PGE vs DOE

[fleabag]

http://www.pge.com/mybusiness/...ator/assumptions.shtml

"PG&E Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions Rates2

* Electric: 0.524 lbs CO2 per kWh
* Natural Gas: 13.446 lbs CO2 per therm"

or

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/e..._report/co2report.html

"Output Rate d (pounds CO2 per kWh)
Coal 2.117
Petroleum 1.915
Gas 1.314
Other Fuels 1.378
U.S. Average 1.350"



For the guys who really are going to scrutinize this, yes I realize the numbers are from the year 2000 for the DOE article, however I HIGHLY DOUBT that CO2 emissions have declined more than half of what they were from then and now and here is why:http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/e...icity/epa/epat5p1.html

Thousand Metric Tons:
2000: 2,441,722 CO2, 11,963 SO2, 5,638 NOX
2007: 2,516,580 CO2, 9,042 SO2, 3,650 NOX

 

[BrownTown]

A 30 second Google finds that their portfolio only has 2% coal. They are 40% natural gas, 25% nuclear, 20% renewables and 15% hydro. Since natural gas is the only one of those that produces CO2 that means they are (0.4 * 1.314) = .52 lbs/kwh, WOW, thats EXACTLY what they say they are. Amazing what Google and math can get you in the period of 2 minutes.

 

[olds]

tb;dr

 

[Bignate603]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
A 30 second Google finds that their portfolio only has 2% coal. They are 40% natural gas, 25% nuclear, 20% renewables and 15% hydro. Since natural gas is the only one of those that produces CO2 that means they are (0.4 * 1.314) = .52 lbs/kwh, WOW, thats EXACTLY what they say they are. Amazing what Google and math can get you in the period of 2 minutes.

You assume that Fleabag actually wants to do something that takes real thought to understand what's going on. He prefers to gripe about things that he doesn't fully understand.

 

[IronWing]

The government is always right, never wrong.

 

[fleabag]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
A 30 second Google finds that their portfolio only has 2% coal. They are 40% natural gas, 25% nuclear, 20% renewables and 15% hydro. Since natural gas is the only one of those that produces CO2 that means they are (0.4 * 1.314) = .52 lbs/kwh, WOW, thats EXACTLY what they say they are. Amazing what Google and math can get you in the period of 2 minutes.

They actually import a LOT of electricity so I find it pretty hard to believe what they're saying. They like to tout that they're green but that's only in California, and the rest of their electricity comes from out of state which kinda defeats the purpose of "being green" unless you like the idea of "not in my backyard"...

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: BrownTown
A 30 second Google finds that their portfolio only has 2% coal. They are 40% natural gas, 25% nuclear, 20% renewables and 15% hydro. Since natural gas is the only one of those that produces CO2 that means they are (0.4 * 1.314) = .52 lbs/kwh, WOW, thats EXACTLY what they say they are. Amazing what Google and math can get you in the period of 2 minutes.

They actually import a LOT of electricity so I find it pretty hard to believe what they're saying. They like to tout that they're green but that's only in California, and the rest of their electricity comes from out of state which kinda defeats the purpose of "being green" unless you like the idea of "not in my backyard"...

Do you even think before your fingers move?

Why does out of state electricity mean it isn't "green"? What if they import electricity from Oregon? Which they do, btw. Not that Oregon's electrical sources are particularly green, but we do have our share of hydroelectric dams.

Regardless, their portfolio is their portfolio. They know where their energy comes from.

 

[Bignate603]

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: BrownTown
A 30 second Google finds that their portfolio only has 2% coal. They are 40% natural gas, 25% nuclear, 20% renewables and 15% hydro. Since natural gas is the only one of those that produces CO2 that means they are (0.4 * 1.314) = .52 lbs/kwh, WOW, thats EXACTLY what they say they are. Amazing what Google and math can get you in the period of 2 minutes.

They actually import a LOT of electricity so I find it pretty hard to believe what they're saying. They like to tout that they're green but that's only in California, and the rest of their electricity comes from out of state which kinda defeats the purpose of "being green" unless you like the idea of "not in my backyard"...

They know where they're buying their power from. The publish that as their energy portfolio. You're just speculating and assuming you know better. As usual.

 

[fleabag]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: BrownTown
A 30 second Google finds that their portfolio only has 2% coal. They are 40% natural gas, 25% nuclear, 20% renewables and 15% hydro. Since natural gas is the only one of those that produces CO2 that means they are (0.4 * 1.314) = .52 lbs/kwh, WOW, thats EXACTLY what they say they are. Amazing what Google and math can get you in the period of 2 minutes.

They actually import a LOT of electricity so I find it pretty hard to believe what they're saying. They like to tout that they're green but that's only in California, and the rest of their electricity comes from out of state which kinda defeats the purpose of "being green" unless you like the idea of "not in my backyard"...

