Replies

Probably one of the most bone-headed disasters this country ever undertook, using NG in central power stations, whether it be baseload, GT, or combined cycle, whatever. Anyone with an elementary knowledge of economics could see the fallout. Huge increase in demand and a limited supply means skyrocketing prices and shortages. The wackos won't allow any increase in supply (try siting an LNG terminal, which makes siting a nuclear plant seem like child's play). So costs go up, supply dwindles. Yep, sure takes a brainiac to figure that one out.

As one who heats their home primarily with natural gas, I could not agree more! I'm almost inclined to get a cast-iron stove and burn wood and/or coal for primary heat, utilizing gas for secondary. I'm not sure how the neighbors would react to that wonderful scent of slowly-burning coal in the air, though. :)

So we're diverting a perfectly transportable fuel, one very well matched to end use in many applications (building heating, cooking, some industrial processes) and burning it up making electricity, which involves losses, and transporting that, which incurs further losses. The very first thing a nuclear revival, if it happens, should displace, is use of NG in utility applications, as much as possible. And if that means spending some effort improving the load-following capability of nuclear plants, I say do it, and save the NG for better uses.

Indeed, gas serves best for home heating and special industrial furnace applications where precise heat control is needed. Fortunately, both utilities I've worked for utilize primarily coal for generation, but several of the plants are getting quite old. NG is sometimes useful for quick-start emergency generation, filling a need for short-term peaks or until fossil, hydro, or nuclear generation can be brought up to displace it. But it's value as a longer-term generation for baseload or even daily peak is poor, due to the fuel cost.

I'm not 100% certain of the dynamics of gas transportation, but I would venture to say that for long-range transportation, natural gas is relatively lossless compared to AC power transmission. Wire capacity is seldom the most critical factor - once a transmission line is loaded beyond its surge impedance loading, it absorbes reactive power (not to be confused with nuclear reactors, of course) and voltage support must be supplied to the line to maintain efficient movement of power.

This is a problem with locating generation far from the load center, and is counterproductive to the NIMBY arguement. It is also probably one of the reasons that NG generation became popular 10 or so years ago. I can't imagine building a 500-1000 megawatt coal-fired plant right in the middle of downtown Cleveland or Orlando. But a couple of 100 megawatt peakers near the city are an easy, cheap substitute - except for the price of gas, that is.

NIMBYs often advocate distant siting of generating facilities, yet never seem to give a thought to the implications of that on transmission infrastructure and line losses. Whenever I bring this up in "debates" with NIMBYs, all I get is the deer-in-the-headlights look. One that really got my goat was a proposal by the windy NIMBYs for locating windmills offshore along a stretch of the east coast running from the New England region to just south of Cape Hatteras. I can't imagine the nightmare that would be for siting, building, and maintaining transmission infrastructure.

In my state alone a local transmission operator has just given up the ghost on siting a HV line from the southern part of the state to the northeastern part, which would help alleviate some of the bottleneck in the Great Lakes regional grid power flows. They worked for 10 years on it. The NIMBYs crawled out of the woodwork on that one, raising issues from killing trees to affecting the lifestyle of the Amish in the northern part of the state.