More

Electric Power Plants Shift From Coal To Natural Gas

By KEVIN BEGOS   01/16/12 11:49 AM ET   AP

PITTSBURGH -- The huge, belching smokestacks of electric power plants have long symbolized air pollution woes. But a shift is under way: More and more electric plants around the nation are being fueled by natural gas, which is far cleaner than coal, the traditional fuel.

The most optimistic projections describe an abundant domestic energy source that will create enormous numbers of jobs and lead to cleaner skies.

Nationwide, the electricity generated by gas-fired plants has risen by more than 50 percent over the last decade, while coal-fired generation has declined slightly. The gas plants generated about 600 billion kilowatt hours of electricity in 2000 and 981 billion hours in 2010, according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency.

During the same period coal generation declined from 1,966 billion hours to 1,850 billion hours, while hydroelectric and nuclear generation stayed about the same. The figures include electricity use by consumers and industry.

Nationwide, EIA said natural gas use for power generation rose 7 percent between 2009 and 2010. That's about 515 billion cubic feet. The biggest jumps were in the Southeast, with use rising 24 percent in North Carolina, 18 percent in Virginia and 15 percent in South Carolina.

"Most of the people I know in the electric power industry are building natural gas" plants, said Jay Apt, a professor of technology at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. That's because of low prices over the last few years and the relatively low cost of building such plants, compared with coal-fired or nuclear.

But Apt cautions that the trend could stall because the basics of supply and demand mean that if too many plants embrace cheap gas, it won't stay cheap.

"The surest route to $6 or $8 gas is for everybody to plan on $4 gas," Apt said, and if prices do rise, coal will again be the most cost-effective fuel. Natural gas is priced per million BTU.

Apt noted that there was a "huge building boom" in natural gas plants from the late 1990s to 2004, because utilities thought they would get rich from the combination of cheap fuel and plants that were highly efficient and relatively cheap to build. There were predictions that prices would stay low over the long term, too.

But natural gas prices spiked, and the new gas-fired plants around the nation stayed idle much of the time. That trend was also driven by another irony: The gas-fired plants are easier to start and stop compared with coal or nuclear, so many utilities used them just for peak electric demand periods.

Still, history may not repeat itself because of the huge surge in supply from Marcellus Shale gas drilling. Vast gas deposits that previously couldn't be extracted economically are now being tapped using new technologies. Instead of drilling straight down, companies can drill horizontally and follow seams of gas for a mile or more deep underground. Then the drillers use hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," to free the gas from the relatively dense shale rock.

That's led to environmental concerns from some residents, scientists and regulators who feel there are too many unknowns in the process, along with an undisputed boom in production that's brought great wealth to some landowners, and a surge of jobs.

Some companies clearly believe the switch to natural gas plants makes long-term sense.

Sunbury Generation LP in central Pennsylvania plans to close five of its six coal-fired generators and replace them with two natural gas-fired turbines by 2015, the Daily Item reported last month.

But some companies are deciding not to switch fuels.

The owners of the Homer City Generating Station in western Pennsylvania, the state's second-largest coal plant, plan to add $700 million in pollution control equipment to keep the 40-year-old plant running and in compliance with clean air laws.

Natural gas-fired power plants are "orders of magnitude cleaner" than coal plants, said Jan Jarrett, president of the PennFuture environmental group.

Jarrett said PennFuture wants coal-fired units retired and replaced by gas-fired, at least for the short term.

"There's no way that we can scale up wind and solar to meet the demands over the near future," she said. "Gas itself is a much cleaner burning fuel that can help clean up our air."

But Apt sees a slow, moderate shift.

"My sense is you'll get small changes here," he said, since the current low natural gas prices are attracting market demand from around the world.

There are already federal permits for 3 trillion cubic feet per year of natural gas exports, Apt said.

"Will we export that bounty, and if we do, will that drive up U.S. prices," he said. Natural gas sells for about $8 in Europe and $14 in Japan, but less than $4 here.

"They're not going to tear down the coal plants, because they've seen this movie before," Apt said of electric companies. "They will mothball those plants and start up the coal plants again" if natural gas prices rise.

