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

[wtmusic]

"The U.S. has an aging inventory of coal-fired power plants and many units might be closed before the end of the decade, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said.

“We’re going to see massive retirements within the next five, eight years,” Chu said today at a renewable-energy conference in Washington. “Much of our fleet of coal plants is 40 to 50 years old.”

President Barack Obama said last month the U.S. should eliminate tax subsidies for fossil-fuel production worth $4 billion a year so it can boost spending on renewable energy and cars that run on alternative fuels, such as electricity."

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-02-09/-massive-closures-of-u-s-coal-plants-loom-chu-says.html

:applause:

[phantom power]

1. They won't do it.

Phantom Power Has Spoken. :woohoo:

[n2doc]

5. Of course they won't

This is just the "boogyman" part of the play. Soon there will be the preordained solution, to allow the plants to be "grandfathered" in so that no disruptions might occur. Problem ignored and solved!

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. No, this is not “bogeyman”… this is good news

From the same article:

…

If Congress approves Obama’s clean-energy standard, coal’s share of the U.S. electricity market “will shrink a little bit until we develop those technologies that would use coal in a clean way,” Chu said. Nuclear reactors, natural gas-fired plants and renewable sources such as wind turbines and solar panels would expand to make up lost output from coal, he said.

…

http://energy.gov/news/10064.htm

February 14, 2011

President's Energy Budget Invests in Innovation, Clean Energy, and National Security Priorities

DOE also making tough budget choices and instituting management reform efforts to save taxpayer money

Washington, D.C. - U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu today detailed President Barack Obama's $29.5 billion Fiscal Year 2012 budget request for the Department of Energy, emphasizing that it is part of an Administration-wide plan to win the future by out-innovating, out-educating and out-building the rest of the world. At the same time, the FY 2012 makes tough choices, cutting programs and expenses to underscore the Administration's commitment to fiscal responsibility and shared sacrifice.

"The United States faces a choice today: will we lead in innovation and out-compete the rest of the world or will we fall behind? To lead the world in clean energy, we must act now. We can't afford not to. Through our investments, we are laying the groundwork for the nation's future prosperity and security," said Secretary Chu. "While we are investing in areas that are critical to our future, we are also rooting out programs that aren't needed and making hard choices to tighten our belt. Additionally, we are improving our management and operations so we function more efficiently and effectively."

Specifically the President's FY 2012 budget request for the Department of Energy:

• Puts the nation on the path to reach a bold but achievable goal of generating 80 percent of America's electricity from clean sources by 2035 as called for by the President.
• Supports groundbreaking basic science, research and innovation to solve our energy challenges and ensure that the United States remains at the forefront of science and technology.
• Leads in the development and deployment of clean and efficient energy technologies to reduce our dependence on oil, accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy and promote economic competitiveness; and
• Strengthens national security by reducing nuclear dangers, maintaining a safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrent and cleaning up our Cold War nuclear legacy.
• Advances responsible environmental management by cleaning up hazardous, radioactive legacy waste from the Manhattan Project and the Cold War.

…

[n2doc]

7. His proposal is DOA in this Congress

So what will likely happen is that we will hear that we will get electricity blackouts if we don't keep these monstrosities going. Since the subsidies for wind and solar will be going away with the new Congress, and I don't see a lot of nukes going in in the next few years, I guess we are counting on Natural gas (likely from fracked shales)

If these are going to be killed in the next 5 years, more research won't do a thing. We need clean or at least better replacements in the pre-construction stage now. So gas fired plants must be the main option. I wonder how many are being planned?

[GliderGuider]

2. Good news indeed!

Now, will they also restrict permits for new ones?

[RKP5637]

3. Man, that picture looks like something right out of the USSR during the

cold war.

This is great news!

[wtmusic]

4. Worse

10 of the World’s Dirtiest Power Plants

http://webecoist.com/2009/04/15/clean-coal-dirty-coal-plants/

[RKP5637]

9. Gross!!! n/t

[happyslug]

16. You are grossed by ONE smokestack of pollution????

Carefully look at both pictures, the big wide "smokestacks" are just steam. The EPA, in order to protect the fish in waterways, require that any electrical plant that uses water as a coolant (And almost all of them do, including the Nuclear ones) must release the steam into the air NOT the local water way. The primary purpose is to keep the water way the same temperature it would be if the power plant was NOT on that waterway.

