Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumShale gas—not EPA rules—has pushed decline in coal-generated electricity, study confirms
http://phys.org/news/2016-10-shale-gasnot-epa-ruleshas-decline.htmlPower plants, which use 93 percent of the coal produced nationally, have been operating under the same EPA regulations signed into law by President George H.W. Bush in 1990. Proposed new rules since then have all been challenged in court and not implemented until June 2016, when the EPA's restrictions on mercury and other toxic emissions were approved by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Consumption of coal continued to grow under those 1990-era EPA rules until 2008, and then went into steady decline, dropping by 23 percent from 2008 thru 2015.
The data show the drop in those years to be correlated with the shale revolution, as natural gas production increased by a factor of more than 10 and its price dropped in half, the researchers say. And, due to the continuing—and in some cases accelerating—technological and economic advantages of gas over coal, the decline in coal is expected to continue at least decades into the future.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)Pickens hit Washington with a group of lobbyists with pockets full of cash in 2004. The year before they hit TX with the same group and same pockets. 2003 was the last years that TX, a coal-producing state, permitted a traditional coal-fired power plant. In 2006 the EPA put into place new regulations concerning MACT and BACT. The target were older coal-fired power plants. The older units were what is called "FD" (forced draft) unit. There is noy way they could be retrofitted with the control technologies to meet the 2006 rules. The newer "ID" (induced draft) unit could easily be retrofitted to meet the 2006 requirements. Funny thing about those rules though, the power producers had ten years to comply. Wait a minute, that means Obama didn't cause the first coal-fired plant to shut down! Last I heard, GW Bush was prez in 2006.
Yeah. some news rules have been put into place by the EPA under Obama, but they had mostly to do with mercury. That is easily taken care of by spraying a liquid into the fire. For a 250MW plant the cost is about $3-$4 million a year. Cheap.
A power producer cannot simply switch the coal-fired units to gas. They are far too inefficient. But they can build a 750MW combined cycle gas-fired unit for about $800 million, which is about one third the cost of a traditional modern coal-fired plant. The operator will not have to power precipitators (required since the 50's), or any other emission control. The units operate at about 65% efficiency as a combined cycle unit. The producer also no longer needs the manpower associated with burning coal, like coal handling, ash handing, or the very high labor costs associated with maintenance and upkeep of a coal-fired plant.
All total, a power producer would see about 34%-38% more profit by switching to coal.
I was raised on coal money. I worked in an underground mine for three summers while I was in college. Coal has caused misery and grief. The coal companies have been even worse. We don't ride around in horse-drawn wagons anymore, so why so much concern about the coal industry. The oil and gas industry, until its downturn about three years ago, employed more people than did the coal industry ten years ago. So give up the blaming Obama, facts tell otherwise.
safeinOhio
(32,685 posts)did it. Blame Palin.