Also on HuffPost:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

PITTSBURGH -- The huge, belching smokestacks of electric power plants have long symbolized air pollution woes. But a shift is under way: More and more electric plants around the nation are being fuele...
PITTSBURGH -- The huge, belching smokestacks of electric power plants have long symbolized air pollution woes. But a shift is under way: More and more electric plants around the nation are being fuele...
PITTSBURGH -- The huge, belching smokestacks of electric power plants have long symbolized air pollution woes. But a shift is under way: More and more electric plants around the nation are being fuele...
PITTSBURGH -- The huge, belching smokestacks of electric power plants have long symbolized air pollution woes. But a shift is under way: More and more electric plants around the nation are being fuele...
Filed by Joanna Zelman  |  Report Corrections
 
 
  • Comments
  • 583
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (7 total)
06:16 PM on 01/18/2012
Actually the article is more a less a Big Oil infomercia­l.

Recent study has show that natural gas actually has a worse effect on global warming than does coal and thousands of citizens are still murdered every year by deadly fine particulat­e air polluting radioactiv­e gas spewing fracked natural gas plant.

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/09/11/switching-coal-to-gas-cc

The average price of the gas as LNG overseas is 400% the current cost in North America while the cost to liquidify it and ship is only 50% the current cost - kept low by Big Oil so coal replacemen­t by gas is ensured.

All our politician­s have been purchased by Big Oil to push the scam.

Nuclear is far cheaper than natural gas as a coal replacemen­t.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert Fanney
Scribbler
03:25 PM on 01/18/2012
A large-scale shift of this kind is sustainable for about 10 to 15 years. Then you start running into new supply constraints. The real shift needs to be to wind and solar.
charles77
Just the Facts Please
01:17 PM on 01/18/2012
They put up a "report" by an actor who knows nothing about the subject, really??

Were there no scientists from any major university to be found?
07:30 AM on 01/18/2012
pollution from high volume fracking makes natural gas dirtier than coal....plus methane emissions from gas drilling have 100 times the green house gas potential than co2.....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
silverwolf13
I know that I do not know.
10:47 PM on 01/17/2012
This is not good news. Yes, natural gas (methane) does release less CO2 when burned--57% of what coal releases and 74% of what gasoline releases per unit of energy.

The main problem with methane is with the leakage. From extraction, to transportation, to usage, at least 1.5% of the methane leaks. And because methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, this makes it a worse greenhouse fuel than oil and just as bad as coal.

See Robert W. Howarth, Cornell University, "Preliminary Assessment of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Natural Gas Obtained by Hydraulic Fracturing."

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/energy/files/39646/GHG.emissions.from.Marcellus.Shale.April12010%20draft.pdf
01:10 PM on 01/18/2012
Yet no one is asking you or me our opinions on this.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alvdh1
09:07 PM on 01/17/2012
PBS/Frontline is airing a critique of Nuclear Power tonight at 8:00 Central time.
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
12:39 AM on 01/18/2012
Cool, but offtopic.
06:05 PM on 01/18/2012
Its not a critique its a report.
flipacoin
Heads they win, tails we lose.
08:51 PM on 01/17/2012
Energy plants are starting to burn natural gas and Chevy Volts are burning down houses. If my neighbor's Chevy Volt caught fire in his garage, with the wind blowing just right, in a controlled burn, I could turn down my heat for awhile. If he didn't pay his yearly fee to the fire department, that could heat my house for SEVERAL HOURS. Thanks Chevy and BHO for making the Volt. God bless you all.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert Fanney
Scribbler
03:32 PM on 01/18/2012
Misinformation... No confirmation. No real sources. Just blah, blah, blah, rumor mongering.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
LeftLeanWing
RightKickFoot
09:38 PM on 01/18/2012
How in the World is Obama even remotely responsible for creating the VOLT.....
The Volts development and production plans were in place ... way before Obama....

I remember seeing a prototype model in Union Station in DC.... in 2006....

