The Myth of “Baseload” Power

Posted on February 28, 2012 by amandawegner

By Tyson Cook, Staff Scientist

For those of us looking forward to a day when we’re less reliant on dirty, fossil fuel-based power plants, it’s important to know the role they serve in the electricity system, and just what we have to do to replace them. One argument that is starting to be used against renewable energy revolves around that very idea: The claim that renewables may not be able to provide the “baseload” power like large fossil-fuel plants.

Which begs the question, what is this “baseload” power, and why does it matter?

The first thing to realize is that so-called “baseload” is not actually a different kind of power; it’s simply part of an engineering concept to visualize electrical demand. Imagine a line graph of the amount of total electricity used in a region over time. The plot would look like a series of waves, with peaks in the afternoon and early evening when everything is running on high, and dips at night and on the weekends when people are sleeping and offices are closed.

You could divide the line graph a lot of ways, but the idea of “baseload” comes from drawing a horizontal line to represent the minimum amount of electricity that is being used, no matter what time or day. The areas above that line are then labeled “intermediate” and “peak” loads. Kind of like this:

From Understanding Base Load Power, October 2008, New York Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance

In this way of thinking, the “baseload” power demand is met with big generators like old coal and nuclear plants that don’t turn on and off very well. To accommodate electrical needs above the “baseload,” smaller, more responsive plants are used that can more easily follow the demand. Makes sense, right?

The problem with this idea is that it’s not how the electrical grid actually works. In reality, the grid isn’t one uniform pool of power demand, but a huge, sprawling, interconnected web of transmission lines of various sizes and capacities, dotted with producers and users of power. More like this:

From Atlanta Journal-Constitution

The whole thing is controlled by an “independent system operator,” whose job is to make sure the system works right and everyone gets the power they need as cheaply and reliably as possible. This means constantly turning production up and down at various plants and using various mechanisms to manage flow.

So the idea of “baseload” power? Yes, there is always some minimum level of power being used in a particular region of the grid, but it’s certainly not as simple as that old line graph would indicate. And when trying to meet electrical demand, the power can come from any number of facilities at any time of day. For the system operator, the solution to which plants should be running when (and how much) is clear: Whatever makes electricity cheapest at any given time, considering the constraints of the grid. If that happens to be a large coal plant, so be it. If it’s a wind farm or small solar installation, that’s just as good. Even better.

Mercury Rising: Make wise choices for health

Posted on February 6, 2012 by amandawegner

A new report by the Minnesota Department of Health underscores the importance of making wise choices at the dinner table.

In a recent study of mercury contamination in newborns in the Lake Superior region, fewer Wisconsin newborns are exposed to mercury pollution than Minnesota newborns. A whopping 10 percent of newborns in Minnesota have unsafe levels of mercury in their blood — one in 10 babies are at risk of lower IQs and reduced memory loss. Wisconsin’s Lake Superior region has a much lower exposure, with 3 percent of newborns showing mercury at dangerous levels.

But even that is too many, and this study serves as a good reminder to everyone, especially for women of childbearing age, to limit consumption of fish that are likely to contain mercury.

Mercury is a neurotoxin that is dangerous for the developing brains of children, babies and fetuses, and it only takes small amounts of this chemical to cause big harm. It is estimated that 5,000 and 9,000 children born in Wisconsin each year are at risk of having lower IQs and reduced memory as a result mercury exposure. Humans are exposed to mercury a number of ways; it’s found in many everyday objects, such as electronic waste and old thermostats, and is byproduct of burning coal for electricity. When mercury gets into water it changes to methylmercury, which has unique properties that allow it to build up in the bodies of fish. When larger fish eat smaller fish, mercury can build up to high levels in the tissues of the bigger fish. Because mercury binds to meat of the fish, it cannot be removed by cooking or cleaning and gets into humans when they eat the fish.

This year, the EPA introduced the first-ever national rules that limit mercury pollution from coal-fired power plants, which are the largest source of mercury pollution. Wisconsin has been in leader in mercury reduction with a mercury pollution law on the books since 2008. Go Badgers!

Here are some helpful guidelines; also check out the state of Wisconsin’s “Choose Wisely” guide for fish consumption:

Choose smaller fish.
For local fishing, smaller game fish, panfish, stream trout and salmon are good choices. Avoid large walleyes or northerns from northern lakes.
From the ocean, avoid yellowfin tuna, shark, mackerel or orange roughy.

Contributed by Katy Walter, Organizer & Clean Energy Specialist

’80s Throwback: Acid rain law made Wisconsin a leader

Posted on November 9, 2011 by amandawegner

Bavaria, Germany, high-altitude forest damaged by acid rain. Photo by Spitzbergler. From AccuWeather.

Wisconsin passed one of the first and strongest state acid rain control laws in the nation in 1986, making the state a leader in acid rain policy; Clean Wisconsin had an active role in getting that law passed.

Acid rain results from sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides entering the atmosphere. These two pollutants are mainly produced by human activities; sulfur dioxide is a common emission from coal-fired power plants and factories, while nitrogen oxides come from vehicles, engines, coal-fired power plants, factories, even home furnaces.

The Acid Rain Law required Wisconsin’s major electric utility companies to reduce their sulfur dioxide emissions by 50 percent from 1980 emission levels by 1993. It was a great success: By 1990, three years earlier than specified in the law, overall annual sulfur dioxide emissions from Wisconsin electric utility companies had fallen 46 percent, and in 1992, all were in compliance.

