Thomas F. Farrell II -- the chairman, president, and CEO of Dominion Resouces -- has given another one of his peculiar speeches touting outdated 19th Century technology (burning coal) as the answer to America's energy future in the 21st Century. In a Dec. 3 keynote address to the 2008 PowerGen Conference in Orlando, Florida, titled Realistic View of National Energy Challenge is Needed, Farrell II painted those who are calling for a rapid shift to a low-carbon economy as enemies of electricity:
The need to defend electricity comes up several times. Worse, in a 3,500 word speech that was ostensibly about a realistic view of the nation's energy challenge, Farrell II managed to avoid saying the word wind even once. His single mention of solar (which is rapidly emerging as a cost-competitive challenge to coal), was in a joke about a "Midwestern utility colleague" who said his customers would be happy to have "90 percent of their electricity produced by solar power… and the other 10 percent could be beamed in from the moon."End our dependency on foreign oil in 10 years?
One hundred percent clean energy within 10 years?
Failing an extraordinary and unexpected breakthrough in technology, these are impossible goals. These proposals seriously harm the debate because they distract people from the reality of where we find ourselves.
We are going to have to defend electricity by dispelling such illusions, not by flinching when we are confronted by them.
He also made no mention of global warming and only once mentioned climate change in a passing reference to "rising public interest" in the phenomenon.
But Dominion customers and shareholders who worry that Farrell II is either deliberately blowing smoke or woefully ill-informed (or both) can put their hearts at ease:
I live on this planet. My family lives on this planet. We all worry about the environment.Well, at least we have that in common.
Posts
4 comments:
What Mr. Farrell does understand is that it would be nearly impossible to convert the US grid to an all renewables system even if inexpensive energy storage technologies were on the shelf. The climate activists have not come to terms with the scope/cost of the task or the technologies (e.g., nuclear to replace coal for baseload) that are currently available.
Thanks for the info. I'm very interested in energy issues, so I try to keep myself informed on the latest advancements in these areas. One thing you mentioned I'd love to hear more about.
"His single mention of solar (which is rapidly emerging as a cost-competitive challenge to coal)"
I'm curious about this rapid emergence - not only on cost competitiveness, but baseload availability. Could you name any solar project that is capable of producing 1000 MW of electricity 24/7? What's the life-cycle cost per MW?
Mike - Thanks for this interesting question. For a new and well informed discussion of the feasibility of base-load solar, see this new working paper by my colleagues David Wheeler and Kevin Ummeln Desert Power: The Economics of Solar Thermal Electricity For Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East.http://www.cgdev.org/content/publications/detail/1417884/
In it they argue for rapid, very large scale deployment of existing solar thermal technology in North Africa and the Middle East in order to avoid construction of coal plants in Europe and drive down the cost of solar thermal technology. Using project finance calculations and a GIS analysis of solar radiation maps, land use, and possible power transmission corridors to Europe, they show that with modest subsidies, solar power generated in North Africa and the Middle East could meet the needs of 35 million Europeans by 2020.
At that point, solar power would be cheaper than fossil fuels and future projects would no longer require subsidies.
Everything I have read on solar thermal is that they still need natural gas to heat the working fluid during part of the night. In addition, plant output will decrease after sunset. The "baseload" available from such plants would be low and require substantial land and material (e.g., steel) to harness.
Post a Comment