Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

U.S. coal power boom suddenly wanes

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 12:25 PM
Original message
U.S. coal power boom suddenly wanes
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0304/p01s07-usec.html

U.S. coal power boom suddenly wanes

Worries about global warming and rising construction costs give the edge to natural-gas and renewable-energy plants.

By Mark Clayton | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

from the March 4, 2008 edition

Concerns about global warming and rising building costs are blocking construction of new coal-fired power plants in the United States and pushing utilities to turn to natural gas and renewable power instead.

Utilities canceled or put on hold at least 45 coal plants in development last year, according to a new analysis by the US Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory in Pittsburgh. These moves – a sharp reversal from a year ago, when the industry had more than 150 such plants in development – signal the waning of a major US expansion into coal.

Natural-gas and renewable power projects have leapt ahead of coal in the development pipeline, according to Global Energy Decisions, a Boulder, Colo., energy information supplier. Gas and renewables each show more than 70,000 megawatts under development compared with about 66,000 megawatts in the coal-power pipeline.

This year could diminish coal's future prospects even more. Wall Street investment banks last month said they will now evaluate the cost of carbon emissions before approving power plants, raising the bar much higher for new coal projects, analysts say.

...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
poverlay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
1. Music to my ears! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 12:55 PM
Response to Original message
2. US net imports of natural gas total about 16% of consumption.
We are a net exporter of coal, at about 3% of total production. Wouldn't it be best to focus on building coal-fired power plants that don't emit unacceptable amounts of carbon?

Renewable sounds great but I'm not sure about the wisdom of switching from coal to natural gas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Lower emissions is the ticket
We can do that. We can build or remodel old plants to reduce emissions.

Now some here will say it can't be done, while they turn around and support nukes. Well, if we can control nukes, we damn sure can control emissions from coal.

We can't afford not too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickB79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. "If we can control nukes.....we can control emissions from coal"
Nuclear plants don't emit BILLIONS of tons of waste each year in gaseous form.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. See? There's one now.
What nukes are said to NOT do is emit biilons of nasty raidiation saturated particles into the atmosphere because nukes are very controlled. Supposedly.

We can control the emissions of the coal plants, but the nuke-firsters don't think it can be done. How stupid is that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickB79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. Actually, I'm not pro-nuke
I don't see them playing much of a role in the future of world energy generation.

Too bad, because I know how much some people here like using words like "nuke-firsters" to substitute for their lack of argument.

Since you're actually defending coal power, can we call you a "coal-firster" then?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. I'm defending coal?
That's stupid. I want coal cleaned up. We can do it, just like we can supposedly clean nukes. Even easier.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickB79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. The fact you think we can even clean up coal is in effect supporting it
Because "clean coal" is a greenwash that a disturbing number of people are actually falling for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. It's impossible to burn coal without unacceptable pollution?
If that is your assertion then I would be interested in knowing why this is so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Because coal's main pollutant is CO2, and it is the primary reaction product.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. OK I understand it emits CO2.
You're just saying what the pollutants are. What I was wondering is, why is it not possible to clean up these emissions so that we can burn coal in an acceptable manner to generate electricity?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. Every coal plant produces 4 million tons of CO2 per year. 250 pounds per second.
You don't "scrub" that. You might conceivably capture it, but as GG says, where are we going to put it? Billions of tons per year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 01:27 AM
Response to Reply #21
28. OK that makes sense.
And besides, it looks like there won't be a clean coal plant in operation for a decade or two, even if the concept does pan out. So near-term we're looking at natural gas for our future power plants instead of coal. We'll end up importing more natural gas and exporting more coal. Since this is a global problem, how can that help? We'll just be exporting more coal to be burned elsewhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. The pollution that is hardest to deal with is CO2
That's because it can't be scrubbed from the exhaust gases economically given the volumes that are generated. There are some proposals for new types of coal plants that make it easier to capture the CO2, but the plants are quite expensive and not commercially proven yet. Here is a fact sheet on "Clean Coal": http://www.energyjustice.net/coal/igcc/factsheet.pdf

The main problem is that even if you do capture the CO2, what do you do with it? The only semi-serious proposal is piping it into played-out natural gas fields, but that raises the costs even further and leaves you with the risk of leakage.

