Coal Fired Power Plants 2010
Over the course of this year, more U.S. coal-fired power plants were tapped for retirement and more proposed plants were canceled than in 2009, according to an end-of-year report by the Sierra Club, which is fighting the continued use of coal.
Data collected by the advocacy group show that 38 coal plant projects were dropped or delayed in 2010, up from 26 the year before and 27 in 2008. Meanwhile, power producers announced plans to retire 48 existing plants this year, four times as many as in 2009 and 12 times as many as in the year before that.
The retirements announced this year would take 12,000 megawatts of coal-fired power off the grid — roughly 4 percent of the nation’s total coal-fired capacity and enough electricity to power about 6 million American homes.
Construction was not started on any new coal plants this year, as was the case last year, and the same situation is expected for 2011, the Sierra Club said. Environmentalists, who have sought to slow the construction of coal plants by challenging their permits and supporting strict new rules on the production and use of coal, see the numbers as a victory.
“Coal is a fuel of the past. What we’re seeing now is the beginning of growing trend to leave it there,” said Mary Anne Hitt, the director of the advocacy group’s “Beyond Coal” campaign, in a statement today.
From: Climate Progress, December 24, 2010
Tags: 2010, Coal, Fired, Plants, Power
Views: 100
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by P.G. on
-
There's a flip side to that coin so I wouldn't write off coal just yet...
If NG is going to compete with coal, it will have get cheaper. I'd rather it would be competing with petroleum. Doing so would leave NG no where to but go up in price...
Coal is the second largest overall source of energy and has witnessed demand grow at rates higher than oil and natural gas over the past few years and is expected to continue to do so, paving the path to
opportunity for the Market Vectors Coal ETF (KOL) and the PowerShares Global Coal Portfolio (PKOL).One of the reasons coal is attractive is that it is cheap in relative terms. When compared to crude oil, the average price of coal over the
past fifteen years is roughly one-third the price and is less than half
the price of natural gas.Another reason coal is attractive is the wide distribution of coal reserves. In fact, coal has a better worldwide geographical distribution than petroleum and is
expected to continue to do so. Coal is a complex natural resource that
is primarily used to fuel power or cement plants, two commodities that
are expected to see increases in demand as global populations increase
and per-capita income in developing nations increase.Increased demand for coal is already being seen in China, which accounts for nearly half of global coal demand and is being used for power generation
and metallurgical coal to produce steel. Additionally, increases in
demand are expected to be seen in India, which currently only accounts
for 7.5% of global coal consumption.Lastly, although renewable energies continue to make headlines and have boasted rapid growth, renewables only account for a very small proportion of the world energy
http://seekingalpha.com/article/225526-the-future-of-coal-remains-b...
mix. Meanwhile, coal continues to lead consumption growth in the energy
sector for its sixth consecutive year. As for the near future, coal is
likely to remain the fossil fuel of choice for energy production due to
its low costs and availability.
-
Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on -
WR, it is good to see the continued move to retire these older coal plants that are so devastating to the environment (and I am not talking global warming). When coal is assessed its true environmental cost and must compete on a level playing field it is no longer such a "cheap" fuel. It is so sad when you see the impact of mountaintop removal on some of the Appalachian communities. Some of those people remind me of the friends and families in Northwest Louisiana and I am very sympathetic to their plight.
-
Permalink Reply by w.r. frank on
-
This site is so funny! Just assimilate the data, don't attack the source. Sorry PG, but according Tudor Pickering, at current prices NG has a price advantage over coal. Reading some guys post on Seeking Alpha who is long coal is as irrelevant as comparing coal to oil prices. How many times have we heard the old saw about 6 to 1 btu content of oil and NG, but what does that have to do with current pricing.
My point in the posting was the data about 1) 48 retirements announced and 2) that 38 plants were dropped or delayed. In my view this is significant data about the demand switching in the future.
Thanks Les for the thoughtful post and your obvious concern for coal miners and their families. The number of jobs already lost in the industry is astronomical as coal companies move to mountaintop mining.
Electro, could you share what the larger agenda is beyond environmental is? I am just curious?
-
Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on
-
Had to be a bitter pill to swallow when NG gas prices were at $1.80 and you were locked in at 25 cents.
-
Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on
-
Electro, you seem to know a lot about the generation of electricity, I defer to you at present on this subject.
-
Permalink Reply by P.G. on
-
The Real future of electric production will likely be Nuclear..
I wonder what the future of NG prices would be as those plants came on line?
NG for Transportation, on the other hand.....
Well at least there would be a future, huh?
-
Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on
-
PG, nuclear should be part of the power generation future but these type plants can only serve as baseload. Natural gas power plants are required for swing loads and to "firm" renewable power (wind & solar). Nuclear power is equivalent to a gas price of ~ $7.00/MMBtu so would support a higher natural gas price for the swing premium. Of course there are physical limitations regarding the siting of nuclear power plants.
-
Permalink Reply by P.G. on
-
What would NG prices be if on an equivalent price basis with gasoline or diesel right now?
-
Permalink Reply by king john on
-
i have a buddy who is working on a coal fired power plant project to be built near texarkana. he told me just the other day construction would begin in feb. 2011. here is a link that confirms this.
kj
http://www.miningtopnews.com/swepco-says-it-will-build-coal-powered...
-
Permalink Reply by king john on
-
i just read that article again and i missed the first time that they were already supposed to have this thing built and producing power by feb. 2011. guess they ran into delays. none the less a coal fired power plant is going to be constructed starting in 2011.
kj
-
Permalink Reply by Max on
-
AEP-SWEPCO is having a new unit built in SW AK. Obtaining air permits and ash discharge held them up.
-
Permalink Reply by sesport on
-
Whoa!!! I just realized the "tree huggers" and "greenie weenies" are on the same side as ng advocates? Huh, go figure.
Some might actually be surprised at who is throwing the money behind some of these efforts, who funded some of the research to support reductions in use of "dirtier" fuels.
Hey, Max, I think I remember you once said it took you years to clean the coal dust from your ears. Does it make more sense to you to fire up with ng and renewables even at increased costs to consumers, or do we really just break even with costs anyway when one takes into consideration the ancillary costs of coal mining & use?
And, perhaps more importantly (in consideration of those who are annoyed), how do I now spell check my posts?
80)
Support GoHaynesvilleShale.com
Top Content
Not a member? Get our email.
Groups
-
Natchitoches Parish
399 members
-
Cass County, TX
119 members
-
Franklin County, Texas
8 members
-
San Augustine, TX
386 members
-
Rusk County
97 members
-
Vernon Parish
59 members
-
Bienville Parish, LA
242 members
-
Sabine County, Texas
172 members
-
Sabine Parish, LA
455 members
-
Angelina County, TX
87 members
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