So WTFk are you yapping about ?
photo
gomezrules
Why Don't We Do It In The Road?
06:50 PM on 01/17/2012
I wonder why this is nowhere to be found on the HuffPo? http://www.toledoblade.com/Energy/2012/01/17/Solar-panel-company-lays-off-40-employees.html
05:38 PM on 01/17/2012
I think it is not enough the electric power plants to shift from coal to natural gas, because currently, in the worldwide, approximately more than two-thirds of all the energy generated in thermal power plants is lost in the form of waste heat; it is needed to recover most of that wasted energy efficiently again into electricity in order to reduce drastically the worldwide pollution. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uqnk19hn7Rc
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
centercentric
Writer, reflective Easterner.
08:55 AM on 01/18/2012
Such plants need to be cogenerating -- that is, capture that waste heat and use it to warm buildings, factories, greenhouses, etc. Then efficiency can be up to 70 percent. Siting of the plant then becomes important.
03:02 PM on 01/17/2012
"Nationwide, the electricity generated by gas-fired plants has risen by more than 50 percent over the last decade, while coal-fired generation has declined slightly."

Is that already a shift away from coal, or mostly the expansion of a potentially milder fossil carbon source (depending on methane leakage)? And once coal use does drop substantially in the West, presumably extra supply could keep pricing attractive to developing nations, if there's no effective carbon moderation policy. Already, coal exports from the U.S. are rising:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=U.S._coal_exports
01:18 PM on 01/17/2012
looks like the prius driving, latte sipping liberal lemmings are out in full force. most of you have had the decency to drop "man made" from in front of "global warming", but some of you still cling tenaciously to your false data and outdated talking points. i love the cries of NIMBY with regards to energy production as you stroll over to the thermostat and crank it up a degree or two. drill, baby, drill...frac, baby, frac.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PaulBardinas
Educating one person at a time.
02:08 PM on 01/17/2012
It's really sad that you are so ignorant to the damage that man has caused and continues to cause our planet. Man-made global warming is a fact, all the nonsense junk science thrown around by right wing propogandists and the energy industry to confuse the issue has been debunked. Industry has polluted our water, destroyed our forests, overfished our oceans, polluted our air, put a hole in our ozone, caused cancer with cigarettes, asbestos, etc. When will people like you realize that 9 times out of 10 the alarmists are right and science always proves it. People like you believed cigarrettes were good for you and non-adictive. That CFCs were Ok because the industry sas so. You believe all the propoganda fed to you by corporations and the very industries screwing you. It just never ceases to amaze me that no matter how many times your false assumptions are proven wrong, you just keep on feeding from the same plate of #$&! they feed you. You should go catch some fish from your local watering hole, eat up. Go smoke a few packs of cigarrettes too. Maybe follow it up with burning some coal in your basement to stay warm. Do that for a few years than tell me how great and innocent those corporations are. I've got some old lead based paint and asbestos insulation I can give you as well. Wake up!
02:25 PM on 01/17/2012
nice rant as you artfully dodge the main point of the article and my response and muddy the water with tie ins to all your other crusades, which in some cases, i may agree with you on. you must be in politics. with regards to oil and gas production; until something better comes along this is the hand we are dealt and yes, drill, baby, drill domestically.
03:09 PM on 01/17/2012
There is such thing as responsible development of transitional resources (paired with maximized efficiency), but that's not always what we've seen. And I'm not sure where you're getting the "most of you" from. Nobody I know of has changed their minds, and I'm not aware of any major scientific institution in the world that has changed it's stance on anthropogenic influence on the carbon cycle, and thus climate.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert Lee Harrington
There's still time to change the road you're on...
12:17 PM on 01/17/2012
Coal Takes Heavy Human Toll: Some 25,100 U.S. Deaths from Coal Use Largely Preventable

"Startling new research shows that one out of every six women of childbearing age in the United States may have blood mercury concentrations high enough to damage a developing fetus....

Fetuses, infants, and young children are most at risk for mercury damage to their nervous systems. New studies show that mercury exposure may also damage cardiovascular, immune, and reproductive systems.,,, At high concentrations, mercury can cause mental retardation, cerebral palsy, deafness, blindness, and even death.

Humans are exposed to mercury primarily by eating contaminated fish... New analyses of fish samples collected by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from 500 lakes and reservoirs across the country found mercury in every single sample. In 55 percent of them, mercury levels exceeded the EPA’s “safe” limit for a woman of average weight eating fish twice a week, and 76 percent exceeded limits for children under the age of three. Four out of five predator fish—those higher on the food chain, such as tuna or swordfish—exceeded the limits....

