3 replies to this topic

[E3 wise]

E3Wise 01/27/2012
   There has been a lot of talk about carbon sequestration for coal fired power plants. Although proponents state that sequestration will provide the ability to usher in a new era of clean coal, stimulate jobs, and increase growth in the US economy, actual progress has been limited and many utilities have balked at the proposed costs of integrating these as yet unproven technologies.

   Mean while with several states strengthening of air quality guidelines and newly announced more stringent EPA air emission standards for power plants under recently announced Obama administration proposals, the cost of possible fines or litigation from the EPA and environmental groups has lead to many utilities deciding to cancel purposed new construction of coal power plants and the closing early of several older coal fired plants to focus on alternative energy projects before possible federal funding expires at the end of 2012.

  The reason for the change in direction is primarily economically driven, but the value of positive public relations for utilities has provided additional benefits that administrators say should not be underestimated.  “People just don’t want these plants built in their back yard,” says Mike Harrington spokesman for Progress energy. “Issues with alternative energy facilities are important, but for many land and home owners the choice between coal plants and the possible health risks makes sustainable energy facilities a much easier sell.” Harrington added.

   Yet news of these cancellations and early plant closings are often not national front page news.

     E3Wise has compiled a list from several governmental and environmental sources we participate in because we feel that it is important for people be aware of the changing attitudes and focus of utilities in the United States so that increased pressure can be put on lawmakers at the local, state and federal levels to extend tax credits and incentives beyond 2012 and additionally shift more money from fossil fuels to alternative energy which currently only accounts for 3% of all energy incentives.

The shortened list is from 2010, 2011 and January of 2012.

In 2010, the following proposed coal plants were canceled, abandoned, or put on hold:

  Smith Station: On Nov. 18, 2010, EKPC entered into an agreement with Kentuckians For The Commonwealth, Kentucky Environmental Foundation, the Sierra Club, three individual co-op members, the Kentucky attorney general, and Gallatin Steel (EKPC’s biggest industrial customer) to halt plans for the Smith plant by abandoning the permits needed to proceed with construction. The cooperative also committed $125,000 toward a collaborative effort in which the public interest groups, EKPC and member co-ops will work together to evaluate and recommend new energy efficiency programs and renewable energy options.

  Scriba Coal Gasification Plant: This 20,000-ton-per-day coal-to-gas plant, which would have been one of the largest coal gasification plants in the world, was originally slated for Jamesville, New York, but after local opposition the site was changed to Scriba, New York. In January, 2010, the Sierra Club reported that the Scriba location appeared to have been abandoned and that developer TransGas was considering a West Virginia location.

  Beech Hollow Energy Project: This 250 megawatt (MW) coal plant proposed by Robinson Power Company for Washington County, Pennsylvania, was opposed by Residents against the Power Plant. The plant would have burned refuse from a “square-mile dump” that is one of the largest coal-refuse piles east of the Mississippi, and from other refuse piles throughout the area. The U.S. Forest Service submitted comments to federal and state environmental regulators in March 2005, arguing that the plant would adversely affect wilderness areas in West Virginia. The proposal was accepted by Robinson Township officials on Sept. 11, 2006; planning commission chairman Neal Matchett resigned in protest of the decision. The plant was also opposed by the Sierra Club and the Environmental Integrity Project. On January 20, 2010, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection invalidated the plant's air quality permit, because Robinson Power had allowed construction to lapse for more than 18 months.

  Hugo 2: In January, 2010, the Sierra Club reported that Western Farmers Electric Cooperative and Brazos Electric Power Cooperative had abandoned this project, a 750 MW coal-fired plant near Ft. Towson, Oklahoma, adjacent to adjacent to WFEC’s existing 450 megawatt Hugo Plant. According to the Sierra Club, the sponsoring utilities were unable to find additional sponsors for the project.

  River Hill Power Project: On February 23, 2010, WJACTV reported that this project, which would have utilized circulating fluidized bed technology to generate electricity from waste coal had been canceled because the sponsors had failed to receive approval of a loan guarantee from the federal government.

  Big Cajun II Unit 4: In February NRG told the Louisiana DEQ that it had decided to abandon the 750 MW Big Cajun II Unit 4.

  Two Elk Energy Park Unit 2: In March, the Sierra Club reported that the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality has officially withdrawn the North American Power Group's (NAPG) application for the Two Elk 2 coal plant facility. This means that they will have to start the application process from the beginning if they decide the pursue the project.

