Report claims new coal plant will lead to higher rates

Posted to: Business News Virginia

An environmental coalition today will launch the first serious attack on Old Dominion Electric Cooperative's proposed coal-fired power plant in Surry County.

A report, to be released today by the Wise Energy for Virginia Coalition, which includes five environmental groups, argues that consumers who receive power from Old Dominion will pay more for electricity from the coal plant than they would with the use of renewable energy and efficiency programs.

The environmental coalition commissioned the study by Synapse Energy Economics Inc., an energy research and consulting firm based in Cambridge, Mass. The report concluded that rising construction expenses, economic uncertainty and the costs of controlling carbon dioxide emissions will lead to unnecessarily high electricity rates for consumers who depend on Old Dominion for their power.

The cooperative has proposed to build what would be the state's largest coal plant in the town of Dendron, about 50 miles west of Norfolk. Cypress Creek Power Station would cost up to $6 billion and generate as much as 1,500 megawatts of electricity.

"The confluence of factors described in this report make it unlikely that investment in a new coal-fired facility at this time of regulatory uncertainty and increasing costs will be the lowest-cost option for customers," the report's authors wrote. "This is especially true given the project's $6 billion estimated construction cost, the likely costs of complying with federal regulation of CO2 emissions, potential structural changes in the natural gas market leading to lower prices, both current and long-term, and the availability of low cost energy efficiency."

Old Dominion is owned by 11 mostly rural electricity cooperatives in Virginia, Maryland and Delaware. Those cooperatives buy electricity from Old Dominion and deliver it to their members, including those in A&N Electric Cooperative's territory on the Eastern Shore and in Community Electric Cooperative's area west of Hampton Roads.

The environmental groups are hoping the economic argument will convince Old Dominion and other utility companies to stop relying on a fossil fuel that causes pollution and depends on mining practices that damage the landscape. Based on the report's findings, they argue that a combination of energy-efficiency efforts, wind turbines, biomass energy from wood materials and cleaner natural gas-fired plants would equal Cypress Creek's output but would cost ratepayers 1.7 cents to 4.5 cents less per kilowatt hour.

"Electric utilities are stuck in an old way of thinking," said Tom Cormons, who directs the Virginia office of Appalachian Voices, a member of the Wise Energy coalition. "It's useful to make a financial case, which to a growing extent reflects the environmental reality."

Old Dominion officials have argued that coal is the best source for generating enough baseload power - electricity that is constantly available - to meet growing demand in its territory. Renewable options such as wind and solar power are not reliable, they have said, and energy-efficiency programs cannot reduce usage enough to offset growing demand.

"It is still the least-expensive way for us to make sure we have the electricity we need and at an affordable price," said Jeb Hockman, Old Dominion's spokesman.

The technology to capture and contain carbon dioxide emissions remains far from developed, leaving Old Dominion without a viable method to reduce the 14.6 million tons of carbon dioxide each year that it projects the plant will produce. With the expected implementation of President Barack Obama's "cap-and-trade" program, which would limit carbon emissions and require companies to pay for their pollution, Old Dominion and its customers would end up with a hefty tab, the report said.

The report also questioned the cooperative's assessment of growing demand and the need for a plant of the proposed size of Cypress Creek.

Old Dominion has factored the costs of cap-and-trade requirements and carbon controls into its projections for Cypress Creek, Hockman said. "We still feel like it's very economically feasible and makes a lot of sense."

Carolyn Shapiro, (757) 446-2270, carolyn.shapiro@pilotonline.com

COMMENTS ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here; comments do not reflect the views of The Virginian-Pilot or its websites. Users must follow agreed-upon rules: Be civil, be clean, be on topic; don't attack private individuals, other users or classes of people. Read the full rules here.
- Comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the report violation link below it.

The Surrey site was built

The Surrey site was built with adding more nuclear reactors I thought. Is there a distribution reason why the goal is to build coal plant? I'd prefer nuclear.

Coal is ridiculous

Build another nuclear plant. It's clean and it's safe. I was on Nuclear submarines for years, and recieved less radiation that a person would recieve in a day in Denver Colorado!

Nuclear reactor = Big Water heater! Clean energy. Coal is inane.

You're still stuck

Renewable sources would be cost competitive if they received half the subsidies that fossil fuels currently receive. Once the collection and storage systems are developed, the sources are free as long as the sun shines and the wind blows.