The largest source of mercury pollution is coal-fired power plants...Biological processes change much of the deposited mercury into methylmercury, a potent neurotoxin that humans and other organisms readily absorb... Larger predator species contain the most mercury, which is then passed on to those who eat them...."

http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2004/update42
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
silverwolf13
I know that I do not know.
11:14 PM on 01/17/2012
Mercury poisoning also causes spontaneous abortions. But where is the "right-to-life" lobby on this issue?
01:21 PM on 01/18/2012
I am not sure of your point. Coal is bad and natural gas is bad as well. Mercury is scary stuff. But I think I am more scared about the possibility of my drinking, bathing, cooking, washing water being contaminated and unable to be used.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert Lee Harrington
There's still time to change the road you're on...
12:09 PM on 01/17/2012
STUDY SAYS COAL PLANT POLLUTION KILLS 30,000 A YEAR

Fine particle pollution from U.S. power plants cuts short the lives of over 30,000 people each year.
In more polluted areas, fine particle pollution can shave several years off its victims' lives.
Hundreds of thousands of Americans suffer from asthma attacks, cardiac problems and upper and lower respiratory problems associated with fine particles from power plants.
The elderly, children, and those with respiratory disease are most severely impacted by fine particle pollution from power plants.
Metropolitan areas with large populations near coal-fired power plants feel their impacts most acutely - their attributable death rates are much higher than in areas with few or no coal-fired power plants.
Power plants outstrip all other polluters as the largest source of sulfates - the major component of fine particle pollution - in the U.S.
Approximately two-thirds (over 18,000) of the deaths due to fine particle pollution from power plants could be avoided by implementing policies that cut power plant sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide pollution 75 percent below 1997 emission levels....

http://www.ecomall.com/greenshopping/cleanair.htm
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mac88
The sense of it is not common!
01:18 PM on 01/17/2012
The rules to reduce these pollutants that should have went into affect this month received a stay from the courts.
09:47 AM on 01/17/2012
My main concern over fracking is that the waste fluid is pumped into the ground & the few years that this process has been done doesn't prove it isn't harmful to the enviroment. Most of the wells are in the mountains in PA.& W.VA. these moutains are 1000's of feet high it takes alot of time for is waste water (fluid) to leach down the mountain & into the waterways & lakes possibly decades later.
Also as we have seen is that pumping this water into the gound has put pressure on the fault lines which have caused quakes. Arkansas & Mississippi had to stop the pumping of this hydraulic fluid into the ground due to the quake problem & now the same problem is occurring in Oklahoma & Ohio. So how safe is it to pump HYDRAULIC FLUID into the ground not just to the water supply, but to the land itself ????
cosmicdart
paragon of paradigms
09:58 AM on 01/17/2012
We could always build earthquake proof homes, and construct drinking water treatment plants that filter the wastewater toxins out of our water should this toxic green stuff come bubbling to the surface someday. We should also place some fresh water fish into suspended animation that we could use to restock our lakes and streams after these toxins have gone away a couple hundred years later. Deer and other wild life, skunks, raccoons, possums should also be placed in frozen suspension along with 100 species of wild birds and bees.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
silverwolf13
I know that I do not know.
11:18 PM on 01/17/2012
That should only cost another 2 or 3 trillion per year, so why not?
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
10:31 AM on 01/17/2012
Answer: no one really knows.
cosmicdart
paragon of paradigms
09:33 AM on 01/17/2012
Our energy demand process is self-correcting. Once we pump enough CO2 into Earth's atmosphere to reach the tipping point whereby our ecology goes toxic to reduce Earth's human population from 7 billion to 7 thousand human "dodo birds", we won't need as much electricity anymore. They'll all believe in AGW after the tipping point is reached. Human beings always take it to the edge.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
stuart100s
I started with nothing, & still have most of it.
10:07 AM on 01/17/2012
Good, there are too many people at my favorite restaurant every friday night. Let's speed this AGW along, any way we can.