The controversial practice of natural gas fracking has lead to a paradigm shift in U.S energy policy.   New drilling techniques have resulted in a surge in natural gas production in the U.S.  But energy producers have become so good at extracting natural gas from the ground they are no longer able to get a premium price for their product in the U.S. 

The supply of natural gas relative to the demand makes it a much less precious community than in yeas past.  Prices have fallen dramatically.  The solution according to many is to begin exporting U.S natural gas to foreign markets where natural gas trades at much higher prices.

There are major political and financial hurtles that have to be cleared, however, before exporting can begin.  Exporting natural gas requires approval from the Energy Department.  The Department must determine that the project is in the best interest of the country.  In total there are around 20 applications pending to begin exporting.

Exporting natural gas is a capital intensive undertaking.  In order to ship natural gas it must be cooled to liquid form (liquefied natural gas) and loaded onto large vessels for shipping.  This necessitates infrastructure and large facilities; all of which means lots of money.

The Freeport facility can likely be up and running sooner than other projects because, ironically, it was originally built by Dow Chemical and several other partners as a LNG import facility.   This was at a time when natural gas prices were much higher and there were concerns about having enough natural gas in the U.S to meet domestic demand.  A consortium of investors will now be retooling the facility to ship LNG out of the country.

To the Texas consumer, this development is a mixed bag.  Energy is a large part of the Texas economy. What is good for the energy industry is generally good for the state.  However, once natural gas exports begin, it will almost certainly mean higher prices.  Since Texas electricity rates a driven in large part by the price of natural gas, electric rates will almost certainly go up.   This would first be reflected in the wholesale electricity market and ultimately be passed on to consumers by electricity providers.  

See Also: New York Power Plant Could Go From Coal To Natural Gas
See Also: How Texas Will Lead America’s Energy Future

The plan promises to protect you from rate increases and save you 20%.  But 20% of what?  The reality is that TXU’s rates are so high that, even after a 20% discount, you are still paying way more than most other providers charge.

The Secure Saver plan is a 24 month plan.  At the time of this writing, the rate for the plan in the Dallas area is 13.9¢ per kwh (assuming you use 2,000 kWh per month).  The 20% discount promised in the advertising only applies to the first 12 months.  The rate is 11.2¢ per kwh in the first year after the discount. 

In the second year the rate would shoot back up to 13.9¢ per kwh.  Assuming you use roughly the same amount of electricity the second year as the first, that makes your average rate for the 24 months 12.6¢ per kwh.

How does this compare to other electricity providers in the Dallas area?

TriEagle Energy is currently offering a 24 month plan in Dallas for 9.0¢ per kwh.   That’s substantially better than even the 20% discounted first year of the TXU plan.  Bounce Energy is also offering a 24 month plan for just 9.6¢ per kwh.

The rates are slightly different but the results are the same in the other parts of the state, including the Houston area.  TXU’s plan is more expensive than almost any other provider.

Protection Against Rate Spikes?

If it’s protection against price increases you want, you could even consider the current 36 month plan being offered by TriEagle for the same 9.0¢ per kwh as their 24 month plan.

Bottom line

When shopping for electricity in Texas it’s easy to get lost in all the numbers.  But here is the bottom line:

Over the 24 months of the plan, TXU’s SecureSaver Plan would cost you $1,704 more than other providers.

Note:  Electricity rates in Texas change often.  The rates in this piece are as of 4/29/2013.  To get up to the minute rates for your city enter your zip code in the search box above.

See Also: Are TXU Rates The Most Expensive Electricity Rates In Texas?

The Texas Senate passed a measure by a vote of 21-10 that would cut one time $120 checks to eligible ratepayers in the state.  The money would come from the state’s System Benefit Fund. 

The fund is intended as a way to build a pool of money to be used to assist low income people who need help paying their electricity bills.

Since it’s creation in 1999 ratepayers have paid a surcharge of up to 65 cents per kilowatt hour on their electric bills that goes towards the fund.  Over the years the program has paid out far less money than it has taken in resulting in a surplus of about $850 million. 

In 2012, the Lite-Up program, which assists low income households with their electric bills, paid out around $60 million.  The System Benefit Fund collected more than twice that amount in surcharges.  The extra money has been treated like general funds in the state’s coffers and used to balance the state’s budget.

As lawmakers look for ways to reduce taxes in the state, many see returning the surplus from the System Benefit Fund as an easy way to return money to the citizenry.  But, the move is not without controversy.  Some people see the move as taking away money from lower income people.  For the most part, the debate is split along part lines with Republicans backing the plan.

