Interesting article and I wonder if it means a rebound in coal traffic and if so for how long and how high a rebound?
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-natural-gas-prices-set-220000277.html
"Natural gas prices are set to soar."
Soar. Sky rocket. Words that should be banned.
For the price to increase to $3 per million BTUs, we are talking roughly the equivalent of 42 cents for a gallon of #2 Diesel. Yes, wholesale, but it is still an energy bargain. The projected price is gas recovering from the price having crashed owing to the Virus Crisis.
We are talking the equivalent of $84/ton of a low-ash coal? Doesn't coal run about $50/ton? Coal power plants are also less thermally efficient than the best gas-fired plants. I think gas would have to get much more expensive to get people's attention to switch back to coal.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Soar? Skyrocket? Yes, I can see it. So what?
While some coal plants may be able to be restarted, many others are gone. Replaced by gas plants that can't be easily converted, if at all. The energy companies will just pass on the increased cost as much as possible.
Jeff
jeffhergertSoar? Skyrocket? Yes, I can see it. So what? While some coal plants may be able to be restarted, many others are gone. Replaced by gas plants that can't be easily converted, if at all. The energy companies will just pass on the increased cost as much as possible. Jeff
Just like a illicit drug dealer - hook them on the product and raise the price.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Paul Milenkovic Coal power plants are also less thermally efficient than the best gas-fired plants.
Coal power plants are also less thermally efficient than the best gas-fired plants.
My understanding is that a brand new coal plant can hit 45% in thermal efficiency and still meet some fairly strict emissions standards. OTOH, the best combined cycle plants are running about 60% thermal efficiency.
The main issue with a coal plant is that it tends to be more expensive and take longer to build than a combined cycle plant and thus would need to run at a high capacity factor for economic reasons.
Coal plants usually have more restricted turndown, too. That makes them better for baseline operation than variable or transient demand.
jeffhergert Soar? Skyrocket? Yes, I can see it. So what? While some coal plants may be able to be restarted, many others are gone. Replaced by gas plants that can't be easily converted, if at all. The energy companies will just pass on the increased cost as much as possible. Jeff
My former employer - I am retired - has shut down and mothballed half of its coal fired steam electric stations. The others are on or near the chopping block. They are not coming back.
It is not just the economics of coal vs alternative fuels or alternative sources, i.e. wind, solar, etc. It is also emotions. The political winds, which are driven by emotions, are blowing against coal. It is unlikely that any new coal fired power plants will be built in Texas, and the push will be to retire the existing ones as soon as practicable.
JPS1 jeffhergert Soar? Skyrocket? Yes, I can see it. So what? While some coal plants may be able to be restarted, many others are gone. Replaced by gas plants that can't be easily converted, if at all. The energy companies will just pass on the increased cost as much as possible. Jeff My former employer - I am retired - has shut down and mothballed half of its coal fired steam electric stations. The others are on or near the chopping block. They are not coming back. It is not just the economics of coal vs alternative fuels or alternative sources, i.e. wind, solar, etc. It is also emotions. The political winds, which are driven by emotions, are blowing against coal. It is unlikely that any new coal fired power plants will be built in Texas, and the push will be to retire the existing ones as soon as practicable.
Natural gas also has total cost advantages, right?
charlie hebdo JPS1 jeffhergert Soar? Skyrocket? Yes, I can see it. So what? While some coal plants may be able to be restarted, many others are gone. Replaced by gas plants that can't be easily converted, if at all. The energy companies will just pass on the increased cost as much as possible. Jeff My former employer - I am retired - has shut down and mothballed half of its coal fired steam electric stations. The others are on or near the chopping block. They are not coming back. It is not just the economics of coal vs alternative fuels or alternative sources, i.e. wind, solar, etc. It is also emotions. The political winds, which are driven by emotions, are blowing against coal. It is unlikely that any new coal fired power plants will be built in Texas, and the push will be to retire the existing ones as soon as practicable. Natural gas also has total cost advantages, right?
