Is coal-fired production of electricity on the rise or is it flaming out?
A recent report by The Associated Press described a nationwide wave of coal-burning power plant construction.
And that fits in with the plan by Hays-based Sunflower Electric Power Corp. to build an 895-megawatt unit in southwestern Kansas.
“Coal isn’t on the wane,” Earl Watkins, president and chief executive officer of Sunflower Electric, said this month after a public hearing in Garden City on the proposed plant.
Environmentalists, however, say the premise of the AP report is inaccurate.
“The coal plants that are being built today were permitted years ago when the outlook for coal was much more favorable than current conditions,” said Stephanie Cole, a spokeswoman for the Kansas chapter of the Sierra Club.
“Building a new coal plant today could be equated to making an investment in rotary dial landline telephones. Coal is yesterday’s fuel source,” Cole said.
Sunflower Electric is seeking a permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment for the project. Most of the electricity will be owned by Colorado-based Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association for sale to out-of-state customers.
“There are some 16 coal plants in various stages of construction right now,” Watkins said. “There are another eight to 10 that have just recently been permitted by other utilities across the country.
“Coal projects that are built for speculation are dropping off the table because no one wants to make that type of an investment without knowing they have a need,” Watkins said. “But all of the participants of this project are going to be displacing lost resources, like us, or displacing higher cost market prices, so they have got a revenue stream there.”
Coal-burning has been under fire for producing climate-changing carbon dioxide emissions. President Barack Obama’s administration has proposed regulating CO2. But the AP recently reported that the nation is seeing the largest increase in coal-fired plants in two decades.
More than 30 coal plants have been built since 2008 or are under construction at a cost of $35 billion, AP reported. Once on line, the plants will produce enough electricity to power 15.6 million homes, the equivalent to all the homes in California and Arizona, the report said.
In addition, the plants will generate 125 million tons of greenhouse gases each year, the equivalent of putting 22 million more automobiles on the road.
But Scott Allegrucci, director of the Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy in Kansas, has a different view of the coal landscape, both nationally and in Kansas.
The number of plants recently built and being built now represent just a fraction of the 151 total plants that the federal government had forecast several years ago. Allegrucci says that shows “coal as an electricity fuel is on the wane.”
And while most of the coal plants have been canceled or put on hold, renewable energy sources have been developed at a record pace.
“So, since November 2008, not a single new coal plant has broken ground for construction, but record amounts of wind, solar, and other renewables are coming online,” Allegrucci said.
And he notes that in the Kansas proposal, Tri-State Generation and Transmission, which will buy most of the power from the proposed Kansas plant, hasn’t made a concrete commitment to the project, describing the plant as an option in Tri-State’s long range plans.
Another factor not mentioned in reports of coal’s rise is that some coal plants are being mothballed, said the Sierra Club’s Cole.
“Today we’re seeing more utilities announce retirement plans for existing coal plants than we are seeing utilities announcing plans to build new coal plants,” Cole said.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
LesBlevins (anonymous) says…
Why is it that if 33 miners are trapped underground efforts will immediately get underway to rescue them, but if 33 billion people above ground are trapped and will perish due to a slow warming of the earth's atmosphere debate will continue indefinitely on whether to launch a rescue effort?
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
Perhaps it is because the earth's population is around 7 billion. But don't let facts get in the way of your hyperbole. You should get together with bozo. He's also a fan of wildly inflated stats.
LesBlevins (anonymous) says…
By my estimate one million people (more or less) have already lost their lives due to global warming and due to the floods and droughts caused by climate change and yet instead of beginning the task of "digging them out" we talk about the wisdom of burying them deeper with more coal combustion when there are abundant alternatives.
gr (anonymous) replies…
Really? Could you give evidence of such?
And what about the lives lost due to weather of the past time of when there wasn't so-called global warming? How about global cooling in the 70's?
Or is this a case of lives lost to weather from global warming, or cooling, or because we are between global warming and cooling. Nino/nina mentality.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
LesBlevins (anonymous) says…
"By my estimate one million people (more or less) have already lost their lives due to global warming and due to the floods and droughts caused by climate change"
How many lives were saved?
LesBlevins (anonymous) says…
I guess snap_pop_no_crackle doesn't know that hyperbole means speech which is based on exaggeration.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
Isn't there a significant difference between 7 billion and 33 billion?
gr (anonymous) replies…
4.7 times difference.