The taller and narrower smokestacks are the Smokestacks that are releasing pollution, including Carbon, into the air. In one picture there is only one such smokestack and in the second, three. The pollution form the three are bad, but appear minor when compared to the steam being released.

The problem with most pollution, including the type that is killing people directly, is that it is generally unseen. I am pointing out that in the pictures used, most of what people call "Smoke" in those pictures is nothing but steam, which as a general rule steam has minimal affect on the environment (Some affect, but way less then real pollution).

[RKP5637]

21. Thanks for pointing this out! n/t

[lfairban]

Can't see the pollution

The pollution coming from the narrow stack can't be seen. You can see the clear gap between the top of the stack and the steam cloud. If there were a lot of particulate matter coming out, it would be darker with no gap. This looks like a typical stack with pollution control equipment operating.

[happyslug]

23. You can see it is the second stack on the original picture in this thread

That same picture:


The first stack is throwing out all types of smoke, but could be steam given its color. The Second stack you see a faint glimmer of smoke out of the stack, almost invisible. That is pollution not steam, As to pollution control equipment, the smokestack was the first such piece of equipment, just to move the smoke out of the area of the fire. Since WWII, the US has done tremendous strides to reduce pollution, but we are still either Number 1 or 2 in pollution (China is believed to have passed the US by in production of pollution, but we are NOT that far behind China).



As to the picture with the three stacks, while there is a gap between the Stack and the cloud right above the stacks, I have seen clouds not form for a few feet after their leave a stack. Mostly this is do the temperatures in the area and how hot is whatever is the stack is expelling (and how fast the smoke is existing the stack), thus I can NOT exclude that cloud being from the Stack, but I also point out it still looks like a steam cloud. Some plants can expel excess steam through their normal smokestacks (More as a backup to Convention steam towers), thus the cloud above the tall stacks may be steam but even if it is all steam came up through the tall stacks. In such situation it is not unusual for pollution to still be coming up those same tall stacks (but rare, excess steam is released when it is no longer needed, thus the heat and its pollution are not needed at that point.

There is many ways to hide pollution but lets not confuse steam with pollution, and lets not forget that is it pollution that is the problem (including carbon and to a much lower extent steam, for steam is the release of heat and water into the atmosphere and that has some affect on the overall environment).

[damntexdem]

8. But they're so reliable. As we in North Texas learned in Super Bowl week.

Oh, . . . never mind!

;-)

(It was coal-fired plants that failed in the cold, leading to rolling power outages on some of the coldest days in recent years.)

[FBaggins]

18. It wasn't just the coal plants that failed.

A great deal of natural gas generating capacity was sidelined because of a lack of supply (and some of that supply used up by far greater demand for heating). There was also an unusually high amount of capacity idled for regular maintenance.

[jtrockville]

10. Interesting... EIA doesn't project any massive coal retirements.

EIA projects coal capacity to remain pretty much at ~315 GW for the foreseeable future (their reference case ends in 2035)
EIA's 2011 Energy Outlook (capacity)

E-gads that photo is ugly.

COAL IS FILTHY

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. From the original article

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-02-09/-massive-closures-of-u-s-coal-plants-loom-chu-says.html

…

The EIA predicts plants with 7.7 gigawatts of capacity will close by 2018. Cambridge, Massachusetts-based The Brattle Group, a consulting firm, said in December that 50 to 65 gigawatts of capacity may be closed by 2020 because of environmental regulations. Analysts at Zurich-based bank Credit Suisse Group AG said in September that about 60 gigawatts of coal capacity may be retired.

…

[jtrockville]

12. That doesn't match what I found at EIA's site.

Lots of groups project high coal retirements. Most projections I've seen are in in the same range as Brattle and Credit Suisse, but some show a less aggressive time-frame (~60GW by ~2022).

The quicker the better.

[OKIsItJustMe]

13. I believe the EIA is making assumptions about “clean coal.”

Using those assumptions, even though a number of old plants may be closed, over time, capacity will remain roughly constant as (presumed) "clean coal" plants are brought on-line to replace old "dirty coal" plants.

