Comments on: Forced Coal-Plant Conversions to Natural Gas: False Hope for "Cheap" Climate Action

By: Richard L. Strickland

Richard L. Strickland — Fri, 21 May 2010 02:25:18 +0000

Interesting…..4 states and Washington D.C. are now in the process of converting coal powered electrical plants to gas powered ones. Further, many other states are converting coal plants over to biomass along with Ontario, Canada which is converting 11 such coal plants. I guess none of these folks read Mr. Peltier’s article on why it was not practial or cost-effective to do so….

By: Ric Smith

Ric Smith — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 18:50:59 +0000

Could Mr. Peltier give references on the detailed problems of converting coal boilers to natural gas.Is Mr. Peltier the Peltier with World Power?

By: Raul Kabinza

Raul Kabinza — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 13:25:51 +0000

LATE 2009 – Natural gas for CC units is now competitive with coal. The existing CCs are being dispatched on economics.

The supercritical coal units are still doing well, also. The current economy has depressed demand, and with coal stockpiles growing, price differentials will remain volatile between these two fuels..

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 17:21:24 +0000

Ed Reid-I believe that RFK Jr’s advocacy against Pig farming predates the surge of AGW alarm, but you make a good point-these crazy plans to reduce emissions are going to have to find something to cut, and then more and more, until nothing is sacred…

By: Ed Reid

Ed Reid — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:31:37 +0000

Andrew,

Since the UN FAO estimates that ~18% of annual GHG emissions result from animal husbandry, the pig farms would not be the only casualties of a serious effort to stabilize atmospheric GHG concentrations. Kiss your steers, lambs, goats and chickens goodbye as well.

Oh, and after that, kiss grandma and grandpa goodbye as well. The no-longer-productive, especially if unwell, would apparently be offered (encouraged to take) a “little black pill” at their mandatory every five year “end of life counselling session” under the Obamacare proposals currently sneaking their way through the Congress.

The only question is whether the availability of government-paid abortions and government-supplied “little black pills” would be sufficient inducement to control population, or whether more Draconian measures would be required. I question whether we could return to a “hunter/gatherer” society without beginning by hunting each other.

“Enquiring minds want to know.”

By: Ed Reid

Ed Reid — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 19:42:11 +0000

W-M requires reductions of 83% from 2005 emissions levels by 2050. The percentage reductions possible by converting from coal to natural gas at existing coal plants would only be sufficient to achieve compliance through about 2030. Therefore, the Kennedy “plan” would result both in a major economic dead loss now and another major economic dead loss around 2030, when the natural gas firing equipment would begin having to be decommissioned progressively to achieve continued compliance. Assuming that the estimate above of “decades” to expand the pipeline network is correct, we would have to begin decommissioning the natural gas conversions before they were all completed and operational.

Only a politician would call that a “plan”!

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:52:55 +0000

Doesn’t RFK Jr want to ban pig farming? Why does anyone take that seriously?

He also loves to call his ideological opponents fascists “Glenn Beck is CNN’s chief Corporate Fascism Advocate” for “denying” Global Warming (this was back when Beck was on Headline News, AKA where CNN sends people to kill their careers ) Which of course totally ignores that the real corporatists are all pushing for AGW legislation.

I will refrain from mocking his high pitched voice, as that would be sophomoric, even for me.

By: Tom Tanton

Tom Tanton — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:54:52 +0000

What’s almost funny is that the reverse of this proposal was proposed (quite) a few years ago–only then, with PIFUA and natural gas shortages expected, folks were looking to convert n.g fired facilities to coal. Of course the fire boxes were all wrong (not to mention the fact that coal facilities transfer lots of heat radiantly, not convectively) and what we found THEN was that you could save the switchyard and not much else (well, maybe admin building) Likely same issue today going the other way.

By: bottomofthe9th

bottomofthe9th — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:36:13 +0000

Kennedy did of course make some errors, but the underlying sentiment–that the cheapest way to reduce carbon emissions is indeed to burn gas instead of coal–is correct. Of course, you don’t get there by converting plants, because you don’t have to. The gas combined-cycle plants are already there, but utilization is on the order of 50%.

These plants don’t get used because the fuel cost of gas is higher than the fuel cost of coal, even accounting for the CC’s greater efficiency. But of course, carbon emissions are, right now, a significant, and unpriced, negative externality. I’m disappointed that this blog has not recognized such and advocated a Pigovian tax (combined with a cut in an inefficient tax, like payroll or income), which would improve overall economic efficiency. With a $30/ton carbon price, a lot more CCs would get dispatched, and carbon emissions would be a lot lower.