Sevier Plant: In March, the Sierra Club reported that the 270 MW Sevier Plant in Utah was switching to natural gas.

  Lansing Board of Water and Light: On July 16, 2010, the Lansing Board of Water and Light announced it will build a $182 million combined-cycle, cogeneration plant powered by natural gas rather than a 350 MW coal-fired power plant.

   Karn/Weadock Generating Complex Expansion: On May 25, 2010, CMS Energy announced that the 800-MW Karn/Weadock project in Michigan will be delayed, due to changes in the marketplace, reduced projections of energy demand, and lower prices of natural gas. According to the Jackson Citizen-Patriot, Consumer's home town paper, the move is a temporary one, and the Karn plant still figures prominently in Consumer's Energy plans.

  Wolverine Clean Energy Venture: On May 21, 2010, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment (DNRE) denied the air quality Permit to Install for Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative's proposed 600 MW coal plant. The decision came in the wake of Governor Jennifer Granholm's executive order instructive state officials to deny permits for coal plants where alternatives exist. In response to the denial of the permit Wolverine Power Cooperative filed suit against the state, and the suit is pending.

  Red Hills Power Project: After entering into a joint agreement in 2008 to evaluate this Mississippi synfuels project, the two sponsors, Synthesis Energy Systems Inc. and North American Coal Corporation, appear to have abandoned the project.

  Ambre Energy plant: Australia-based Ambre Energy appears to have abandoned its plans for a $375-million coal plant in Montana, and instead is moving forward with a coal export terminal south of Seattle.

  Toquop: This 750-MW project was proposed for Nevada by Sithe Global Power. In March 2010 it was reported that Sithe Global had abandoned plans to develop Toquop as a coal-burning plant and instead will construct a natural gas plant at the site.

  Lackawanna Coal-to-Gas: Proposed in 2008 for Erie County, New York, this coal-to-gas plant has been abandoned.

  Atlantic Energy Ventures gasification plant: In June, 2010, the sponsors of this proposed coal gasification in Ohio allowed the project's Certificate of Public Need and Necessity to expire, indicating that they have abandoned the project.

  Green River Plant: After Southern California Edison failed to win a $200 million Department of Energy grant, and in addition failed to win approval for a rate increase the practically fund the project, it appears that this 500 MW plant in Utah is unlikely to move forward.

  Bonanza Power Plant addition: This 86 MW addition to Deseret Power Electric Cooperative's 468 MW Bonanza Power Plant was the subject of extensive litigation by the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense, and Western Resource Advocates on the basis of the Supreme Court's precedent-setting ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA giving EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Since the November 2008 Environmental Appeals Board ruling granting the Sierra Club's Petition for Review, there has been no activity by the project's developers, leading the Sierra Club to conclude that the project has been abandoned.

   Laramie County pilot plant: This $100 million project in Wyoming was approved by Governor Dave Freudenthal and the University of Wyoming Board of Trustees. In August 2010, the Sierra Club noted that no permits had been filed for the plant and concluded that the project had been abandoned.

  Two Elk Energy Park Unit 2: Although the Wyoming District Court dismissed the Sierra Club's complaint against this proposed 750 MW project, in March 2010 Sierra reported that the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality had officially withdrawn North American Power Group's application for the plant.

  TES Filer City Station Repowering: In September, the Sierra Club reported that this proposed 180 MW plant in Michigan had still not submitted an air permit application, and Sierra concluded that the project had been abandoned.

  LoraxAg: After critics lambasted this company for naming itself after a Dr. Seuss pro-environmental fable, the coal-to-fertilizer project appears to have been quietly abandoned.
In 2011, the following proposed coal plants were canceled, abandoned, or put on hold:

  Purdue University Wade Utility Plant: On February 3, 2011, the Purdue University Board of Trustees voted to cancel the $53 million Wade Utility Plant expansion based on financial and regulatory concerns. According to vice president of physical facilities Bob McMains, the estimated increase in fuels costs along with expected future regulations for coal waste made the expansion unworkable. School officials plan to install a natural gas boiler rather than a coal boiler to replace the existing 50-year-old Boiler No. 1. a resolution in February 2011 canceling plans to add a new boiler.