Until it doesn't.
BaltACD jeffhergert Soar? Skyrocket? Yes, I can see it. So what? While some coal plants may be able to be restarted, many others are gone. Replaced by gas plants that can't be easily converted, if at all. The energy companies will just pass on the increased cost as much as possible. Jeff Just like a illicit drug dealer - hook them on the product and raise the price.
I take it a person has personal experience on the marketing practices in the sale of "street" drugs?
BaltACD charlie hebdo JPS1 jeffhergert Soar? Skyrocket? Yes, I can see it. So what? While some coal plants may be able to be restarted, many others are gone. Replaced by gas plants that can't be easily converted, if at all. The energy companies will just pass on the increased cost as much as possible. Jeff My former employer - I am retired - has shut down and mothballed half of its coal fired steam electric stations. The others are on or near the chopping block. They are not coming back. It is not just the economics of coal vs alternative fuels or alternative sources, i.e. wind, solar, etc. It is also emotions. The political winds, which are driven by emotions, are blowing against coal. It is unlikely that any new coal fired power plants will be built in Texas, and the push will be to retire the existing ones as soon as practicable. Natural gas also has total cost advantages, right? Until it doesn't.
I take it then, that you agree with the supposition that the closing of coal plants is driven by a misplaced concern of climate change from CO2 emissions? And that keeping coal plants open would be good policy with regard to energy security?
Natural gas has much more price volatility than coal. It has nothing to do with some monopolist oil and gas companies manipulating its price in the manner of a "first taste is free" drug dealer. The drug dealer who manipulates the price to "get you hooked" is a myth. The preponderence of drug users are introduced to their use by friends who are drug users, who sell the drugs to help bring in money to maintain their own consumption. The amount of sillyness people are willing to believe is without bound.
With coal, you have a more clear idea of how much of it is in the ground at a given mine. With oil and gas, it is more of a gamble -- you drill a well, it may or may not produce, and when it does, it is uncertain as to how long it produces and in what amount until the supply quits.
Natural gas has always fluctuated in price, and the price of natural gas has been a larger share of generating electricity that way because the equipment is lower cost than for a coal power plant.
Coal has generally been lower in price and have a more stable price. The burning of coal has always been a concern because in addition to the most recent concern about climate change, coal has had a whole range of environmental impacts, ranging from the acid rain from the sulfur in coal damaging forests and streams, the mercury in coal getting into the food chain, and the whole problem of ash disposal. This is not to mention the environmental impacts of mining. All of these effects can be remediated to a degree, but all of this costs money.
Having dealt with wood heat, oil heat and gas heat, gas is by far the cleanest, with oil smellier and sootier with wood with its stoking and ash disposal yet dirtier yet -- I can see from the guys running steam farm tractors on coal as "steam and gas engine" or "thresheree" shows that coal is even messier.
I mean, someone links to some financial rag talking about how gas is going to "soar" in price by returning to its price before the virus crisis. That news source also has an agenda -- they are trying to sell people on investing in the gas industry. Suddenly the worried come out that we won't be able to revert to coal use, and the cynics start commenting on how the gas industry is trying to extract monopoly profits.
Well said, Paul M. Lots of foolishness get posted uncritically as though it were accepted facts.
Paul Milenkovic The preponderence of drug users are introduced to their use by friends who are drug users,
As my father once told me, "Misery loves company."
And oil and gas prices? They've see-sawed back and forth for decades, nothing new about that.
Paul Milenkovic With coal, you have a more clear idea of how much of it is in the ground at a given mine. With oil and gas, it is more of a gamble -- you drill a well, it may or may not produce, and when it does, it is uncertain as to how long it produces and in what amount until the supply quits. The resulting wellhead price will then depend on the price of bringing in new wells.
With coal, you have a more clear idea of how much of it is in the ground at a given mine. With oil and gas, it is more of a gamble -- you drill a well, it may or may not produce, and when it does, it is uncertain as to how long it produces and in what amount until the supply quits. The resulting wellhead price will then depend on the price of bringing in new wells.
