The old carbon offset problem. Would these old coal plants have been shut down anyway? Without doubt. That is why they are building the new one--to replace the old ones. Of course it will be more efficient and cleaner. Environmental legislation makes sure of that. The bottom line is this: there will be no significant CO2 reductions. They are simply replacing old coal fired power plants with a new one.

The mitigation of Cliffside's carbon-dioxide emissions will begin with the closure of the four older units at Cliffside. Between 2015 and 2018, Duke also must shut down an additional 800 megawatts of coal-fired generating units at other North Carolina plants that lack modern pollution controls. These closures will offset about two-thirds of the carbon-dioxide emissions expected from the new Cliffside unit

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

Just keep repeating the lie that you HAVE to produce all that nasty, polluting coal-fired electricity at full capacity and simply ignore the possibility of conservation. Why there are even some quite advanced conservation projects in your own region displayed quite nicely on the  North Carolina Green Building Technology Database. If your customers had some access to funding that would allow them to install geothermal heat pumps they could save between 30% to 70% annually on utilities and reduce the base load too.

You might not think that this is your job as a utility but since the alternative is the destruction of the entire planetary ecosystems status quo I think some of us would have to disagree. Some utilities too like the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) which has managed to close a nuclear power plant early, maintain one of the lowest utility carbon profiles in the nation and offer cheaper electric rates to it's customers than neighboring PG&E. One of the ways they do it is by promoting and even financing energy conservation projects and solar panels; and they don't burn a single pound of coal to get there.

So please quit with the big clean coal lie because even if every wisp of GHGs were immediately swooped away from your plants and pumped deep underground without any risk of leakage you would still be tearing the tops off of mountains and destroying ecosystems to get the coal. Then after the coal is burned there is the leftover slag and ash that is loaded with heavy metals like mercury, uranium and thorium. I'm pretty sure that none of this coal ash ends up in the gardens of your family but it certainly ends up in everybody's food supply.

There are those that consider burning coal a crime against humanity. Considering that global warming is forcing changes on us faster than expected you might consider moving to Patagonia with George Bush. After all even if nature bats last there's always  extra innings in politics.

Put the Carbon Back

It's not quite fair to day Duke has ignored conservation and efficiency. As part of their Cliffside push Duke unveiled a Save-a-Watt program:Customers would pay for the programs with an energy efficiency "rider" that will be included in their power bill and adjusted annually.  

The 1,700 megawatts Duke Energy plans to generate in four years through energy efficiency will play a key role in meeting the company's expected customer demand growth.    

The energy efficiency filing follows the NCUC's recent approval of one 800-megawatt, state-of-the-art coal unit for Duke Energy Carolinas' Cliffside Power Plant Modernization Project. In its Cliffside order, the commission accepted Duke Energy Carolinas' commitment to invest 1 percent of its annual retail revenues from North Carolina electricity sales in energy efficiency programs. This is currently approximately $35 million annually. As the results from new energy efficiency programs are realized, the company will retire up to 800 megawatts of older coal plants, significantly reducing emissions.

The concept to invest 1 percent of revenues in new energy efficiency programs and retire older coal units as power demand is reduced was recommended to the commission by Duke Energy Carolinas in November 2006.

Spending on the energy efficiency programs will be based on results, and the $35 million Duke Energy pledged to invest in new programs last November is just a starting point.

Duke Energy Carolinas' existing demand side management programs can reduce energy demand by up to 666 megawatts in the summer. Duke Energy Carolinas is requesting that the NCUC allow the company to replace these programs, most of which are closed to new customers, with a new portfolio of improved energy efficiency programs so that more customers can benefit.  

The following are the save-a-watt energy efficiency programs Duke Energy Carolinas is proposing:

    * Residential Assessments - to help residential customers identify opportunities to use energy more efficiently through a mail-in analysis, on-line analysis and on-site energy audit. Participating customers will receive either an energy efficiency kit or compact fluorescent light bulbs at the time of the audit to begin their energy savings immediately.
    * Non-Residential Energy Assessments - to help commercial and industrial customers identify opportunities to use energy more efficiently through an on-line analysis, telephone interviews and on-site energy audits.
    * Smart ® - to provide residential customers with incentive payments to install more energy-efficient equipment, such as compact fluorescent light bulbs and high-efficiency air conditioners and heat pumps. The commercial and industrial customer program will provide incentives to install high-efficiency lighting, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment, motors and pumps.  
    * Low Income Service - to assist low income residential customers with energy efficiency measures using kits or assistance in purchasing equipment and weatherizing homes.    
    * Power Manager - to enable residential customers to receive a monthly credit from July to October in exchange for allowing Duke Energy to cycle their central air conditioning in times of peak power demand.
    *  PowerShare® - to enable commercial and industrial customers to receive a credit on their bills in exchange for reducing their electric use in times of peak power demand.
    * Residential Bill Check Pilot - to evaluate the use of new technology to provide customers with a monthly report analyzing their energy use and comparing it to weather patterns and other issues that relate to energy use.  The pilot will initially test new technologies in up to 200 homes in the Charlotte area.
    * Efficiency Savings Plan Pilot - to evaluate allowing residential, commercial and industrial customers to install energy efficiency products with no up-front payment, allowing customers to save money by reducing their energy use.  Customer would pay for these products through an added charge to their power bill.  
    * Advanced Power Manager Pilot - to evaluate new technologies and advanced metering to study the feasibility of an energy management system that enables customers to participate in energy efficiency without disrupting their lifestyle or normal business practices.
Maybe it's not enough, but in the utility space, at least, it's better than the industry standard.

