Texas leads list of dirtiest U.S. power plants

[jpak]

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN2645126520070726

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Texas leads the list of having the dirtiest power plants in the United States, while New England and the Pacific Coast produce cleaner energy and less carbon dioxide emissions linked to global warming, an environmental group said on Thursday.

Of the 50 "dirtiest" power plants with the highest CO2 emissions in the country, Texas accounts for five and Indiana and Pennsylvania each have four, the Environmental Integrity Project EIP annual study found.

Coal-fired power plants make half the electricity used in the United States and dominate the list of the 50 "dirtiest".

U.S. CO2 emissions actually fell slightly in 2006 from 2005, but if less-efficient older plants are not shut or modified and a wave of proposed coal-fired plants are built, CO2 emissions could rise 34 percent by 2030, the study said.

<more>

[Spinzonner]

1. What else would one expect

They had Shrub as a governor

[bananas]

2. "U.S. CO2 emissions actually fell slightly in 2006 from 2005"

Is that due to all the proposed nuclear reactors that may or may not be built ten years from now?

[Dogmudgeon]

3. Record-Low Production Costs, Near-Record Output Mark Stellar Year for U.S. Nuclear Power Plants.

Well, what do you know -- the nukes' second-best performance coincided with the decline.

Fancy that.

Record-Low Production Costs, Near-Record Output Mark Stellar Year for U.S. Nuclear Power Plants.

WASHINGTON -- U.S. nuclear power plants in 2006 supplied the second-highest amount of electricity in the industry's history while achieving record-low production costs, according to preliminary figures released today by the Nuclear Energy Institute. The 103 commercial nuclear plants operating in 31 states generated 787.6 billion kilowatt-hours (kwh) of electricity last year, second only to the record-high of 788.5 billion kwh of electricity produced in 2004.

...

The industry's average production costs--encompassing expenses for uranium fuel and operations and maintenance--were an all-time low of 1.66 cents/kwh in 2006, according to preliminary figures. Average production costs have been below 2 cents/kwh for the past eight years, making nuclear power plants highly cost competitive with other electricity sources, particularly those that are capable of reliably producing large amounts of electricity.

...

Electricity production at nuclear power plants has increased 36 percent since 1990, adding the equivalent of more than 26 large power plants to the electrical grid and preventing the emission of massive amounts of controlled air pollutants and greenhouse gases if that increase in baseload, or around-the-clock, electricity production instead had been met by fossil-fired power plants.

Amid concerns about future energy security and the threat of global climate change, and with the nation's electricity needs projected to increase 40 percent over the next 25 years, a growing chorus of supporters--spanning policymakers, leading environmentalists, business leaders and the public at large--is advocating the construction of new nuclear power plants. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 included incentives for a limited number of advanced-design nuclear plants among its provisions encouraging improved energy efficiency and the construction of renewable energy sources and cleaner fossil-fired power plants.

The average production cost dropped to a record-low even though prices for uranium fuel have increased considerably over the past three years. Production costs are a key measure of an electricity source's competitiveness in the market because generating companies typically dispatch their low-cost electricity to the grid first.

Even when expenses for taxes, decommissioning and yearly capital additions are added to production costs to yield a total electricity cost, nuclear-generated electricity typically clears the market for less than 2.5 cents/kwh. By comparison, production costs alone for natural gas-fired power plants averaged 7.5 cents/kwh in 2005, according to Global Energy Decisions data.

The industry's average capacity factor--a measure of efficiency--was 89.9 percent last year, according to preliminary figures. That is slightly higher than 2005's 89.3 percent; the industry's record-high of 90.3 percent was set in 2002.

...

Who is this "Mark Stellar" guy, anyway?

--p!

[RestoreGore]

4. How about mining that uranium?

And the amount of dirty fossil fuels used in doing so? Coal fired plants need to be shut down if they are antiquated, and new ones must have sequestration traps on them and be limited. That is something I strongly believe, and that plan for me also includes a decline in building nuclear plants as well which are costly, use much CO2 in that process, and are risky. We don't have time to be constructing all of these new plants for these antiquated sources of the past. We need alternate sources that can be used quicker and cleaner, and we have them if only the coal and nuclear lobbyists in Washington DC would stop their BS competition and get to solving the damn problem.

[Nihil]

6. You know, I'd go for that option ...

> Coal fired plants need to be shut down if they are antiquated,
> and new ones must have sequestration traps on them and be limited.

... if only because it would mean that NO new plants will be opened
(as there is no genuine "sequestration" options currently available)
and MOST of the coal fired plants are getting long enough in the tooth
as to be justifiably called "antiquated". (They're certainly using
pretty antiquated technology.)


On the other hand, when you revert to your other arguments ...
> How about mining that uranium?
> And the amount of dirty fossil fuels used in doing so?

... I can't agree with you unless you also come clean and do *exactly*
the same thing for your preferred alternatives (e.g., mining, processing,
manufacturing, transporting, erecting, connecting ... complete with their
energy usage and CO2 production). At least that way it would be more of
an apples to apples comparison.

Still, as I said, I'd totally support your first part!

[RestoreGore]

9. Well, that's a start!

[Dead_Parrot]

7. Umm, RG...

...all forms of power produce GHG's in their production at some point: the only one that produces less than nuclear is hydro.

The figures are in http://www.externe.info/expolwp6.pdf, which seems to give most people an embolism but I'm hoping you'll take a look.
:)

[RestoreGore]

8. Not as much as coal and nuclear

Nuclear energy: THE BIG LIE

[Dead_Parrot]

10. so, you didn't read it, then?

What, European Commission research projects are automatically wrong, is that it? :shrug:

[RestoreGore]

11. I don't want to live in a nuclear world

That should give you your answer

[Dead_Parrot]

12. It does indeed

We'll leave it there (for now, anyway :)).

[depakid]

5. Imagine that....

Then again, per capita Pennsylvania and Indiana don't look so good, either....