Saving money by closing coal fired generation

[Old Rocks]

Why the Death of Coal in America Is Saving You Money - DailyFinance


What is surprising is that the rate at which electricity prices have increased has actually slowed at the same time as coal plants are being shut down. Between 2001 and 2008, when coal usage was still growing, the price of electricity increased 4.2 percent a year in the U.S. In the six years since, electricity prices have increased just 1.2 percent a year.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration
That's partly due to the falling cost of natural gas and partly because wind and solar energy are now lower-cost than coal or natural gas. Investment bank Lazard issues ban annual report called Lazard's Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis that analyzes the cost to build new power plants, and coal at 6.6-15.1 cents per kWh is now more expensive than wind at 1.4-6.7 cents per kWh and even utility solar at 5.6-8.6 cents per kWh.

Regulations that make pollution from coal more expensive might be putting coal at a disadvantage, but alternatives to coal are winning on more than the pollution front. According to Lazard, wind and solar are actually lower-cost than coal was in 2009 (5.7 to 14.4 cents per kWh), before many current EPA regulations were put in place. So, cost is driving the drop in coal and growth in wind and solar energy.

So much for all the silly flap-yap here concerning the renewables increasing the price of energy.

 

[Moonglow]

Capital cost is a little higher for gas powered plants, but the material cost is less. But the coal fired ones are old and need to be either refurbished or rebuilt..

 

[Old Rocks]

No, need to be permanently closed, and then the area cleaned up. Coal mining damages the land, the burning of coal damages the health of our citizens. We have better ways to generate electricity now.

 

[Agit8r]

definitely saves on healthcare costs, funeral expenses, etc.

 

[DGS49]

Again, a complete dearth of knowledge about accounting and economics. And CO2, if you want to be serious.

A functioning coal-fired power plant is a major capital investment with a known useful life. In the vast majority of cases, these plants have DECADES of remaining useful lives.

To shut down, decommission, and replace a coal-fired plant then replace it with something else requires tens of millions to decommission and dismantle the coal-fired plant, and hundreds of millions to build new plants, whether fueled by gas, or anything else. (The NRC has made nuclear so expensive that it is basically off the table right now).

To pretend that this replacement "saves money" is like saying I'm going to junk my 2-year-old Escalade and replace it with a Prius to save gas money. Well, it might, IF YOU IGNORE THE $50 THOUSAND write-off for the Escalade. My great grandchildren will all be dead and buried before the savings catches up to the one-time loss and the cost of the new asset.

This plan (replacing coal with gas) is stupidity on steroids. The rest of the world is busy building new coal fired plants much, much faster than we can decommission ours. The very idea that the delta CO2 between coal and natural gas, in the few plants where we might do this WOULD HAVE ANY MEASURABLE IMPACT ON THE CLIMATE is so fatuous as to be funny.

Which is why liberals take it so seriously.

 

[martybegan]

No, need to be permanently closed, and then the area cleaned up. Coal mining damages the land, the burning of coal damages the health of our citizens. We have better ways to generate electricity now.

So does the mining needed for the metals and other materials for wind turbines and solar panels. But i guess some environmental damage is more equal than others.

 

[Old Rocks]

Those same materials would be needed to build new coal plants, that would require more mining and destruction of environment to get the coal. Once up, wind and solar do not damage the land, no poisoning of rivers with fly ash or toxic carcinogenic compounds that are used in the processing of coal. Whine and snivel all you want, the market says the day of coal fired generation is done.

 

[Old Rocks]

Again, a complete dearth of knowledge about accounting and economics. And CO2, if you want to be serious.

A functioning coal-fired power plant is a major capital investment with a known useful life. In the vast majority of cases, these plants have DECADES of remaining useful lives.

To shut down, decommission, and replace a coal-fired plant then replace it with something else requires tens of millions to decommission and dismantle the coal-fired plant, and hundreds of millions to build new plants, whether fueled by gas, or anything else. (The NRC has made nuclear so expensive that it is basically off the table right now).

To pretend that this replacement "saves money" is like saying I'm going to junk my 2-year-old Escalade and replace it with a Prius to save gas money. Well, it might, IF YOU IGNORE THE $50 THOUSAND write-off for the Escalade. My great grandchildren will all be dead and buried before the savings catches up to the one-time loss and the cost of the new asset.

This plan (replacing coal with gas) is stupidity on steroids. The rest of the world is busy building new coal fired plants much, much faster than we can decommission ours. The very idea that the delta CO2 between coal and natural gas, in the few plants where we might do this WOULD HAVE ANY MEASURABLE IMPACT ON THE CLIMATE is so fatuous as to be funny.

Which is why liberals take it so seriously.

Wrong analogy. We are talking about junking your 20 year old Yugo, and getting a Tesla.

 

[pwjohn]

I don't think anybody is building coal fired power plants at present nor are there plans to build any that I know of.

As for dismantling coal fired power plants, I can't imagine why they would bother doing something like that because it makes no sense.

I've read in the recent past where aging coal fired boilers have been replaced with new nat gas boilers but nothing like dismantling entire power plants.

 

[Mr. H.]

No, need to be permanently closed, and then the area cleaned up. Coal mining damages the land, the burning of coal damages the health of our citizens. We have better ways to generate electricity now.

Farming damages the land, so let's give that up.

And I suppose you're an ethanol proponent too.

 

[Old Rocks]

Mr. H, you know better than that. I thought corn ethanol a bad idea from the outset. And, farming done correcty does not damage the land. The massive corporate farming done here does have major damage. And I would rather pay higher food prices than continue to see it done as at present.

 

[mamooth]

I've read in the recent past where aging coal fired boilers have been replaced with new nat gas boilers but nothing like dismantling entire power plants.

To nitpick, natural gas would run gas turbine generators, not boilers and steam-powered generators.

Near my house ....

IPL moves to drop coal from Harding Street power plant
---
Indianapolis Power & Light Co. said Friday that it soon would file plans with state regulators to convert the Harding Street plant's coal-fired Unit 7 generator to natural gas.

...

As a result of converting Unit 7 to natural gas, the Harding Street coal pile and ash ponds will be closed, IPL said.
---

That plant is about 2 miles upwind from me. The coal burning is the reason I can't eat any crayfish out of my creek. Too much mercury raining down.