• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Shutting Down Coal Fired Plants

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,482
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
YESSIREE, Buckwheat is a coal man alright. He told us he would bankrupt the coal fired power plants,and this time he kept his word:

Over the next 18 months, the Environmental Protection Agency will finalize a flurry of new rules to curb pollution from coal-fired power plants. Mercury, smog, ozone, greenhouse gases, water intake, coal ash—it’s all getting regulated. And, not surprisingly, some lawmakers are grumbling.

Industry groups such the Edison Electric Institute, which represents investor-owned utilities, and the American Legislative Exchange Council have dubbed the coming rules “EPA’s Regulatory Train Wreck.” The regulations, they say, will cost utilities up to $129 billion and force them to retire one-fifth of coal capacity. Given that coal provides 45 percent of the country’s power, that means higher electric bills, more blackouts and fewer jobs. The doomsday scenario has alarmed Republicans in the House, who have been scrambling to block the measures. Environmental groups retort that the rules will bring sizeable public health benefits, and that industry groups have been exaggerating the costs of environmental regulations since they were first created.

So, who’s right? This month, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, which conducts policy research for members of Congress, has been circulating a paper that tries to calmly sort through the shouting match. Thanks to The Hill’s Andrew Restuccia, it’s now available (PDF) for all to read. And the upshot is that CRS is awfully skeptical of the “train wreck” predictions.

First, the report agrees that the new rules will likely force the closure of many coal plants between now and 2017, although it’s difficult to know precisely how many. For green groups, that’s a feature, not a bug: Many of these will be the oldest and dirtiest plants around. About 110 gigawatts, or one-third of all coal capacity in the United States, came online between 1940 and 1969. Many of these plants were grandfathered in under the Clean Air Act, and about two-thirds of them don’t have scrubbers:
 

okfarmer

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
Location
Oklahoma
What's the angle on Obama trying to ruin the coal industry here, and the purchase of all the coal and railroads in the north- for export to China like our natural gas?
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,482
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
okfarmer said:
What's the angle on Obama trying to ruin the coal industry here, and the purchase of all the coal and railroads in the north- for export to China like our natural gas?

The angle is to bring us down to 3rd world status and make us all dependent on government checks.

Then we all go to the polls in a zombie like fashion fearing our check will be cut out and vote for the Democrats to keep our checks coming just as they do now.

By that time, someone will justify selling our coal to China to help our trade imbalance, and we'll be left to heat our homes with an expensive "Green" fuel like bio-diesel or cow patty's. And we'll be saving the entire world from the harm of Carbon. :(
 

jedstivers

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
237
Reaction score
0
Location
E AR
Well he did promise change. Only problem was all the people that didn't ask just what he wanted to change. The fact that he's not already impeached is in itself a sign that this country has some bad problems. Hope some of the idiots wake up soon.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Don't worry guys you can always burn dollar bills as by the time Obama is done they will be totally worthless.

BTW Didn't Oldtimer brag about how rich Montana was going to be due to it's rich coal deposits.

Can we now say WE TOLD HIM SO :x
 

Trinity man

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
1,252
Reaction score
3
Location
Guy Store, Texas
Looks like we will be closing down 3 coal power plant around here. Not because of Obama but the drought. The lakes have just about drop below the level needed to run to power them. I guess we will call this Obama drought. He took away the water from Texas.
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
6,061
Reaction score
0
Location
The Dark Side
Ain't just coal plants being shut down......diesel fired plants will be shut down as of May 2013 if they do not have catalytic converters on their exhausts. The cost to fit our plant with CC's is well north of 500K, a price our little slice of heaven can't afford. Plant will shut down, and myself and 4 other fellas will be out of our jobs, insurance, & other benefits. Won't even be allowed to go online during an emergency, thanks to the Almighty EPA. So, if the main line goes down, as it can and does occasionally, we will be without electricity until it's back on, be it hours, days, or weeks. Just a real sweet deal for all involved.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
the combined rules could push as much as 20 percent of U.S. coal-fired electric generation capacity to retire by 2015.

That's already nearly halfway to Obama's pledge at Copenhagen to cut emissions 17 percent by 2020.

