Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 19, 2009 at 10:35

Not that I am aware of. The expansion of the Arsenal Hill power plant complex predates the announcement of the Haynesvlle Shale.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Max on June 19, 2009 at 10:47

Maybe ksla missed some info, 500 MW is a big unit. There are several smaller older units located there, they must have just added extra output for peak loads. Usually small RG units with 15 to 40 MW output. These units still burn a lot of NG, every little bit helps.
max

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on June 19, 2009 at 17:17

They weren't very specific, were they? I was just surprised because this is the first I've heard it metioned the plant will be fired with ng. First Little Gypsy, now one of our own ... may have to start a grid & color it. LOL

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 20, 2009 at 2:11

Just let me know if you need to borrow any of my highlighters, sesport.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on June 20, 2009 at 3:17

Oh, sure, you just want to pass off those unused blue & green highlighters. :0) I'll leave the grid work to you & Les. If I get started on it, it'll become an obsession for me and other things will go by the wayside.

Anyone know of any other plants locally (say within the state) already using ng or in the process of a makeover? Does LA have any new plants permitted or pending that will use ng?

Thanks all - 0)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on June 21, 2009 at 4:23

Sesport, the link below may provide some more detail. When this plant is run at capacity it would consume ~ 85 MMcfd of natural gas as fuel. But that is the issue - this unit is a "peaking" plant which means it will run only a small percentage of time. In the mean time, SWEPCO is building a 600 MW coal fired "baseload" power plant that will run 24/7. This means primary power consumption will be sourced from coal with much higher CO2 emissions. I am not trying to pick on SWEPCO because this happens across much of the US. Consumers want cheap power which means coal power.

Did you know there is actually more gas-fired power plant capacity in the US than coal-fired but the natural gas plants are run far less.

http://www.swepco.com/news/stallPowerPlant/default.asp

http://www.swepco.com/news/hempstead/default.asp

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on June 21, 2009 at 5:27

Thanks, Les. I say "peaking-schmeaking," it's fired with ng. BTW, is Little Gypsy a peaking plant or baseload?

Perhaps, as ng prices continue to stay low, that MW plant may change it's course (since it is just being built). Is that possible, or is coal fired power "set in concrete" of the plans?

And ... coal didn't escape cap & trade, but ng did (for the time being). My fingers are crossed, I just keep watching for more news of ng being put into use. And I haven't even begun to look at the industrial sector.

Any idea why the CECPN was/is under appeal?

Have a good one - sesport :0)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on June 21, 2009 at 7:54

Sesport, did you realize Little Gypsy is being converted from natural gas to coal/petcoke? I would guess that it is a baseload 530 MW.

Newer plants cannot change from coal to natural gas because modern designs do not allow that flexibility.

No fossil fuel has escaped being regulated under the proposed Waxman-Markey Bill as all CO2 emission sources are being addressed including natural gas and coal.

What is the CECPN?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Little_Gypsy_Repowering
http://www.nola.com/business/index.ssf/2009/02/entergy_poised_to_co...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on June 21, 2009 at 10:23

Les - The article I saw mentioned that the conversion was put on hold. I'll see if I can find it again, tell me you r thoughts.

CECPN was in your link.

Okay, I think I've pushed my limit today. I do appreciate your patience.

Thanks - :0)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on June 21, 2009 at 13:37

Sesport, I would think the project is under protest because of the project cost being saddled on rate payers and the high air emissions associated with a coal plant.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on June 21, 2009 at 15:41

So, what Entergy said about an alternative might be a combined cycle gas turbine isn't ng? :0( Burst my bubble. Okay, I'll just go find something else using ng. :0)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on June 21, 2009 at 10:25

Here's the link to the Little Gypsy topic & article.

http://www.gohaynesvilleshale.com/forum/topics/little-gypsy-convers...

• ▶ Reply