  Somerset Power Generating Station: In Feb. 2011, NRG Energy withdrew an application to the state Department of Environmental Protection for approval to re-open the Somerset plant with what the company called a more "environmentally friendly" process: plasma gasification. The plant was shut down in January 2010 following a state mandate that it either switch to a clean energy production or stop operating. The future of the station was left in limbo by a state policy that bans plasma gasification, and lawsuits by the Conservation Law Foundation and others. NRG won approval in January 2008 to use a mix of 65 percent coal and 35 percent biomass. Massachusetts officials urged NRG to use only biomass, but then the state placed a moratorium on the use of biomass while studies were done to find the best long-term policy. NRG had more recently sought approval from the DEP to use a mix of construction and demolition material and wood in the plasma gasification process. The material would be heated up to about 10,000 degrees to break it down into basic components called synthetic gas, or syngas.  NRG is now evaluating what to do with the property, which could include selling it or using it for purposes other than a power plant, according to spokesman David Gaier. The Conservation Law Foundation, a group that fought approval for re-opening Somerset Station, said it will continue monitoring NRG and Somerset Station to ensure the site is being kept safe and that no toxins are being released while the plant is closed, and they vowed to work with residents and officials to find a viable use for the site.

  New Ulm Power Plant: On September 27, 2011, the New Ulm Public Utilities Commission (NUPUC) voted to rejected a plan to convert this gas-fired plant. The decision was applauded by project opponents including the Sierra Club, New Ulm Citizens for Clean Energy, and Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy. At a July meeting, the consulting firm Sargent & Lundy had presented an updated economic analysis of the project indicating that converting the plant to coal was no longer economically advisable.

  Ohio River Clean Fuels: This $5 billion plant would have produced diesel and jet fuel as well as electricity. The sponsors claimed that it would capture and sequester 85% of the CO2 created.  The Morning Journal described the proposed diesel production as being "mostly for use by the U.S. military." In October 2011, Baard said it would use natural gas, rather than coal, as its feedstock for the Ohio River Clean Fuels Project. The switch was part of a negotiated settlement with the State of Ohio amidst legal challenges by NRDC and Sierra Club over Baard's pollution permits.

  Karn/Weadock Generating Complex Expansion: On December 2, 2011, Consumers Energy announced that is was cancelling the proposed 800 megawatt Karn/Weadock Generating Complex Expansion in Michigan because of "reduced customer demand for electricity due to the recession and slow economic recovery, surplus generating capacity in the Midwest market, and lower natural gas prices linked to expanded shale gas supplies." In addition, the company announced that it was suspending operations by the end of 2014 at seven existing generating units, included two units at the Whiting Generating Plant, two units at the Cobb Generating Plant, and two at the Karn Weadock Generating Complex. The company reported that it began construction in November 2011 of its first wind farm, the 100 MW Lake Winds Energy Park, in Mason County. Consumers Energy is also developing the 150 MW Cross Winds Energy Park in Tuscola County.

  Longleaf and Plum Point II: On December 12, 2011, the Sierra Club announced a legal agreement between LS Power and Sierra to cancel Longleaf, a 1200 MW proposed coal plant in Georgia, and Plum Point II, a 665 MW proposed coal plant in Arkansas. In addition, as part of the agreement, Sierra dropped its opposition to the Sandy Creek Plant in Texas and LS Power agreed to stricter air pollution controls at Sandy Creek. Sierra Club noted that Longleaf, which had first been proposed in 2001, was among the first coal plants among the hundreds of coal plants proposed -- and mostly defeated -- in the recent coal boom.
Announced January 27, 2012

Coal-Fired Closures: More Plants Biting the Dust.

    By Bill DiBenedetto  TriplePundit.com

In another victory for clean air in the battle against coal-fired plants, First Energy Thursday said it will retire six of its dirtiest power plants in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Maryland by September 1.

  The Ohio-based utility will retire these plants: Bay Shore Plant, Units 2-4, Oregon, Ohio; Eastlake Plant, Eastlake, Ohio; Ashtabula Plant, Ashtabula, Ohio; Lake Shore Plant, Cleveland, Ohio; Armstrong Power Station, Adrian, Pa.; and R. Paul Smith Power Station, Williamsport, Md.

According to the Sierra Club, the retirements will bring 2,689 megawatts of coal pollution to an end. It’s also estimated that the closures will prevent more than 174 premature deaths, 282 heart attacks, 2,677 asthma attacks, and 136 asthma emergency room visits, according to data from the Clean Air Task Force.

