We in the US are now in a de facto moratorium on new coal construction. What few projects may be currently underway will most likely be the last ever build in this country.
Coal-fired power plants are shutting their doors at a record pace — and for the most part, nobody’s building new ones.
The latest round in the war on coal? Not exactly. The reality is that Americans’ lights will stay on just fine even as coal plants continue to close, thanks to a quiet revolution in energy efficiency and a boom time for cheap natural gas. Throw in some stricter rules for older plants, and the result is a sharp drop in the economic viability of coal-fired power.
Since 2008, coal has dropped from nearly half the U.S. power market to about 37 percent. In the next several years, industry analysts say, hundreds of older coal-fired units will power down for good.
The coal industry and its supporters have blamed these trends on a “war on coal” by President Barack Obama, but the facts on the ground don’t entirely support the political rhetoric. True, Environmental Protection Agency regulations are forcing older plants to reduce pollution and upgrade their equipment, helping drive the wave of shutdowns. But increasingly efficient homes, office buildings and factories and a fall in demand for electricity are big reasons why power companies don’t need to build replacements right away — possibly for another two decades.
Even in coal-heavy Kentucky, utilities have decided that at times, closing a big coal plant is the least costly option. And many customers won’t even notice that the plants are gone.
“While many coal plants are expected to close, for a variety of reasons we are unlikely to feel it at the light switch,” said Jennifer Macedonia, a senior adviser at the Bipartisan Policy Center.
A new report warns that Wisconsin’s economic competitiveness could be at risk if the state doesn’t diversify its electricity sources.
The Badger State is already burdened by the second highest electricity prices in the Midwest, with only Michigan customers paying more on average.
Those rates are likely to climb faster than inflation and prices in surrounding states in the next decade due to Wisconsin’s dependance on coal-burning power plants, according to Gary Radloff, director of Midwest policy analysis at the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Wisconsin Energy Institute.
His recent paper, “How to Keep Wisconsin and the U.S. Competitive in a Changing Energy World,” says better planning and more investment are needed to shield the state’s economy from fossil fuels’ risk and volatility.
“Wisconsin will fall behind in global and domestic economic competitiveness unless it moves towards a balanced energy portfolio with less reliance on high-cost coal and more reliance on clean energy technology solutions,” Radloff writes. “That is not the case today in Wisconsin, and in fact, there are troubling signs Wisconsin has slipped behind other states in the path to long-term energy innovation and economic success.”
‘Misguided planning’
Wisconsin may be locked into higher energy prices because of “misguided energy planning in the past” that made long-term commitments to coal plants that are increasingly expensive to operate, Radloff writes.
The report says concerns about electricity supply and reliability in the 1990s and early 2000s led to over-building of coal plants in the state, and customers will be stuck paying for them for the next 20 to 30 years.
They include the We Energies Oak Creek Power Plant, the largest construction project in state history. The $2.2 billion project came in 8 percent over budget. Wisconsin regulators last year approved a rate increase passing most of that overrun on to customers.
Radloff cites a Sierra Club forecast that coal prices will increase about 6 percent per year or 2 percent above inflation over the next decade because of growing transportation, operational, and regulatory expenses.
That’s positive news from the U.S (world #2 CO2 emitters) , and we know China (#1, although still slowly increasingly using coal) are actively pursuing cleaner energy as is #3 the EU. Next (at #4) is India who were the first country to appoint a ministry of non-conventional energy resources, in the early 1980s, the good news is that renewables are making a push there too.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/26/india-tatapower-renewables-idUSL4N0JA2HB20131126
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-12-24/news/45539924_1_energy-security-climate-change-200-gw
The coal lobbiest and Wisconsin electric forced the closing of dozens of hydro power plants in Wisconsin. and more in Michigan saying they are not efficient. In countries like Poland where the officials are not lobbied they use the common sense way.
It’s just like GM closing the electric trolleys in LA. So much for fair competition and laissez faire capitalism. So LA got smog instead of electric trolleys and GM got hegemony.
I have been browsing online more than three hours today, yet I never found any interesting article like yours. It?s pretty worth enough for me. Personally, if all site owners and bloggers made good content as you did, the net will be a lot more useful than ever before.
coal mining in Australia
Merry Christmas To all
Wonder why faux news never attributed the war on coal to shale gas, it’s biggest competitor? Not very reality based.
You answered your own question—Faux News is not “reality based”.
Neither are any other outlets in the major media. They are all agenda-driven, both in their reporting and what they refuse to report.
Here’s a report on the recent coal summit in Warsaw, Poland that was designed according to one observer to be mostly a stick in the eye of the floundering environmental movement:
Discouraging but insightful commentary. What the heck is going on with the Australians that they would behave as they did in Warsaw?