They are competitive which is why there has been a major expansion of wind power in the US. You're still stuck with the 15% rule since you can just shut down the power grid when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. Where's the other 85% coming from?

Hmmm

me thinks the environmentalists are just spouting off. Since th Power Company is supposedly so greedy and wants more and more money. And IF renewable energy were in fact cheaper to produce and meet the demands, don't you think that power companies would already be using such methods? I mean after all, they spend less to make the power, which means they make more profit off what they already charge. Good grief.

For most of the year this

For most of the year this plant will be dumping its load of toxic pollutants over the Peninsula, South Hampton Roads, the Chesapeake Bay and the Eastern Shore. Another nail in the coffin driving us to an EPA designated non-attainment area. That illustrious designation will mandate tail pipe emissions testing and other government controls on your life. Also, where to put the fly ash? Maybe build another golf course.

Many so-called environmentalists don't want us to have power...

of any kind--that's their real goal. The assertion that "Once the collection and storage systems are developed, the sources are free as long as the sun shines and the wind blows." isn't accurate. Many solar powered systems use extraordinarily high amounts of fresh water for cooling. Those located in desert regions take the limited water supplies from citizens, agriculture and farming. Solar systems need maintenance and wind systems require even more maintenance. As far as subsidies: coal-44cents/megawatt hour of power produced; nat gas-25cents; nuclear power-$1.59; SOLAR subsidy-$24 per hour; WIND-$23; “CLEAN COAL”-$30 per hour. The subsidy argument is bogus and fits in with the agenda of those who want us living in tents again, dipping water from the stream and using makeshift outhouses--while they live in luxury and laugh at us peons. This is all about control and has little to do with the environment.

Cost analysis

Coal is only cheap if you exclude all the hidden costs: government subsidies at all stages of production, the cost of cleaning up environmental disasters from toxic fly ash, health costs (black lung disease, asthma exacerbated by air pollution, and prenatal brain damage due to mercury), and the costs of the long term effects of global warming.

Energy efficiency is the cheapest, safest, cleanest, fastest way to improve our energy use. Reducing demand costs much less than increasing supply.

Renewable sources would be cost competitive if they received half the subsidies that fossil fuels currently receive. Once the collection and storage systems are developed, the sources are free as long as the sun shines and the wind blows.

There is no one solution; it will take a combination of multiple solutions to achieve energy independence and sustainability.

Incidentally, an article in the paper Sunday said that China is becoming a world leader in the production of wind turbines so they won’t be dependent on imported coal.

None

NO Nuke plants!!!!!

No Coal Plants!!!!!

No Nat Gas Plants.!!!!!

Just sit around in the dark and scratch.

.

Continued...

China has to be laughing at the "Green" movement in the US. The United States is the "Saudi Arabia" of coal. It is everywhere, and it is cheap. We won't use it, and thus China gets to buy it at a cheaper price (supply and demand...) to burn in their less-efficient power factories.

Wind/Solar is fine if you want to use it to augment power for your farm/community, etc. But, it is not the answer to our future power needs. That is a pipe dream. The real answer to our current and future power needs has been around for over half a century - clean, (incredibly)efficient, and SAFE nuclear power. In the mean time, lets use the energy that is literally under our feet - coal. It's everywhere, and it's cheap.

People need to wake up and face reality.

If you want to know where

If you want to know where this leads, you only have to look to California. In California, environmental groups are/were presenting the same road blocks. The power plants still haven't been built, and California ends up buying power from other states. But it isn't enough, because they still end up with rolling blackouts.

So, the bottom line is that they end up paying more for power, and still not getting enough.

In PA, they convinced at small community to let them build wind turbines on a mountain ridge, with the promise of reduced power costs (oh, and saving the world at the same time - bonus!). The turbines were installed, and now people pay MORE for power. Why? Because they had to add extra "fees" to offset initial costs and maintenance. And this is on top of the MANY gov't subsidees already put into wind/solar.

For anyone who thinks wind/solar is the answer, tell me this: How well will a solar power work in Seattle, WA? How about the fact that Texas had rolling blackouts last year because of a "wind drought?" Drive by a wind farm and notice how many wind turbines are actually spining. Couple that with the fact that there is still no reasonable way to store

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Please note: Threaded comments work best if you view the oldest comments first.

More articles from: Business rss feed    News rss feed   



Toolbox


Partners

 

special features