17 Ohio coal plants could shut down under new EPA rules

The power industry nationwide might have to spend more than $80 billion and retire 45,000 megawatts of coal-fired power plants to meet current and new EPA regulations,

AEP would shutter 5 coal plants to meet EPA rules

Based on the regulations as proposed, AEP’s compliance plan would retire nearly 6,000 megawatts (MW) of coal-fueled power generation;

Glen Lyn Plant, Glen Lyn, Va. – 335 MW (retired by Dec. 31, 2014);

– Kammer Plant, Moundsville, W.Va. – 630 MW (retired by Dec. 31, 2014) (pictured above)

– Kanawha River Plant, Glasgow, W.Va. – 400 MW (retired by Dec. 31, 2014);

– Phillip Sporn Plant, New Haven, W.Va. – 1,050 MW (450 MW expected to retire in 2011, 600 MW retired by Dec. 31, 2014); and

– Picway Plant, Lockbourne, Ohio – 100 MW (retired by Dec. 31, 2014).

Tennessee Valley Authority’s announcement in April about its plans to retire 2,700 megawatts of coal-fired units:

The Tennessee Valley Authority announced plans Thursday to retire 18 older coal-fired generation units at three power plants

Last coal plant in Pacific Northwest to shut down starting in 2020

The only other such plant in the Pacific Northwest, the PG&E plant near Boardman, Ore., is already under an agreement to go offline in 2020.

Oregon May Shutdown Boardman Coal Power Plant Early
Current DEQ rules allow the plant to operate until at least 2040

Colorado ditches coal

Colorado's Public Utilities Commission has decided to replace all coal-fired power plants in the Denver area. It's the first time a state has moved to shutter coal-burning plants There will be a cost in replacing Xcel Energy's four coal-fired power plants

a report saying the owners of Navajo Generating Station in Page would be best off financially if they closed the coal plant

On the list was the Bridgeport Harbor Station (owned by New Jersey based Public Service Enterprise Group or PSEG), which supplies power to our area.

Exelon Retires 2 Old PA Coal Plants, with 2 More Plants Closing soon

On Jul. 11, Southern Company announced plans to retire two coal-fired units at Plant Branch in Millidgeville, Georgia, as a result of the new CSAP rule. One is scheduled to close in October 2013 and another by December 2013.

Two days later, Dallas-based Energy Future Holdings Corp said it may have to close some of its 12 coal-burning power plants in the state of Texas as a result of the new CSAP rule.

On Jul. 15, Duke Energy Ohio announced it will retire all six coal- fired generation units at its W.C. Beckjord Station, southwest of Cincinnati, Ohio, by Jan. 1, 2015, as a result of the new rule and new proposals.

On Jul. 24, Duke Energy announced it will retire three coal units at the Lee Steam Station in Williamston, South Carolina, in late 2014.

the list is long. so far at least 72 plants ,.. NJ is set to lose 6 of its ten plants, .. 78..

Coal generates 54% of our electricity

The nation's fleet of over 100 coal plants is responsible for 57 percent of the electricity generated in the U.S.

so far in a brief search, I have found 78 plants slated to be closed.. and I am sure the list is not complete.

let see if we have over 100 and I found 78 plants so far.. how many does that leave?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Meanwhile in reality, "alternative energy", is about 1% of all energy in the US, not enough to keep up with the annual increase in demand.


If things don't change, the US will be in the dark in a few years.
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
28,715
Reaction score
20
Location
NE WY at the foot of the Big Horn mountains
Too many people were in the dark when they voted for Obama
in the first place. :x

When I cooked at that hunting camp,
I only had radio for information in Oct. 2008.
Luckily Shawn Hannity was one of the programs
carried by the station, so I listened faithfully and
he told the audience then that Ovomit was going to tax the coal plants
and/or mining so heavily they could not continue to operate.
I couldn't believe it when so many of the coal states in the east
voted FOR him. I wonder what they think now. :???: :cry:

At least Wyoming isn't lumped in with those Obama carried
in the east.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
$100 million Wyoming clean coal plant suspended

CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) — General Electric and the University of Wyoming announced Friday they have suspended plans to build a $100 million joint clean coal research facility near Cheyenne amid uncertainty in the nation's energy policy

Important GE customers have meanwhile cancelled a large sum of coal-fired power projects in the U.S.

