Operational, 504 MW
|Timber Rd. I||Paulding||38||(1)|
|Timber Rd. II||Paulding||99||(1)|
|Timber Rd. III||Paulding||63||(1)|
Under Construction, 466 MW
Approved, 766 MW
Planned, 670-680 MW
|Long Prairie||Van Wert||450||(4)|
AEP and DPl have also announced plans for up to 800 MW of wind (5-7). Small wind installations add 43 MW (8)
(1) D. Gearino, ‘Different spins’, Columbus Dispatch, Sept. 24, 2017
(2) “Exelon to build its first commercial wind farm in Ohio”, Platts, 21 June 2016
(3) LEEDCo Vision and Timing http://www.leedco.org/icebreaker/vision-timeline, accessed 2 October 2017
(4) “Commissioners meet with wind farm representatives”, Times Bulletin, 3 Feb 2016
(5)”AEP renewable-power proposal ambitious, costly”, Columbus Dispatch, 16 Dec. 2015
(6) “AEP wants to hear from wind developers interested in big Ohio projects”, Columbus Business Journal, May 13, 2016
(7) “DP&L agrees to invest in clean energy; signaling agreement to retire Stuart and Killen coal plants”, Sierra Club Press Release, 30 January 2017
(8) “Small wind turbines in Ohio are the next big thing, says Department of Energy” http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2017/08/small_wind_turbines_in_ohio_ar_1.html, August 11, 2017
Nuclear activists point out that reactors do not generate greenhouse gasses and that decommissioning them leads to electricity being generated by fossil fuels (some nuclear opponents claim that reactor technology is polluting; I looked into this several years ago and was not impressed by the quality of the research).
Renewable-energy supporters claim that sufficient wind energy is being installed each year to offset the loss of reactors (averaging about one decommissioning per year ). Surprisingly output from reactors has remained steady. Improved efficiency must be the reason, since there have not been any new reactors for many years .
Generation by renewables have strongly increased from about half of nuclear in 2008 to about two thirds today. Since hydropower has remained steady, the increase is due to wind.
So far so good. Since nuclear production has been steady, wind has helped to take up the slack due to coal plant retirement.
 EIA, Today in Energy, June 13, 2017
 Data in the figure from EIA, Electricity Data Browse, accessed July 1, 2017
LTE: Cynthia Allen recently stated the people are unwilling to make the kind of sacrifices that are needed to combat climate change (Dispatch, 12 June). Her column shows a limited understanding of greenhouse gas production.
Ms. Allen is wrong when she implies that home heating and cooling are a major source of energy wastage. Actually, homes and businesses together generate a small fraction of greenhouse gasses. The three largest sources are electric power plants, motor vehicles, and industry. Together they account for over three-quarters of greenhouse gasses.
But there is good news on all fronts. Emissions from power plants have been dropping sharply. Bloomberg recently predicted that electric cars with efficient motors will become cheaper than gas autos within ten years. And industry has been saving energy. All in all carbon dioxide emissions have fallen 14 percent in the last ten years.
We are living in an era of great technological change. There are many opportunities for people to save money by saving energy. But we need to realize that the big changes will come from outside the home.
Alan R. Rosenfield
Comment: Electricity generating is the largest user of energy in the U.S., and the largest source of greenhouse gasses. The basic problem is that generation is extremely inefficient – almost two-thirds of the energy supplied goes up the smokestack as heat.
There are two ways to improve this situation:
- Consumers can use less energy.
- Electricity can be produced more efficiently.
In my LTE, I suggested that the second approach should be more effective. Generating electricity produces about two and a half times as much greenhouse gasses as residential and commercial users combined.
The technology for reducing generation-caused greenhouse gasses is available. Natural gas is better than coal, while renewable energy emits no greenhouse gasses at all.
To reiterate, if we are going to reduce greenhouse gasses, electricity generation will play a major role.
EPA “Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions” http://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions, accessed 27 June 2017
EIA “Electricity Data Browser”
Accessed 26 June 2017
LLNL “Energy Flow Charts” flowcharts.llnl.gov, Accessed 26 June 2017
I have been assuming that gains in electricity generation by natural gas were the reason for loss in generation by coal. This is not quite true. In 2016 coal generation was down by about 750 million kilowatt-hours (kWh) from its 2006-2008 average, a 38 percent drop. About two-thirds of the drop was due to natural gas and about one-third to renewables.
Source EIA Electric Data Browser, accessed 21 June 2017
Ohio has a very modest Renewable Energy Standard (12.5% by 2026). North Carolina has the same goal five years earlier; only South Carolina and Wisconsin have more modest goals.
Source: National Council of State Legislatures
I have compared residential rates for my region (IL, IA, IN, KY, MI, MN, MO, OH, WV, WI) and find no real effect of percentage power imported on these rates. WV is a huge exporter and has low rates. For the rest, rates do not matter on whether the state is an importer or exporter.