<div>I found the direct Avista data for the breakdown of their energy sources for electricity, at least for 2006.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Coal is listed as a higher percentage of total power generation, 25%, and natural gas less, 16%, than the other source I just listed in the previous post in this thread. Maybe the discrepancy is due to regional differences in Avista's energy mix. Fossil fuels generate 41% of Avista electricity as shown below, close to the 43% from the previous source. What Moscow receives as a percentage of these various sources I am not sure, but it is clear that fossil fuels are a main source of Avista electrical power generation:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.avistautilities.com/questions/pages/default.aspx?category=Buck-A-Block">http://www.avistautilities.com/questions/pages/default.aspx?category=Buck-A-Block</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>From URL above:</div>
<div>
<p>Avista produces electricity using a number of different resources. In 2006, Avista generated or contracted to purchase for resale 5.83 million megawatt hours for our Northwest customers. </p>
<p>Our owned or contracted resources come primarily from four categories of fuel: biomass, coal, hydro, and natural gas. </p></div>
<div>Avista's fuel mix is as follows: </div>
<div>
<p>Hydro – 52 percent <br>Natural Gas – 16 percent <br>Coal – 25 percent <br>Biomass/Waste – 6 percent <br>Other – 1 percent</p>
<p>Avista does not own or operate any nuclear or waste generation facilities. We do however, purchase energy made within the Pacific Northwest, which includes some nuclear and waste generation. </p></div>
<div>-----------------------------------------</div>
<div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett</div>
<div><br><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 7/12/08, <b class="gmail_sendername">Ted Moffett</b> <<a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com">starbliss@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div>There is no such animal as a non-greenhouse gas emitting electricity source (OK, there are electric eels, fireflies, and other organisms that can generate some electricity...), not in our world where nearly every machine, product or human activity is linked to fossil fuels... It would be hard to power a generator with a bike to charge a battery for your computer, and not use calories sourced using fossil fuels...Unless you grow your own food with no fossil fuels involved!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>All electrical power sources that are more favorable toward lowering greenhouse gas emissions, hydro, nuclear (uranium mining), wind, solar, geothermal, biofuels et. al. have a greenhouse gas impact. Resource extraction, manufacturing of parts, shipping, construction, maintenance and repair cycles use fossil fuels. Constructing and maintaining a power grid uses fossil fuels, as well as for a dam, a nuclear power plant, or a wind farm. Steel production is heavily dependent on coal power, for example, so wind turbines, or any machine or tool with steel (including new hybrid cars), may use coal directly for its steel manufacture, or electricity sourced from coal. Increases in global steel production are linked to significant increases in use of coal, such as the amazing amount of steel being used to build the Three Gorges dam in China </div>
<div>( <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.britishdams.org/current_issues/3Gorges2.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.britishdams.org/current_issues/3Gorges2.pdf</a> ) which in the long run will be a lower CO2 emitting power source, but in the short run is linked to dumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Info on coal used in steel production:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.worldcoal.org/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=189" target="_blank">http://www.worldcoal.org/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=189</a></div>
<div>
<div><b></b> </div>
<div><b>From URL above:</b></div>
<div><b></b> </div>
<div><b>Processes</b></div>
<div>Currently 65% of global steel is produced in Basic Oxygen Furnaces (BOF). Coking coal is converted to coke, which is then used in the blast furnace to smelt iron ore. The resulting molten iron is then taken to the BOF, where steel scrap and limestone are added. A stream of high purity oxygen is blown through the molten bath to remove impurities, leaving almost pure liquid steel. About 0.6 tonnes of coke are required to produce 1 tonne of steel. <br>
<br>A further 32% of steel is produced in Electric Arc Furnaces (EAF); much of the electricity used in this process is generated from coal-fired power stations.</div></div>
<div>-------------------------------</div>
<div>I was curious several years ago about Avista power sources, given how often you hear that we use mostly "clean" hydro in the Northwest. Only 54% of Avista's power is hydro, though these figures may be changing towards adding more lower CO2 emitting renewables... Otherwise...</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Avista uses fossil fuels for 43 percent of their power generation, 13% from coal, 30% from natural gas, according to a December 2007 article quoted below. Thus every day Moscow residents are likely using coal or natural gas fossil fuels for electricity. I have "official" documents from Avista somewhere (lost in my cyberspace files) that support this breakdown of Avista power generation sources. Natural gas emits less CO2 and is more efficient for electricity generation than coal power, but it is still a greenhouse gas emitting fossil fuel, unless using CO2 sequestration. No way that Avista reserves using fossil fuel sources for only peak power generation times:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.spokanejournal.com/spokane_id=article&sub=3399" target="_blank">http://www.spokanejournal.com/spokane_id=article&sub=3399</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>From article at URL above:</div>
<p>Avista's energy-source mix currently is about 54 percent hydroelectric, 30 percent natural gas, 13 percent coal, 3 percent biomass (coming from a Kettle Falls wood-burning plant that's too old to qualify as renewable under the initiative), and 1 percent wind power.<br>
</p>
<div>------------------------------------------</div>
<div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett</div>
<div><br><span class="gmail_quote">On 7/10/08, <b class="gmail_sendername">Andy Boyd</b> <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:moscowrecycling@turbonet.com" target="_blank">moscowrecycling@turbonet.com</a>> wrote:</span></div>
<div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">I concur with your assessment of nwest power, although I imagine at some<br>peak energy times we may end up with power coming from some coal fired<br>
plants.<br>>From an energy consumption standpoint we need to move toward LEDs that use<br>about a quarter of the energy of a cfl and no hazardous waste issues that I<br>am aware of. Unfortunately, there is a lot of infrastructure and $ tied up<br>
in cfls with a poor system for the recycling of these bulbs.<br>On that note, in the near future we will be accepting cfl's at Moscow<br>Recycling for no cost due to a prgram run by Avista. I will do some<br>advertising when this program begins.<br>
Thanks for the conversation.<br>Andy Boyd<br>Manager/Education Coordinator<br>Moscow Recycling<br>208 882 0590<br>----- Original Message -----<br>From: "Kai Eiselein, Editor" <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:editor@lataheagle.com" target="_blank">editor@lataheagle.com</a>><br>
To: "Andy Boyd" <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:moscowrecycling@turbonet.com" target="_blank">moscowrecycling@turbonet.com</a>>; "Saundra Lund"<br><<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:sslund_2007@verizon.net" target="_blank">sslund_2007@verizon.net</a>>; "'Chasuk'" <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:chasuk@gmail.com" target="_blank">chasuk@gmail.com</a>><br>
Cc: <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">vision2020@moscow.com</a>><br>Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 4:35 PM<br>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Energy saving lightbulbs... a different take<br>
<br><br>> Fair enough, but I do have one minor point of contention.<br>> The 200 pounds of greenhouse gasses should have been quantified if the<br>> power was generated by coal or diesel, rather than lumping all power<br>
> generation together.<br>> If I recall correctly, water, wind, solar, geo-thermal and nuclear<br>> generation don't emit greenhouse gasses.<br>> In an area that is served by non-burning electrical sources, the<br>
> greenhouse gas point is a non-issue.<br>> Just a thought.....<br>><br>></blockquote></div></blockquote></div><br>