Is there a significance of .03% CO2 produced?
gr (anonymous) says…
"Coal is yesterday’s fuel source,”
And what might today's fuel source be? The electric car drivers say coal is since they say electric cars are better for the environment, and since they run on energy from coal, coal is it.
“Coal projects that are built for speculation are dropping off the table because no one wants to make that type of an investment without knowing they have a need,” Watkins said.
Is it not a need for electricity? Or is it they don't want to enter into the enviro-wacko area of CO2 imaginations?
“So, since November 2008, not a single new coal plant has broken ground for construction, but record amounts of wind, solar, and other renewables are coming online,”
If that's not a global warming thought, I don't know what is. I suppose they think if you can find 1% interest income from a bank, the economy is booming since you are doubling your income.
Of course there are "record" amounts of wind and solar. Any increase would be record amounts from before. The question, as is with man made CO2, is it significant?
So what are these "other renewables" not mentioned? Even less likely to be a replacement than wind and solar? It's great to be looking at these things, because who knows, someone may come across a feasible replacement. But pretending we currently have one would be silly and disastrous.
But hey, why not make my great grandchildren pay for the nonsense of today? I won't know them or hear them whining about why we sent them into debt for a non-issue.
DougCounty (anonymous) replies…
Gr,
Since you asked about how significant the renewables contribution is, US wind power production capacity for 2010 is now up to 35,159MW, which is the highest in the world and growing. China is waking up to the potential for wind energy and has created the world's largest wind power industry in the world in 6 years and has gone from zero to 25,000 MW in those years, adding 12,000MW last year and shooting for 100,000MW by 2020, I believe. The Dept. of Energy sees no reason why the US cannot produce 20% of our total power needs using wind alone by 2050.
One of the other "renewables" not mentioned is energy efficiency. While the rest of the country's energy consumption went up 60% in the last 3 decades, California's consumption has stayed flat. The main reason is because it has been very forward thinking about energy efficiency standards for its housing, manufacturing, etc. and it has been estimated that that avoided kilowat hour saved through efficiency improvements costs 2-3 cents/kwh compared to 10 cents for new coal, 15 cents for new nukes, and 5-9 cents/kwh for new wind.
Hope this helps.
gr (anonymous) replies…
"is now up to 35,159MW"
Thank you for making my point.
That's something global warmers do not understand. Absolute numbers mean nothing if you don't have something to compare them to that's relevant. Comparing 35,159 to the price of eggs in China is not relevant. Comparing it to the total energy production is.
"sees no reason why the US cannot produce 20%"
There you go. Now we have something of a relevant comparison. The best we can conclude is it's less than 20%. 20% would be significant, but would 1% (which is also less than 20%) be significant?
"California's consumption has stayed flat."
I believe Iraq's energy consumption is not as much as it was a decade or so ago. But surely you agree it does not mean they are making "progress". And rolling blackouts do not forward thinking make. Nor does the idea of, 'just use less energy'. This is about sources of energy, not just not using it.
That's another thing global warmers don't have a concept of. And that's confounders.
DougCounty (anonymous) replies…
I'm afraid I don't know what your point is, tho. You seem all over the place with trying to turn these numbers into a critique of "global warmers" that you're not carry your point long enough to make any sense.
Comparing how much new electric capacity was provided by wind vs. coal will be quite favorable for wind, for instance. Comparing how much new capacity provided by coal vs. how many kilowatt hours were SAVED through investments in energy efficiency will be quite favorable for energy efficiency, for instance. The cost of energy efficiency measures per kwh compared the the cost of building new coal per kwh will be quite favorable for energy efficiency once again.
Projected energy needs vs. actual energy consumption for the past several years will show that the increases in wind generated electricity covers it. What happens when we start thinking in these terms, coupled with serious energy efficiency programs?
You quickly get to the realization that a much lower carbon emissions future is not a pie in the sky ideal, but a real, hard-nosed possibility if you are willing to commit to it and push the pencil.
RETICENT_IRREVERENT (Ronaldo Ignacio) says…
21 billion If you count the id, ego, and super-ego.
LesBlevins (anonymous) says…
If 7 Billion are "trapped" above ground today in an increasingly untenable situation I think we can assume many more of their descendants will also be trapped and will suffer and die in the long run as the world declines in livability. Scientists are telling us the oceans are dying today.
Liberty275 (anonymous) replies…
We'll only be trapped under obama for two more years, so it isn't all that bad.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
Coal will be an important source of energy for a long time to come.