Do you even think before your fingers move?

Why does out of state electricity mean it isn't "green"? What if they import electricity from Oregon? Which they do, btw. Not that Oregon's electrical sources are particularly green, but we do have our share of hydroelectric dams.

Regardless, their portfolio is their portfolio. They know where their energy comes from.

Yeah that's the thing, there is a coal power plant in Oregon that they get their energy from and quite a bit to say the least. What PGE has listed on their site could easily reflect ONLY the power plants THEY OWN and not the power they buy from. One could claim the Prius is a clean car all around but at the same time, if they found out that the materials and manufacturing processes aren't so clean because they're from or done in china, then no I'd say it isn't a clean vehicle. I know that California imports a lot of its electricity, like 50% and if they're importing that much, then it's extremely hard to believe that PGE is getting like 95% of their electricity from "clean" (relatively) sources.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: BrownTown
A 30 second Google finds that their portfolio only has 2% coal. They are 40% natural gas, 25% nuclear, 20% renewables and 15% hydro. Since natural gas is the only one of those that produces CO2 that means they are (0.4 * 1.314) = .52 lbs/kwh, WOW, thats EXACTLY what they say they are. Amazing what Google and math can get you in the period of 2 minutes.

They actually import a LOT of electricity so I find it pretty hard to believe what they're saying. They like to tout that they're green but that's only in California, and the rest of their electricity comes from out of state which kinda defeats the purpose of "being green" unless you like the idea of "not in my backyard"...

Do you even think before your fingers move?

Why does out of state electricity mean it isn't "green"? What if they import electricity from Oregon? Which they do, btw. Not that Oregon's electrical sources are particularly green, but we do have our share of hydroelectric dams.

Regardless, their portfolio is their portfolio. They know where their energy comes from.

Yeah that's the thing, there is a coal power plant in Oregon that they get their energy from and quite a bit to say the least. What PGE has listed on their site could easily reflect ONLY the power plants THEY OWN and not the power they buy from. One could claim the Prius is a clean car all around but at the same time, if they found out that the materials and manufacturing processes aren't so clean because they're from or done in china, then no I'd say it isn't a clean vehicle. I know that California imports a lot of its electricity, like 50% and if they're importing that much, then it's extremely hard to believe that PGE is getting like 95% of their electricity from "clean" (relatively) sources.

Clearly, you know better than they do. :roll:

 

[fleabag]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: BrownTown
A 30 second Google finds that their portfolio only has 2% coal. They are 40% natural gas, 25% nuclear, 20% renewables and 15% hydro. Since natural gas is the only one of those that produces CO2 that means they are (0.4 * 1.314) = .52 lbs/kwh, WOW, thats EXACTLY what they say they are. Amazing what Google and math can get you in the period of 2 minutes.

They actually import a LOT of electricity so I find it pretty hard to believe what they're saying. They like to tout that they're green but that's only in California, and the rest of their electricity comes from out of state which kinda defeats the purpose of "being green" unless you like the idea of "not in my backyard"...

Do you even think before your fingers move?

Why does out of state electricity mean it isn't "green"? What if they import electricity from Oregon? Which they do, btw. Not that Oregon's electrical sources are particularly green, but we do have our share of hydroelectric dams.

Regardless, their portfolio is their portfolio. They know where their energy comes from.

Yeah that's the thing, there is a coal power plant in Oregon that they get their energy from and quite a bit to say the least. What PGE has listed on their site could easily reflect ONLY the power plants THEY OWN and not the power they buy from. One could claim the Prius is a clean car all around but at the same time, if they found out that the materials and manufacturing processes aren't so clean because they're from or done in china, then no I'd say it isn't a clean vehicle. I know that California imports a lot of its electricity, like 50% and if they're importing that much, then it's extremely hard to believe that PGE is getting like 95% of their electricity from "clean" (relatively) sources.

Clearly, you know better than they do. :roll:

What do you have to say about this:http://ecoearth.info/shared/re...es%20AND%20%20frontier

 

[Bignate603]

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: BrownTown
A 30 second Google finds that their portfolio only has 2% coal. They are 40% natural gas, 25% nuclear, 20% renewables and 15% hydro. Since natural gas is the only one of those that produces CO2 that means they are (0.4 * 1.314) = .52 lbs/kwh, WOW, thats EXACTLY what they say they are. Amazing what Google and math can get you in the period of 2 minutes.

They actually import a LOT of electricity so I find it pretty hard to believe what they're saying. They like to tout that they're green but that's only in California, and the rest of their electricity comes from out of state which kinda defeats the purpose of "being green" unless you like the idea of "not in my backyard"...

Do you even think before your fingers move?

