Today Dynegy announced the dissolution of its partnership with LS Energy, formed in 2006. The goal of the partnership was the construction of up to eight new coal-fired power plants—as part of its dissolution, Dynegy has abandoned plans for six of the eight.
Here’s the key bit from the release:
"The development landscape has changed significantly since we agreed to enter into the development joint venture with LS Power in the fall of 2006," said Bruce A. Williamson, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Dynegy Inc. "Today, the development of new generation is increasingly marked by barriers to entry including external credit and regulatory factors that make development much more uncertain. In light of these market circumstances, Dynegy has elected to focus development activities and investments around our own portfolio where we control the option to develop and can manage the costs being incurred more closely."
One of those "factors" that has made the development of new (coal) generation "uncertain" is called grassroots organizing. Along with its nonprofit partners, the Sierra Club organized a campaign targeting Dynegy, with protests and rallies that drew unwelcome attention to its plans.
Another little piece of good news in the anti-coal fight.
Lawsuit accuses Virginia power company of poisoning Dominican community with toxic coal ash
Do we need nuclear and coal plants for baseload power?
Comments
View as Threaded
Sam Wells Posted 3:00 pm
02 Jan 2009
I've got a question for the smart girls and boys out there: what's the difference between burning exactly the same BTU or therms with natural gas or coal in terms of carbon dioxide? In theory, I say it is very much the same except with natural gas you don't get all the dirt.
Whups!
Perhaps I've just exposed a major flaw in environmental thinking, that natural gas is cleaner than coal in terms of CO2 and methane stack emissions. Of course coal is dirty as heck but same BTU, the reaction works just as well. If you're going to go after coal as being dirty, that is a complete different issue from greenhouse warming gases.
A rough translation of what Mr. Williamson said was that the new power market was not making commitments for future power and transmission investments because of the blown economy, and that he has existing plants that can be managed to be improved with enough efficiency under any stupid regulatory "cap" or whatever trading scam the government invents because it has no clue what it is doing: it's uncertain and I don't blame the guy.
The fact of the matter is we'll need more electric power in the future and we'll need more lines to carry the juice, and we have an aging infrastructure that is literally falling down, at least in some crucial places. More old plants must be mothballed and taken offline simply because they cost too much to run and are falling down. Literally, they are about to turn into rust.
So much hedge fund money dried up that nobody is investing now, perhaps a great thing for air quality concerns but not so good for bringing us Americans cheap, reliable electric power. Same for crude oil, and that's why it is below or at $40 a barrel instead of $100 more. Well with low prices, business will contract and not expand, so it's tough making progress to say the least.
As a footnote to history, you can ask the American steel mills to make about 100,000 wind turbine pylons (think thousands of tons of steel) and whatever solar collector parts you need. That with the transmission line tower metal and what we need to do is perhaps a good part of a trillion dollars, not a bad estimate if you include bridge reconstruction and transit steel rails. People want buried cable in their neighborhoods too! Wow, as John Lennon said, "Imagine." -sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
BlackbirdHighway Posted 10:59 pm
02 Jan 2009
We don't burn natural gas or coal just for BTU's, we make electricity from those fuels.
Using coal to make electricity produces 950 g CO2/(kW·h), while natural gas produces 600 g CO2/(kW·h). That's a significant reduction and clearly shows that natural gas and coal are not the same in CO2 production.
Sorry Sam Wells, but with all due respect, you don't know what you are talking about.
Permalink
ids Posted 8:18 am
03 Jan 2009
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 1:40 pm
03 Jan 2009
Not if we focused on energy conservation and more local-source energy soultions.
Permalink