Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    2:30 AM

GasBuddy News Article

49
votes
Black Hills to close 123.5MW coal and gas-fired plants in US

EBR -- Black Hills Corp. has announced that its subsidiaries Colorado Electric and Black Hills Power are closing the operations at two coal-fired and one gas-fired plant in Colorado, South Dakota and Wyoming. The company took the decision to close down the old coal-fired and gas-fired facilities after evaluating the cost of upgrading the facilities as per the new environmental standards.

The investment for the upgrade of these facilities was not economically viable to the company.

Black Hills Corp. chairman, president and chief executive officer David R Emery said, "After a thorough analysis of new environmental regulations, coupled with changing market and operating conditions, we identified an opportunity to make changes to our resource portfolio by suspending operations at some of


Read the Full Article

Submitted Aug 13, 2012 By: bar1035
Category: Daily News Article Discussions > Topics Add to favorite topics  
Author Topic: Black Hills to close 123.5MW coal and gas-fired plants in US Back to Topics
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
Martinman
Champion Author Mississippi

Posts:17,131
Points:2,630,265
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 18, 2012 12:12:46 AM

And why do you think wholesale coal prices will not rise even higher? Much/most of the eastern coal deposites are medium- to high-sulfur content coal compared to western coal.

My reading has been that the higher demand for low-sulfur coal, will more than offset the overall reduction in coal demand by American coal-fired power generation. Then there's the increased price-pressure due to Chinese purchases of western coal, which will only increase. And today's announcement of India's agreement to buy eastern coal will place additional price-pressure on North American market pricing.

Do I think there will be some rebound in natural gas pricing - yes. But given the speed with which natural gas can be brought to market, and the fact that the large shale deposits have only begun to be developed, any significant upward movement in natural gas pricing will immediately spark renewed drilling activity. But given the huge cost advantage of natural gas has over coal, and the efficiency advantage natural gas plant designs have over coal-fired, natural gas will have to nearly quadruple in price before coal becomes cost competitive again.

Its not a witch hunt, as you call it. I suspect that there are some problems, but they're probably more to do with the indivdual companies than solely with the technique. Do I think there needs to be some regulation in terms of what chemicals are pumped into the ground, standards for well design, vertical/horizontal distances from ground water supplies,etc. But I think in the end it will prove safer than drilling for crude oil, and we'll emerge somewhere in the middle, further down the road.
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,123
Points:1,293,500
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Aug 17, 2012 9:32:09 PM

"Maybe that's why spot-market prices for peak-demand electricity is running between the mid-teens to mid $40 per 1000Kw-hours"

As you can see ERCOT spot is running on par with Mid-Columbia and Palo-Verde:

Cut and pasted from Bloomberg ;^)

PRICE* CHANGE % CHANGE TIME
Mid-Columbia, firm on-peak, spot 28.46 -15.03 -34.56% 08/17
Palo Verde, firm on-peak, spot 34.51 -3.91 -10.18% 08/17
BLOOMBERG, FIRM ON-PEAK, DAY AHEAD SPOT/ERCOT HOUSTON 34.63 -3.87 -10.05% 08/16

Question, how long do you suppose NG will remain below $3 per MCF? Whether the EPA and Eco-Imperialist witch hunt on hydraulic fracturing is successful or not....how long? Texas is strongly in favor of NG electric generation but it should be a true market generated move, not government mandated market manipulation costing the consumer hundreds of $ Billions.

Profile Pic
Martinman
Champion Author Mississippi

Posts:17,131
Points:2,630,265
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 17, 2012 8:03:36 PM

It's been 42 YEARS since passage of the Clean Air Act.

It's been 12 YEARS since the EPA first proposed limiting the emissions of heavy metals (arsenic, mercury, cadmium and chrominum) and noxious pollutants (dioxin, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide)

The fact that any of the generating units are less than 40-years old is irrelevant. Totally excluding the generating fuel cost-benefits, it is cheaper to build a new nautral gas fired generating plant than to upgade an older existing facility. Most of the existing coal-fired plants are only marginally profittable, and have no stable rate-base.

Page 10, 12, or whatever other excuse you want to cut-and-paste-in, is irrelevant.

It looks like that TCEQ-industry friendly attitude is coming back to haunt the state...

