View Full Version : OG&E Announces Regional Haze compliance plan



Pete
06-05-2014, 04:23 PM
From Oklahoma Gas & Electric:


For the first time, OG&E is making public its plans to comply with the Regional Haze rule. The details are included in an Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) that the company submitted to the Oklahoma Corporation Commission late today.

At a high level, the IRP includes the following:
· Sooner – add scrubbers to the coal-fired units
· Muskogee – convert units 4 and 5 to natural gas
· Mustang – replace old generation technology with new quick-start combustion turbines

The plan maintains fuel diversity, ensures SPP capacity requirements are met and provides the least, most reasonable cost to customers. It also will place OG&E in compliance with the EPA Regional Haze and Mercury Air Toxics Standards rule (MATS).

“There will be many different opinions about how we should comply with the Regional Haze rule, but we strongly believe in our approach,” said OG&E President and CFO Sean Trauschke. “Many members contributed to an extensive analysis of alternatives and evaluated these under different scenarios to arrive at what we believe is the best long-term solution for our customers and our company.”

The IRP describes how the company will meet its future generation needs. The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the Federal Implementation Plan for Regional Haze triggered the need to update OG&E’s IRP, which will be submitted to the Arkansas Public Service Commission in the next week.

“The Supreme Court’s decision was disappointing,” Trauschke said. “But we’ve always said we will be in compliance, and now it’s time to get started.”

Under the Regional Haze rule, OG&E has 55-months to achieve compliance and will need all that time given the amount of work that must be accomplished.

Dubya61
06-05-2014, 04:30 PM
I wonder if the CSIRO plant that John_H posted is greener than multiple PV arrays (which I believe are NOT green to manufacture).

JohnH_in_OKC
06-05-2014, 05:36 PM
Here's an article posted yesterday from Inhabitat (http://inhabitat.com/) that cites the CSIRO solar thermal steam energy breakthrough that might be cheaper than coal to power our Oklahoma power plants of the future. (Different source, different story than my previous thread post.)

OG&E: Please evaluate this latest innovation, even though it is probably too preliminary to fit into your court ordered time constraints. Maybe a federal court would allow you to extend your 55 month compliance if you opted to test/prototype CSIRO's solar steam plant.

CSIRO Solar Thermal Plant Sets World Record with Solar-Generated Supercritical Steam (http://inhabitat.com/csiro-sets-world-record-with-solar-generated-supercritical-steam-for-power-plants/)

CSIRO Solar Thermal Plant Sets World Record with Solar-Generated Supercritical Steam | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building (http://inhabitat.com/csiro-sets-world-record-with-solar-generated-supercritical-steam-for-power-plants/)

by Josh Marks, 06/05/14

In what is being described as a major breakthrough for renewable energy, researchers at Australia’s national science agency just set a world record by using solar power to generate supercritical steam at a solar thermal plant. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) created the highest temperatures ever achieved without coal or gas at its solar thermal test plant in Newcastle using a field of more than 600 heliostat mirrors directed at two towers containing solar receivers and turbines. The supercritical steam was generated at a pressure of 23.5 mpa (3,400 psi) and 570° C (1,058° F).

8066

“It’s like breaking the sound barrier; this step change proves solar has the potential to compete with the peak performance capabilities of fossil fuel sources,” said Dr Alex Wonhas, CSIRO’s energy director. “Instead of relying on burning fossil fuels to produce supercritical steam, this breakthrough demonstrates that the power plants of the future could instead be using the free, zero emission energy of the sun to achieve the same result.”

Today’s commercial solar thermal plants use subcritical steam that operates at lower pressure and leads to inefficiencies. Converting to supercritical could make solar thermal energy cost competitive with fossil fuel-generated power, of which Australia gets 90 percent of its electricity from.

While the technology is not ready to be scaled up on a commercial level, the solar breakthrough brings Australia and the world an important step closer to generating a majority of its electricity using zero emissions power from the sun.

BoulderSooner
06-05-2014, 08:29 PM
55 months. So with a repub win in 16 and a new EPA they might not have to do this at all

venture
06-06-2014, 06:31 AM
I never understood why clean air is a bad thing.

Servicetech571
06-07-2014, 06:02 AM
Here's an article posted yesterday from Inhabitat (http://inhabitat.com/) that cites the CSIRO solar thermal steam energy breakthrough that might be cheaper than coal to power our Oklahoma power plants of the future. (Different source, different story than my previous thread post.)