Why does out of state electricity mean it isn't "green"? What if they import electricity from Oregon? Which they do, btw. Not that Oregon's electrical sources are particularly green, but we do have our share of hydroelectric dams.

Regardless, their portfolio is their portfolio. They know where their energy comes from.

Yeah that's the thing, there is a coal power plant in Oregon that they get their energy from and quite a bit to say the least. What PGE has listed on their site could easily reflect ONLY the power plants THEY OWN and not the power they buy from. One could claim the Prius is a clean car all around but at the same time, if they found out that the materials and manufacturing processes aren't so clean because they're from or done in china, then no I'd say it isn't a clean vehicle. I know that California imports a lot of its electricity, like 50% and if they're importing that much, then it's extremely hard to believe that PGE is getting like 95% of their electricity from "clean" (relatively) sources.

Clearly, you know better than they do. :roll:

What do you have to say about this:http://ecoearth.info/shared/re...es%20AND%20%20frontier

The article that you posted says this:

Pacific Gas and Electric Co., which delivers power to most of the Bay Area and Northern California, obtains about 3 percent of its electricity from coal, according to a spokesman.

Considering the article is from 2005 it's very believable that Browntown's number of 2% from coal is accurate.

 

[fleabag]

Originally posted by: Bignate603

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: BrownTown
A 30 second Google finds that their portfolio only has 2% coal. They are 40% natural gas, 25% nuclear, 20% renewables and 15% hydro. Since natural gas is the only one of those that produces CO2 that means they are (0.4 * 1.314) = .52 lbs/kwh, WOW, thats EXACTLY what they say they are. Amazing what Google and math can get you in the period of 2 minutes.

They actually import a LOT of electricity so I find it pretty hard to believe what they're saying. They like to tout that they're green but that's only in California, and the rest of their electricity comes from out of state which kinda defeats the purpose of "being green" unless you like the idea of "not in my backyard"...

Do you even think before your fingers move?

Why does out of state electricity mean it isn't "green"? What if they import electricity from Oregon? Which they do, btw. Not that Oregon's electrical sources are particularly green, but we do have our share of hydroelectric dams.

Regardless, their portfolio is their portfolio. They know where their energy comes from.

Yeah that's the thing, there is a coal power plant in Oregon that they get their energy from and quite a bit to say the least. What PGE has listed on their site could easily reflect ONLY the power plants THEY OWN and not the power they buy from. One could claim the Prius is a clean car all around but at the same time, if they found out that the materials and manufacturing processes aren't so clean because they're from or done in china, then no I'd say it isn't a clean vehicle. I know that California imports a lot of its electricity, like 50% and if they're importing that much, then it's extremely hard to believe that PGE is getting like 95% of their electricity from "clean" (relatively) sources.

Clearly, you know better than they do. :roll:

What do you have to say about this:http://ecoearth.info/shared/re...es%20AND%20%20frontier

The article that you posted says this:

Pacific Gas and Electric Co., which delivers power to most of the Bay Area and Northern California, obtains about 3 percent of its electricity from coal, according to a spokesman.

Considering the article is from 2005 it's very believable that Browntown's number of 2% from coal is accurate.

Oh ok, so really PGE is the only exception with the rest of the power companies in California using a much higher proportion of coal in order to generate their electricity.. Hmm well I guess that explains a lot and I just so happen to be in an area that has PGE, if it I didn't, we'd be using a lot more coal for our electricity.

 

[BrownTown]

Originally posted by: fleabag
Oh ok, so really PGE is the only exception with the rest of the power companies in California using a much higher proportion of coal in order to generate their electricity.. Hmm well I guess that explains a lot and I just so happen to be in an area that has PGE, if it I didn't, we'd be using a lot more coal for our electricity.

You know, these statistics and all are easily obtainable using the internet, it wouldn't take you more than a few minutes to actually get hard evidence supporting your claims as opposed to idle speculation. Justy go on Google and figure out what percent of their electricity they import and then figure out the portfolios of the utilities they import from and add it up. As for doubting what their website says, I'm sure they will try to spin it as much as possible to make them look good, but they can't just outright lie or they would get their ass sued off by all the environmentalist groups in California.

 

[compuwiz1]

PG&E lost credibility with me after Erin Brockovich.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
PG&E lost credibility with me after Erin Brockovich.

The ESPN babe? Did she used to work for PG&E?

 

[PowerEngineer]

I have to admit that I am also somewhat skeptical of "green" energy claims for imported power. It's really somewhat futile to try to identify exactly which generators are being used to provide for local customers and which are being used to support exports.

There's a whole new market springing up for the purchase/sale of "green" energy credits. Utilities with "green" generating resources earn credits for the Mwhr produced, and these can then be sold to customers and/or other utilities that want/need to claim compliance with "green" goals. The fact that they buy up these credits doesn't necessarily mean that more "green" energy is produced, or that it was "green" energy that they really received.