A good portion of the natural gas in the US comes from Frac'ed wells, where the initial burst of gas production last for a few months. The consequence is that new wells have to be drilled in order to keep production going, which is entails risk, albeit a relatively low risk.
Having dealt with wood heat, oil heat and gas heat, gas is by far the cleanest, with oil smellier and sootier with wood with its stoking and ash disposal yet dirtier yet
Not to mention the amount of carcinogens produced by burning wood.
Coal-firing causes a lot more wear and tear on boilers than gas firing, due to the abrasive effects of ash. You also have to maintain exhaust precipitators to capture fly ash, and possibly additional scrubbers if you are burning high-sulphur coal.
The previous centre-left NDP (New Democratic Party) government in Alberta initiated a coal phaseout here, and the power companies are continuing with it even though a centre-right Conservative government with pro-coal leanings is once again in power.
A lot of maintenance jobs have disappeared at our converted power plants.
Natural gas prices crashed about 12 years ago due to the fracking boom, and have never recovered. We had two new coal-fired power plants (Genesee 3 and Keephills 3) planned and built during the time of high gas prices, and several large industrial plants considered converting to coal for heat/steam production. One, Inland Cement in Edmonton, actually did, to the great annoyance of many city residents (their plant is upwind from most of the city).
Even those two newest coal plants are scheduled to be converted to gas by 2030.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Alliant Energy had a two unit coal plant outside of Marshalltown IA. They converted both units to gas. There was talk going around for a few years afterwards that they were considering converting one ot the units back to coal. The converted units didn't burn gas as efficiently as coal, making energy production more expensive. They never did convert back.
They planned to build a new coal plant but of course ran into a lot of objections. They changed their plan to a gas fired plant and it was built. It had it's objectors too, but not as many. Today it's producing electricity and the old plant has been removed.
jeffhergert It had it's objectors too, but not as many.
Alas, some people think their power comes from some magical fairyland...
We probably have enough hydroelectric power in this area to keep us running - except the major power producer (NY Power Authority) ships most of it to NYC. Several communities in the area have their own dams.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
jeffhergert Alliant Energy had a two unit coal plant outside of Marshalltown IA. They converted both units to gas. There was talk going around for a few years afterwards that they were considering converting one ot the units back to coal. The converted units didn't burn gas as efficiently as coal, making energy production more expensive. They never did convert back. They planned to build a new coal plant but of course ran into a lot of objections. They changed their plan to a gas fired plant and it was built. It had it's objectors too, but not as many. Today it's producing electricity and the old plant has been removed. Jeff
It seems the issue with gas is heat transfer in the furnace which gets caught in convection. Requiring harder firing of gas to get more BTU's to push steam to it's optimal temp. I would've have liked to seen more research domestically into an OxyFuel coal fired plant. It's always been my thought it's not the fuel it's how you combust it. All fuel is dirty if we really wanna look at the negatives each one carries. It might burn clean doesn't mean it was procured in a clean manner..
A local co-gen here ran their boiler(s) with "fluidized bed," which I believe involves crushing the coal (or petcoke, as they ran a lot of) into relatively fine particles.
They also ran a scrubber on the flue, so smoke out of the stack was extremely rare.
More recently, the plant was changed over to biomass, which put a crunch on the price of firewood, as those seeking to supply said biomass (mostly shredded trees) were shredding whole trees, and not just waste branches from other logging activities.
JPS1 My former employer - I am retired - has shut down and mothballed half of its coal fired steam electric stations. The others are on or near the chopping block. They are not coming back. It is not just the economics of coal vs alternative fuels or alternative sources, i.e. wind, solar, etc. It is also emotions. The political winds, which are driven by emotions, are blowing against coal. It is unlikely that any new coal fired power plants will be built in Texas, and the push will be to retire the existing ones as soon as practicable.