grist.org

we are engaging in dialogue. They can no longer afford to simply blow off the issue of global warming. That's good.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

There are two ways that electric utilities can impact their overall energy footprint.  They are generally very good at one, and very bad at the other - and Duke is no exception.  In other words, you and Pangolin are both right.

The first way is to help their customers invest in efficiency.  This is, in large scale what the Save A  Watt program does.  Better lightbulbs, motors, meters, etc.  A cynic might reasonably argue that the utilities really don't pay for those programs, but simply administer the system benefits charges collected from their customer's bills.  A cynic with a sense of history might also argue that investor owned utilities were downright hostile to all energy efficiency activities until state legislatures started instituting said system benefit programs.  And said cynic would have a point, but it's an argumentative one that doesn't get us anywhere.  In the grand scheme of things, those load-sited demand-side-management programs spent somewhere north of $3.5 billion last year, and that's nothing to sneeze at.  We can quibble about how much credit utility execs ought to get for that, but I rather like Truman's aphorism that you can get a lot done if you don't care who gets the credit.  If Rogers or his peers want to take credit, that's fine - let's just get it done.  (And, to be fair, Rogers does deserve credit for paying for out of Duke's revenues rather than system benefit charges if the agreement struck with the PUC doesn't allow them to then rate-base that 1% cost.)

The second way is a different story, and that is to increase their own energy efficiency.  The utility industry in this country spends some $38 billion per year on fuel, and hasn't increased their energy efficiency in 50 years, in spite of the fact that lots of independent producers regularly beat the pants of the 30 - 33% delivered efficiencies that the regulated folks manage.  No investor-owned utility I'm aware of has made any significant effort to fix this, since the problem is at core in the way that utilities are regulated and utility execs are - perhaps understandably - reluctant to start poking the regulatory dragon, fearing unpredictable results.    But the total savings that they could deliver (in terms of dollars, fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions) are massively larger than that which they can deliver through (comparatively) paltry sums being thrown at DSM.  It's why I'm still waiting for a utility exec to say this.

I have absolutely no doubt at all that I could get on Google:Earth, scroll over to Duke Energy's service area and find a few hundred megawatts of potential energy savings just by identifying rooftop HVAC units. Virtually every single one of those could drop two thirds of their load by converting to geo-exchange HVAC. Considering the power load of a single supermarket it's a no-brainer. That's before we stop at a single house or apartment building.

In addition enough natural gas demand could be taken off line to feed a few peaker plants that could back up the hundreds (thousands?) of acres of commercial rooftops and parking lots that could be covered in solar panels. Those really big WalMart superstore parking lots are probably big enough to feed a solar thermal tower here and there if heliostats shade the cars.

Here's the deal; I don't care who makes the profit off these intallations as long as a) the service needs are met (heating, cooling, lighting, motive power) and b) The end user gets a fair share of cost savings (because geoexhcange does save $$). I am quite happy with that profit collector being a utility because I think we need well-regulated utilities.

Where the frustration comes in is the completely transparent greenwashing that comes out of these operations when examples of actual green projects are readily available. I know it's greenwashing on the face of it because a properly managed program would be projecting demand destruction, load shifting to renewables and smart grid management as growth areas.

Duke's building more coal capacity. Doesn't that ring a few bells in there? I'll tell you SMUD's not projecting any new coal plants even though there is projected expansion of population. How could that be? Somebody in the kitchen has got their fingers in more than one pie is how.

Once again the "market" in legislators and corporate board members looks to be trumping any projected "carbon market."  We know this because right now conservation is cheaper than new plant capacity. Legislatures are willing to let utilities get paid for legitimate conservation projects; but the multi-billion dollar investment is in plant capacity.

Follow the money. Somebody's got a hand in the wrong pocket.

Put the Carbon Back