Texas turns to Natural Gas after Wind Energy fails.

elektra

Platinum Member
Dec 1, 2013
22,460
10,193
915
Temecula California
In a move that should raise many eyebrows, Texas is building nice new modern Natural Gas plants, selling the cheap plentiful electricity out of state while the public is forced to by purchase extremely expensive wind turbine electricity from politically controlled local electric utility monopolies.

Lg_ColoradoBendEnergyCenter.jpg


Texas firm joins venture to build large natural gas-fired generating plant in Snyder County PennLive.com

Texas firm joins venture to build large natural gas-fired generating plant in Snyder County

SHAMOKIN DAM-- A Texas company that is building two natural gas-fired power plants in Bradford and Lycoming counties has entered into a joint venture for a larger one in Snyder County.

Panda Power Funds of Dallas, Texas, announced this week it was joining Sunbury Generation to develop, finance and operate a 1,000 megawatt plant known as Hummel Station on the site of a former coal-fired plant in Shamokin Dam.

No cost figures were revealed but the Energy Information Administration estimates the expenditure to build power plants like Hummel Station to be approximately $1 million per megawatt.

UGI Energy Services plans to invest more than $150 million to build a pipeline to transport Marcellus Shale gas from Lycoming County to the plant.

Hummel Station is expected to be one of the largest coal to natural gas conversion projects in the United States, according to Panda.

The plant is expected to supply electricity to locations such as Harrisburg, New York and Philadelphia when it goes on line in the second half of 2017, it says.

"We have found a great partner in Panda," said Dave Meehan, president of Sunbury Generation. "They currently have more generating capacity under construction in the United States than any other company."
 
Well it's about time, the most plentiful generation materials is hot air and natural gas of Texicans...Is the Natural Gas tube inserted into the anus for collection?
 
Nothing new here.......they are forced to build the gas turbines as coal dies by design from the EPA and the leftist horde.........

During the California black outs I was in Mohave installing a gas turbine for electricity for Californians...........Yet it was built in Arizona only a couple of miles from the border because the utility companies refused to build in California because of their regulations and taxes.

Gas turbines aren't as cheap as coal but they are reliable plants and are really the only viable way to replace the power losses from coal. There will be a increased cost to the consumer for this situation. The people will pay for these plants caused by the EPA doing back door legislation to KILL COAL.
 
Why dont republicans links ever say what they say it says?

The link doesnt say ONE thing about green energy, wind energy or anything the OP claims
 
Actually gas is soooo cheap, it makes using coal a loss in the long run...
The gas is compatible, but replacing the plants if VERY EXPENSIVE.
Sure, but gas is cheaper to transport from point of origin..
That means pipelines...........and we can't even get Keystone.........

They have to fight tooth and nail to get the gas there.........unless they only build the power plants right next to the drilling sites for gas.
 
Why dont republicans links ever say what they say it says?

The link doesnt say ONE thing about green energy, wind energy or anything the OP claims
Ahhh, again another drone does not like the truth, what is there to say about wind or green energy, should I include an article that shows the billions of dollars spent on wind energy, should I include an article that shows the claims made by wind in Texas.

We see all the threads proclaiming the greatness of Wind Power, yet we are building Natural Gas plants that will provide 10,000x's the power that Wind Power proclaims they provide? Why and how is that.

Texas is turning to Natural Gas. As my OP states. Would Texas need Natural Gas if Wind is a success?
 
Why dont republicans links ever say what they say it says?

The link doesnt say ONE thing about green energy, wind energy or anything the OP claims
Ahhh, again another drone does not like the truth, what is there to say about wind or green energy, should I include an article that shows the billions of dollars spent on wind energy, should I include an article that shows the claims made by wind in Texas.

Your article doesnt say what the OP says it says. Thats not my problem thats a OP credibility problem
 
Your article doesnt say what the OP says it says. Thats not my problem thats a OP credibility problem
I guess that is what makes this an OP, Opinion Piece.

Either way, the fact remains, after spending Billions on Wind Energy, Texas is building Natural Gas power plants.
My OP, is stating a fact. Texas would not need Natural Gas if Wind Energy was capable of providing electricity.
 
Your article doesnt say what the OP says it says. Thats not my problem thats a OP credibility problem
I guess that is what makes this an OP, Opinion Piece.

Either way, the fact remains, after spending Billions on Wind Energy, Texas is building Natural Gas power plants.
My OP, is stating a fact. Texas would not need Natural Gas if Wind Energy was capable of providing electricity.

So now you're saying the linked article doesnt mention anything about what you said it did because its your opinion? We used to call that by a simpler name...a lie.

Here's an article that shows you're a liar: Bonobo - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Dont mind the fact that it doesnt mention you at all. Its an OPINION PIECE you see

:rolleyes:
 
Well it's about time, the most plentiful generation materials is hot air and natural gas of Texicans...Is the Natural Gas tube inserted into the anus for collection?