OG&E: Please evaluate this latest innovation, even though it is probably too preliminary to fit into your court ordered time constraints. Maybe a federal court would allow you to extend your 55 month compliance if you opted to test/prototype CSIRO's solar steam plant.

CSIRO Solar Thermal Plant Sets World Record with Solar-Generated Supercritical Steam (http://inhabitat.com/csiro-sets-world-record-with-solar-generated-supercritical-steam-for-power-plants/)

CSIRO Solar Thermal Plant Sets World Record with Solar-Generated Supercritical Steam | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building (http://inhabitat.com/csiro-sets-world-record-with-solar-generated-supercritical-steam-for-power-plants/)

by Josh Marks, 06/05/14

In what is being described as a major breakthrough for renewable energy, researchers at Australia’s national science agency just set a world record by using solar power to generate supercritical steam at a solar thermal plant. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) created the highest temperatures ever achieved without coal or gas at its solar thermal test plant in Newcastle using a field of more than 600 heliostat mirrors directed at two towers containing solar receivers and turbines. The supercritical steam was generated at a pressure of 23.5 mpa (3,400 psi) and 570° C (1,058° F).

8066

“It’s like breaking the sound barrier; this step change proves solar has the potential to compete with the peak performance capabilities of fossil fuel sources,” said Dr Alex Wonhas, CSIRO’s energy director. “Instead of relying on burning fossil fuels to produce supercritical steam, this breakthrough demonstrates that the power plants of the future could instead be using the free, zero emission energy of the sun to achieve the same result.”

Today’s commercial solar thermal plants use subcritical steam that operates at lower pressure and leads to inefficiencies. Converting to supercritical could make solar thermal energy cost competitive with fossil fuel-generated power, of which Australia gets 90 percent of its electricity from.

While the technology is not ready to be scaled up on a commercial level, the solar breakthrough brings Australia and the world an important step closer to generating a majority of its electricity using zero emissions power from the sun.

The cool thing about this technology is production is highest when grid demand is greatest.

onthestrip
06-07-2014, 07:18 AM
The cool thing about this technology is production is highest when grid demand is greatest.

Which is why the law that passed this year allowing utilities to charge solar users is even more ridiculous.

BoulderSooner
06-07-2014, 12:12 PM
I never understood why clean air is a bad thing.

Clean air good thing. Massive EPA overreach is not

venture
06-07-2014, 01:43 PM
Clean air good thing. Massive EPA overreach is not

So why doesn't OG&E and others make changes to transfer to cleaner fuels/methods without the EPA? They could have easily already started the process or completed it.

Jersey Boss
06-07-2014, 01:55 PM
Didn't PSO figure it already?

soonerguru
06-07-2014, 02:15 PM
So why doesn't OG&E and others make changes to transfer to cleaner fuels/methods without the EPA? They could have easily already started the process or completed it.

Because they will always, ALWAYS, do the bare minimum required for compliance. They will use coal until their customers -- or the government -- demand that they use something else. Why are we using coal-fired plants today? It's an anachronism.

OG&E could be a model for environmental stewardship. Instead, they work behind the scenes with ALEC, the Koch Brothers, and our craven state government to create a tax on private individuals who install solar panels on their homes. Think about how ridiculous this is the next time you see one of their touchy-feely wind power ads.

BoulderSooner
06-07-2014, 02:18 PM
The EPA has become totally political

Zuplar
06-07-2014, 02:24 PM
So why doesn't OG&E and others make changes to transfer to cleaner fuels/methods without the EPA? They could have easily already started the process or completed it.

Cost.

Everything is driven by the almighty dollar. The day that it's cheaper for them to install solar panels and wind farms is the day they start phasing out coal fired plants for good. It'll take time but my bet is that renewable alternatives will be cheaper at some point. When that happens people will start install them on their houses themselves, start using solar heaters, etc.

Problem is it costs money to develop these products and get the price point down. Just letting it naturally happen will take time, time we may not have. There are plenty of people out there trying to make this work, problem is there are just as many that don't give a proverbial ****.

Jersey Boss
06-07-2014, 03:05 PM
... and/or have a vested financial interest to not make it work.

soonerguru
06-07-2014, 03:12 PM
Cost.

Everything is driven by the almighty dollar. The day that it's cheaper for them to install solar panels and wind farms is the day they start phasing out coal fired plants for good. It'll take time but my bet is that renewable alternatives will be cheaper at some point. When that happens people will start install them on their houses themselves, start using solar heaters, etc.

Problem is it costs money to develop these products and get the price point down. Just letting it naturally happen will take time, time we may not have. There are plenty of people out there trying to make this work, problem is there are just as many that don't give a proverbial ****.

