Phasing Out US Coal Plants Could Save Consumers $10 Billion Per Year

[Rhiannon12866]

A new report has concluded that phasing out unprofitable coal plants in the United States could end up saving consumers $10 billion per year by 2021, while simultaneously boosting the country’s competitiveness.

The new report from financial think-tank Carbon Tracker, No Country for Coal Gen: Below 2°C and Regulatory Risk for US Coal Power Owners, is the first study of its kind to look at the economics of each US coal plant and provide investors with the means to support a rational closure of coal plants, while also helping investors to align their portfolios with the Paris Agreement to keep global warming below 2°C. For the authors of the report, the situation for coal in the United States is black and white:

“Around 30 GW of coal capacity has been retired over the last three years, with coal generation declining by 13% over the same period. The economics of US coal power could not be starker: new coal capacity is not remotely competitive, while in the next few years it will be the exception rather than the rule for the operating cost of existing coal to be lower than the levelized cost of new gas and renewables.”

More specifically, Carbon Tracker concludes that by the mid-2020s it will be cheaper to build new combined gas cycle gas turbines (CCGT) rather than continuing to run 78% of the existing coal power plants in the US. Needless to say, increasing levels of onshore wind and utility-scale solar PV are also beginning to make their economic value known, further devaluing coal power. If changes are not made, the report concludes that by 2021 consumers will end up paying $10 billion per year to prop-up existing coal power plants — the equivalent to 10% of household energy bills in Kentucky, 9% in Indiana, and 7% in Michigan and Wyoming.


More: https://cleantechnica.com/2017/09/15/phasing-us-coal-plants-save-consumers-10-year/

[syringis]

1. Unless the brainless WH squatter...

...thinks coal is an interesting energy...

It might look cheap but it is not at all. It is awful to the environment, dangerous for miners, whatever protections they have. Most of the miners end with breath problems, silicosis, lungs fibrosis or rheumatism...

These deseases, in a way or another, cost a huge price to the entire community.

It might look strange, but the cleanest energy is the nuclear energy. It is a cheap one, abundant but the problem is the management of the radioactive waste. There is still no safe way to store the rad waste. Also the old nuclear power plant are not as safe as the new ones.

The renewable energy production is still too uncertain to provide constantly enough power to cover the needs, specially in big towns.

[modrepub]

5. Nuclear Energy Is Expensive

Three Mile Island has been "operating at cost" for many years. This isn't actually true because their "bid" on the PJM grid hasn't come in low enough to be included in base power production, which means the plant has actually been operating at a loss but its owners make up the difference at other plants in their portfolio. If you look, TMI is now slated to be closed in 2019. Unless base-load electric prices come up on the PJM grid, TMI is going to shut down. While the fuel may be "abundant and cheap", operations are extremely expensive. TMI uses around 650 workers to maintaining operate the plant, several thousand to repower the plant. Coal plants of similar size have several hundred while a combined cycle gas plant can operate with a couple of dozen. The economics favor combined cycle gas plants and even some of them can struggle if fuel and electric prices go the wrong way. Most people don't realize that the economics have killed coal over the last 5-10 years not government regulation (to a large degree).


https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/17/three-mile-island-at-center-of-debate-let-nuclear-plants-die-or-save-them.html

[syringis]

6. Here in Europe

It is cheap. Cheaper than green energy.

But systems are different. Even if the energy market has been liberalised a few years ago, governments has still a control and companies can't do what they want.


What costs a lot is the major maintenance work on the nuclear power plants . Some have been closed definitly in one part due to the costs and in another to the safety.

[modrepub]

7. What's your price?

Fuel costs in the US are not the same as in Europe. Natural gas is cheap here for the time being. A combined cycle gas plant can make money when prices are in the low $30/megawatt rand and coal plants in the $40/megawatt range. The TMI plant I was talking about is not winning (low) bids in the base load market and most nuclear plants in the US are marginally profitable given the going rates for electricity. You can track prices on the PJM grid by the minute on their website.

http://www.pjm.com/markets-and-operations.aspx

[KY_EnviroGuy]

2. Rhiannon, let's hope that wisdom prevails.

As someone who had worked with the power industry, I hope we have organizations in place with the power and wisdom to insure this transition from coal is done in a sustainable fashion. The power industry, Wall Street and environmental groups basically pull in different directions - and swing to the extremes. We need powerful organizations involved in the decision making process that can watch out for our long-term interests and security.