"So there just isn't a conducive market for cleaner coal projects to move forward," Davison said. "It's a really hard decision.



Massive’ Closures of U.S. Coal Plants Loom, Chu Says

One gigawatt of coal-fired capacity can power more than 500,000 average U.S. homes, according to EIA data.

Analysts said in September that about 60 gigawatts of coal capacity may be retired.

The U.S. had 314 gigawatts of coal-fired generating capacity last year, which provided almost half the nation’s electricity, according to the Energy Information Administration.

30,000,000 homes.. ? is that alot?

well at least Wyoming is heading in the right direction..
Wyoming currently receives approximately 96 percent of its electricity from coal-fired power plants, and plans are in place to build more.
or are they?..

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) determined in August of 2008 that Two Elk had not performed any construction of the power plant for the last two years in violation of its air quality construction permit from DEQ. As a result, DEQ notified Two Elk that their permit was no longer valid.

seems like the greenies are trying to tie up construction and have succeeded on two out of the three in delaying them

PacifiCorp cancels Wyo. coal projects

CASPER (AP) -- PacifiCorp has scrapped plans for two coal-based power projects in southwest Wyoming, saying coal plant projects are no longer “viable” because of the uncertain political climate regarding carbon dioxide emissions.

PacifiCorp, which operates as Rocky Mountain Power in Wyoming, said it has pulled all coal-based power generation from its plan to meet increasing load demand within the six Western states it serves.

The action scraps a planned 527-megawatt, pulverized coal unit at the Jim Bridger power plant in Sweetwater County. It also scraps a coal-gasification, carbon capture and sequestration demonstration project in partnership with the state of Wyoming at Jim Bridger

“Within the last few months, most of the planned coal plants in the United States have been cancelled, denied permits, or been involved in protracted litigation,” PacifiCorp stated in its filing.

well Faster Horses.. your right about
Too many people were in the dark when they voted for Obama
in the first place.

or at least they will be.. :shock:
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
the greenies keep saying..
The oldest and dirtiest coal plants face the most risk,and it will only effect the smaller plants.

not true..

the study finds that about a third of the closures will be plants under 40 years old and larger than 500 MW.


If both scrubbers and cooling towers are required, it will shut down every merchant coal plant.

This will amount to a big change for the power industry in some regions

By 2020 coal plant closures will reduce coal demand by about 15 percent,


Brattle's report digs into the upgrade-or-retire decision every coal plant in the U.S. will soon face, using a "retirement screening tool," and concludes that ...

... emerging EPA regulations on air quality and water for coal-fired power plants could result in over 50,000 MW of coal plant retirements and require an investment of up to $180 billion for remaining plants to comply with the likely mandates.

Both those numbers go up substantially -- retirements by 11-12 GW and needed investment by $30-50 billion -- if EPA requires cooling towers in addition to smokestack scrubbers. (This is consistent with the FBR Capital Markets report, which finds a total of up to 70,000 MW of coal on the line.)

70,000 MW

lets see.. 314 GW,. minus 70 GW equals 244 GW.. is that enough GW?

and instead of the rounded off 20% it starts looking like 22.3%

and while 10% of all our electric needs being closed seemed bad enough.. is it really worse if it comes out to actually be 12.7%


not if you understand their thinking...

"If you make the regulations costly enough,.. the utilities will be forced to close the coal plants.. "


Economic Study Supports Coal Plant Phase-Outs Over Retrofits

Using the 35-year old, 2,250-megawatt Navajo Generating Station near Page, Ariz. as a case study, the group's analysis examined the costs and benefits of the plant’s future. As with many aging power plants nationwide, Navajo is due for upgrades necessary for it to comply with the EPA's pollution and air quality regulations. The report notes that retrofits can entail substantial costs, running into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

The report states that such facilities, will be more profitable by abandoning retrofit plans and instead embracing a full range of clean energy resources, including wind, photovoltaic and concentrated solar, geothermal, and biomass, combined with large-scale supply and demand- side efficiency measures.

so in the next few years.. we will just learn to use less.. 12.7% less.. :shock:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Steve said:
the greenies keep saying..
The oldest and dirtiest coal plants face the most risk,and it will only effect the smaller plants.

not true..

the study finds that about a third of the closures will be plants under 40 years old and larger than 500 MW.


