Poof! 132 coal plants disappear

The magic mouse of Guy Caruso

Posted by Ted Nace (Guest Contributor) at 11:29 AM on 21 Mar 2008

Read more about: coal | energy | Department of Energy

Want to kill one coal plant? Use a lawyer.

Want to kill a hundred? Use a spreadsheet.

On March 4, without fanfare, a bureaucrat named Guy Caruso caused 132 coal plants to disappear with a wave of his magic mouse.

Caruso is the head of the Energy Information Administration, the division of the U.S. Department of Energy that, well, comes up with information on energy. Sort of like the CIA, but less glamorous.

A year ago, the EIA projected [PDF] that electricity use would grow at the rate of 1.5 percent per year through 2030. But on March 4, Caruso told Congress [PDF] that the EIA had decided to put a new figure in the "projected growth rate" cell of his forecasting spreadsheet: 1.1 percent.

As we all learned in algebra, a small change in a percentage rate can make a big difference over time. Applied to coal, the new growth rate caused projected electricity generation in 2030 to drop from 3191 terawatt hours (tWh) to 2756 tWh, a decrease of 435 tWh.

What does 435 tWh equate to in terms of coal plants? Assuming a 75 percent capacity factor (the percentage of hours in an average year that a plant is running full-bore), that's the output of 66,200 megawatts (mW) of generating capacity, or 132 new coal plants (500 mW each) that won't have to be built after all between now and 2030.

Of course, a lot of people already knew this was going on, including Wall Street. For years, the Energy Information Administration, which should be leading the way in guiding decision makers, has been out of step with reality. It tends to play the role of cheerleader for an industry that has always wanted to build, build, build.

But at some point reality intrudes -- the cheerleader turns around and actually looks at the game.

And that's why 1.5 percent just became 1.1 percent, and 132 coal plants suddenly went poof.

Of course, it's not really the EIA administrator who decides which power plants are going to be built -- that's done by individual utilities and power authorities, each making its own economic and power growth projections. But EIA projections do set the tone for federal policy at all levels. An aggressive projection sets in motion the policy wheels of regulation, subsidies, and any number of other measures. So even though 132 coal plants weren't directly cancelled by Caruso's scaled back projection, the revision will nonetheless have the effect of curbing the coal boom.

But there's another lesson here as well. Like nuclear plants, coal plants tie up great gobs of capital during their extended construction periods. For the sponsors of such projects, the shifting sands of economic uncertainty can spell financial disaster, as many a utility learned the hard way during nuclear's fiscal meltdown.

In contrast, solar, wind, and conservation all have shorter lead times, a fiscal advantage not sufficiently appreciated, especially in uncertain economic environments like the present. So in addition to loving these options for being "green," planners can also love them for being "just in time."

For story: Poof! 132 coal plants disappear
10 Comments | Post a Comment

It should be shrinking...

It's amazing that it would grow at all...first of all, there's good reason to believe that the American population may implode within that time frame. Immigration will certainly slow and possibly reverse.

Second, we're on the verge of nano, bio and other technology and other technologies that could reduce common power consumption by a factor of ten. That doesn't even count the real breakthrough stuff (room temperature superconductors? Read, Kaku's Physics of the Impossible )

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

by jabailo at 5:25 PM on 22 Mar 2008

Immigration figures?...

first of all, there's good reason to believe that the American population may implode within that time frame. Immigration will certainly slow and possibly reverse.

Okay, I know that immigration (and first generation Americans with immigrant parents) account for the vast majority of the nation's population growth, but where do ya get the idea that immigration will go down? Any numbers for that?

I think the estimated reduction in energy has more to do with anticipated high energy prices and conservation/tech already out there (like the conversion towards LED and CFL, and increases in Energy Star and LEED), more than expected leaps in nano tech.

They don't usually factor tech that hasn't been "proven" on a mass scale into their figures.

by Tasermons Partner at 7:45 PM on 22 Mar 2008

Fuzzy math

You couldn't be more wrong.

Granted, gains in energy efficiency may be slightly changing the slope of the demand curve and we see that in the EIA forecasts. But that said, by all accounts America's electricity demands are increasing. Moreover, new advanced coal-based power plants can replace older, less efficient units when those plants are due to be taken out of operation.

Meeting America's future electricity needs will include a variety of fuel resources ... including coal. Coal is a domestically-abundant energy resource, and as we've stated on this site before, fuels like solar and wind are not replacements for coal.

So the question isn't whether we'll use coal (we will), the question is HOW we'll use coal (and the answer there is cleanly!).

For that reason, we need to be sure we keep putting dollars into funding clean coal technology research. With the right investments in technology, coal will help power America through the 21st century and it will do so with what we term ultra-low emissions (zero emissions of pollutants regulated by federal and state clean air laws and the capture and storage of CO2).

That is a pretty big goal, but that is what we mean when we say that this industry has made a commitment to clean.
http://www.americaspower.org/News/Behind-the-Plug/

by davdABEC at 10:58 AM on 25 Mar 2008

Renewables are replacement for coal...

fuels like solar and wind are not replacements for coal.