Euclid JPS1 My former employer - I am retired - has shut down and mothballed half of its coal fired steam electric stations. The others are on or near the chopping block. They are not coming back. It is not just the economics of coal vs alternative fuels or alternative sources, i.e. wind, solar, etc. It is also emotions. The political winds, which are driven by emotions, are blowing against coal. It is unlikely that any new coal fired power plants will be built in Texas, and the push will be to retire the existing ones as soon as practicable. I agree the the fate of coal has little to do with market economics. Instead, it has been killed by regulatory pressure and the "political winds," as you say. Those are the forces that promised to kill coal, and they did. While economics may seem to be the explanation for a downturn in coal, those economics are the result of the political pressure surrounding the public marketing of "green energy." I don't think coal could make a comback now even if it were free.
You distorted JPS1's remarks. Politics and Greens were not the reason electric companies have turned to natural gas over coal.
charlie hebdo Euclid JPS1 My former employer - I am retired - has shut down and mothballed half of its coal fired steam electric stations. The others are on or near the chopping block. They are not coming back. It is not just the economics of coal vs alternative fuels or alternative sources, i.e. wind, solar, etc. It is also emotions. The political winds, which are driven by emotions, are blowing against coal. It is unlikely that any new coal fired power plants will be built in Texas, and the push will be to retire the existing ones as soon as practicable. I agree the the fate of coal has little to do with market economics. Instead, it has been killed by regulatory pressure and the "political winds," as you say. Those are the forces that promised to kill coal, and they did. While economics may seem to be the explanation for a downturn in coal, those economics are the result of the political pressure surrounding the public marketing of "green energy." I don't think coal could make a comback now even if it were free. You distorted JPS1's remarks. Politics and Greens were not the reason electric companies have turned to natural gas over coal.
EuclidWhile economics may seem to be the explanation for a downturn in coal, those economics are the result of the political pressure surrounding the public marketing of "green energy."
Market forces were the cause of at least the coal plants replaced by cheap gas.
EuclidIn what way have I distorted JPS1's remarks?
Read the posts of JPS1and Midland.
charlie hebdo Euclid In what way have I distorted JPS1's remarks? Read the posts of JPS1and Midland.
Euclid In what way have I distorted JPS1's remarks?
So, yes, the ultimate death of coal was caused by the market forces, but the market foreces were heavily influenced by the promise to destroy the coal market. If you scare away coal investment, it will raise the cost and price of coal.
And the resultant shifting of energy consumption to gas, due to the political threat to coal, will increase market for gas. Increasing the market for gas, could attract new investment to raise gas production to keep up with demand. New investment in gas infrastrucure could reduce the price of gas.
The ecnonomic market for fuels is influenced by expectations of supply and demand, and government threats of punitive regulations can influence those expectations. The market forces cannot be separated from government policy.
I think you have cause and effect reversed. You seem determined to blame the decline of coal for generation on Greens and politics but completely discount the political impact of Trump bellowing about a coal resurgence and loosening many EPA protections. Yet coal continues in decline because the political impact either way is minor.
charlie hebdo I think you have cause and effect reversed. You seem determined to blame the decline of coal for generation on Greens and politics but completely discount the political impact of Trump bellowing about a coal resurgence and loosening many EPA protections. Yet coal continues in decline because the political impact either way is minor.
Well, the political impact can be minor or major. With Trump being pro-coal, the impact was minor and not enough to offset the impact of Obama saying he will regulate the coal market so building new coal plants is not economically feasible. Who is going to take a risk building new coal plants with that cloud hanging over the future of coal economic viability?
And it is not just the two presidents affecting the market of coal. The politics of climate change science has marketed a whole new public consciousness that is convinced that renewable green energy of wind and solar must replace coal or the world will end in a couple hours.
No, coal is dead and it won't come back even if its free. And natural gas is the next fuel to be targeted for the same fate.
If you understood JPS1's posts, you would realize gas prices were dropping long before Obama or the Green agenda. Climate change is science-based for many years, with years of data to support what is now obvious to any sensate creature, not just another ridiculous Trump campaign promise/lie.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.