Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by P.G. on January 2, 2011 at 5:24

Ithink the tree huggers would be happiest if the government would go after all fossil fuels so that solar and wind would become more competitive...

Imagine how many jobs would be created if they could cram solar and wind down the American people's throats?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Max on January 2, 2011 at 7:11

If NG was given to power generation companies for free would they switch from coal?  Yes they would, but it would be quite a while before that switch took place.  

 

The efficient conversion of heat to energy in a boiler is determined by the design of that boiler to use a specific fuel.  While the basic design is similar, changing the fuel from a solid to a gas is not so simple. 

 

Coal boilers have a larger firebox to allow for the fuel to be converted to heat before the heat cycle has passed through the system. The lower section of the boiler is completely different along with the economizer and flue gas exhaust. 

 

Simply running a gas pipe line and exchanging out the burners would not guarantee enough BTUs to operate the generator at it's rated output.  That output is where power companies earn their profits.  

 

Give me free diesel fuel for my gasoline truck and true, I would have free fuel, but I'm not going to be able to tow my cattle trailer to the sale barn.   Would it be cheaper for me to replace my engine, purchase a new diesel truck, or refuse the free fuel and continue to use what I've already invested in.

 

The only way I could see a gain in my profits would be if the government paid me to switch equipment.  I don't think that's going to happen with coal burners.

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by P.G. on January 2, 2011 at 7:56

Asking our hair brained government to slant the playing field to give one source of energy an advantage over another is dangerous.....

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ken hatcher on January 2, 2011 at 9:03

Max, you are totally correct...the goverment would have to subsidize the coal burning plants.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on January 2, 2011 at 15:22

Max, switching to natural gas is not changing the fuel in the boilers but rather dispatching power from natural gas fired plants rather than coal fired plants.  There is actually more existing natural gas power capacity than coal but it has a lower run rate.   

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Max on January 4, 2011 at 6:02

Les B,

 

True, but those contracts on NG does something to the physic of who is calling the shots. 

 

When it's 102 degrees outside on Thursday and you call the dispatcher to let him know that Unit 2's primary superheat sections have only one sootblower operating and the unit needs to reduce load to bring the temperature back in line and to
prevent clinkers from forming in the tube bundles, that dispatcher, more times
than not, says, "NO".  If you can't maintain load, we will have to
buy. 

 

Maintain your present output and we will schedule the unit to be shutdown on Saturday to unstop the boiler and repair any tube leaks.  For the time being, get out your shotguns and try to keep the clinkers from getting
to big, we don't want to knock out the bottom of the boiler.  A two ton clinker falling 200 feet inside the firebox automatically puts the legs of anyone standing around in gear.  I've seen all 300 pounds of Billy Bob Pops flat out run over a visiting female engineer and that lady still out ran him over to Unit 1.

 

Tube leaks are different, but as long as you can put enough make up water in the unit to keep it on line until demand drops, that unit will operate.  I've seen small tube leaks turn into beast after the first leak cut the tube next to it and then so on until the whole bundle begins to starve for water and then it's all over with in about two seconds.  The unit will trip itself, and then God, (the dispatcher), will be on the phone asking how long before he can have the unit back, we're buying now and it ain't cheap.

 

Coal is so cheap and NG is so high, I have seen a boiler limp through a week of output and then brought down on the weekend for around the clock repairs.  The end cost is cheaper than buying NG and shutting down the coal unit.

 

The NG power capacity does exist, but they're mostly small units.  How many NG's would you have to get on line if you lost a 750 MW coal unit?  What if you lost three units on the same day?    Bring all your NG's up and
use your contract gas in one week.  I've seen a lot of crossed fingers and
heard the words, 'I hope so', many times.  Most of the time those two
things work, but not always.

 

There will have to be NG base load units operating 24/7 to replace our coal units.  These NG units will have to be large, 500 MW and up.  The bottom line cost dictates large over small, it cost more to build ten 50 MW
units than it does to build one 500 MW unit.

 

I personally don't think that NG will replace coal.  Nuclear will someday, simply because it's cheaper in the long run.  Environmentalist are beginning to see nuclear as 'clean' energy, and it really is.  Waste
products per person is in grams, not tons.  NG is a quick, short road to
get there.  

Coal will be around for quite awhile yet.  A 1650 MW three unit plant burns over eleven thousand tons of coal per day at full capacity.  It took years to get this system operating and it's going to take years for it to be replaced.  The planning stage of our present day coal fleet began in the 1950's and 60's.  Nuclear became a lost cause after Three Mile Island and NG was simply just to expensive.  Coal was the future to cheap energy, and still is.  

 

Windmills and Solar?  Ain't going to happen, too many BTUs in a pound of coal.

 

Just my thoughts......... Max 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on January 4, 2011 at 6:22

Max, I wasn't addressing the merits of coal plants versus NG plants but rather just covering that switching does not involve a physical conversion.  I believe you concurred with that point.  If more natural gas capacity is required, it will be newbuild not conversion of coal boilers. 

 

By the way, there are many large combined cycle gas plants (600 - 1000 MW) around the country with low utilization rates that are available to displace some coal capacity.  That has actually happened in 2010 with the tighter spread.  It could happen more in the future as some of the dirtiest coal plants are retired over the next several years. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by w.r. frank on January 2, 2011 at 16:00

Why don't some of you that have an immediate ideological reaction to a post that has decent, thoughtful information ACTUALLY go and read the underlying information--which happens to be a thoughtful three part exhaustive study of power generation by Deutsche Bank.

 

Les B.'s post below is actually very accurate that most of the predicted uptake in NG usage from the power sector though 2030 is increased utilization of EXISTING NG generation facilities and planned retirements of antiquated coal fired plants.

 

If you would take the time to read the DB report, you would see that DB's projection is that power generation costs go up 1.6% per year through 2030--hardly putting the USA out of business through gub'ment takeover--and it assumes no carbon tax legislation is passed.

Somehow, the USA managed to survive the price of oil going from $10 to $140 to $88-- all forced by an Arab dominated cartel that recirculates our money to terrorists. Boone Pickens is conservative, but he ain't stupid! 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by king john on January 3, 2011 at 3:47

here is an interesting report on the future of coal fired plants being constructed and their potential generation capabilities...http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/refshelf/ncp.pdf

i found pages 15,16. and 18  helpful .

i think the sierra club is a bunch of kooks !!!

kj

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ken hatcher on January 4, 2011 at 8:29

I have enjoyed everyone's comments very much! When I said subsidize I meant some intialy and not on reocuring basis. Do agree with Mr. pickens that we are funding both ends of the war.

• ▶ Reply