The roadblock is the enormous volume of CO2 that is generated from burning any hydrocarbon, and coal is the worst because it's mostly carbon.

Particulate pollution is a different sort of problem, but it's somewhat more realistic to think of reducing it by by using electrostatic precipitators. CO2 is the really tough problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #19
25. Yeah I don't believe the "pump it underground" proposals
About the only proposal I've seen that I have any hope for is algae.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. The problem with algae
Even if it works exactly as advertised, if any of the the resulting biodiesel is used as a vehicle fuel all you get is another energy cycle out of the carbon before the CO2 goes into the atmosphere. It will stretch your use of the carbon, but it's not a sequestration technology.

If you feed all the biodiesel back into the same power plant you'll do better, but there will still be CO2 leakage from the flow through the reactors. And given that you're still burning coal as well, you'll be constantly injecting more and more gas into the system. The only way it could work as a closed loop is if you got to a point where the plant was in a steady state, burning mostly its own biodiesel and (next to) no additional coal. At that point, though, it devolves to just being a very inefficient solar power plant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #26
32. Or... you could bite the bullet, and bury the algae
As I see it, there's some hazard of methane production and leakage; but I figure it's a whole lot more feasible than pumping CO2 under pressure into underground chambers, and hoping it stays there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. It's actually pretty hard to bury dead stuff and prevent it from decaying.
GG's proposal to use tera preta as a carbon sequestration vehicle gets around that problem, only by completely carbonizing it. And even then, 50% of the carbon ends up back in the atmosphere. Of course, 50% stays in the ground.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #32
34. Or we could bite the bullet a bit harder, and start reducing our consumption.
According to Joseph Tainter, developing ever more complex ways of preserving our activity levels increases the possibility of social collapse.

In Tainter's view, while invasions, crop failures, disease or environmental degradation may be the apparent causes of societal collapse, the ultimate cause is diminishing returns on investments in social complexity (in contrast, Jared Diamond's 2004 book, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, focuses on environmental mismanagement as a cause of collapse). Finally, Tainter musters modern statistics to show that marginal returns on investments in energy, education and technological innovation are diminishing today. The globalised modern world is subject to many of the same stresses that brought older societies to ruin.

However, Tainter is not entirely apocalyptic: "When some new input to an economic system is brought on line, whether a technical innovation or an energy subsidy, it will often have the potential at least temporarily to raise marginal productivity" (p. 124). Thus, barring continual conquest of your neighbors (which is always subject to diminishing returns), innovation that increases productivity is -- in the long run -- the only way out of the dismal science dilemma of declining marginal returns on added investments in complexity.

I think both Tainter and Diamond are correct in our case. We have produced a situation incorporating both the mechanisms they are worried about, environmental problems and declining marginal return on complexity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #34
35. Don't get me wrong
Edited on Wed Mar-05-08 11:26 AM by OKIsItJustMe
I haven't run into a "Carbon Sequestration" scheme yet that I really believe in. Most of them strike me as self-delusional.

I simply think that algae is the front runner when it comes to feasibility. (i.e. it's the lesser of two weevils.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #16
23. Investigate "Integrated Combined Cycle Gassification" to see the dream
They are not proven, and even though those proposing them make a lot of nonspecific claims on the topic, there is no cost effective means of carbon capture and sequestration that has been worked out - anywhere.

this is where a lot of your tax money will be spent in the next few years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickB79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 01:14 PM
Response to Original message
4. Natural gas, you say?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x135738#136038

Natural gas production in the US peaked years ago, and Canada's production has also peaked. Canada has already warned that their exports to us may be cut within the next few years.

It will be interesting to see what these natural gas plants run on, when there's no gas available for them to burn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. In that case, they may burn methane.
Which, if we have the foresight, will have strict limits on emissions.

Virtually no power plants have as strict controls on emissions - save for nukes - as can be. Emission control is what we should be about, not adding more problems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. I don't get it. That's what natural gas is: methane.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Touche!
Feel better?

Methane from surface decay like landfills, and what not, are what I was referring too.

The point is that some say NG supplies are tanking, where we both know methanes are constantly being made. Abiotic gas, if you will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. Decay-based methane is a trickle compared to what we use.
We might run a small fraction of our current NG generators on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. FWIW: Status of landfill gas generation
http://www.epa.gov/lmop/overview.htm
...