Meanwhile, they force Kewaunee (which was profitable at perhaps 6¢/kWh, and produced during dead calms and the darkest nights) out of business and applaud. Totally schizophrenic.
And you know better than the owners whether it was profitable…
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/08/business/energy-environment/kewaunee-nuclear-power-plant-shuts-down.html?_r=0
Kewaunee was a for profit company, not a public utility. Capitalism at its finest. What are you gonna do know? Complain and lobby for nuclear to be the public burden as a socialized industry? Heavens.
I’d settle for making the system operator buy power from nuclear generators at the same price as others, not discriminate when signing power-purchase agreements, and blocking “interventions” which drive up costs without any benefit, such as forcing plants not to enter into cooperative agreements with others to buy fuel. This doesn’t “socialize” anything.
I’d also require system operators to consider reliability of fuel supplies when signing contracts and dispatching generators. Coal trains can be held up by weather (including weather events several states away), coal stockpiles can freeze, and gas supplies can be diverted to higher-priority customers like residences. But once the fuel is loaded into a reactor, that’s all it needs for the next 18 or more months. You cannot get more reliable than that, and the customer benefits from having that power available no matter how much gas goes to furnaces or how icy the rails are.
And of course, plants like Kewaunee emit no carbon. Why do you hate them?
Why is it necessary to exaggerate nuclear as co2 free? Why is there no response to Kewaunee shut down by a for profit company? Gas plants were not shut down. There are no gas advantages over nuclear, except economics.
“The plant has run very well,” he told the newspaper, but “it produces electricity at too high a cost.” The owner, Dominion, states clearly economics are the cause. The root cause is that too many power stations were built and demand dropped. Readers interested in a reality based picture behind Midwest nuclear power plant closure may check these links:
http://www.midwestenergynews.com/2013/05/10/commentary-time-to-reconsider-baseload-power/
http://www.midwestenergynews.com/2012/10/23/low-electricity-prices-lead-dominion-to-decommission-wisconsin-reactor/
For the real dirt on nuclear reliability and the flip side of the 40 year lifetime, see the economic, safety, and health effects of the aging nuclear fleet. The industry is unable to replace at the rate it declines without excessive cost over runs, delays, and subsidy give always. Witness the hypocritical free market lecturing despite lucrative nuclear subsidies. For some, ignorance of power market and system operation is no impediment to lecturing system operators. Hypocrisy at its finest.
http://times.org/2013/12/18/dangerous-nuclear-power-plants-america/
Reply reparented here:
http://climatecrocks.com/2013/12/25/like-the-war-on-christmas-the-war-on-coal-is-also-a-fox-news-fable/comment-page-2/#comment-38471
Why exaggerate that nuclear emits no carbon? Gas plants competed and were not shut down. No whining from them. A glut of power plants and reduced demand were factors. Lucrative nuclear subsidies make complaining about subsidies a hypocrisy. “You add it all up and it weighs heavily on nuclear to go forward versus simple natural gas,” Barrett said. Natural gas was a big factor. Renewables had nothing to do with it. Just more hyperbole from a biased nuke cheerleader with a nuke love affair.
http://www.midwestenergynews.com/2012/10/23/low-electricity-prices-lead-dominion-to-decommission-wisconsin-reactor/
http://www.midwestenergynews.com/2013/05/10/commentary-time-to-reconsider-baseload-power/
For more on the aging nuclear fleet safety, reliability, ..
http://times.org/2013/12/18/dangerous-nuclear-power-plants-america/
Kewaunee was shut down because it was losing money. So its nuclear at any cost ? Why the need to make the false claim of no nuclear CO2? Large centralized power plants are a liability in an era of lowered demand. Seems like Wisconsin already has a new underutilized coal plant. They need less base load, not more. The Achilles heel of nuclear is its inflexibility in the face of dwindling demand. It loses efficiency and economy when cycled at less than full capacity.
http://www.midwestenergynews.com/2013/05/10/commentary-time-to-reconsider-baseload-power/
The system operators cannot follow the whimsical dictates of a single irate blogger poet, but instead have a mandate to provide the lowest cost electricity. Why do system operators hate nuclear? Why do you have a Dr. Strangelove obsession with nuclear?
As a baseload plant, Kewaunee was poorly adapted to compete in a depressed market. Nuclear power plants operate pretty much at one speed — full throttle — and end up producing the same quantity of electricity at 2:00 AM, when the wholesale price of electricity in the Upper Midwest is often below the cost of production, as they do at 2:00 PM, when the prevailing price is at or above production cost.