Funny last I checked, we had more than enough wind and solar potential to replace coal. And that doesn't include geothermal, small-scale hydro, landfill waste, or wave power.

by Tasermons Partner at 11:27 AM on 25 Mar 2008

Wind and solar

Renewables are great, but in most cases they simply are not a suitable replacement for coal.

Renewables like wind and solar can only produce electricity when the weather conditions permit (there is sufficient wind speed or enough direct sunlight). That is why they are often referred to as "intermittent" power.

Coal is different. Coal can be used to generate electricity 24/7 regardless of whether there is enough wind or the sun is shining. For that reason, coal is used to meet baseload power needs (the constant steady electricity demand) and intermittent resources like wind and solar can be used to meet peaking power needs (when demand is higher than the "regular" daily demand.

by davdABEC at 2:11 PM on 25 Mar 2008

solar now

You would expect the ABEC guy to be scared of wind and solar, wouldn't you?

Instead of waiting for a technology that hasn't been proven, doesn't have a transportation infrastructure to transport the supercritical CO2, and may not even have enough suitable aquifers for all the volume required, technology available today could provide 90% of our electricity demand.

Yeah, even with ol' intermittent solar.

by In the belly at 4:10 PM on 25 Mar 2008
[ Parent ]

Renewables can replace coal...

Renewables are great, but in most cases they simply are not a suitable replacement for coal.

Sure they are, especially if used in a wide variety. When wind is down, supplement with additional solar. Geothermal has almost no supply interruptions. And wave power, though still in it's infancy, seems to be fairly reliable. Landfill waste as well.

Plus, there are certain types of solar which can hold their power for days at a time, even without sun.

And then there are advancements in batteries and smart grids.

Plus, it has alot less of an impact. Even with variations in wind, it's estimated that the dakotas alone have enough potential wind power for the whole of the United States. And that doesn't include wind in other states, or all of the renewable types.

Just how much land area would be stripped for coal in order to achieve the same results? Since coal isn't renewable, the area of land affected by mining would (and already has) far exceed the amount of land needed to run an energy infrastructure based upon renewables.

by Tasermons Partner at 5:22 PM on 25 Mar 2008

hydro

davdABEC, like coal, hydro works 24/7, too, and not just the big dam variety. In-stream, run of river, and power channel diversion types are non-consumptive and renewable and full of potential.

Erik

The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,200+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more

by Erik Hoffner at 8:34 AM on 26 Mar 2008

Responding to davdABEC

ABEC Assertion: Gains in energy efficiency may be slightly changing the slope of the demand curve and we see that in the EIA forecasts.
Response: Gains in energy efficiency are anything but slight. In just a single year the EIA has reduced the projected growth rate by 27% -- from 1.5% to 1.1%. The EIA attributed this to newly tightened efficiency standards for appliances, lighting, and industrial motors.

ABEC Assertion: By all accounts America's electricity demands are increasing.
Response: It is more correct to say that electricity demand has increased in the past, but what it does in the future depends on how aggressively we invest in efficiency measures. Since 1975, California's per capita electricity use has steadily fallen relative to the national average and is now nearly 45% lower, simply because the state has successfully implemented a battery of measures to raise efficiency. Yet even California could squeeze far more functionality out of a kwh, with better building standards being the most promising avenue. Each time an end-user demand is met through greater efficiency rather than increased generation, the generation slope progressively flattens until eventually it falls.

ABEC Assertion: New advanced coal-based power plants can replace older, less efficient units when those plants are due to be taken out of operation.
Response: Replacing old coal-based plants with new coal-based plants is an economic loser (why else would the coal industry come begging for subsidies?), an environmental disaster (zero emission plants sound nice, but the technology does not exist), and a jobs loser (efficiency, wind, and solar create many more jobs).

ABEC Assertion: Meeting America's future electricity needs will include a variety of fuel resources ... including coal.
Response: Coal usage needs to diminish quickly; otherwise the world's carbon burden will increase past the 350 ppm point into the dangerous zone.

ABEC Assertion: Coal is a domestically-abundant energy resource.
Response: Cigarettes are abundant, junk food is abundant...

ABEC Assertion: Fuels like solar and wind are not replacements for coal.
Response: The point is not to replace coal with a single alternative, but rather to look at an integrated array--investments in efficiency, heat pumps, passive solar, solar hot water, distributed photovoltaics (PV), central station PV, concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, energy storage, etc. Here are four studies that explore alternative ways of decarbonizing the energy mix:

Tackling Climate Change in the U.S. (PDF file)
The War on Coal: The Outside the Pits (PDF file) - Khosla Ventures white paper (draft)
A Solar Grand Plan (Scientific American)
Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy

Help build coalSwarm-- a shared informational resource on coal and alternatives to coal.

by Ted Nace at 3:35 PM on 27 Mar 2008

Why not ALL of em.

That's what I want to know.

Put the Carbon Back

by Pangolin at 4:38 PM on 27 Mar 2008

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.