You guys better cowboy-up, and start buildin'.
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,123
Points:1,293,500
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Aug 17, 2012 4:43:08 PM

You left out page 10: ---About 1/3rd of the economic retirement capacity are younger (< 40 years) and larger (> 500 MW) units, highlighting the importance of considering regional market conditions in addition to unit age and size in retirement decisions.
Capacity revenues are moderately important, reducing them by half would add another 7 GW of retirements under the EPA mandate to install scrubbers and SCRs
Another 8 GW of regulated units would retire under scrubber and SCR mandates (~ half of them in the MRO region) if a 20% discount is applied to the cost of replacement power as a proxy for potential externality penalties imposed by regulators (such as “Probable Environmental Cost” assessments)

Now what this study tells me is contrary to the argument that just "AGING generating units" are being regulated out of existence, but over 30% of the larger and younger units are also being regulated out of existence. The arguments that this is market driven are only 1/2 right, the 'market' is being manipulated by mandates from EPA regulation.
And page 12: ---Recent studies estimate 10-75 GW coal capacity at risk for retirement.
Profile Pic
Martinman
Champion Author Mississippi

Posts:17,131
Points:2,630,265
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 17, 2012 3:23:59 PM

What that report tells me, is that yes everything is bigger in Texas...

Let me explain.

You need look no further than three pages of the Brattle Group's 2010 analysis. The following are cut-and-pastes straight from the .pdf document:

(p. 7) - Most of the economic retirements are with merchant units (which rely on market revenues), in contrast to regulated units whose retirement decisions are based on the cost of replacement power.

(p. 9) - Market areas with the largest retirements would be Midwest ISO, ERCOT, and PJM.

- Retirements represent large portions of existing total regional capacity: 15% in ERCOT, 11-14% in Midwest ISO, and 6-11% in PJM
- All merchant coal plants in ERCOT would retire if scrubbers, SCRs, and cooling towers are mandated

(p.11) - Retirements would reduce reserve margins in 2020 below targets in ERCOT and RFC in the absence of additional new resources coming online:

- ERCOT: from 10% to 1%, compared to target of 13%
- RFC: from 19% to 13%, compared to target of 15%
- Most retirements occur in 2015 (beginning of assumed mandates)

-----

So, what does all that mean...

Merchant units - these are units that generate electricity solely for wholesale resale. They do not sell power to individual customers like you and me. All their income is derived by contract-sales of power to mid-level energy market distributors that in-turn resell the electricity to municipalities and electric cooperatives, as well as income from excess capacity sales on the spot market. The electricity they generate is essentially the equivalent of commodities contracts being sold on the futures trading boards.

Midwest ISO, ERCOT, and PJM are regional grids within the national transmission grid. The RFC is one of the NERC's regions within the national electric power grid.

Midwest ISO - includes Minnesota, North Dakota, Wisconsin; portions of Illinois, Iowa, Ohio, Manitoba, Montana, Missouri, and most of Indiana and Michigan.

PJM - includes Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia; most of Ohio and small areas of Indiana (Fort Wayne), Illinois (Greater Chicago), Kentucky, and Michigan.

ERCOT - the Electric Reliability Council of Texas grid includes most of the state of Texas.

Yep, just Texas.

RFC - is one of the NERC's regions and includes portions of the Midwest ISO and PJM grid markets.

For those interested, the ONLY area that will be affected, even if the 50 GigaWatts (Gw) of generating capacity closes, is in the ERCOT grid market in Texas. All other markets have sufficient reserve capacity ('glut' capacity) to handle closure of ALL the identified coal-fired plants. Only the RFC region falls below the NERC's 2018 target of 15% excess capacity, dropping to 13% excess capacity.

So, what's the take-home message here?

EVERYWHERE EXCEPT TEXAS, can handle a closure of ALL the identified coal-fired generating units, without any impact. Any.

Maybe that's why spot-market prices for peak-demand electricity is running between the mid-teens to mid $40 per 1000Kw-hours - while Texas prices (ERCOT) recently spiked to well over $350 during early August:

Texas spot power prices surge nearly $200 on intense heat, soaring demand (02 Aug 12)

Looks to me, like everywhere else is actually prepared; everywhere else can actually handle such a large-scale retirement of coal-fired generating units - everywhere but Texas.

