Slashdot Mirror


Coal Plants Get New Lease On Life With Natural Gas

HughPickens.com writes Christina Nunez reports in National Geographic that in the past four years, at least 29 coal-fired plants in 10 states have switched to natural gas or biomass while another 54 units, mostly in the US Northeast and Midwest, are slated to be converted over the next nine years. By switching to natural gas, plant operators can take advantage of a relatively cheap and plentiful US supply. The change can also help them meet proposed federal rules to limit heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, given that electricity generation from natural gas emits about half as much carbon as electricity from coal does.

But not everyone is happy with the conversions. The Dunkirk plant in western New York, slated for conversion to natural gas, is the focus of a lawsuit by environmental groups that say the $150 million repowering will force the state's energy consumers to pay for an unnecessary facility. "What we're concerned about is that the Dunkirk proceeding is setting a really, really bad precedent where we're going to keep these old, outdated, polluting plants on life support for political reasons," says Christopher Amato. Dunkirk's operator, NRG, wanted to mothball the plant in 2012, saying it was not economical to run. The utility, National Grid, said shutting it down could make local power supplies less reliable, a problem that could be fixed by boosting transmission capacity—at a lower cost than repowering Dunkirk. Meanwhile the citizens of Dunkirk are happy the plant is staying open. "We couldn't let it happen. We would lose our tax base, we would lose our jobs, we would lose our future," said State Sen. Catharine M. Young. "This agreement saves us. It gives us a foundation on which to build our economy. It gives us hope. This is our community's Christmas miracle!"

4 of 143 comments (clear)

  1. It's still reacting carbon and oxygen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Since steam power in the 1800's, man has relied on reacting carbon with oxygen to provide power. We need to transition off this carbon-oxygen reaction to have any chance of stopping climate change and the devastating effect that it will have. Burning gas instead of coal is simply not enough.

    1. Re: It's still reacting carbon and oxygen... by JWW · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You say that and you are correct, but when the best solution we have right now, nuclear, is mentioned the greenies freak the hell out and star screaming and running around in circles. Until we actually embrace what is possible to do and stop wishing on new technology to catch up, we'll be stuck here for a while.

    2. Re: It's still reacting carbon and oxygen... by cryptolemur · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem with nuclear, without even going close to the radiation boogeyman, is that:
      - it requres huge investement before nothing happens
      - it takes years to construct a power plant
      - it's pretty much unflexible regarding any peaks or lows in consumption
      - the latest generation concrete housings' carbon foorprint takes a decade to offset
      - provided the fuel mining, enrichement and transportation is almost carbon neutral
      - the nuclear plants require a lot of sweet water for cooling, 24/7, and the world is running out

      Oh, and nobody is willing to foot the bill, including insurance and decomissioning, so techically greenies don't really need to freak the hell out or start screaming, because mostly nuclear power is off the table due to practical issues. Which probably is why I don't know any greenies who do run around in circles. Actually, most of the greenies I know are free-market liberals. Now, *that* doesn't make any sense...

  2. Dependency by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It gives us a foundation on which to build our economy. It gives us hope.

    , said the addict.