The California
nologies offer self-generating opportunities
able, the environmental debate between con-
for large commercial and industrial cus-
ventional energies is being settled on eco-
Energy Commis-
tomers facing high electric rates (with or
nomic and not political grounds.
sion concluded
without a stranded cost recovery surcharge),
Arlon Tussing and Bob Tippee summa-
that gas plants were
an argument supportive of rate deregulation
rized the success of gas technologies relative
of the electricity grid.6 4
to coal and nuclear research:
both privately and
On the other extreme are combined-
socially the least
cycle plants run on liquefied natural gas.
The use of gas-fired combustion tech-
The hardware required to liquefy the gas for
nology in the production of electric
cost generating
tanker shipment and vaporize the gas for
power is the leading natural gas suc-
option for the state.
use in a combined-cycle plant increases the
cess story of the 1980s. Despite the
cost to around 5 cents per kWh,6 5 about 50
huge research budgets committed in
percent more than the cost of using natural
the 1970s and 1980s by the U.S.
gas. This price, however, is still competitive
Department of Energy and the
with coal in some applications and is below
Electric Power Research Institute to
the cost of nuclear power.
improve coal and nuclear-generation
Electricity generation from natural gas is
technologies, the greatest technologi-
the cleanest fossil-fuel option. Gas-fired com-
cal breakthroughs in generator
bined-cycle plants produce substantially less
design stemmed from the efforts of
air pollution and less solid waste than do
the aircraft industry to improve jet
scrubb6e6d coal plants and oil-fired power
engines. . . . The result was the devel-
plants. Nitrogen oxides, the major emission
opment of smaller, more dependable,
of gas plants, have been substantially reduced
and more fuel-efficient jet turbines,
in recent decades by technological upgrades.
which were manufactured in suffi-
That is why the environmentally conscious
ciently large numbers so that parts
California Energy Commission (CEC) con-
supply and 1maintenance were greatly
7
cluded that gas plants were both privately
simplified.
and socially the least cost generating option
for the state.6 7
Jason Makansi summarized the current
competitive picture of natural gas versus
The superior economics of gas-fired gen-
coal:
eration explains why the large majority of
new capacity being built in North America is
Advanced coal technologies--ultra-
gas fired, not coal fired.6 8 State-of-the-art
supercritical steam generators, state-
scrubbed-coal plants and advanced light-
of-the-art circulating fluidized-bed
water reactor nuclear plants can produce
boilers, integrated gasification/com
-
electricity at around 4.5 cents per kWh and
bined cycle, and pressurized flu-
7.5 cents per kWh, respectively, costs 50 per-
idized-bed combustion combined-
cent and 133 percent greater than those of9
6
cycle--look good compared to the
baseload natural gas combined-cycle units.
conventional pulverized coalfired
A 1996 study by two researchers at the
plant, which has been the workhorse
Electric Power Research Institute concluded
of electric power generation for
that the costs of an advanced nuclear power
decades. Gains in efficiency and over-
plant built after the turn of the century had
all environmental performance are
to be "sufficiently less" than 4.3 cents per
significant. . . . [Yet] none of these
kWh "to offset the higher capital investment
coal-based options provide anywhere
risk associated with nuclear plant deploy-
ment."7 0 At least in North America, and also
near the efficiency, simplicity, flexibil-
ity, and emissions profile of today's
in much of Europe and in South American
natural gasfired combined-cycles. . . .
where natural gas is becoming more avail-
14