The State Senate’s action alone would not be enough to pass the measure into law.  Before checks can be cut, a 2/3 majority vote would be required in both the house and senate to send the proposal to voters.  Voters would then have to approve it as an amendment to the state’s constitution. 

Only residential and commercial electricity clients in the so called “Power to Choose” or deregulated parts of the state would be eligible for the rebate.  This includes the Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston areas.

See Also: Group Claims Oncor Unnecessarily Charged Fees to Texas Electricity Consumers
See Also: A New Fee On The Electric Bill of Dallas / Fort Worth Customers

Texas is a “Power to Choose” state which means that consumers in most parts of the state are free to select their Retail Electric Provider.  However, the transmission utilities, including Oncor, are still regulated monopolies.  They are responsible for delivering electricity to consumers regardless of who the retail provider is.  The electric company whose name appears on the bill charges consumers pass-through fees that go back to Oncor to pay for the cost of delivering the power.

Oncor is owned by the same parent company that owns the retail electric provider TXU.  The parent company, Energy Future Holdings (EFH), has been in financial trouble since an ill-fated leveraged buyout in 2007 left the company with an unsustainable amount of debt.  The buyout amounted to a massive bet on the direction of natural gas prices by a group of large investors.  Soon after the buyout the bottom feel out of natural gas prices and never recovered. 

As a result EFH has been losing money since 2008 and consequently has not paid any federal income taxes.  According to the report, the money collected by Oncor ostensibly to pay federal income taxes has simply gone into the pockets of EFH and used to help service their massive debt payments.  The report further contends that since EFH appears to be heading towards bankruptcy or some other form of restructuring, the money collected for taxes will likely never be paid to the federal government.

See Also: A New Fee On The Electric Bill of Dallas / Fort Worth Customers

How Reliable Are They?

In the process, however, he has raised some important questions. How reliable is a Tesla Model S sedan, really? And how does it compare to other electric models? Here is what you can actually expect from the most popular gasoline-free gems on the market today.

CNET.com’s editors concluded, “The 2012 Tesla Model S sets a new standard for cars of the 21st century by…incorporating a long-range, powerful, and efficient electric drive train.” And, their editors noted in response to Broder, “You cannot treat an electric car, given current technology, like you would a gasoline-powered car. You need to be much more mindful of range issues, where you can charge, and how long it will take.”

Ford, Nissan Electric Vehicles

Other electric vehicles also rate well with experts. We checked out a Nissan Leaf at a Peoria car dealership and found that the suggested retail is $37,200, compared to the Model S at $57,900. CNET’s bottom line for the Leaf? “The 2012 Nissan Leaf offers a good blend of affordability and all-around performance for city dwellers and suburbanites looking to go zero-emission.” Hybridcars.com calls the Leaf “the top contender for first affordable mainstream all-electric car.” And AutoGuide.com said, “Designed to work within an urban environment, the Leaf certainly succeeds.”

Ford’s 2013 Focus Electric vehicle retails for $39,200. CNET’s conclusion on this car is that “its short driving range and long recharge times limit (its) suitability to some specific lifestyles, but it is a very high-tech car that should delight early adopter types.” Hybridcars.com observed that “the Focus Electric and Leaf have close EPA ratings for both driving range and efficiency. The Leaf is rated at 73 miles of driving range, with a rating of 99 MPGe (miles-per-gallon equivalent). The Focus Electric (boasts) 76 miles of range and a 105 MPGe rating.”

Mitsubishi’s Egg

There’s also the 2012 Mitsubishi i-MiEV. Mitsubishi’s i-MiEV is the value-priced choice among electric vehicles. Starting at $29,125, it features a look straight out of a comic book. The little egg-shaped four-door hatchback can seat four adults and has an EPA estimated driving range of 62 miles with a top speed of 81 mph.

Volvo and Toyota both have developed all-electric models, but have not yet introduced them to the U.S. retail market. Stay tuned. Now that $4-a-gallon gas has returned to many places in the U.S., Volvo’s C30 Electric and Toyota’s FT-EV are sure to be enhanced and made available for sale in America in the next few years.

All-electric cars are still considered novelties by most American drivers. Sometimes, when an unexpected negative review is published, drivers become even more skeptical of the practicality of this class of cars. But by the end of this decade, we’re confident electric vehicles will have become completely mainstream.

According to NRG the conversion, which would cost about a half billion dollars would result in a 5% reduction in western New York electricity rates.  Across the entire state ratepayers could see a 2% reduction in electricity costs as a result of the plant being repurposed. 

