obama administration for its opinions on the use of mythical "clean coal". Whether to the left or right we have always attempted to base our points of view on sound, scientific data and we have always encouraged our viewers to share their views both for and against.

The ability to engage in rational discussion of critical issues is at the heart of all successful societies. That is why the violent act this Saturday is so serious. I have no idea whether this particular gunman had viewpoints on the left or the right. It seems highly likely to me that the guy was just plain nuts. However, in the vast numbers of comments I have seen on the Web and in the traditional media, what no one seems to question is that public opinion in our country has become excessively vitriolic and vicious. So what are we going to do about it! Here are a few simple suggestions:

• Be Polite - There are few things that will do more to stop this nonsense than simply being polite to one another. If you take great care to listen carefully to those around you and avoid insulting anyone when expressing a point of view it will not only go over better but the person might actually listen to you the next time you have something to say.
• Be Truly Informed - Read a newspaper, better yet read several newspapers. Watch PBS and any other non-partisan news show you can find, though admittedly there are not many left. Avoid like the plague on both TV and the Web, Fox News, MSNBC and any other demagogic show masquerading as news. They are not there to inform, they are there to propagandize, and to make a whole lot of money doing it. If you know the opinion of a news source before you ever read it, don't read it!
• Be scientific- I could have said be rational but every crazy demagogue out there from Limbaugh to Beck to Olberman swear they are presenting rationale arguments. So when you can, follow the rules of the scientific method. Create a hypothesis, test it by getting objective opinion from multiple sources who have no stake in the outcome, and challenge all premises.
• Be Calm - Passion has its place, but when trying to develop a point of view on any critical issue, the odds of finding the correct answer are better if you set aside your passion and just try to work through the issue. If you can't avoid being passionate then be passionate about the process of getting the most accurate data from the most sources.

Those are my admittedly passionate recommendations!

Dan Daniel

Editor, EnergyBible.com