The law also sought to raise the pH of Wisconsin’s rain; the pH scale is a measure of a material’s acidity or alkalinity and the lower the number, the more acidic something is on a scale of 0 to 14. Battery acid, for instance, has a relative pH of 1, while milk of magnesia, which helps quell an upset stomach, has a pH factor of 10 to 11. Rain uncontaminated by any pollutants has a pH of 5.0 to 6.0; rain with pH less than 5.0 to be “acid rain.

The higher level of acidity in acid rain makes it a threat to plants, fish and to some manmade materials and structures. Acid rain (or snow or fog or smog) can overwhelm the neutralizing capacity of some soils and lake water, leaving the environment unable to defend itself against the effects of these acids. Look at photos of Germany’s Black Forest and New York’s Adirondack Mountains to see the devastating effects acid rain can have on the natural landscape.

In addition to state law, Congress passed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, which contained strong acid rain control measures. This federal law required electric utility companies nationwide to reduce their collective sulfur dioxide emissions by 10 million tons per year (which is a 40-percent reduction) from 1980 emission levels by the year 2000, as well as a reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions of about two million tons per year.

Moving to cleaner, renewable energy sources and increasing energy-efficiency measures would have massive impacts on acid rain in Wisconsin, and Clean Wisconsin continues to work for these policies in the state. You can play a role as well. In addition to supporting our work, reduce your energy consumption with easy actions such as switching to CFLs, turning back your thermostat and purchasing energy-efficient appliances when you need to upgrade to reduce your reliance of coal-powered energy.

Monster Trucks

Posted on September 7, 2011 by amandawegner

In this week’s Tuesday Trivia, we put up this photo:

Courtesy of the company, Westech

and asked “What is it?”

Those who were playing along know the answer: The world’s largest coal truck, as recently verified by the Guinness Book of World Records.

Several of us shook our heads at this one.

Wisconsin doesn’t have any coal of its own. In fact, we spend $12 billion on out-of-state fossil fuels each year. And most of the coal we import comes from Wyoming … it’s no doubt possible that one day, the coal burned to heat your home or mine will have been transported in the patent-pending bed of this coal monster truck.

For all the hype and free publicity that the company is getting for this through the Guinness designation (I know, we’re not helping), it’s interesting to note the following lines from the article: ”The truck’s large capacity holds some big advantages for Peabody. Fewer large-capacity trucks can haul the same amount of coal, and fewer trucks mean fewer numbers of wheels to fix and drivers to hire.”

If the theme is investing to get more capacity for less money, why not make an investment to develop wind turbines, solar panels, anaerobic digesters and other clean energy sources that add jobs instead of cutting them? With more renewable energy, we rely less on coal, oil and natural gas, resulting in less pollution, less money out-of-pocket to bring fuels into Wisconsin, and a more stable and sustainable energy future.

Student highlights the benefits of clean energy, cost of fossil fuels

Posted on June 15, 2011 by samweis

A few months ago, a high school student who was conducting academic research on renewable energy interviewed me. Her work was published last week in the Janesville Gazette, and it is quite impressive:

“One of the biggest concerns about renewable energy is its higher cost; however, renewables are not necessarily more expensive than fossil fuels. The costs of fossil fuels are spread out, from transportation, to the burning of the fuel, to the disposal of its waste. Of course, there are also environmental costs that we might not pay now but will burden future generations. In contrast, renewable energy expenses are concentrated in start-up costs. Once a renewable resource plant or wind farm is established, costs are fewer and pollution is less than that of a coal-burning plant.

“Other benefits of renewable energy exist, as well. Clean energy has a lot of potential to create jobs and boost the economy in Wisconsin. The many shuttered factories throughout Wisconsin could be transitioned to creating renewable energy technology. Already companies in our state are manufacturing wind turbine parts; many other factories could provide thousands of jobs by manufacturing other green technology.”

It’s remarkable that a high school student could so clearly and succinctly lay out the arguments for investing in clean energy. To read the full article, you can click here. I certainly hope that our leaders are listening.

Contributed by Katy Walter, clean energy specialist

Green jobs growing fast, Wisconsin falling behind

Posted on June 10, 2011 by samweis

Green jobs represent some of the nation’s fastest growing industries with no reason to believe they will slow down anytime soon, according to a recent report released by Ibisworld.

The report, “Top ten fastest growing industries,” lists the fastest growing sectors in the United States by percentage of revenue and includes wind power (#3), environmental consulting (#7) and solar power (#10). These industries are growing fast and will likely continue to grow for years: the solar industry can expect to grow another 7.9 percent by 2016, and wind can expect to grow 11.2 percent, according to the report.

Green jobs represent a bright spot in today’s troubled economic times. With forecasts of solid growth on the horizon, it would only make sense to invest in clean energy and harness its job-creating potential.

Unfortunately, we seem to be moving in the opposite direction as a state. Early this year, the legislature made it more difficult to construct safe wind farms in Wisconsin, killing proposed wind projects and hundreds of jobs they were set to create.

In May, the Joint Finance Committee voted to cut funding for Focus on Energy, our statewide energy efficiency and renewable energy program. Unless undone by the legislature as a whole, or vetoed by Gov. Walker, this move promises to result in higher energy bills and lost jobs.

These measures serve to entrench our state’s reliance on expensive, out-of-state fossil fuels — a dirty habit that costs our state 17 billion dollars every year.

Wisconsin has the potential to boost our economy and create thousands of jobs by becoming a clean energy leader, but we will miss this opportunity unless our leaders recognize the power of clean energy.

You can help ensure that Wisconsin becomes a leader in the clean energy economy by writing a letter supporting Focus on Energy, or by making a donation to Clean Wisconsin today.

Green jobs are growing fast, and to keep Wisconsin open for clean energy businesses, we need to act today!

-Contributed by Sam Weis, media specialist