Maybe that's why the Texas Troll has been so vocal in his/her almost single-handed condemnation of the EPA. Could it be?

What that report tells me, is that yes everything is bigger in Texas, including their failures to plan and soon-to-be failures in gambling in the power generation commodities markets.

Enron anyone...?

[Edited by: Martinman at 8/17/2012 4:32:00 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Martinman
Champion Author Mississippi

Posts:17,131
Points:2,630,265
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 17, 2012 1:34:19 PM

Already seen it.

Already read it.

You should draw *your* attention to page 11 of the report.
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,123
Points:1,293,500
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Aug 17, 2012 1:10:45 PM

LOL, I don't write 'em, I just post 'em so the folks are informed.

The Brattle Group Study - Potential Coal Plant Retirements Under Emerging Environmental Regulations

Profile Pic
Martinman
Champion Author Mississippi

Posts:17,131
Points:2,630,265
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 17, 2012 12:20:45 PM

Ooop-sie..!

Looks like Captain cut-and-paste is now 0-for-3...

"PPL's Brunner Island coal fired power plant here to stay"

Btw, I have holdings in PP&L (Pennsylvania Power & Light), and have had for years. I fully support those U.S. corporations that responsibly operate within our country, regardless of their sector-base. PP&L even has a nuclear powered facility on the Susquehanna River. Controversy over the construction of that plant is what drew my attention to the company years ago.

[Edited by: Martinman at 8/17/2012 1:24:29 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Martinman
Champion Author Mississippi

Posts:17,131
Points:2,630,265
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 17, 2012 10:56:29 AM

Sorry, but evidence continues to mount that the electric power generating industry began transitoning from coal-fired to natural gas electric power generation well before the EPA ruling, solely due to economics. The latest post this morning contains further evidence of this shift:

"CO2 emissions in US drop to 20-year low" (Associated Press)

-----

The following comes from the above article:

"(AP) — In a surprising turnaround, the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the U.S. has fallen dramatically to its lowest level in 20 years, and government officials say the biggest reason is that cheap and plentiful natural gas has led many power plant operators to switch from dirtier-burning coal....

In a little-noticed technical report, the U.S. Energy Information Agency, said this month that total U.S. CO2 emissions for the first four months of this year fell to about 1992 levels....

While conservation efforts, the lagging economy and greater use of renewable energy are factors in the CO2 decline, the drop-off is due mainly to low-priced natural gas, the agency said.

A frenzy of shale gas drilling in the Northeast's Marcellus Shale and in Texas, Arkansas and Louisiana has caused the wholesale price of natural gas to plummet from $7 or $8 per unit to about $3 over the past four years, making it cheaper to burn than coal for a given amount of energy produced. As a result, utilities are relying more than ever on gas-fired generating plants.

Both government and industry experts said the biggest surprise is how quickly the electric industry turned away from coal. In 2005, coal was used to produce about half of all the electricity generated in the U.S. The Energy Information Agency said that fell to 34 percent in March, the lowest level since it began keeping records nearly 40 years ago."

-----

If we look at the second graph from yesterday's article I posted immediately below, we see the following timeline:

1987 - coal-fired electric generation peaks at 80% of electricity generated;

1994 - natural gas electric generation climbs above 20% of electricity generated;

2002 - natural gas electric generation climbs above 25% of electricity generated;

2004 - coal-fired electric drops below 70% of electricity generated;

2007 - natural gas electric generation climbs above 30% of electricity generated;

2010 - natural gas electric generation climbs above 35% of electricity

2011 - coal-fired drops below 60%; natural gas climbs above 40% of electricity generated;

2012 - coal-fired and natural gas electric generation reach parity, at 32% of U.S. electricity generated.

Thus, a drop from 80% to less than 40% BEFORE the EPA's publication of emissions standards for toxic emissions, December 2011.

