It is not clear to me why you favor building new coal plants over Combined-Cycle Natural Gas Turbines. CCGT has almost all the benefits of coal, but with few of the drawbacks. They can also be constructed in only one year, at a cheaper cost, and they are much better at modulating electrical generation to follow demand.
He mentioned in the article that CCGT plants rely on just-in-time pipeline gas. There have been talks of on-site LNG storage for these plants but until that becomes financially feasible, coal will always have the advantage of on-site storage.
There is also a massive backlog on gas turbines now and I imagine getting steam turbines for burning coal would be faster. Could be wrong though.
You are correct about coal having the advantage of on-site storage, but you can store natural gas as well. You can also keep shale gas in the ground by capping the well after drilling and pump it up when needed. This would not deal with short-term fluctuations in electrical demand, but it can be used to deal with longer-term shortfalls.
Every single metro area is connected to the existing natural gas grid. A CCGT plant can easily be connected to the existing pipelines.
Coal plants rely on railroads or barges, which are less prevalent, and they cannot be located close to major metro areas because of pollutants.
I have no idea what you mean by “ There is also a massive backlog on gas turbines now.”
Yes, you can easily convert coal plants to CCGT plants. You can literally drop them within the same footprint. It is likely the most economical means.
What I’m saying about the backlog is that gas turbine manufacturers are booked solid for 3-5 years so the lead time on actually getting a plant constructed and operational will likely take longer than a coal plant. But I’ll admit my ignorance in this arena since my discipline is electrical, not mechanical. Maybe I’m overlooking something.
I agree with the assessment of CCGT plants and am a huge proponent of them especially since my state of Louisiana runs the vast majority of our grid on the stuff. We’re also in a pipeline dense area where connecting a new service is very easy.
But all in all, it’s a good idea to diversify your power supply. Too much reliance on one source can put you in a bad spot later.
The coal plants were cancelled in 2008 because the Bush economy imploded. The economy imploded because Bush failed to solve the 2001-2008 energy crisis and CPI was elevated for 4 years degrading lower income spending power. And one of Bush’s solutions to the energy crisis was shipping millions of energy intensive manufacturing jobs to China which hollowed out the Rust Belt setting the stage for the opioid crisis. Another of Bush’s solutions was to liberate Iraq’s oil and flood the global market with cheap Iraqi oil…except Bush mismanaged the Iraq War which exacerbated the energy crisis. Bush’s one solution that worked to some degree was getting Tillerson to invest tens of billions of their windfall profits into Qatar’s LNG export infrastructure.
Wait, I’m an optimist! We are energy dominant thanks to fracking and LNG. The Age of Coal was superseded by the Age of Oil which was just superseded by the Age of Natural Gas in the last several years. Natural gas is cheap AF and the world is awash in it and LNG solves the issue of marginal supply that undermined the American economy from 2001-2009.
It is not clear to me why you favor building new coal plants over Combined-Cycle Natural Gas Turbines. CCGT has almost all the benefits of coal, but with few of the drawbacks. They can also be constructed in only one year, at a cheaper cost, and they are much better at modulating electrical generation to follow demand.
He mentioned in the article that CCGT plants rely on just-in-time pipeline gas. There have been talks of on-site LNG storage for these plants but until that becomes financially feasible, coal will always have the advantage of on-site storage.
There is also a massive backlog on gas turbines now and I imagine getting steam turbines for burning coal would be faster. Could be wrong though.
You are correct about coal having the advantage of on-site storage, but you can store natural gas as well. You can also keep shale gas in the ground by capping the well after drilling and pump it up when needed. This would not deal with short-term fluctuations in electrical demand, but it can be used to deal with longer-term shortfalls.
Every single metro area is connected to the existing natural gas grid. A CCGT plant can easily be connected to the existing pipelines.
Coal plants rely on railroads or barges, which are less prevalent, and they cannot be located close to major metro areas because of pollutants.
I have no idea what you mean by “ There is also a massive backlog on gas turbines now.”
Yes, you can easily convert coal plants to CCGT plants. You can literally drop them within the same footprint. It is likely the most economical means.
What I’m saying about the backlog is that gas turbine manufacturers are booked solid for 3-5 years so the lead time on actually getting a plant constructed and operational will likely take longer than a coal plant. But I’ll admit my ignorance in this arena since my discipline is electrical, not mechanical. Maybe I’m overlooking something.
I agree with the assessment of CCGT plants and am a huge proponent of them especially since my state of Louisiana runs the vast majority of our grid on the stuff. We’re also in a pipeline dense area where connecting a new service is very easy.
But all in all, it’s a good idea to diversify your power supply. Too much reliance on one source can put you in a bad spot later.
The coal plants were cancelled in 2008 because the Bush economy imploded. The economy imploded because Bush failed to solve the 2001-2008 energy crisis and CPI was elevated for 4 years degrading lower income spending power. And one of Bush’s solutions to the energy crisis was shipping millions of energy intensive manufacturing jobs to China which hollowed out the Rust Belt setting the stage for the opioid crisis. Another of Bush’s solutions was to liberate Iraq’s oil and flood the global market with cheap Iraqi oil…except Bush mismanaged the Iraq War which exacerbated the energy crisis. Bush’s one solution that worked to some degree was getting Tillerson to invest tens of billions of their windfall profits into Qatar’s LNG export infrastructure.
Thanks, Gene. Good summary of the many bad decisions that have hollowed out large segments of the US economy that Trump is not fixing. Ed
Wait, I’m an optimist! We are energy dominant thanks to fracking and LNG. The Age of Coal was superseded by the Age of Oil which was just superseded by the Age of Natural Gas in the last several years. Natural gas is cheap AF and the world is awash in it and LNG solves the issue of marginal supply that undermined the American economy from 2001-2009.
Ed, Thank you for republishing this. I sincerely appreciate your doing so!
Glad to do it, Dick. Great article! Ed