One of the U.S.’s Largest Coal Plants Is Closing 25 Years Ahead of Schedule

B00Mer

Make Canada Great Again
Sep 6, 2008
47,127
8,145
113
Rent Free in Your Head
www.canadianforums.ca
One of the U.S.’s Largest Coal Plants Is Closing 25 Years Ahead of Schedule



COAL IS A DYING INDUSTRY

Signs that fossil fuels are on the decline are everywhere. For one, nations are keen on cutting down their fossil fuel consumption. Then there’s the growing solar energy business that’s looking to overtake coal. The technology industry is also taking steps to ensure the demise of fossil fuels. And, in perhaps one of the clearest signs of decline, the Navajo Generating Station near Page, Arizona, announced that it will be closing by 2019, more than two decades ahead of its EPA-mandated 2044 shutdown.

The Navajo station is the largest coal-fire power plant in the western United States, and is the seventh largest individual contributor to climate pollution in the country. Its shut down will greatly reduce the US carbon footprint by eliminating the 14 million metric tons of carbon dioxide it has put out every year. It will also potentially save more than $127 million a year in health expenses.



Another advantage of the plant closure is that the water it has been guzzling may soon be available as drinking water, which will be a significant win for the Navajo people, according to Percy Deal from local Navajo environmental group Dine Care.

“It’s clean water that they’re using,” Deal said in an interview with Co.Exist. “I really believe that it’s time to put an end to that. That 31,000 acre-feet of water is Navajo water, and for almost 50 years now, Navajos have not been able to use it.”

CAN’T COMPETE

The Navajo power plant is just one in a growing trend of closures. The Tennessee Valley Authority has closed down three fossil fuel plants since 2011. Duke Energy has closed down 12 coal plants in the span of five years, with another one scheduled to cease operations by 2020. And by 2018, two large coal plants in Ohio operated by Dayton Power and Light are set to close to make way for new solar and wind projects.

These closures aren’t due solely to government regulations, but also to economic realities. Coal is just becoming too expensive when compared to alternatives, said Scott Harelson, spokesperson for one of the owners of the Navajo plant. “The economics are changing and this has kind of shifted how the owners look at potentially the future of the plant,” Harelson said to the Arizona Republic.

The entire energy industry is feeling the shift, according to David Schissel, who is the director of resource planning analysis at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. “The market forces working against coal are not going away,” Schissel told Co.Exist. “As new gas-fired and renewable resources are being added every month, this means that more supply-side resources are competing for the same or almost the same demand. This is not good for coal.”

As coal continues on this downward path, many wonder how President Trump’s promises “to bring back coal” will play out. For Schissel, it won’t make much of a difference. “[The] new administration can slow the pace at which coal plants will be retired in the near future,” Schissel said, “but it can’t stop the process entirely or reverse it.”

https://futurism.com/one-of-the-u-s-s-largest-coal-plants-is-closing-25-years-ahead-of-schedule/

... LOL Trump's bring back the coal industry.. :lol:

[youtube]B5aaR3OeHcU[/youtube]
 

Jinentonix

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 6, 2015
11,619
6,262
113
Olympus Mons
From a particulate perspective, yay. From a GHG perspective, boo. All this talk about moving to "low carbon fuels" is hilarious when you consider we're replacing them with pure methane instead. Not really sure how that's supposed to "cure" climate change if man really is the primary driver of it.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,545
9,612
113
Washington DC
From a particulate perspective, yay. From a GHG perspective, boo. All this talk about moving to "low carbon fuels" is hilarious when you consider we're replacing them with pure methane instead. Not really sure how that's supposed to "cure" climate change if man really is the primary driver of it.
From a nasty-ass perspective, double yay. From a GHG perspective, looks like about a wash. Burning methane produces CO2 (less heat-trapping than methane) and H2O (more heat-trapping than methane). Haven't seen any evidence, however, that all of the capacity will be replaced by methane burning. Four Corners is actually a pretty good place to do both wind and solar.
 

Jinentonix

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 6, 2015
11,619
6,262
113
Olympus Mons
From a nasty-ass perspective, double yay. From a GHG perspective, looks like about a wash. Burning methane produces CO2 (less heat-trapping than methane) and H2O (more heat-trapping than methane). Haven't seen any evidence, however, that all of the capacity will be replaced by methane burning. Four Corners is actually a pretty good place to do both wind and solar.
Where would you plan on getting your base-load generation?
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,545
9,612
113
Washington DC
Where would you plan on getting your base-load generation?
For the time being, from natural gas.

Y'know, I've said several times on this board that the future of energy is a mix of fossil, nuclear, "green," renewable, techniques that are still in the developmental phase like fusion and superconductors, techniques that are still in the theoretical phase like ZPE, and techniques we haven't dreamed of yet. I'm pretty agnostic on energy.

So, y'know, if you want to quit boring me with your pretense that because base-load has to consistently generated, therefore power above the base load must also be generated by fossil, I'm totally up for that.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
The future of renewables lies in the development of a storage system (preferably transportable) for electricity.

Get over that hurdle and you can pick and choose what method you elect to generate the power
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,545
9,612
113
Washington DC
The future of renewables lies in the development of a storage system (preferably transportable) for electricity.

Get over that hurdle and you can pick and choose what method you elect to generate the power

Or a lower-loss transport system, which we are making advances in every day. We've now got superconductors up to 200 Kelvin.

But the fossils-only FOREVER! crowd's argument depends on the assumption that technological advance isn't possible.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
The power was replaced by what or did a bunch of industrial zones close up??
Coal can melt steel, that makes it beyond valuable by itself. The start up time needs some work.

The ash can be dumped in a deep ocean trench, right on top of the nuclear waste.
 
Last edited:

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Or a lower-loss transport system, which we are making advances in every day. We've now got superconductors up to 200 Kelvin.

I recall reading about this advance some time ago. Super interesting and very effective once up and running... The biggest question o my mind is what the operating costs look like over the medium and long term.

My thoughts are that mastering the storage issue cuts right to the chase on things.

But the fossils-only FOREVER! crowd's argument depends on the assumption that technological advance isn't possible.

It's not a question of if, but a question of when.

Right now, we still need to further develop and refine the tech (let alone test commercially) and then the infrastructure inputs require address.

Gonna be interesting in the decades to come
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
I recall reading about this advance some time ago. Super interesting and very effective once up and running... The biggest question o my mind is what the operating costs look like over the medium and long term.

My thoughts are that mastering the storage issue cuts right to the chase on things.



It's not a question of if, but a question of when.

Right now, we still need to further develop and refine the tech (let alone test commercially) and then the infrastructure inputs require address.

Gonna be interesting in the decades to come
Baffin Island is a huge block of very cold rock. That reduces the distance, being cold air there is little moisture to act as a resistance to speed. Magnetic rails might reduce the need for large rocket engines. You also miss the radiation belt as there is a hole near the poles.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,545
9,612
113
Washington DC
It's not a question of if, but a question of when.

Right now, we still need to further develop and refine the tech (let alone test commercially) and then the infrastructure inputs require address.

Gonna be interesting in the decades to come
Just as relativity remained merely an interesting theory for decades, and then started changing everything, so quantum theory is likely to make the world of 2117 as unrecognizable to us as our world would be to Thomas Jefferson.

I mean to see it or die tryin'.