Posted on 05/16/2015 6:53:07 AM PDT by thackney
EIA's most recent Short-Term Energy Outlook forecasts that the amount of electricity generation fueled by natural gas in April and May will total just 3.5% less than the projected amount of coal-fired generation. This convergence has occurred only once before, in April 2012, when natural gas fueled just 1.5% less generation than coal. Power generation from the two fuels is expected to rise at similar rates over the next couple months, and then diverge again later in the summer as demand rises and coal unit capacity utilization continues to rise.
Natural gas-fired generation has been rising over the past few months, as the cost of natural gas has fallen to levels not seen since 2012. These low fuel costs have made natural gas combined-cycle generating units in some areas of the country cheaper to operate than coal-fired plants. The increase in natural gas-fired generation has largely come at the expense of coal generation. Generation from both fuels generally falls during the spring months as power plant operators take units offline for maintenance when electricity demand is relatively low.
The convergence is not expected to last, as EIA forecasts slowly rising natural gas prices through the rest of the year. Prices at the natural gas benchmark Henry Hub are forecast to reach an average of $3.13 per million British thermal units (MMBtu) by the fourth quarter of 2015, up from an average of $2.90/MMBtu in the first quarter. Rising natural gas costs and the return of coal plants after spring maintenance will likely increase the level of coal generation. Overall, EIA expects coal to account for an average of 36% of total U.S. generation in 2015 and natural gas to account for 31%.
A contributing factor in the declining share of coal generation is the recent retirement of some coal-fired power plants. These plants are shutting down as power generators respond to the sustained competitiveness of natural gas prices and to the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) regulations. In addition to 4.1 gigawatts (GW) of coal capacity that was retired last year, plant operators have retired or plan to retire 12.8 GW of coal capacity in 2015.
These retiring coal plants are generally smaller units that have typically operated at lower capacity factors in recent years. In 2014, the average capacity factor for all coal units was 61%, but the subset of coal units retiring in 2015 had an average capacity factor of just 36%. The coal capacity retiring in 2015 accounted for 1.6% of total U.S. generation during 2014.
Just reading the local weekly rag from my old home area (The Pointe Coupee Banner) yesterday, and THE front page story is that one of the "Big Cajun" coal power stations is being converted to natgas. That part of the country is all set, about 1/3 nuclear (River Band), 1/3 coal, and 1/3 natgas (both Big Cajun). No matter what "fuel" gets scarce, they will have working capacity in alternates.
November 21, 2012) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Justice announced today that Louisiana Generating, an electric generating company owned by NRG Energy, Inc., agreed to a settlement at its Big Cajun II coal-fired power plant in New Roads, Louisiana, which will result in the elimination of over 27,300 tons of harmful emissions per year. The settlement, lodged in federal court today in Baton Rouge, will require Louisiana Generating to spend approximately $250 million to reduce air pollution and also requires the company to pay a civil fine of $3.5 million and spend $10.5 million on environmental mitigation projects.
http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/louisiana-generating-settlement
Coal replaced by nukes I can see. Coal replaced by gas - not so much. One can use natural gas for transportation; you can’t use coal to fuel individual vehicles (unless you convert it to electricity through the power plants they’re shutting down).
Not so much, but not BY much. Replacement of coal by natgas results in a significant reduction in CO2, as the mole percentage of hydrogen is much higher than in coal.
Absolutely true, but only of relevance if one is troubled by the anthropogenic generation of CO2.
By the way, the replacement of coal combustion by the combustion of methane is a main reason (probably *the* main reason other than the lame-@ss Obama economy) why emissions of CO2 in the US have gone down in the past decade or so - a point roundly ignored by the global warming/climate change/climate disruption alarmists.
Dollars per kilowatt put on the grid, without taxpayer subsidies, is all that matters.
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.