A combined cycle natural gas turbine plant studied by the DOE completed in 2010 is rated at 570 mw and produces 470 mw, capacity factor 85%. cost $311 MILLION. life cycle 35 years therefore this plant will produce 133 Terawatts life cycle.
Cape wind project in nantucket sound has been approved. the project will cost $2.6 BILLON, and it has secured funding for $2 billon of that from a japanese bank. but this is believed to be subject to the project gaining a loan guarantee from the u.s. department of energy. the contracted cost of the wind farm’s energy will be 23 cents a kilowatt hour (excluding tax credits, which are unlikely to last the length of the project), which is more than 50% higher than current average electricity prices in massachusetts. the bay state is already the 4th most expensive state for electricity in the nation. even if the tax credits are preserved, $940 million of the $1.6 billion contract represents costs above projections for the likely market price of conventional power. moreover, these costs are just the initial costs they are scheduled to rise by 3.5 percent annually for 15 years. by year 15 the rate will be $.38 per Kilowatt.
This project is rated at 468 mw and will produce 143 mw after applying a capacity factor of 30.4 % the time the wind actually blows. life cycle is 20 years therefore this project will produce 24.6 Terawatts life cycle.
Bottom line, $311 Million 133 Terawatts. $2.6 Billion 24 Terawatts.
Compare a nascent energy source with decades old technology and complain it’s about expense? Does that make sense? Only if the object is to retain the status quo. What will gas cost in 20 years?
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/fracking-boom-leading-to-fracking-bust-scientists-16680
Offshore wind is a development effort aimed at increasing independence from fossil fuels inevitable price increases. Inevitably, as gas prices rise and wind costs fall there will arise a point in the future when the wisdom of investing in wind becomes clear. Or we can fiddle all summer like the cricket and starve in winter. Now, you may argue what is the best and most equitable way to spread the costs…. Or even what are the scouts of GW not included in that cheap gas….but their is no way you can escape the consequences of ignoring them. I expect the same arguments will rise about wave energy and so on…. Why not just keep burning fossil fuels until we are all screwed? Fiddle while the sun shines.
What do you mean, “nascent”? Kilowatt-scale wind turbines have been around for many centuries, grinding grain and pumping water. In the 1920’s and 30’s they provided electricity in the Great Plains where the electric grid did not reach; there’s a vintage Jacobs wind turbine just a few hundred yards from me right now (it hasn’t produced a single watt of useful power since I first saw it). The first grid-scale wind turbine, the 1.25 MW Smith-Putnam machine, was connected to the grid October 19, 1941. The first controlled atomic chain reaction, generating milliwatts of heat, would not be achieved until December 2 1942. Yet despite the long history of human exploitation of wind power, the first grid-scale nuclear station would go critical on 12/2/1957 and produce tens of megawatts. So far as I can determine, the next grid-connected wind turbines would not arrive until the 1970’s and produced mere tens of kilowatts.
You’re commenting on a site called Climate Crocks, and you’re concerned about what a carbon-based fuel might cost, rather than how much of it we can afford to use and how it ought to be restricted? Should’t you focus on the diminishing returns from additions of variable energy supplies and what that means for both FF costs and carbon emissions going forward?
Japan’s floating wind turbines are coming in at $20,000 per kW. You can endure a lot of price increases from gas and even oil before those become competitive. And that is the problem as identified by TODers like Gail Tverberg: the way RE is being pitched, it is merely a way to make exploitation of the remaining gas, oil and even coal deposits affordable as the essential stopgap fuels for when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining.
Uranium and thorium never stop blowing, never refuse to shine. A nuclear reactor can run at 100.0% all winter and all summer (Vermont Yankee did exactly that during one of the most grueling winters the east coast has seen lately). A nuclear reactor does not need a gas-burning turbine to respond to its inevitable variability in output. It should surprise no one that among the most carbon-efficient electric grids in the world you find France (78% nuclear) and Ontario. Yet here at Climate Crocks, we have people whose position on this success is that it’s an outrage and should be ended ASAP. Seriously, man: WTF?
Natural gas has a history of extreme price volatility. Present day fracking methods exacerbate this with their fast depletion rates and need to employ incessant drilling to keep rates steady. At some point, the gas will be there, but it will be impossible to sustain the rates, prices rise suddenly, and it’s back to boom and bust. Unlike gasoline which is a monopoly, natural gas can be substituted. Peak gas is estimated anywhere from ten to forty years depending on demand. Thing is, demand is increasing in the electricity sector, not because of electric demand growth, but because of coal replacement. That allows gas prices to rise as coal prices rise somewhat, but gas has other competition. As gas depletes, it will disappear fast.
Nothing like an energy policy of sucking the straw dry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_gas
http://climatecrocks.com/2013/04/02/dont-count-on-cheap-fracked-gas/