…

If Congress approves Obama’s clean-energy standard, coal’s share of the U.S. electricity market “will shrink a little bit until we develop those technologies that would use coal in a clean way,” Chu said. Nuclear reactors, natural gas-fired plants and renewable sources such as wind turbines and solar panels would expand to make up lost output from coal, he said.

…

[jtrockville]

14. EIA doesn't show much new coal capacity.

EIA doesn't show anywhere near that much new coal capacity coming online. Their projection of ~315 GW includes ~7 GW retiring, and ~11 GW coming online. Nothing near the ~60 GW range others are projecting, either to retire or to come back online.

EIA's projections definitely don't square with everyone else's.

[FBaggins]

17. Could they be assuming some existing plants shift to "clean" coal?

n/t

[jtrockville]

24. I suppose. It's just odd that EIA is such an outlyer.

Generally I'd give EIA projections far more creedence than projections from others. But since the other projects pretty much all coincide, well.. it just makes EIA's projections look rather odd.

[txlibdem]

15. Good riddance

As they say, good riddance to bad rubbish! K&R this post! Well done!

I just hope that they replace all those coal plants with something like:

Solar PV
Solar Thermal
Space-Based Solar Power
Wind Turbine farms, offshore and onshore
Geothermal Power Plants
Tidal energy generators
Wave energy farms

And SMRs -- small to medium sized nuclear reactors that will be mass produced in factories --ensuring safety and bringing down costs dramatically!

Of course, I also think all the solar and wind power plants have some kind of energy storage built in so they can provide a stable source of electrical power:
flywheel energy storage
molten salt
hydro + gravity
compressed air or fluids
batteries

If every wind farm or giant solar power plant had adequate energy storage we wouldn't need any other source of energy at all. The question lies in right sizing the energy storage. You might not need 2 days worth of energy storage, but 3 hours may not be adequate either. It'll have to be studied.

[happyslug]

19. That picture shows one smokestack blowing what looks like steam

The second smokestack is clearly showing the release of pollution, but you have to look for it, the steam from the first smokestack and the steam in the rear which appear to be released from cooling towers (i.e. nothing but steam) tends to dominate the picture and thus you can miss the real pollution from the second stake unless you look for it. The pollution from that second stack is the real killer, not all the steam that dominates the picture.

[wtmusic]

20. Water vapor from steam is white.

Hatfield-Ferry is one of the worst polluters in the country. They're installing scrubbers, but the pollution doesn't just disappear:

"Allegheny Energy is cleaning up smokestack emissions from its Hatfield's Ferry coal-fired power plant in Greene County but wants to dump some of the toxic pollutants it takes out of the air into the drinking water source for more than 90,000 people in southwestern Pennsylvania.

If the utility is permitted to dispose of pollutants in the Monongahela River, it could set a precedent that would let dozens of other old, dirty power plants in the Northeast dump coal combustion wastes collected by new, state and federally mandated air pollution control equipment into rivers and streams, said Abigail Dillen, an attorney with Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental law firm."

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09075/955939-455.stm#ixzz1E8fHFNVc

[FBaggins]

22. Not when the sun is shining behind it. n/t

[wtmusic]

25. Is that what gives this "steam" from Hatfield its lovely golden glow?

(note atmospheric water vapor in sky)

[FBaggins]

26. What makes you think that's steam?

Playing a little "bait and switch" to avoid admitting your error?

[wtmusic]

27. Since you're intent on pursuing this inane line to its bitter end I'll oblige you.

Of course it's not steam, most likely the yellowish tint is sulfur and particulates from the tons of sulfur dioxide spewed from Hatfield-Ferry on a typical day.

Steam may appear grayish when the sun is behind it; it never appears as a mixture of brown and gray as it does in the initial photograph. That is indeed coal smoke running up chimney #1 - the height of the chimney is required by law for those billowing smoke. Low-rise steam stacks appear in the background.

Any other valuable observations you have to add? :eyes:

[FBaggins]

28. The point was that the vast majority of "whatever" in your photo was steam.

The massive clouds in the background... while not pure white... don't come from a smokestack. It's just boiling water.


I'm the last guy to defend coal... but that doesn't mean that you can make up whatever you like. Post a pic like the one you just put up above... not photos that are 95% steam and pretend that the entire cloud is polution. A couple of the earlier images look photoshopped to make it all look like one massive cloud of pollution.

Reality is bad enough on it's own... we don't have to make things up.