Going forward, the "green" requirements are inducing utilities to build lots of new "green" generating resources -- mostly wind. Wind farms are quickly becoming the new NIMBY target. Don't be surprised if you see neighboring states taking steps to discourage the siting of out-of-state wind farms (and associated transmission) to serve California's "green" self image.

 

[BrownTown]

Originally posted by: PowerEngineer
Wind farms are quickly becoming the new NIMBY target.

There is a really ironic example of this around here, TVA was trying to build wind turbines on the North Carolina / Tennessee border which is about the only place in the entire southeastern US that has any good wind potential. Well, North Carolina stopped it with legal tactics. The ironic thing is 3 years later the state of North Carolina sued TVA (and won a billion dollars) for having too much emissions from coal plants. Now North Carolina has passed a law making it illegal to build wind turbines in the mountains there. So bsically they make it illegal to build wind farms in the southeast and then sue the energy companies for using too much coal. California is exactly the same way. They make it illegal to build coal and nuclear projects and then get made when energy prices double and they have to import all their electricity. California recently shut down a project to build large scale SOLAR plants in the middle of the desert (far from any humans) because some fucking turtles and sheep lived there.

Its just getting ridiculous when people lose their jobs so turtles can have a little more habitat, or so some rich assholes don't have to look at wind turbines out of the windows of their mountain retreats.

 

[fleabag]

Originally posted by: BrownTown

Originally posted by: PowerEngineer
Wind farms are quickly becoming the new NIMBY target.

There is a really ironic example of this around here, TVA was trying to build wind turbines on the North Carolina / Tennessee border which is about the only place in the entire southeastern US that has any good wind potential. Well, North Carolina stopped it with legal tactics. The ironic thing is 3 years later the state of North Carolina sued TVA (and won a billion dollars) for having too much emissions from coal plants. Now North Carolina has passed a law making it illegal to build wind turbines in the mountains there. So bsically they make it illegal to build wind farms in the southeast and then sue the energy companies for using too much coal. California is exactly the same way. They make it illegal to build coal and nuclear projects and then get made when energy prices double and they have to import all their electricity. California recently shut down a project to build large scale SOLAR plants in the middle of the desert (far from any humans) because some fucking turtles and sheep lived there.

Its just getting ridiculous when people lose their jobs so turtles can have a little more habitat, or so some rich assholes don't have to look at wind turbines out of the windows of their mountain retreats.

Well if they want to save on the amount of land solar panels take up, then we're going to have to invest in solar panels that replace tiles on a roof or double the efficiency of these panels. But right now, as it currently stands, all the companies care about is trying to beat coal in price per KWH, after that they'll hopefully work towards more efficient panels while maintaining that price per KWH.

 

[Bignate603]

Originally posted by: fleabag
Well if they want to save on the amount of land solar panels take up, then we're going to have to invest in solar panels that replace tiles on a roof or double the efficiency of these panels. But right now, as it currently stands, all the companies care about is trying to beat coal in price per KWH, after that they'll hopefully work towards more efficient panels while maintaining that price per KWH.

Yes, just because they want to double the efficiency they can suddenly make some discovery that has eluded us for decades. There has been a worldwide effort to make more efficient panels, nobody has come up with one yet. Just maybe they're having trouble because it's harder than just wishing they had a more efficient panel?

Of course they're trying to beat coal at price for KWH, or at least get somewhat close. You can have the most efficient panel but if it costs 10x what it costs for coal people are going to scream when they have to raise rates.

 

[fleabag]

Originally posted by: Bignate603

Originally posted by: fleabag
Well if they want to save on the amount of land solar panels take up, then we're going to have to invest in solar panels that replace tiles on a roof or double the efficiency of these panels. But right now, as it currently stands, all the companies care about is trying to beat coal in price per KWH, after that they'll hopefully work towards more efficient panels while maintaining that price per KWH.

Yes, just because they want to double the efficiency they can suddenly make some discovery that has eluded us for decades. There has been a worldwide effort to make more efficient panels, nobody has come up with one yet. Just maybe they're having trouble because it's harder than just wishing they had a more efficient panel?

Of course they're trying to beat coal at price for KWH, or at least get somewhat close. You can have the most efficient panel but if it costs 10x what it costs for coal people are going to scream when they have to raise rates.

Your entire post, was unnecessary.

 

[BrownTown]

FWIW the solar plant i was talking about was solar thermal (power tower deign), solar photovoltaic are just FAR to expensive to be used in large scale plants.

 

[IGBT]

they're both hog tied by the eco-KOOKS. they're in a one up manship game of numbers cooking so it doesn't matter.