If both scrubbers and cooling towers are required, it will shut down every merchant coal plant.

This will amount to a big change for the power industry in some regions

By 2020 coal plant closures will reduce coal demand by about 15 percent,


Brattle's report digs into the upgrade-or-retire decision every coal plant in the U.S. will soon face, using a "retirement screening tool," and concludes that ...

... emerging EPA regulations on air quality and water for coal-fired power plants could result in over 50,000 MW of coal plant retirements and require an investment of up to $180 billion for remaining plants to comply with the likely mandates.

Both those numbers go up substantially -- retirements by 11-12 GW and needed investment by $30-50 billion -- if EPA requires cooling towers in addition to smokestack scrubbers. (This is consistent with the FBR Capital Markets report, which finds a total of up to 70,000 MW of coal on the line.)

70,000 MW

lets see.. 314 GW,. minus 70 GW equals 244 GW.. is that enough GW?

and instead of the rounded off 20% it starts looking like 22.3%

and while 10% of all our electric needs being closed seemed bad enough.. is it really worse if it comes out to actually be 12.7%


not if you understand their thinking...

"If you make the regulations costly enough,.. the utilities will be forced to close the coal plants.. "


Economic Study Supports Coal Plant Phase-Outs Over Retrofits

Using the 35-year old, 2,250-megawatt Navajo Generating Station near Page, Ariz. as a case study, the group's analysis examined the costs and benefits of the plant’s future. As with many aging power plants nationwide, Navajo is due for upgrades necessary for it to comply with the EPA's pollution and air quality regulations. The report notes that retrofits can entail substantial costs, running into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

The report states that such facilities, will be more profitable by abandoning retrofit plans and instead embracing a full range of clean energy resources, including wind, photovoltaic and concentrated solar, geothermal, and biomass, combined with large-scale supply and demand- side efficiency measures.

so in the next few years.. we will just learn to use less.. 12.7% less.. :shock:


shut the night-light off Steve, if you're scared, ask the wife to hold you. :lol:
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
28,715
Reaction score
20
Location
NE WY at the foot of the Big Horn mountains
This comment was on Mark Levins facebook page...


Let's see if I can add 2+2. The EPA is set to roll out new regulations that will shrink the numbers of coal fired power plants. At the same time GE is trying to get a license to begin enriching uranium to be used as nuclear reactor fuel. Jeffery Immelt is at the right hand of Obama. I see the two of them attempting to corner the power market in the US. It will place the power grid in the hands of the socialists. The EPA regs. will be rolled out over the next 18 months. The approval for GE to begin building is one to two years. Coincidence? I don't think so.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Buffett and coal

In 2007, Buffett's PacifiCorp, a subsidiary of his MidAmerican Energy Company, canceled six proposed coal-fired power plants. These included Utah's Intermountain Power Project Unit 3, Jim Bridger Unit 5, and four proposed plants previously included in PacifiCorp's Integrated Resource Plan.

looks like his plan is to export US coal to build China's economy with cheap energy..
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Faster horses said:
This comment was on Mark Levins facebook page...


Let's see if I can add 2+2. The EPA is set to roll out new regulations that will shrink the numbers of coal fired power plants. At the same time GE is trying to get a license to begin enriching uranium to be used as nuclear reactor fuel. Jeffery Immelt is at the right hand of Obama. I see the two of them attempting to corner the power market in the US. It will place the power grid in the hands of the socialists. The EPA regs. will be rolled out over the next 18 months. The approval for GE to begin building is one to two years. Coincidence? I don't think so.

it doesn't look good for nuclear power in the US either..

if we can't build nuke plants here at least GE can sell the enriched uranium to the Iranians..
 

Latest posts

Top