But will it continue to provide 50% of our electricity, while will we continue to be extremely wasteful and inefficient in our use of energy, driving us full speed towards a cliff?
Or will we reduce our demand for electricity through greater efficiency, and increase generation through renewable sources, which would reduce our dependency on coal to something between 10-15% of our overall electrical needs, with natural gas providing a similar amount?
Our failure to do so will mean that our future in Kansas could resemble the Sahara desert, or perhaps the current flooding in Pakistan.
LesBlevins (anonymous) says…
All true just-another.
The 33 miners at least have hope that they will be dug out. But there will be no one to dig us or future generations if we screw up this tiny blue dot planet.
salad (anonymous) says…
"But there will be no one to dig us or future generations if we screw up this tiny blue dot planet.....for human habitation."
-fixed
Keep in mind, the planet is could care less if we're here or not. It's also all but indestructable as far as any dent we could make in it. We should be acting from a position of self-intrest. Why save the whales? Well....what if it turns out that they're vital for the ocean food chain and our survival and we're just too stupid to know it yet. Kinda like why you don't let a two year old play with the light socket; as far as they're concerned, it's harmless, what could happen? Until it all goes bad.
blindrabbit (anonymous) says…
Olde King Coal is not a Merry Olde Soul(ution)!
LesBlevins (anonymous) says…
The 33 miners are in a dire situation but they have hope because they are alive and we know they are alive and a rescue attempt will be undertaken, but a rescue of the 3.3 billion inhabitants of planet earth (who will suffer and die if excessive greenhouse gasses are not stopped) have no hope left except that those of us alive today will find it in our hearts to also begin their rescue, and begin it in earnest and begin it before it is too late.
The no more coal fired power plants rescue crew is working hard already but they need to know that coal will be a part of our energy future and the keep on building coal plants crowd needs to understand that not finding cleaner ways to use coal is akin to abandoning those billions who will surely be left with an untenable situation if we don't come to our senses soon and get our act together in time.
But both groups should realize there is a middle ground that can work for both groups today and for future generations; and it is being called the third way and we can begin implementing it just as soon as we decide we are ready.
Les Blevins
The_Big_B (anonymous) says…
Clean + Safe + Efficient + Reliable + Domestic = Nuclear.
We can choose Coal or Nuclear. It's no choice at all. It's nuclear.
When will we accept that and start building them?
DougCounty (anonymous) replies…
Clean: Think no national repository for high level nuclear waste, think superfund sites for old reprocessing and processing sites
Safe: Not only Chernobyl, but the near-police state security it requires in these terrorist times, plus the connection between reprocessing and nuclear weapons proliferation
Efficient: Only if you don't consider the corporate socialism where taxpayers guarantee payoff of the loans even if the utilities go belly-up, The Price-Anderson act that absolves the corporations and utilities of the cost of a big accident. The decomissioning costs. The highest per-kilowatt hour expense of any electrical generator plant out there.
Reliable: How many Chernobyls and 3 Mile Islands can we afford?
Domestic: Uranium reserves are actually limited and would be strained if the huge jump in plants actually occur. Plus who really wants uranium processing in their back yard?
Nuclear: The same amount spent on efficiency and true renewables will take care of this country's energy growth plus the downsizing of the coal fired plants as they get too old.
The_Big_B (anonymous) says…
Chernobyl was a nuke in a Butler building ... not comparable. I would not support that level of technology.
TMI ... I'm thinking more people have died in windmill-related accidents than were harmed at TMI, unless absolutely no one has been injured in a windmill accident (because no one was harmed at TMI ... the safety systems worked, and the new plants are much safer).
DougCounty (anonymous) says…
Maybe utilities just don't want to be very close to the very expensive cleanup bills that come with a nuclear power plant.
-like the 2.4 billion dollars spent at 3 Mile Island due to the partial meltdown in 1979...
-like the 1.1 billion dollars shelled out in 1986 at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant in Mass. due to the emergency shutdown.
-like the 1.86 billion dollars spent at Browns Ferry Nuke in 1985 to fix the malfunction that occurred during the startup sequence
-like the 400 million spent at the Peach Bottom nuke in 1986 due to an emergency shutdown
-like the 254 million spent at the Millstone nuke in 1996 after some leaks were discovered
Safer, well we'll see won't we? Less expensive? We already know the answer to that, even without the accidents.