<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Power plant performance down in 2008]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by hapa http://www.grist.org/article/power-plant-performance-down-in-2008/ Mon, 13 Apr 2009 20:08:14 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/power-plant-performance-down-in-2008/1 "like, wow, dude, the economy went to the crapper and that had a seriously negative impact on the economy-to-pollution ratio."

And just as the recession kicked in in 2008, the CO2 intensity of the U.S. power system—which had been steadily improving for the previous four years—went in the wrong direction.

"and, like, wow, i know, like, the wealth from the middle of the decade was, like, fake, but that totally fake but totally sweet carbon intensity improvement really looked good on my powerpoint charts, so, now i'm totally bummed."

it doesn’t bode well for the performance of the power sector once the economy recovers.

"because, like, before, when there was a lot of money, nobody was building coal-fired power plants, but now, because there isn't money and people still want electricity, that means investors are going to start building dirty power plants when there's more money and credit, because, like, the investors are all like punch drunk and PTSD-flashbacking to the 1970s, right? so now they think it's 1979 and they're all like, got to build coal."

That makes the carbon intensity figure one that’s worth watching.

for instance, one can ignore straight-faced citations of carbon intensity.

i can't even believe i just read this article.

]]> "like, wow, dude, the economy went to the crapper and that had a seriously negative impact on the economy-to-pollution ratio."

And just as the recession kicked in in 2008, the CO2 intensity of the U.S. power system—which had been steadily improving for the previous four years—went in the wrong direction.

"and, like, wow, i know, like, the wealth from the middle of the decade was, like, fake, but that totally fake but totally sweet carbon intensity improvement really looked good on my powerpoint charts, so, now i'm totally bummed."

it doesn’t bode well for the performance of the power sector once the economy recovers.

"because, like, before, when there was a lot of money, nobody was building coal-fired power plants, but now, because there isn't money and people still want electricity, that means investors are going to start building dirty power plants when there's more money and credit, because, like, the investors are all like punch drunk and PTSD-flashbacking to the 1970s, right? so now they think it's 1979 and they're all like, got to build coal."

That makes the carbon intensity figure one that’s worth watching.

for instance, one can ignore straight-faced citations of carbon intensity.

i can't even believe i just read this article.

]]> Comment #2 by garyshu http://www.grist.org/article/power-plant-performance-down-in-2008/ Tue, 14 Apr 2009 03:39:38 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/power-plant-performance-down-in-2008/2 There's a pretty simple explanation why carbon intensity went up -- the peaker and more expensive natural gas plants (with half the carbon intensity of coal) turned on less often, making power cheaper, but also more of it powered by coal.

]]> There's a pretty simple explanation why carbon intensity went up -- the peaker and more expensive natural gas plants (with half the carbon intensity of coal) turned on less often, making power cheaper, but also more of it powered by coal.

]]> Comment #3 by hapa http://www.grist.org/article/power-plant-performance-down-in-2008/ Tue, 14 Apr 2009 07:17:46 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/power-plant-performance-down-in-2008/3 wow, i don't think i've ever made a mistake that big in any conversation, and i wasn't drunk, tired, rushed, angry, and i have no truck with clark. i was just stupid. how did i do that. my first comment should be killed, it was caused by reading an article that was completely in my own head.

i'm having a really bad reading experience with the new site. to those who haven't "ignored" me for that misfire, i don't want to look like i'm blaming change for my own humiliating ungenerous idiocy, but if i make a mistake like this, the "reading environment" is not smooth.

]]> wow, i don't think i've ever made a mistake that big in any conversation, and i wasn't drunk, tired, rushed, angry, and i have no truck with clark. i was just stupid. how did i do that. my first comment should be killed, it was caused by reading an article that was completely in my own head.

i'm having a really bad reading experience with the new site. to those who haven't "ignored" me for that misfire, i don't want to look like i'm blaming change for my own humiliating ungenerous idiocy, but if i make a mistake like this, the "reading environment" is not smooth.

]]> Comment #4 by jestbill http://www.grist.org/article/power-plant-performance-down-in-2008/ Tue, 14 Apr 2009 11:50:38 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/power-plant-performance-down-in-2008/4 HAPA:

I'm guessing that your "error" was that you've listened to the Bush administration and it's messed up your thinking.  They wanted to measure everything relative to GDP so the US would be free to do nothing about any of it.  There are internet sites devoted to that kind of analysis:

Co2 intensity: CO2 emissions per GDP  http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/index.php?action=select_countries&theme=3&variable_ID=468

Ennyhoo, if a writer is presenting evidence about CO2 and tries to confuse the "total emissions" with indices related to GDP or other barely related matters, chances are they are producing FUD, not FOOD for thought.

 

]]> HAPA:

I'm guessing that your "error" was that you've listened to the Bush administration and it's messed up your thinking.  They wanted to measure everything relative to GDP so the US would be free to do nothing about any of it.  There are internet sites devoted to that kind of analysis:

Co2 intensity: CO2 emissions per GDP  http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/index.php?action=select_countries&theme=3&variable_ID=468

Ennyhoo, if a writer is presenting evidence about CO2 and tries to confuse the "total emissions" with indices related to GDP or other barely related matters, chances are they are producing FUD, not FOOD for thought.

 

]]> Comment #5 by Sean Casten http://www.grist.org/article/power-plant-performance-down-in-2008/ Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:56:28 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/power-plant-performance-down-in-2008/5 I believe Gary is right, although it would be interesting to see the raw data.  When load curtails for any reason, the first stuff to fall off the dispatch curve is inefficient simple cycle gas turbines, which are more expensive than central coal, but have a lower carbon intensivity.  That's not of particular long-term concern, to the degree that that is the cause.

]]> I believe Gary is right, although it would be interesting to see the raw data.  When load curtails for any reason, the first stuff to fall off the dispatch curve is inefficient simple cycle gas turbines, which are more expensive than central coal, but have a lower carbon intensivity.  That's not of particular long-term concern, to the degree that that is the cause.

]]> Comment #6 by hapa http://www.grist.org/article/power-plant-performance-down-in-2008/ Sun, 26 Apr 2009 18:45:04 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/power-plant-performance-down-in-2008/6