Is it possible that renewables don't allow them to make as much money? That's why they need to put taxes on the sun.

BoulderSooner
06-09-2014, 10:02 PM
And there it is. This will cost us with 15-20% higher bills

Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co. upgrades may bring substantial rate increase | NewsOK.com (http://m.newsok.com/article/4888697)

zookeeper
06-09-2014, 10:17 PM
And there it is. This will cost us with 15-20% higher bills

Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co. upgrades may bring substantial rate increase | NewsOK.com (http://m.newsok.com/article/4888697)

Of course they'll raise the bills. They sure won't take it from their profits. I wrote this in another thread about this very rate hike discussion:

Yep. That's the problem with for-profit "public utilities" they can't absorb the cost from profits, they pass it on to customers. Big Energy needs their skyscrapers, obscene executive compensation, and huge profits. I don't expect anybody to agree with me, but as an economic populist, I am sickened by OG&E's priorities. Frankly, I'm sickened by public utilities being in private hands to generate big profits and more of those crazy CEO and executive team compensation packages. Part of America's corporatist shame.



The EPA has become totally political

Big Energy has become totally political, always have been, always will be.

venture
06-10-2014, 01:12 AM
Of course they'll raise the bills. They sure won't take it from their profits. I wrote this in another thread about this very rate hike discussion:

Yep. That's the problem with for-profit "public utilities" they can't absorb the cost from profits, they pass it on to customers. Big Energy needs their skyscrapers, obscene executive compensation, and huge profits. I don't expect anybody to agree with me, but as an economic populist, I am sickened by OG&E's priorities. Frankly, I'm sickened by public utilities being in private hands to generate big profits and more of those crazy CEO and executive team compensation packages. Part of America's corporatist shame.

Big Energy has become totally political, always have been, always will be.

It's interesting to see OG&E's profit margins every year. During the quarter with SmartHours in effect is their highest margin period. Last year they were at a 29.76% profit margin. Not too shabby. I'm not sure what the answer is. Electricity is pretty much as important as water these days. Natural gas, phone, cable and other utilities like that aren't nearly as critical to life as water and electricity.

I would much rather see utilities like those two set aside as non-profit public/private operations. If they need to do massive infrastructure upgrades like this, then just like Norman with their water system upgrades - it goes to the people for a vote to approve a rate increase to cover the cost.

Just the facts
06-10-2014, 06:53 AM
The town where my wife grew up had their own electric plant which was owned by the City. They voted last year to sell it to Florida Power and Light. I suspect they will come to regret that decision. In all fairness, the proceeds of the sale should have been distributed to all the electrical customers, but of course it wasn't.

Alas, it doesn't really matter who owns the utility company because the ultimate source of the problem is cities mandating energy-hogging land-use practices. Eventually the problem will solve itself because we will price ourselves out of 'necessities'.

bombermwc
06-10-2014, 07:55 AM
Why would the proceeds go to the customers? They don't own it, the city does. Just like when Midwest City sold the lease to the hospital...a decision the residents disagree with, but lost on. Just because you pay taxes doesn't mean you own a city garbage truck. No more than you paying for your cell phone means you own the plant.

And if you're saying that cities are causing the draw, man you just don't get things do you. If you push people to an urban area, you don't reduce the consumption of electricity, you simply condense the area of highest use. You're still going to have the same lines running to all parts of town with street lights, etc. It just means OG&E gets to save money on having to many substations. And do you think they're going to be so nice as to pass that savings on to you...HAHAHAH, no.

onthestrip
06-10-2014, 09:31 AM
And if you're saying that cities are causing the draw, man you just don't get things do you. If you push people to an urban area, you don't reduce the consumption of electricity, you simply condense the area of highest use. You're still going to have the same lines running to all parts of town with street lights, etc. It just means OG&E gets to save money on having to many substations. And do you think they're going to be so nice as to pass that savings on to you...HAHAHAH, no.

Sure you do. I guarantee you that urban dwellers use less energy. Generally dwellers arent in as big as a home as suburbanites and many times share walls with other dwellers, such as an apartment or townhome.

bombermwc
06-11-2014, 07:42 AM
My main point was, it's not like you're going to see a reduced bill for that. The savings the producer gets, will not come back to the consumer rather just to the black in their account.

venture
06-11-2014, 12:31 PM
My main point was, it's not like you're going to see a reduced bill for that. The savings the producer gets, will not come back to the consumer rather just to the black in their account.

Extra costs get passed on to the consumer... Extra savings held by the company.