Source: Percent annual share of fossil-fired electric power generation, 1950-2012

Article: "Natural Gas And The Brutal Dethroning of King Coal"

[Edited by: Martinman at 8/17/2012 12:02:30 PM EST]
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,123
Points:1,293,500
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Aug 17, 2012 8:29:41 AM

Another study from Dec 2010 Brattle Study Estimates EPA Regulations May Result in Over 50,000 MW of Coal Plant Retirements and Up to $180 Billion in Compliance Costs “In contrast to other studies projecting that mostly old and small coal units are at risk for retirement, our analysis finds that roughly one-third of the retirements will be from power plants that are less than 40 years old and larger than 500 MW, resulting in significant challenges for the coal industry as a whole if the EPA regulations pass as expected,” Dr. Celebi said today during an EUCI webinar on “Potential Coal Plant Retirements Under Emerging Environmental Regulations.”
Profile Pic
Martinman
Champion Author Mississippi

Posts:17,131
Points:2,630,265
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 16, 2012 9:52:32 PM

So, back to the REAL reason the utility industry has been retiring coal-fired generating units on a large-scale for the last 15 years.

An excellent review of the reasons for the industry move to natural gas fired power-generation was posted earlier today:

Natural Gas and the Brutal Dethroning of King Coal

While I was aware of the advantages of natural gas over coal-fired electric power generation, I wasn't aware the advantages were so huge. From the article:

"Gas didn't pose a threat to king coal ... until the arrival in the 1990s of the natural gas combined-cycle (NGCC) turbine: like the classic turbine, it drives a generator, but instead of blowing the “waste” heat out the exhaust, it uses the energy to generate steam that, as in a coal plant, drives a steam turbine that powers another generator. Like their old-fashioned brethren, NGCC plants can be brought on line quickly, but when used for base power, their efficiency can exceed 60%—much higher than that of a coal plant.

A game changer. With natural gas prices as low as they’ve been over the past years, operating costs for power generators have plunged. It doesn’t hurt that NGCC plants have lower capital costs than coal plants—$600 to $700 per kW versus $1,400 to $2,000 kW—relatively short construction times, and environmental benefits..."

-----

Quick summary:

- 1/2 to 1/3 the capital cost of coal-fired plants;

- roughly double the generating efficiency of coal-fired plants;

- much shorter plant construction times in comparison to coal-fired plants;

- quicker start-up times to cover peak-load periods.

And if you look at the third graph in the article Fossil Fuel Net Summer Capacity Additions, natural gas has basically been the only power generation added in the last 15 years to cover the growing summer capacity requirements.

Excellent article showing the real reasons why natural gas is becoming the electric power generating fuel of choice.

Excellent article showing how this "the EPA is forcing us to shut-down", is little more than the Coal Industry scapegoating the EPA during an election year.

I strongly encourage everyone to read the entire article!!!
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,123
Points:1,293,500
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Aug 16, 2012 6:24:34 PM

As a matter of fact the full quote in answering the young lady's question in 2008 is even more revealing:

Approached following a rally in Maumee, Ohio, last Tuesday, Biden was asked by a campaigner for 1Sky, an organization against the development of new coal-fired power plants, why he supports clean coal at a time when “wind and solar are flourishing here in Ohio.”

The animated, close-talking Biden then put his hands on the woman’s shoulders and launched into a passionate, finger-wagging argument that he and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., do not support clean coal.

“We’re not supporting clean coal,” Biden said. “Guess what? China is building two every week, two dirty coal plants. And it’s polluting the United States, it’s causing people to die.”

“So will you support wind and solar and alternate technologies?” the woman questioned.

“Absolutely, before anybody did,” came Biden’s reply. “The first guy to introduce a global warming bill was me 22 years ago. The first guy to support solar energy was me 26 years ago. It came out of Delaware.”

“But guess what?,” he continued. “China’s gonna burn 300 years of bad coal unless we figure out how to clean their coal up because it’s gonna ruin your lungs and there’s nothing we can do about it.”

“No coal plants here in America!” pledged the Democratic vice-presidential nominee. “Build ‘em, if they’re gonna build ‘em, over there and make ‘em clean because they’re killing ya.”The ABC news article from 2008
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,123
Points:1,293,500
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Aug 16, 2012 10:44:25 AM

LOL, falling back on the old "out of context" again are we?

And as usual, the quotes are taken out-of-context.

<"First, both are from 2008."> - Yep, clearly indicated in the link I provided to the ABC article.

<"Second, the Obama quote comes from his interview by the San Francisco Chronicle over the Carbon Cap and Trade program that has never passed:"> - Yep, clearly showing how he's taken and end run around Congress, using the EPA, to engage his agenda of eliminating as much coal fired generation as possible.