According to the report, the switch would reduce the state’s dependence on higher cost electricity and eliminate the need for a proposed $2.2 billion project to import power from Quebec to New York City.

The New York power market is beginning to experience a taste of what Texas has been dealing with for a while.  An oversupply of natural gas has brought about cheap electricity rates making it more difficult for energy producers to make money; especially with coal burning power plants.  The power plant in Dunkirk faces shutdown in 2015 if NRG doesn’t take drastic steps such as the conversion to natural gas.

Once practically the only game in town for electricity, coal is rapidly loosing its position to natural gas.  The EPA has aggressively gone after coal in recent years with new rules that have added substantially to the cost of coal energy.  The combination of free market dynamics and regulatory overhead for coal has shifted the economic equation in favor of natural gas.

The study suggests that New York rate payer will save an estimated $142 million per year as a result of the lower wholesale electricity prices.  If the decision is made to pursue the conversation, it could also mean a jobs boost to the region.  According to the company, such a project would result in about 1,200 new jobs.

1. Cars that burn conventional gasoline, but minimize their operating costs by using lightweight materials and a number of other technological innovations.
2. Hybrids, which use a gasoline engine to charge a bank of batteries, which in turn power the car.
3. Cars with diesel engines, which can run further on a gallon of fuel than their gasoline-powered counterparts.

Which type offers the most savings on fuel costs?

Hybrid Facts

Hybrids produce the least emissions of the three types. They achieve stunningly high fuel-efficiency ratings, according to digitaltrends.com. For example, the Toyota Prius often gets up to 50 mpg on highways, according to a study by the National Insurance Crime Bureau.

However, these benefits are partially offset by the amount of greenhouse gasses used to produce the batteries that hybrids depend on. Those same batteries cause another shortcoming of hybrids: the high-purchase prices. Government grants and savings on gas offer hybrid drivers a discount over team, but these eco-friendly vehicles demand a significant up-front cost.

They can run purely on electricity for trips of limited length. For example, the Chevy Volt can travel up to 38 miles before exhausting a charge, according to Fueleconomy.gov. For those who live in urban areas or have short work commute, the car can go for extended periods without using any gas at all.

This advantage is of limited value for people who must drive long distances. And the base Volt carries a hefty price tag of almost $40,000.00. For many consumers, the payments on such an expensive vehicle would far outweigh any savings on fuel costs.

The Story on Diesels

Diesel engines rely on the greater inherent efficiency of the fuel they run on as opposed to conventional gasoline. Some models, such as the VW Passat TDI, commonly have more than 43 mpg, according to VW of Phoenix AZ. And, unlike hybrids, diesels aren’t dependent on batteries, which have a questionable life span, especially on high mileage vehicles.

Some people object to diesels due to their reputation for being noisy and releasing high amounts of pollutants. But technological advances over the past 10 years have made diesel vehicles cleaner-running and quieter. They produce higher amounts of greenhouse gasses than hybrids, making the first choice the greener choice based purely on emissions ratings.

Conventional Vehicles

They might have a green label or futuristic shape, but some conventional gas-powered vehicles are in good standing with the eco-friendly community. Honda Accord, Kia Rio and Toyota Camry were among the J.D. Power’s 30 environmentally friendly vehicles study, according to MSN.com. These vehicles accrue above-average gas mileage, while they don’t have the range or convenience drawbacks of hybrids and diesels.

Hybrids, deisels and conventional vehicles have strengths and weaknesses. All three vehicle types are far superior to gasoline engines in terms of economy, however. For this reason alone, budget-conscious drivers should give them serious consideration.

The research was done to address the question of how to most efficiently power alternative fuel or battery powered electric vehicles.   It’s an important question considering electric vehicles are ostensibly better for the environment than traditional gasoline powered vehicles.

When you switch from a gas powered vehicle to an electric vehicle pollution from tailpipe emissions is effectively eliminated.  But things aren’t as straight forward as that.  The source of the electricity used to charge the electric vehicle’s battery can have a substantial impact on the true environmental cost of your commute.

Most Texas electricity (the vast majority in the U.S in fact) still comes from coal or natural gas.  As a result, the environmental savings of electric vehicles, while still positive, are not as great as they could be.   To truly maximize the impact of electric powered transportation the electricity needs to be sourced from truly clean and renewable energy sources.

The University of California study compares two such potential sources; photovoltaics and biofuel.  Both methods work by extracting energy from the sun.  Photovoltaics achieve this by directly converting solar radiation into electricity while biofuel relies on photosynthesis to extract energy from the sun’s light.   From there, biomass can be used to create fuel (such as corn ethanol) for internal combustion engines or it can be used to generate electricity.

