Shut down and replace with what?
I read that Boulder environmentalists want to shut down the Valmont, coal-fired power plant. Where th
en will our electricity come from? They propose no viable, base-load alternative. Wind and solar can reduce our pressure on fossil fuel base-load power generation but they can never replace it because wind and solar cannot operate 24-hours a day.
To shut down the Valmont plant now would either result in Boulder freezing in the dark winter nights or, realistically, putting more stress on other coal fired plants that are emitting far more pollutants and carbon dioxide than the relatively efficient Valmont plant.
Such proposals from the radical left remind me of the creation scientists and global warming deniers of the radical right. I can only hope that public policy will be driven by political moderates and those governed by real science.
DAVID R. GUILINGER
Boulder
13 comments:
I used to work down the street from the plant. Has nobody suggested converting it to natural gas? I know this has been done with other coal plants, but I don't know if all coal plants can be converted the same way.
Dean,
Click here and examine the costs associated with coal vs. natural gas.
That chart comes from this post.
The laws of supply and demand dictate that the more we turn to natural gas, the higher the costs will soar -- much to the delight of T. Boone Pickens (who, in my view, is only in it for the money).
So, Dean, if Boulder goes to natural gas, how many poor families will you subsidize on behalf of your religious creed?
SBVOR
Your post surprised me as it's against both intuition and my European experience. But it seems the past isn't always a guide to the future. Natural Gas prices have dropped substancially in the USA recently thanks to new discoveries. Read here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124502125590313729.html
And note that construction costs of gas plants are significantly less, they can be built quicker and modern plants are much more efficient, flexible and clean. So it's not a case of subsidy. It's a case of the market moving towards the best solution.
Note at the bottom of that report:
"Those numbers suggest coal is still about half the price of natural gas. But the numbers can deceive. Gas-fired power plants convert fuel into electricity more efficiently than coal units, and it is cheaper to move natural gas than coal. As a result, gas can still have an advantage over coal even if the commodity cost is higher."
Ergo I think you owe an apology to Dean.
jgdes,
Quoting your source (emphasis mine):
“Abundant new supplies of natural gas, combined with reduced demand for electricity, have sent prices tumbling to less than $4 per million British thermal units from more than $13 last July.”
You cited only increased supply of natural gas and omitted “reduced demand for electricity” -- which, I would guess -- is the larger factor. Case in point, reduced global demand for oil is solely responsible for the decline in oil prices.
But, deferring to French superiority, I will spot you the unreasonable assumption that there has been no corresponding decrease in the cost per million BTUs for coal.
Even with that excessively generous spot, my chart still shows natural gas to be twice as expensive as coal. Coal, in 1996 was below $2 per million BTU and natural gas is now “less than $4 per million British thermal units”
And, relative efficiencies and transportation costs are factored into the costs associated with both sources.
So, no…
There will be no apology to Dean. But, I will graciously accept an apology from you.
jgdes (response #2),
When reading the WSJ, one should always remember that:
“While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times.”
This is according to scholars at UCLA who have quantified media bias in an academic journal.
jgdes (response #3 -- sorry Roger),
I would wager that:
1) The very heavily biased WSJ (see my prior comment) has cherry picked very temporal data in an attempt to prop up their energy agenda.
2) One year from now, when world economies are once again expanding and demand for energy is once again growing, the price of natural gas will rise as rapidly as it has recently dropped and the disparity between coal and natural gas will -- once again -- more closely correlate with what we see in my chart.
3) The disparity will grow even more as demand for natural gas expands.
All that said, natural gas is a good energy source. I would love to see the United States make better use of all of its hydrocarbon resources.
I just don’t want my local electric company here in Steamboat Springs, Colorado to switch from coal to gas anytime soon -- especially since it sits right next door to one of the largest (and most invisible) coal mines in the country.
In fact, I would bet the Boulder power plant buys its (extremely high quality, very low polluting) coal from that very mine.
Natural gas is cleaner than coal, but it still is a greenhouse gas emitter, so it really isn't worth a lot of money for a conversion.
I remember reading that Boulder has invested in a smart grid system. The city should focus on that smart grid, making it work as a demonstration project. That would serve the larger cause much more than a conversion to natural gas.
Natural gas tends to have the cheapest construction costs, but very high operating costs. Here is a page that breaks down the total costs per KWh based on the construction and operating costs.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html?ekmensel=c580fa7b_702_729_410_1
I think some of the posters are losing sight of the fact that this coal plant currently exists. This is not a choice between building a new coal plant or a new natural gas plant. This is a choice to close down a functional plant and replace it with something else with money that is going to come from heavens knows where.
After listening to some of the protesters arguments, I think things like cost to benefits, how they are going to fund this and what can be built instead are a bit beyond the processing capability of this crowd. I think they are stuck at the "coal is bad" point. The closest thing I got to an answer when ask what they would replace it with is the knee jerk reaction of "solar". I also got the distinct impression that they were pretty hostile to icky things like real numbers and actual calculations.
If they were really interested in workable solutions, one interesting point is that this particular plant is pretty close in to some residential neighborhoods. I wonder if winter heating with waste heat via steam is viable in this case. It seems to me that this could be a big energy use win, but even then the infrastructure costs could outweigh the potential gains.
Pity the writer had to spoil an otherwise good letter with the stupid and non-sequitor "denier" comments at the end.
It's too bad that shutting down coal plants isn't the worst thing these people try to do. How about tearing down hydroelectric dams?
http://www.anupchurchchrestomathy.com/2009/06/traumatized-salmon.html
Joel says
"It's too bad that shutting down coal plants isn't the worst thing these people try to do. How about tearing down hydroelectric dams?"
I am somewhat sympathetic to these efforts. For instance, the Glen Canyon Dam inundated unique and irreplaceable areas. I would rather have 50 Valmont style powerplants than that damn dam.
I think the point is more that the effort to remove the Valmont plant is closer to the nature of a religious revival and far away from the reasoned discussion to needed really accomplish environmental goals. The sad thing here is they may accomplish the exact opposite of what they intend and are very successful at discrediting environmental goals in the eyes of many people.
Dean
Natural gas emits less by being more efficient. Hence it is more environmentally friendly. Plus there are a lot of variations you can do to increase efficiency above that. The more sensible environmentalists will soon see it as a necessary intermediate regardless of their unrealistic current wants. Just tell them it's that or nuclear, make a choice! Imagine a world where environmentalists and businessmen can just discuss these things rationally. Unfortunately some of these environmentalists seem to be quite insane or at least totally unrealistic.
SVBOR
Your argument about supply and demand makes sense only if supply is limited. It appears that in the USA it is not. Your argument about lefty journalists assumes that lefties would favour natural gas over coal. Does that even make sense to you? I can't say I can trust any government statisticians as much as you seem to. I do trust the instincts of hard-headed businessmen though - as long as there is true competition. And despite what you say, the business community seems to like the idea for purely business reasons.
Artiflex
I know it's way off-topic. Points taken.
Post a Comment