Posted on 04/08/2003 4:07:43 PM PDT by FairWitness
Edited on 05/11/2004 5:34:24 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
New technology would permit us to use billions of tons of coal without polluting the air.
Because they emit carbon dioxide, electric power plants that use coal are major contributors to the greenhouse effect. But studies show that it may be possible to reverse the rise in atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels by capturing and depositing the gas underground.
(Excerpt) Read more at stltoday.com ...
Coal giants see their product dominating energy market
By Repps Hudson, Of the Post-Dispatch
Tough winter weather and the war in Iraq again have proved that coal is the energy source of the future.
At least that's how the nation's two leading coal companies, both with headquarters in the St. Louis region, see it.
"We see that the market fundamentals continue to favor coal"; said Vic Svec, spokesman for Peabody Energy, the country's largest coal producer, with 9 percent of the U.S. market.
Alluding to the war and continuing uncertainty about the supply of imported oil, Svec said: "With the domestic-security issues we face today, coal provides a low-cost, stable form of electricity."
Steven F. Leer, president and chief executive of Arch Coal Inc. of Creve Coeur, the nation's second-largest coal producer with 6 percent of the U.S. market, recently told Bloomberg News that "... coal is the most reasonably priced energy source that we have. And we're seeing a surge in demand out there."
Leer, as he has for several years, pointed out that nuclear power plants are running at full capacity, with little chance of new ones being built.
Hydroelectric power isn't expected to contribute more energy to meet the nation's demands, because power-generating dams no longer are in favor.
And alternative power sources, such as solar and wind, can't be expected to fill much of the gap with the demand for electric power growing at 7 percent a year.
Two big, related variables this winter point to coal as the best bang for the Btu, both companies say. Those were cold weather, after the warmest winter on record in 2001-02, and the subsequent jump in natural-gas prices to nearly $10 per million Btu.
"For the first 30 months of this decade," said Svec, "natural gas averaged $4.25 per million Btus, while coal averaged $1.25 per million Btus."
Leer told Bloomberg that immediate demand for coal is likely to outstrip available supply, even though the United States has a projected supply to last 250 years.
"We think in the near term - the near term being defined in the next two or three years - that production actually will struggle to meet demand, which obviously has implications in spot demand ratios and pricing," Leer said.
That spells higher prices for coal, as was evidenced this past winter, when prices for both Eastern and Western coal rose steadily, before dropping back in recent weeks.
Even the regulated utilities took notice, since many in Missouri, at least, depend primarily on a steady supply of coal shipped in miles-long unit trains, to fire their power plants.
AmerenUE, the area's largest electric power producer, uses "multiple methods of coal delivery at our major power plants not only (to) hold down transportation costs, but also (to) ensure that we can keep an adequate supply of coal on hand," spokesman Tim Fox responded in an e-mail.
In Missouri, a consortium of utilities, including Ameren Corp., the parent of AmerenUE, is pushing hard in the Legislature for a law that would allow regulated utilities to pass along to customers the rising costs of coal and other energy sources.
The investor community likes the idea; consumer groups oppose it.
The area's two coal giants, which sell virtually all of their annual output to electric utilities, expect to benefit as well from the Bush administration's more favorable view of coal - fired plants, be they utility or industrial.
The administration has proposed loosening clean-air regulations for emissions from burning coal and easing up on long-standing requirements that older coal-fired units be required to install cleaner-burning technology.
Leer also has noted another trend in the coal business: increasing concentration.
"What we see today is really an energy crisis forming," he said. Record low amounts of stored natural gas and oil have made the stronger coal companies even stronger, Leer said. "And the weaker (coal) companies are restructuring or coming up for sale."
As a result, Leer said Arch expects further consolidation in the industry over the next 12 to 18 months.
Mark Reichman, an analyst with A.G. Edwards & Sons Inc. in St. Louis, generally agreed with Leer's analysis of the market conditions driving up coal prices. He said much now will depend on how warm the summer will be, and whether the economy begins to improve.
A hot summer and a more robust economy, Reichman said, would push up demand for coal, which had been overstocked for more than a year before inventories were burned down this past winter.
Reichman said Peabody and Arch are well-positioned to take advantage of a boom in coal demand.
"They both share industry leadership characteristics," said Reichman. "Both own or lease tracts in major producing regions.... Both are well-positioned to capitalize on prices. Both have experienced management teams."
Peabody, which closed Monday at $27.55, down 28 cents, will release its first-quarter earnings on April 16. Arch, which closed at $18.70, down a penny, is scheduled to release earnings on April 21.
Reporter Repps Hudson:
E-mail: rhudson@post-dispatch.com
Phone: 314-340-8208
Mercury from coal burning does enter into the fish in the Gulf Coast.
Hopefully this technology will contain that.
Sounds great. Yeah!!. Thumb in the air guess is its eff. is less than 10 percent and costs $1.50 a kilowatt.
As long as you don't store it under Yucca Mountain!
You can also make methanol from coal, which can be used in a conventional internal-combustion engine, or to power a fuel-cell vehicle
You do understand of course that as long as it is not officially labeled "nuclear", it is harmless!
This is not only a lie, but a damn lie.
Carbon Dioxide from all coal burning worldwide comprises only 0.013% of the greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere1.
Global Warming is real and is a good thing2.
Carbon Dioxide is NOT a pollutant3.
The scare-scam is irrational, unscientific FUD, and anyone from which it spews has zero credibility4.
Don't take my word for it check it out for yourself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.