Converting Landfill Gas to Energy



Instead of allowing LFG to escape into the air, it can be captured, converted, and used as an energy source. Using LFG helps to reduce odors and other hazards associated with LFG emissions, and it helps prevent methane from migrating into the atmosphere and contributing to local smog and global climate change.

Landfill gas is extracted from landfills using a series of wells and a blower/flare (or vacuum) system. This system directs the collected gas to a central point where it can be processed and treated depending upon the ultimate use for the gas. From this point, the gas can be simply flared or used to generate electricity, replace fossil fuels in industrial and manufacturing operations, fuel greenhouse operations, or be upgraded to pipeline quality gas. ...


As of December 2006, there are approximately 425 operational LFG energy projects in the United States and 560 landfills that are good candidates for projects.

* Map of current and potential LFG energy projects (PDF, 1 p., 265 KB)
* Companies in the U.S. that are currently using LFG as an alternative fuel (PDF, 1 p., 321 KB)

...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 08:11 AM
Response to Reply #11
29. You really need to get a grasp of scale (not to mention reality)
> The point is that some say NG supplies are tanking, where we both know
> methanes (sic) are constantly being made. Abiotic gas, if you will.

The quantity of landfill methane currently generated is a very small
fraction of the quantity of methane currently being consumed.

There is no "some say" about the decrease in NG supplies.

There again, if you believe that landfill methane (singular) comes from
an abiotic source, I'm probably wasting my time trying to explain things.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickB79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. Methane derived from what?
And in sufficient quantities to replace natural gas. You do realize how much natural gas we're talking about here, right? Things like tapping old landfills would supply a sliver of the required fuel.

And if you say biofuels, I think I'm gonna :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #12
24. NIck, are you aware of Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) as a means of increasing efficiency
Particularly of natural gas?

You compress air with offpeak generated electricity (or excess wind/solar generation) and use it to augment nat gas.

You might find the potential interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
9. What excellent news!
We should be striving to take as much electrical generating capacity as possible out of the mix. That will leave a nice big hole that the wind can come along and fill up.

Seriously, expect to have the luxury of tossing out large amounts of generating capacity of any sort for maybe another decade. There's nothing like a year of rolling blackouts to make the Joe Citizen say things like, "I don't give a fuck about CO2. My baby girl's ventilator stopped last night. I want the power on Right Fucking Now!"

So here's the electrical generating situation:

No more coal (too much CO2); no more nuclear (too much risk); no more natural gas (in decline); no more oil (also in decline); no more hydro (all the good sites used up)

That means the wind producers have maybe 10 years to plug the gap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #9
31. So our electrical grid goes to hell while we wait for the wind to blow us into salvation?
At first I thought you were being sarcastic but after having read this again I don't think you were. This isn't much of a plan.

Even if wind could fill the gap as you suppose, you're not taking into account the global nature of the problem. China is turning up a new coal fired power plant every 7 to 10 days and it won't be long before India starts doing the same. It doesn't help a bit for us to take a coal fired plant offline if there's another 10 turned up elsewhere that same day.

So your scenario leaves us with a shitty grid like Iraq and South Africa, while other nations pass us by in this respect; a bunch of windmills; and carbon dioxide levels significantly worse than today's levels. Like I said, not much of a plan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 04:24 PM
Response to Original message
22. Actually I think 59 of 61 planned plants were dumped.
And the article is right - the limiting factor is the effect of uncertainty over carbon costs on financing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
losthills Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 09:07 PM
Response to Original message
27. So called "clean coal" is a myth and a greenwash.
Even if you could build a coal plant that produced 0 emissions-- and that's impossible-- it would still be a disaster because of the environmental consequences of mining the coal itself.

Leave the coal in the ground where it belongs. It's of no use to anybody in this era...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 08:35 AM
Response to Reply #27
30. Yep. Leaving the coal underground is the best carbon sequestration we could ask for.
Edited on Wed Mar-05-08 08:36 AM by GliderGuider
Burning coal for energy is the second worst technological idea our civilization ever had (and agrifuels may be the third worst).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 06:47 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC