US could replace coal power with existing gas-fired plants

[Willinois]

This is something I occasionally point out so I was glad to see this article linked from Grist. We don't "need" coal at all.
Clean coal gimmicks use an expensive process to convert coal into natural gas. That makes absolutely no sense when natural gas is abundant and cheaper.

US could replace coal power with existing gas-fired plants
April 20, 2010 10:51 am by Sheila McNulty

The shift from coal-fired generation to gas- fired generation sounds like something that would be lengthy and difficult to accomplish. But a new report by PFC Energy, the consultancy, indicates it is anything but. The report says US gas fired power plants average about 25 per cent utilisation, compared with 70-75 per cent for coal.

So operating existing plants at 72 per cent utilisation would theoretically increase gas demand by 30bn cubic feet per day – a rise of about 50 per cent – and displace almost all coal fired capacity. In doing so, carbon dioxide from the power sector would be cut 50 per cent, according to PFC.

This is something that Colorado has adopted enthusiastically.

On Monday, Colorado Governor Bill Ritter signed into law the Clean Air-Clean Jobs Act, which will retire or retrofit older coal-fired power plants to take on gas and other cleaner fuels.

[TheWraith]

The catch is cost. Coal costs about a fifth of what natural gas does for the same kilowatt-hours worth of fuel. When you add on the costs of coal pollution, the total cost of ownership goes up rapidly, but that's all "hidden" costs, both for the producer and the consumers. In areas that draw most of their electricity from coal, you'd be talking roughly a $20 per month increase in the electrical bill. Foresight and long-term planning are not the strong suits of either industry or most people.

[Willinois]

(01-26-2011 01:25 PM)TheWraith Wrote:  The catch is cost. Coal costs about a fifth of what natural gas does for the same kilowatt-hours worth of fuel. When you add on the costs of coal pollution, the total cost of ownership goes up rapidly, but that's all "hidden" costs, both for the producer and the consumers. In areas that draw most of their electricity from coal, you'd be talking roughly a $20 per month increase in the electrical bill. Foresight and long-term planning are not the strong suits of either industry or most people.

It would cost less than any clean coal project. And even old coal is no longer that much cheaper than natural gas, which has come down in price.

Moving to clean energy is going to happen and it's going to cost money. It's not really a catch as much as a reality we have to accept. You can pay for it now or you can pay for it when a catastrophic tornado, hurricane, flood, disease epidemic or drought hits your town.

[Dimwitted Fool]

Been following the gas fracking in Pennsylvania? The debate about starting fracking in western NY?

Natural gas burning may be cleaner than coal, but gas production isn't so clean at all.

(I know, coal ming can be nasty business, too, but, unlike gas, it doesn't have to be.)

[Willinois]

(01-26-2011 02:20 PM)Dimwitted Fool Wrote:  Been following the gas fracking in Pennsylvania? The debate about starting fracking in western NY?

Natural gas burning may be cleaner than coal, but gas production isn't so clean at all.

(I know, coal ming can be nasty business, too, but, unlike gas, it doesn't have to be.)

No energy source is without drawback. It's a matter of using those sources with less impact.

Fracking got ahead of the regulation. It can be done in less damaging ways than what has gotten attention in the media. The difference is that mountaintop removal, strip mining and damaging longwall methods happen in poor, rural areas where no one notices or cares. Fracking is happening in the northeast where it's more easily visible to the country's center of wealth and power. That's why fracking gets far more attention even though its less damaging than what's happening in the coal mines of Wyoming, West Virginia, Kentucky, or downstate Illinois. We're doing far more damage to the environment and public health by relying on coal.
It just proves that mountaintop removal never would have happened if coal had been under the Adirondacks. Natural gas makes sense as a transitional power source that's less damaging than coal while we continue to build real clean energy.

[Dimwitted Fool]

(01-26-2011 02:49 PM)Willinois Wrote:  Fracking got ahead of the regulation. It can be done in less damaging ways than what has gotten attention in the media. The difference is that mountaintop removal, strip mining and damaging longwall methods happen in poor, rural areas where no one notices or cares. Fracking is happening in the northeast where it's more easily visible to the country's center of wealth and power. That's why fracking gets far more attention even though its less damaging than what's happening in the coal mines of Wyoming, West Virginia, Kentucky, or downstate Illinois. We're doing far more damage to the environment and public health by relying on coal.
It just proves that mountaintop removal never would have happened if coal had been under the Adirondacks. Natural gas makes sense as a transitional power source that's less damaging than coal while we continue to build real clean energy.

Mountaintop removal isn't the problem-- it's what they do with the removed tops. So far, I know of no way to get the deeper gas out efficiently without fracking. And the permanently destroyed water sources from the fracking are a real problem. Even in largely deserted and poor western NY.

What's this latest EPA report about gas not being so hot after all? Not just the fracking, but gas dumps, leaks, and the overall environmental costs of gas are pushing it closer to coal.

Yes, every way we get and use energy has its downside, and reducing energy use is the only way to go, although I have no idea how we get there-- it won't be voluntary, that's for sure.

Close to 3 billion people, 10 times the US population, in India and China alone are rising out of the third world and demanding that they have the same rights to use as much electricity, gasoline, and other energy as we do. This will not end well.

[Willinois]

(01-26-2011 03:12 PM)Dimwitted Fool Wrote:  

(01-26-2011 02:49 PM)Willinois Wrote:  Fracking got ahead of the regulation. It can be done in less damaging ways than what has gotten attention in the media. The difference is that mountaintop removal, strip mining and damaging longwall methods happen in poor, rural areas where no one notices or cares. Fracking is happening in the northeast where it's more easily visible to the country's center of wealth and power. That's why fracking gets far more attention even though its less damaging than what's happening in the coal mines of Wyoming, West Virginia, Kentucky, or downstate Illinois. We're doing far more damage to the environment and public health by relying on coal.
It just proves that mountaintop removal never would have happened if coal had been under the Adirondacks. Natural gas makes sense as a transitional power source that's less damaging than coal while we continue to build real clean energy.

Mountaintop removal isn't the problem-- it's what they do with the removed tops. So far, I know of no way to get the deeper gas out efficiently without fracking. And the permanently destroyed water sources from the fracking are a real problem. Even in largely deserted and poor western NY.

What's this latest EPA report about gas not being so hot after all? Not just the fracking, but gas dumps, leaks, and the overall environmental costs of gas are pushing it closer to coal.

Yes, every way we get and use energy has its downside, and reducing energy use is the only way to go, although I have no idea how we get there-- it won't be voluntary, that's for sure.

Close to 3 billion people, 10 times the US population, in India and China alone are rising out of the third world and demanding that they have the same rights to use as much electricity, gasoline, and other energy as we do. This will not end well.

The main problem with fracking is how to treat water and how to dispose of the waste products. That can be dealt with.

There's no environmentally friendly way to blow up a mountain. What's happening in West Virginia is worse than the BP oil disaster because those mountains and the ecosystems they supported will NEVER recover. No amount of reclamation can undo the damage. Some of the most beautiful and culturally rich areas of our country are being destroyed and it will never be the same.

How many towns have cancer clusters from fracking? I can name two in my area that do because of coal waste and WV is worse. How many thousands of workers are dying from fracking like the miners who die from black lung? How many thousands of people are dying each year from heart and respiratory diseases? That's a coal pollution problem. How many acres of farmland have been destroyed and made useless, as longwall coal mining is doing to many farms? Does having to treat wastewater even compare to strip mining in Wyoming? There's just no comparison. Not even fucking close.

If they were strip mining in western New York like they are in Wyoming then people would get an idea of what real environmental devastation looks like.



Fracking is happening within driving distance of the nation's media center. New York news quickly becomes national news. Combined with the coal industry's influence over the press it has created a skewed view of where the worst damage is occurring. Relying on coal is just a way to pass off the worst environmental damage to other parts of the country.

China and India can end up very well if they build a different kind of energy economy from the ground up that's clean and doesn't leave them reliant on coal-producing nations.