There's no one more supportive of the transition away from coal than me. However, I do believe we may have to maintain some reserve capacity in coal-fired plants until we're certain that gas supplies can be sustainable without again becoming primarily reliant on foreign sources (from oil and LNG - liquefied natural gas). Just look at Europe's fears of Russia having control over their primary gas supplies!

The US at this time does not have the political will to fully support build-out of massive solar, wind and geothermal sources, and nuclear fusion seems a long way off. Instead, we've become enchanted with natural gas, which will someday run into limits of (economical) supply, and which does pollute the air - although at a much smaller extent than coal. Just like with oil, we don't want to suck the earth dry of fossil-based energy products. We're always going to need some amounts of petrochemicals for things other than energy.

The other area America must intently focus on is energy efficiency. We're the largest per-capita energy consumer on the planet - somewhat spoiled if you will. Cutting back on power usage, modifying our homes for better efficiency, driving less, consuming less plastics, etc., requires daily dedication from the general public, along with strong regulations where necessary.

The current administration in Washington is walking us in reverse for accomplishing these goals, and cares less about the public's health or long-term interests.

[Rhiannon12866]

3. Thanks for your thoughtful and informative reply!

This article struck me particularly because I just watched "Vice" on Friday - the news show that comes after Bill Maher - that reported on the coal industry in Appalachia. These people have worked in the mines for generations, they don't know anything else, and they voted for Trump because he said he would restart the coal industry - and they believed him. There was one young woman who followed her Dad to work in the mines. These were Trump voters I could actually feel sorry for. That young woman had voted for Obama.

But I certainly agree that coal is the worst, and not just the pollution, but the toll it takes on these people's lives. How many mining disasters have made front page news and how many have died young from job related illnesses? And even that coal museum has now gone solar because it's so much cheaper.

It honestly seems to me that if it's any kind of policy that is not in the interests of the American people, that could do real harm to a segment of the population that's not in the top 1%, Trump and his minions are doing everything they can to implement it. And then there are the lies... and people are desperate or ignorant enough to believe him.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

4. Desperation is the key.

There's no question about the many harms that coal mining and coal-fired plants do to our health and environment. However, where we seem to be failing horribly is in not looking carefully at the long-term blowback from shutting down any existing industry, whether it is good or bad. Just how many good paying jobs can we shift to near-minimum wage jobs without our country falling apart?

When you close a small manufacturing plant or mine in a country town, you decimate people's lives, disrupt families, rob the town of tax base (for schools, parks, roads, etc.), and upend the town's culture. Evidently, corporations don't give a damn about any of that. Then, they wonder why so many small town people turn to drugs and alcohol.

Until this country divorces itself from unchained laissez-faire capitalism and Wall Street worship, we'll have more and more people in various parts of the country in displacement and suffering. The billionaire-level capitalists have no idea of what human life for everyday Americans is all about, and yet they make all the decisions that control almost every aspect of our lives.

With 1/2 of my TN heritage being from Appalachia, I truly feel the pain of the miners. Although our family's part of the mountains was not mining country, we did depend on the timber and textile industries, along with small-scale farming. Similar situation in NC with the furniture industry, and many others with pulp and paper. Most of those industries now have been stripped away by foreign competition, plants moving to other countries, mergers and acquisitions and a corporate don't give a shit attitude about our communities.

I can't conceive what prompted Trump to tell the miners of Appalachia that the coal industry could be revived. It's probably the most cruel thing he could do to a desperate people, and these are good, hard working folks. These people have poor or non-existent health care, weak school systems and failing infrastructure (the mining tax base is gone). Trump and his power people should be fighting to get small industrial and service firms to build there. One sector I thought of would be a revival of the furniture industry, which might work due to proximity to vast timber lands. However, we would have to virtually blockade the Chinese out of that market, with their cheap throw-away products at Walmart. Hell, mountain folks can even make his stupid ties, ball caps, and junk for his hotels.

In other words, we need to change to a hard driven people-oriented attitude of doing what's best for our folks and communities rather than what's best for corporations. Trickle down ain't working. You can probably tell I'm very upset about all this and thanks to you and DU for letting me vent. I've watched it happen since the 60's and it hurts.