<"Jan 17, 2008 Interview - ALL OF IT (approx. 4 min.)"> - Yep, see above.

<"Third, you rearranged the quote of Biden, in addition to taking it out context by removing the girl's question. Here's the complete question and answer."> - So, Biden didn't say it?

You ask about economics, so here's the economic question about what this is all about.

Since all this is predicated on the theory of man made Global Warming, what would be the cost to "fix it", IF it could even be "fixed" at all?

Which leads to the ultimate question; if there is unnatural (man made)warming and man could stop it, is the cost justifiable?


Profile Pic
Martinman
Champion Author Mississippi

Posts:17,131
Points:2,630,265
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 16, 2012 12:17:44 AM

I see the queen-of-quotes is at it again.

And as usual, the quotes are taken out-of-context.

First, both are from 2008.

Second, the Obama quote comes from his interview by the San Francisco Chronicle over the Carbon Cap and Trade program that has never passed:

Jan 17, 2008 Interview - ALL OF IT (approx. 4 min.)

Third, you rearranged the quote of Biden, in addition to taking it out context by removing the girl's question. Here's the complete question and answer.

So, how do you feel about 'voodoo economics'?

How pathetic...

... and how typical.
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,123
Points:1,293,500
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Aug 15, 2012 10:30:33 PM

According to the article the CEO does not concur Marty. "After a thorough analysis of new environmental regulations, coupled with changing market and operating conditions...."

One has to remember what Obama said "if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted".

Joe Biden also added that the Obama policy was “no coal plants here in America". Prior to that he said this “We’re not supporting clean coal,” Biden said. “Guess what? China is building two every week, two dirty coal plants. And it’s polluting the United States, it’s causing people to die.”
“So will you support wind and solar and alternate technologies?” the woman questioned.
“Absolutely, before anybody did,” came Biden’s reply. “The first guy to introduce a global warming bill was me 22 years ago. The first guy to support solar energy was me 26 years ago. It came out of Delaware.”
“But guess what?,” he continued. “China’s gonna burn 300 years of bad coal unless we figure out how to clean their coal up because it’s gonna ruin your lungs and there’s nothing we can do about it.”
“No coal plants here in America!” pledged the Democratic vice-presidential nominee. “Build ‘em, if they’re gonna build ‘em, over there and make ‘em clean because they’re killing ya.”
Source

Profile Pic
Martinman
Champion Author Mississippi

Posts:17,131
Points:2,630,265
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 15, 2012 9:48:22 PM

I will.

So far you're 0-for-2, as both recent announcements are clearly due to economics.

Midwest Generation faces bankruptcy since they cannot profittably compete on the open market against Natural Gas fired plants due to their base-costs for power generation.

Black Hills Corp. has already built three times the generating capacity that it will be retiring over the next three years - 380Mw of new generating capacity came online 01 January, versus 123.5Mw that will be retired by the end of 2015. This excludes other power generating facilities they have in the planning, processing, and construction phases.

By 2015, Black Hills Corp. will have added more than four times the generating capacity than it will retire - all of it natural gas and wind generated energy.

And of those future closures that do not replace their AGING generating units they are retiring, it will be due to the glut of current generating capacity.

[Edited by: Martinman at 8/15/2012 10:51:25 PM EST]
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,123
Points:1,293,500
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Aug 15, 2012 9:32:55 PM

Excellent Marty, keep it bookmarked as well. Confirmation of the closures to electricity generation plants due to the EPA should be referenced often.
Profile Pic
Martinman
Champion Author Mississippi

Posts:17,131
Points:2,630,265
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 15, 2012 8:12:47 PM

Well, at least you're now finally acknowledging it's only a report...

And dislike? No, actually its provided a couple of information sources that have shown the lying and distortions of truth.

I even BOOKMARKED it - thanks !

[Edited by: Martinman at 8/15/2012 9:14:52 PM EST]
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,123
Points:1,293,500
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Aug 15, 2012 6:55:08 PM

Boy, Marty sure dislikes this Report
Profile Pic
Martinman
Champion Author Mississippi

Posts:17,131
Points:2,630,265
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 15, 2012 3:28:45 PM

AH ha ha ha ha ha ha......

You're really going to try that line of crap again?

drpeppertx is simply here to TROLL. Don't believe me? Go to this thread and look how s/he is running through the same series of lame posts, like a parrot that only knows a handful of human phrases they regurgitate over..., and over..., and over..., and over..., and over...

Bankruptcy Could Shutter 13.5% of Illinois’ Power Generating Capacity

My, my. Bar1035 posts an article about a group of power plants closing, and the cut-and-paste quenn comes trolling in with a coal industry script. Almost as if it was planned...

... nah, s/he isn't that intelligent.



[Edited by: Martinman at 8/15/2012 4:34:07 PM EST]
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,123
Points:1,293,500
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Aug 15, 2012 12:34:40 PM

us4usa "So why close the NG units????"

==================

Because the war on coal is but one branch of Obama and the EPA's war on Fossil Fuels. "Crucifixion" is but one of their methods according to poor Al Armenderiz, formerly hung out to dry from the EPA, for accidently letting their philosophy out of the bag.
Profile Pic
Martinman
Champion Author Mississippi

Posts:17,131
Points:2,630,265
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 15, 2012 12:01:31 PM

So, resorting back to the 'fling crap against the wall to see what sticks" methodolgy, that failed the last time?

First, in addition to that infamous list including the 'may', 'might', 'could', and 'possiliby' generating units that may might could possiliby close, and generating units with previously announced plant closing dates, etc. - s/he fails to disclose the list also includes plants that are not being closed to avoid the costs of complying with EPA, but that are being closed *early* due to state-level regulations in California, Colorado, Illinois, and other states that have passed emissions standards more stringent than the EPAs.

For Example, Calfornia passed a law prohibiting coal-fired power generation in the state (regardless of the technology employed), and prohibits all power generating companies that reside within the state from owning any coal-fired facilities. This directly resulted in California-based Edison International selling its stake in other coal-fired generating units around the country, while allowing other units it owned to fall into bankruptcy.

Btw - care to tell us what percentage of U.S. power generation your 'more-factual' numbers would represent?

Profile Pic
Martinman
Champion Author Mississippi

Posts:17,131
Points:2,630,265
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 15, 2012 10:51:28 AM

ExplorerWA apparently failed to read multiple prior posts, that show: 1) Black Hills Corp. has already brought online, this year, more than triple the generating capacity it will be retiring in the next three years (380Mw); and 2) that Black Hills Corp. will ADD more capacity over the next two years, than it will be retiring (132Mw).

The following post by nsdp, re-empasizes that all of these facilities represent the oldest, least-efficient generating units in the country. Many of which are operating decades AFTER their designed service life.

-----

nsdp from San Antonio posted on Aug 13, 2012 7:59:30 PM (EDT):

"Just out of curiosity, how many of you are still driving a 85-91 Yugo? Last North American Electric Reliability Council rated all of the units to be closed but one as unacceptable the remaining unit was poor. Newest was built in 1969 according to NERC the others in 1961, 1948,1949, and 1952. The new combined cycle plant to be built jointly with Cheyenne Light will replace these units."

(msgid=105282417)
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,123
Points:1,293,500
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Aug 15, 2012 10:19:51 AM

Aaaw, it's so nice to have a fan!

From the study:
Process to Identify Units Closed by EPA Regulation
Individual power-plants often have multiple boilers, called “units,” that generate electricity. EPA, in addition to overall modeling, models the impact that the Agency believes its regulations will have on each unit, at each power-plant in America. EPA lists these results in “parsed files.” When producing parsed files for a regulation, EPA will first create a business-as-usual “base” case parsed file where the Agency details what it believes will happen absent EPA’s new regulation. Next, EPA creates a “policy” or “remedy” case parsed file showing how EPA believes plants will respond to a regulation. Thus, one can find the difference between these two cases, and figure out the impact EPA believes a regulation will have, by comparing the policy/remedy case parsed file to the base case parsed file. As such, the following steps were taken so that the list would only include those units EPA said would retire as a result of the Transport Rule and Toxics Rule:
1. For the Transport Rule, data from the parsed files for the Transport Rule’s base case and remedy case were put on a single spreadsheet. The combined results were organized by plant name. Each plant listed in both the base case and remedy case was removed. Thus, the resulting list only shows those plants that EPA believes will close because of the Transport Rule.
2. For the Toxics Rule, data from the parsed files for the Toxics Rule’s base case and policy case were put on a single spreadsheet. The combined results were organized by plant name. Each plant listed in both the base case and policy case was removed. Thus, the resulting list only shows those plants that EPA believes will close because of the Toxics Rule.
3. The resulting base case-free Transport Rule list and Toxics Rule list were then put on a single spreadsheet. The combined results were organized by plant name. In each instance where the Transport Rule and the Toxics Rule independently said the same plant would retire, one of the entries was deleted so as to not double-count it. The citation was modified to attribute the unit closure to both the Transport Rule and Toxics Rule.

