Phydeaux
Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
quote:
At least I'm willing to admit my ignorance when it is there.
After it is ponted out to you.
quote:
Some others would do well to follow suit.
Why tell me? Tell them.
quote:
Was my statement incorrect in some way?
Yes your opinion about something you admitted your ignorance of was not true. The low cst of natural gas is the reason coal is not cost effective not the articulate guy with the big ears in the white house.
quote:
Once again, you have shown your talent of knocking a messenger rather than knocking a message.
When a self-confessed fool expresses an opinion based on ignorance I will point it out.
Snicker.
There is someone ignorant here, and it ain't DS.
Let's correct some misconceptions here.
a). Yes, natural gas was cheaper than coal, due to the glut coming to market. Natural gas got to be so cheap as a matter of fact that many of the smaller players went insolvent.
b). As a result of that (and other forces described in a moment) natural gas got a huge bump in % of market. However, more recently coal is rebounding.
c). Cost is cost is cost is cost. In other words, to a utility the cost to purchase the coal is indistinguishable to the cost of complying with regulatory demands.
d). Power Plants are designed to be capable of switching between fuels, (often) but t is neither cheap, nor easy to do so.
For example:
coal generates significant portions of ash - how is that going to be handled?
coal has significantly more metals and contaminants - which are eliminated for example by wet esps
coal (as a result of ash, water, etc) operates at a significantly lower combustion temperature cutting the operating efficiency of the plant, cutting the efficiency.
Feed lines and burners are completely different.
Coal is solid and / or liquid with a coal slurry system.
NG - is gas or liquid.
To reduce the Nox and Sox emmissions cost several % of the power generated by the plant.
(more correctly, to run the air pollution controls).
So while it is true that you can switch plants feed, it is neither a short process, nor quick, nor easy. And it comes at a huge capital cost.
Finally, when you see swings in the production % (coal vs nat gas) - it isn't necessary that a switch over is occuring.
Utilities have a variety of plants available. They know the operating cost of the plants down to the last minute. What excess capacity allows them to do is switch generation to the plants that have the lowest costs. Conversely, higher demand will force more generation at more costly plants.
A few bottom lines:
a). The laws of supply and demand are not repealed because of regulation or speculation. However, nor are they rigid, there is elasticity and hysteris. In the case of coal and natural gas, why do you think one would be subject to more speculation than the other?
b). Coal is cost competitive with natural gas, as a general rule, and especially in certain locales where natgas may be expensive or unavailable. (no pipelines, no pipeline capacity etc).
By the same token, in other areas where natural gas is readily available and cheap, coal may not be.
The laws of supply and demand will continue to work long after your protests have stopped.
c). At the same time, it is estimated that up to 25% of coal plants will shut because of new EPA regulations. I know of 5 plants that have.
In the light of retrofit costs to comply with new regulations $300 - $800 million, and in light of (in many areas) declining power consumption, AND cost competitiveness with natural gas, many utilities are electing to retire their plants rather than upgrade them.
However, it cannot be argued with a straight face that this is solely because of competitive forces.
d). While I am (for the most part) agnostic about the switchover between natgas and coal I do think that sudden policy change causes unnecessary disruption, and the two year window on phase in regulation I think is unnecessarily disruptive.
I haven't thought of on how to fix the regulations, but I think I would support something like
33% of the utilities power generation must comply within 3 years. Another 33% within 4 years and the final 33% within 5 years.
e). In the last major thread, I posted significant links to Obama's statements wanting to drive up energy costs, bankrupt coal plants.
|
RE: More good news on the fraud that is global warming - 
Profile
And, since more people than simply you read this, they can take my responses for what they will. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread