<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Thirteen stories of coal getting stiffed]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Sean Casten http://www.grist.org/article/coals-bad-year/ Tue, 18 Dec 2007 05:39:07 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/coals-bad-year/1 And you could add

PG&E's (Portland, not Pacific) recent announcement that they will not factor coal into their 10 year planning horizon because of regulatory uncertainty.

]]> And you could add

PG&E's (Portland, not Pacific) recent announcement that they will not factor coal into their 10 year planning horizon because of regulatory uncertainty.

]]> Comment #2 by trock http://www.grist.org/article/coals-bad-year/ Tue, 18 Dec 2007 06:32:29 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/coals-bad-year/2 Just asking

What are they replaced with?  Magic?  Something going to replace them?  Will people ask for power and their won't be any?

Will we burn up all the natural gas this way?  

]]> Just asking

What are they replaced with?  Magic?  Something going to replace them?  Will people ask for power and their won't be any?

Will we burn up all the natural gas this way?  

]]> Comment #3 by Kristina & Jason Makansi http://www.grist.org/article/coals-bad-year/ Tue, 18 Dec 2007 07:17:21 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/coals-bad-year/3 a bad year for coal...a good year for gas?

Good question, Trock! We addressed this same question not to long ago in our post,  No Coal? Okay, then what?

Unless everyone starts using less electricity, (Think: Less!) we're going to eventually have to replace those proposed-then-killed coal plants. The ideal solution, of course, would be to use renewables such as wind, solar, and thermal, but that won't happen overnight. In the meantime, it will probably be natural gas.

Part of our concern about natural gas is reflected in the following:

Our message here isn't that one power generating option is so much worse than another; they all have serious problems in the context of balancing supply, demand, price, and environmental impact. Rather, the message is that natural gas prices are exorbitant and expected to remain so as long as petroleum inches towards $100/barrel. The message is that electricity rates will continue to go up and the only practical means of containing the impact will be to reduce consumption. The message is that one methane molecule is equal to approximately 20 carbon dioxide molecules, and that industry experts estimate that approximately 2-10 percent of the methane used for electricity is released into the atmosphere between the well and the power plant. Finally, the terror premium inherent in the price of natural gas and petroleum affects electricity prices. When LNG is used for power generation, electricity is held hostage to the same geopolitical vagaries that destabilize petroleum markets.

Pearl Street::Jason and Kristina Makansi Read Lights Out reviews

]]> a bad year for coal...a good year for gas?

Good question, Trock! We addressed this same question not to long ago in our post,  No Coal? Okay, then what?

Unless everyone starts using less electricity, (Think: Less!) we're going to eventually have to replace those proposed-then-killed coal plants. The ideal solution, of course, would be to use renewables such as wind, solar, and thermal, but that won't happen overnight. In the meantime, it will probably be natural gas.

Part of our concern about natural gas is reflected in the following:

Our message here isn't that one power generating option is so much worse than another; they all have serious problems in the context of balancing supply, demand, price, and environmental impact. Rather, the message is that natural gas prices are exorbitant and expected to remain so as long as petroleum inches towards $100/barrel. The message is that electricity rates will continue to go up and the only practical means of containing the impact will be to reduce consumption. The message is that one methane molecule is equal to approximately 20 carbon dioxide molecules, and that industry experts estimate that approximately 2-10 percent of the methane used for electricity is released into the atmosphere between the well and the power plant. Finally, the terror premium inherent in the price of natural gas and petroleum affects electricity prices. When LNG is used for power generation, electricity is held hostage to the same geopolitical vagaries that destabilize petroleum markets.

Pearl Street::Jason and Kristina Makansi Read Lights Out reviews

]]> Comment #4 by Jay Alt http://www.grist.org/article/coals-bad-year/ Wed, 19 Dec 2007 02:30:41 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/coals-bad-year/4 Here's two more -

 Wyoming utility snuffs coal projects.

 Maine ruling &  vote sink 700 MW plant.

]]> Here's two more -

 Wyoming utility snuffs coal projects.

 Maine ruling &  vote sink 700 MW plant.

]]> Comment #5 by Ted Nace http://www.grist.org/article/coals-bad-year/ Mon, 04 Feb 2008 14:54:22 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/coals-bad-year/5 59 Coal Plants Cancelled in 2007

CoalSwarm, the new wiki covering the coal boom and the coal moratorium movement, has released a comprehensive count of cancellations that shows 59 coal plants cancelled in 2007.