Sorry Marty, facts are facts.
Profile Pic
Martinman
Champion Author Mississippi

Posts:17,131
Points:2,630,265
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 15, 2012 9:16:48 AM

I see the town liar (not to be confused with the town friar) is back with his/her self-proclaimed "lists".

First, the list is compiled by the coal industry itself, by the Insitute for Energy Research. Read through the industry's literature', you will see examples such as "... coal plant may shut by 2012".

Second, many of these plants were suppose to close *decades* ago, under agreements in the Clean Air Act of 1970.

Third, the recent emissions standards STARTED IN THE YEAR 2000. The coal industry has been fighting this in the courts for 12 years.

Fourth, these generating units represent the oldest generating facilities in the country, many dating back to the 1940s and 1950s. The industry standard life-cycle for power generating facilities is 40-60 years.

Fifth, many of these generating units were already scheduled to be phased-out, even before the new ruling making was announced for public comment.

Sixth, not one single plant is being 'forced' to close. In every case, the company cites facility age and economics of complying with regulations it has had 42 YEARS to address.
Profile Pic
hank1326
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:10,762
Points:2,234,915
Joined:Jun 2008
Message Posted: Aug 14, 2012 10:03:05 PM

We need more domestic production not less.
Profile Pic
ExplorerWA
Champion Author Washington

Posts:6,004
Points:1,264,350
Joined:Feb 2011
Message Posted: Aug 14, 2012 6:30:02 PM

Aviator Rob ......The article states they will "also shut the natural-gas-fired steam units 5 & 6 in Pueblo, Colorado at the end of 2012". No where in the article does state that they will be replaced.

us4usa...asks why close the NG units?

drpepperTX thanks the list of plant closures. I see gas plants are also on the list. Maybe Aviator Rob can supply us with list of replacement plants.

Aviator Rob .......the closing list shows there are NG, coal and oil plants in NY that will shut down in 2015 that produce a total of 477 NW combined. Welcome to future brownouts/blackouts and to Agenda 21.
Profile Pic
sparky808
Champion Author Honolulu

Posts:5,214
Points:1,121,175
Joined:Sep 2011
Message Posted: Aug 14, 2012 12:25:08 PM

Thank you for posting.
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,123
Points:1,293,500
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Aug 14, 2012 9:13:34 AM

Here's a list of the 33 GW of electricity generation (over 270 units) due to be taken offline in the next couple of years by EPA regulations:
It's only just begun...
Profile Pic
ExplorerWA
Champion Author Washington

Posts:6,004
Points:1,264,350
Joined:Feb 2011
Message Posted: Aug 13, 2012 11:55:33 PM

Aviator_Rob...I'm talking about in the near future as these plants will shut down due to the high costs of meeting the EPA regulations. Just like the plants in the article. They are not being phased out as new replacements come on line as you indicate but due to high costs to make them EPA compliant. How long and what are the costs to build the replacements and what will the electricity cost the consumer when completed? Think the EPA won't shut down 57%?
Profile Pic
us4usa
Champion Author Missouri

Posts:7,094
Points:1,472,150
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Aug 13, 2012 11:29:55 PM

""It will also shut the natural-gas-fired steam units 5 & 6 in Pueblo, Colorado at the end of 2012.""

So why close the NG units????