One of the study’s findings was that acre for acre, solar cells produce around 30 times more electricity than the most efficient biofuel crops.  This means the land use efficiency of solar vs. biofuel is better by a factor of 30.   For some of the least efficient crops, the land-use efficiency of solar power is about 200 times greater.  Compounding the effect, consider that solar cells don’t have to be placed on agriculturally valuable land.  They can be installed within cities and on roof tops.

Adding to the case for solar over bio is the fact that this gap in efficiency is likely to continue to widen.  The best photovoltaic technology currently converts about 10 percent of the solar radiation it receives into energy.  As the technology continues to advance this conversion ratio is only likely to improve, even as prices come down.  Biofuels however are hamstrung by the fundamental limitations of photosynthesis which only converts about 1% of the sun’s radiation it receives into energy.

See Also: Data Shows Electric Vehicles Could Strain Electricity Grid
See Also: Have We Seen The Peak In Carbon Emissions?

Each year, 140 million tons of nitrogen is added to the environment, which, according to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has a number of effects on public health and the environment. UNEP estimates this causes up to $2 TRILLION dollars of damage in the world each year (yep, that’s the largest amount we’ve ever seen quoted in an editorial too).

A Crash Course in Nitrogen

A simple gaseous element that takes many forms, nitrogen or nitrates can be present or result from waste (human and other), manure, chemical manufacturing, exhaust, fuel combustion, fertilizers, and a whole host of other compounds we have come to rely on. Although small amounts are necessary, nitrites decreases the oxygen carrying capacity of blood in humans, and act as a major free-radical, among other suffocating traits.

To the environment, nitrites are basically the relentless villain in the heroic story of the Earth’s saga, theoretically entitled “Am I Sustainable?” We don’t know if the ending is a happy one.

Bigger, Faster, More, Now

The allure of great wealth, accomplishment, and of course, consumer demand has propelled industry since the industrial age. But at what point will the pendulum of “manufacture more” swing too far? Each pork producing company, on average, discharges 26 million tons of dangerous waste into the environment—and that’s just in the U.S. In China the pollution from various industries has made life so bad that flights have had to be canceled due to poor visibility. Although Spiegel Magazine has referred to China as “The World’s Toxic Waste Dump,” pollution is a serious concern for more than just a few industrialized nations—it’s a health risk for the world. According to a study by the World Wildlife Fund, we will need two more Earth-sized planets by the year 2050 if we keep using resources at our current rate.

What Happens Next?

The reality of the world is a scary one, but before we abandon our civilized life and run to the woods in tears, take some time to learn about things we can do to help reduce the massive onslaught of pollution problems we are facing. The EPA is a valuable resource for learning about the state of the environment in your community. From there teach other people to make small changes that make a big impact. You don’t have to be a millionaire philanthropist to incite a mini-environmental revolution. You could just be an average Joe who feels passionately enough about it to submit an article to an environmentally conscious blog.

The new process called coal-direct chemical looping uses chemical combustion rather than fire to extract energy from coal.  The typical process for converting coal to energy relies on burning it using oxygen in the air.  The resulting combustion creates both heat and carbon dioxide.  The carbon dioxide is difficult to capture.   Coal-direct chemical looping still produced carbon dioxide but does so in a why that allows 99% of the carbon dioxide produced in the process to be captured without escaping into the atmosphere. 

The new process has shown promise on a small scale.  It has been used successfully to produce 25 kilowatts of power in an experiment plant.  There are plans to build a 250 killowatt demo plant in Alabama at the Department of Energy’s U.S. National Carbon Capture Center.

The Energy Department’s Carbon Capture Program provides some of the funding for the research as does energy companies with an interest in developing cleaner coal technologies such as Consol Energy and Babcock and Wilcox Company.

The coal industry has been under pressure in recent years due to aggressive new rules being pushed by the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as stiff competition from the natural gas industry.   Because new drilling techniques have made natural gas both cheap and suddenly abundant, it has become the fuel of choice for producing electricity.

In places like Texas, natural gas and wind have grown as a percentage of the electricity portfolio almost exclusively at the cost of coal.  Wholesale electricity rates in Texas have become so cheap because of natural gas that energy producers are loath to invest in new coal power plants.

A revolutionary approach like the one promised by the team at Ohio State could be the shot in the arm coal needs.  However, any wide scale application of the new technology is along way off and far from certain.

See Also: The U.S. Military’s Green Mission
See Also: Has The Wind Energy Industry Peaked?