When natural gas is gone in 80 to 100 years. We will still have wind and solar!
Industrial Solar Panels last 10 years, Wind Turbines 7 years. How will you replace these monstrosities without fossil fuel to build more?

Further, without Natural Gas, how will you turn on your Wind Turbine, they require a constant source of power. How will you pump water to a Solar Plant without natural gas?

How will you run a Steel Foundry to build the replacement panels and parts without Fossil Fuels?

Why do you advocate using more natural gas now to create less power through a secondary source as in Solar and Wind.
Yes Matthew, you advocate using up all the Fossil fuel in short span building Solar and Wind which at best last 10 years, not the 80-100 years you have just made a claim of.
 
elektra is that another opinion? Solar panels last 25 years on average and wind turbines the same. You know according to something called google.

it would help you a lot if you didn't outright lie about things and pretend you want a real discussion
 
Clean Power Rule Could Cause Electricity Shortage RealClearPolitics

What’s at stake is “grid reliability” -- whether supply exists to meet the current, massive U.S. demand for electricity. For much of the country, the EPA’s mandate is troubling because, right now, roughly 40 percent of electricity in the United States comes from coal-fired generation.

Under new regulations from the EPA, many of these plants would be effectively forced out of operation. And to date, no one is saying how that power will be otherwise produced. Wind, solar, and natural gas have all been suggested, but none is capable of providing reliable and affordable electricity like coal can. While some states are able to rely on alternative sources such as wind and hydropower, that simply isn't an option for much of the country.

The importance of coal in generating electricity was demonstrated very clearly last winter when coal-fired plants worked overtime to heat homes and businesses during a deep freeze. In fact, American Electric Power, a major utility company, reported that 90 percent of its coal plants slated for retirement under pending EPA rules were running at full speed just to meet peak demand.

Despite record-setting production in the Marcellus Shale formation and elsewhere, natural gas simply can’t compensate for a shortage of coal plants. This is due in part to a lack of infrastructure to deliver gas where it’s needed. But more importantly, natural gas has already been prioritized for home use, not power generation.

A recent report from PJM Interconnection, the regional power transmission group for a dozen states (including Pennsylvania) and the District of Columbia, concluded that without coal plants there could be insufficient electricity to meet peak winter demand.

Under the EPA’s “Clean Power Plan,” consumers will undoubtedly pay higher electricity bills. But the more tragic problem is the possibility of widespread power outages during the coldest parts of winter.

These worrisome scenarios have so far been swept aside by the federal government. The shift away from coal is moving ahead with no regard for the consequences. And so, in light of the recent PJM report, the EPA's regulatory plan amounts to very reckless toying with the nation's power grid.

The truth is that there’s simply no way around the use of coal to help ensure affordable and reliable power in the current market. That's why state utility commissions and regulators from 22 states have sent formal comments to the EPA expressing concerns that the Clean Power Plan will jeopardize reliable and affordable electricity. That’s why the U.S. needs a diversified power portfolio that includes coal in order to meet the nation's electricity needs.

Those seeking to eliminate coal under the guise of improving the environment need to adopt a realistic plan. Modern coal-fired generators are cleaner now than they ever have been. And with technology under development today, even cleaner coal plants will soon be attainable. Any move away from coal that can add sufficient alternative sources of power generation will require many years to implement. Thus, it makes no sense for the EPA to rush ahead with a foolhardy plan that will effectively undermine the ability to generate reliable and affordable electricity in America.



 
U.S. forecasts natural gas boom through 2040

EIA's 2014 forecast says low prices will make natural gas increasingly attractive so in some areas, it will replace power once supplied by nuclear or coal plants. In 2040, it expects natural gas will account for 35% of the nation's electricity generation while coal will account for 32%.

The department of energy forecasts 35% by 2040. It is booming via the death of coal. aka replacing the coal burners by then, which now supply 40% of the power down from 55% under Obama.

Obama promised the end of Coal burning plants and that is happening.

Please forward your utility bills to Obama and the leftist brigades when they go up up and away. Surely they'll pay for all these power plants.
 
elektra is that another opinion? Solar panels last 25 years on average and wind turbines the same. You know according to something called google.

it would help you a lot if you didn't outright lie about things and pretend you want a real discussion
Google?
elektra is that another opinion? Solar panels last 25 years on average and wind turbines the same. You know according to something called google.

it would help you a lot if you didn't outright lie about things and pretend you want a real discussion
Instead of offering your opinion, which as you state is nothing but a lie, put your money where your mouth is and put that deck of cards that you call Google to use. Otherwise we can just continue to exchange flames.
 

Forum List

Back
Top