Profile Pic
LetemEatCake
Champion Author Oklahoma City

Posts:5,705
Points:1,360,915
Joined:Mar 2008
Message Posted: Aug 13, 2012 11:29:18 PM


Nicely said Avaitor Rob! Thanks for posting Bar1035!
Profile Pic
Zonk
Champion Author Michigan

Posts:8,860
Points:2,638,525
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Aug 13, 2012 11:28:46 PM

Just more jobs gone.
Profile Pic
crreed1
Champion Author West Virginia

Posts:4,229
Points:3,020,285
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Aug 13, 2012 11:20:10 PM

ok
Profile Pic
gem1224
Champion Author Tulsa

Posts:1,541
Points:491,640
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Aug 13, 2012 11:18:07 PM

Ok
Profile Pic
jkpsr
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:5,936
Points:1,574,480
Joined:Jun 2005
Message Posted: Aug 13, 2012 11:17:40 PM

Why is it taking them so long to get rid of coal fired generators?
Profile Pic
jrschl
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:5,384
Points:1,226,090
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: Aug 13, 2012 11:15:24 PM

Just trash. We need our will, to persevere, back. This is getting terrible.
Profile Pic
langolera
Champion Author Akron

Posts:4,182
Points:1,208,305
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 13, 2012 11:10:45 PM

You all loving the new regs yet???
Profile Pic
shores4now
Champion Author Kentucky

Posts:4,881
Points:1,069,350
Joined:Jul 2009
Message Posted: Aug 13, 2012 11:09:07 PM

Ok
Profile Pic
Aviator_Rob
Champion Author New York

Posts:6,602
Points:946,480
Joined:Mar 2012
Message Posted: Aug 13, 2012 11:08:53 PM

@ExplorerWA, please show me one instance of a coal plant closure that lead to a brownout or a blackout. If anything, the problem is not with the generating plants but with the transmission infrastructure in the country. A tree falling on a powerline at a crucial junction caused the entire Northeast to blackout in 2004.

Anyone remember the company, Enron? Enron was responsible for massive grid disruptions in Southern California through the manipulation of the energy market.

Nobody is proposing the shutdown of 57% of our electricity generation, all at once. As newer, cleaner natural gas plants come online, the older coal plants will be phased out.

And if you disagree, please show me someone who wants to live next to a coal plant.
Profile Pic
knot2swift
Champion Author Calgary

Posts:5,900
Points:1,041,585
Joined:Nov 2009
Message Posted: Aug 13, 2012 11:07:53 PM

Vote Obama out.

Seems prudent to replace then first then bull doze them later!
Profile Pic
HelenT
Champion Author Buffalo

Posts:5,347
Points:1,075,205
Joined:Apr 2004
Message Posted: Aug 13, 2012 11:07:18 PM

....
Profile Pic
mrbee
Champion Author Little Rock

Posts:6,179
Points:3,008,555
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Aug 13, 2012 11:06:55 PM

According to plan from this administration.
Profile Pic
jem069
Champion Author Detroit

Posts:4,525
Points:1,149,035
Joined:Jan 2011
Message Posted: Aug 13, 2012 11:06:03 PM

Ok
Profile Pic
N5EXY
Champion Author Austin

Posts:7,911
Points:2,052,870
Joined:Jul 2004
Message Posted: Aug 13, 2012 11:06:00 PM

If you still need a reason to defeat Obama then consider his administration’s intense effort to deprive America of the energy it needs to function and compete in the world.
If a foreign nation had launched an attack on America to destroy its coal-fired plants, to shut down its coal mines, and to thwart its ability to drill for oil and natural gas, we would be at war with it.
Obama is at war with America.
Profile Pic
Jarol
Champion Author Iowa

Posts:10,839
Points:2,134,265
Joined:Nov 2007
Message Posted: Aug 13, 2012 11:05:29 PM

The consequence of the President's promise to put coal out of business.
Profile Pic
DrLyon
Champion Author Michigan

Posts:8,477
Points:1,700,340
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Aug 13, 2012 11:05:21 PM

Ouch...
Profile Pic
Saunch2012
Veteran Author Pennsylvania

Posts:451
Points:165,605
Joined:May 2012
Message Posted: Aug 13, 2012 11:05:01 PM

ok
Profile Pic
rahcat
Champion Author Grand Rapids

Posts:5,115
Points:1,206,775
Joined:Jan 2010
Message Posted: Aug 13, 2012 11:04:46 PM

I'm sure the EPA is jumping with joy.
Profile Pic
yakstar
Champion Author Montreal

Posts:4,620
Points:1,005,005
Joined:Jan 2012
Message Posted: Aug 13, 2012 11:04:30 PM

good- less pollution!
Post a reply Back to Topics