Details at http://cmnow.org/59plants.pdf.

Also at:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal_plants_ca ...

Conclusions:
Climate concerns have begun to play a major role in plant abandonments and cancellations: Concerns about global warming played a major role in 15 cases. These included five proposed Florida plants (Glades, Taylor, Seminole, Polk, and Stanton), seven proposals in Western states that have newly implemented strict carbon regulations on coal (Avista's unnamed unit, Sunflower's Holcomb unit 3; Idaho Power's unnamed unit; Energy Northwest's Pacific Mountain Energy Center; PacifiCorp's Intermountain Power, Bridger IGCC demonstration, and Bridger expansion); and Sunflower's Holcomb units 1 and 2.

Coal plants are being eliminated from long-range plans: Increasingly, coal plants are disappearing before they can even be named, due to increasing regulatory scrutiny of long-range integrated resource plans. In addition to the plants abandoned by PacifiCorp and Idaho Power Company, it is likely that other utilities around the United States have eliminated coal plants from their long-term planning rosters without public announcement.

Renewables are elbowing out coal: Regulators in several states have begun favoring utility-scale renewables over coal. In Delaware, regulators cancelled a coal power plant proposed by NRG Energy in favor of an alternative proposal that combined wind and natural gas. In California, the combination of a strict carbon emissions standard and a renewable portfolio standard has prompted utilities to enter into contracts for large thermal solar projects sponsored by Ausra, BrightSource, and Solel. Solar thermal companies have found success in recruiting top utility executives such as Robert Fishman, who left an executive VP position at CalPine to take the helm at Ausra.

More plants are being abandoned than rejected: Of the 59 projects listed below, only 15 were rejected outright by regulators, courts, or local authorities. In the remaining 44 cases, the decision was made by utilities themselves. Reasons for abandoning plants include (1) rising construction costs, (2) insufficient financing or failure to receive hoped-for government grants, (3) lowered estimates of demand, and (4) concerns about future carbon regulations.



]]> 59 Coal Plants Cancelled in 2007

CoalSwarm, the new wiki covering the coal boom and the coal moratorium movement, has released a comprehensive count of cancellations that shows 59 coal plants cancelled in 2007.

Details at http://cmnow.org/59plants.pdf.

Also at:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal_plants_ca ...

Conclusions:
Climate concerns have begun to play a major role in plant abandonments and cancellations: Concerns about global warming played a major role in 15 cases. These included five proposed Florida plants (Glades, Taylor, Seminole, Polk, and Stanton), seven proposals in Western states that have newly implemented strict carbon regulations on coal (Avista's unnamed unit, Sunflower's Holcomb unit 3; Idaho Power's unnamed unit; Energy Northwest's Pacific Mountain Energy Center; PacifiCorp's Intermountain Power, Bridger IGCC demonstration, and Bridger expansion); and Sunflower's Holcomb units 1 and 2.

Coal plants are being eliminated from long-range plans: Increasingly, coal plants are disappearing before they can even be named, due to increasing regulatory scrutiny of long-range integrated resource plans. In addition to the plants abandoned by PacifiCorp and Idaho Power Company, it is likely that other utilities around the United States have eliminated coal plants from their long-term planning rosters without public announcement.

Renewables are elbowing out coal: Regulators in several states have begun favoring utility-scale renewables over coal. In Delaware, regulators cancelled a coal power plant proposed by NRG Energy in favor of an alternative proposal that combined wind and natural gas. In California, the combination of a strict carbon emissions standard and a renewable portfolio standard has prompted utilities to enter into contracts for large thermal solar projects sponsored by Ausra, BrightSource, and Solel. Solar thermal companies have found success in recruiting top utility executives such as Robert Fishman, who left an executive VP position at CalPine to take the helm at Ausra.

More plants are being abandoned than rejected: Of the 59 projects listed below, only 15 were rejected outright by regulators, courts, or local authorities. In the remaining 44 cases, the decision was made by utilities themselves. Reasons for abandoning plants include (1) rising construction costs, (2) insufficient financing or failure to receive hoped-for government grants, (3) lowered estimates of demand, and (4) concerns about future carbon regulations.



]]>