The development “is part of a national trend of clean energy replacing coal, “ says Bruce Nilles, Senior Director of the Sierra’s Club’s  Beyond Coal campaign. “The writing is on the wall for the coal industry; with the cost of coal rising and clean energy prices plummeting, coal’s market share is shrinking fast.”

  A report this week from the U.S. Energy Information Administration forecast a drop in coal’s market share, from 44 to 39 percent, between 2010 and 2035. The report also says that no new coal plants will be constructed during this period, except for those already under construction.

“The EIA reports traditionally underestimate coal’s decline, and the First Energy decision seems to suggest an even steeper drop for coal power in the United States,” the Sierra Club noted.

  The clean energy industry received a strong boost from President Obama in Monday’s State of the Union address, and Ohio is already seeing a strong clean energy presence alternative: The state has approved plans for a 91-turbine wind farm that will bring up to $61 million dollars into the region.

  “We are clearly witnessing the end of our dependency on coal and the move toward a cleaner energy future,” says New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Last July TriplePundit reported that Bloomberg and his Bloomberg Philanthropies arm committed $50 million over four years to club’s Beyond Coal campaign.

  Beyond Coal qualifies as one of the most successful environmental campaign ever, and that was even before Bloomberg entered the picture. The closure of the First Energy plants will bring the number of coal plant retirements to 93 since the campaign began in 2002. It just gets better.

E3 Wise is contributing supporter of the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), and Sierra Club, likewise we have been participating in the Beyond Coal Project since 2007 to bring economic environmental energy and sustainalbe energy and water wisdom to the United States.

   We would like to ask, what you think of these closings?  

      How you feel about transferring funding from fossil fuel to alternative energy projects?  

Additionally what ideas do you support to help our nation and the world shift from a carbon based economy to a much larger sustainable energy portfolio?

Time to offer suggestions and solutions Alt Energy Shifters.

E3Wise

[eds]

Ever since people started generating their own electricity a century ago, the rule has been that we all want more, just as long as we don’t have to hear or see anything, pay much or get inconvenienced in the process.
With that in mind, it’s no surprise that a proposal to cut a huge gash in 40 miles of northern New Hampshire forest and then build large towers along 140 miles of existing power lines in the rest of the state in order to feed electricity from massive Quebec hydropower projects into the New England power pool has produced an enormous amount of debate.
The $1.1 billion project is dubbed Northern Pass by the firms that want to make it: Northeast Utilities, the New England-wide firm that owns PSNH, and Massachusetts utility NStar. They propose to build the line and lease it to Hydro-Quebec, which would use it to sell electricity into the regional power pool, which is available to most New England customers.
The bulk of the opposition has been couched in aesthetic terms, involving the effect that putting in a new power line would have in the state’s northern tip, way up past the White Mountains.
Northern Pass would have no visible effect in the Nashua area, since it would end in Deerfield.
Opposition to the route, particularly the 40 miles of right-of-way that would have to be cut through the woods, has been so loud and widespread that PSNH has gone back to the drawing board and says it’s reconsidering where to put the line.
But aside from that, there are plenty of other questions raised by what is the biggest power-related proposal New Hampshire has seen since the days of the Seabrook nuclear plant.
There’s also plenty of time to debate them. The federal government won’t have even a draft of its most important ruling, called a Presidential Permit, until next year. Not until the feds are done will the state’s long site-evaluation process, as well as a New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission decision about any PSNH power purchase, take place.
The line’s owners say electricity won’t start flowing until 2015, and even that strikes opponents as too hasty.

Source: Nashua Telegraph

[jasserEnv]

I think that asking members of an environmentally focused website is probably going to lead to biased answers in support of such closings but I could be wrong. I personally think that such efforts to get these plants closed is very much needed given the air quality and climate change impacts. However, just because it is a renewable doesn't mean it is automatically a good idea because hydro plants can be destructive both because of the damage to the rivers and because of their distance of the grid leading to long power lines. Each new power plant proposal has to be looked at from standpoint of the various ways it can affect people and the environment.

Again in terms of moving funding away from fossil fuels to renewables, I think it is a no-brainer that this is good news. However, the point remains that we have to look at the environmental degradation that come from any new power plant. As well, all subsidies that can come into play with respect to renewables also need a sunset clause such that even better energy generation technologies don't have to fight so hard against the status quo in the future.

As for other alternatives to fossil fuels, I do like the ideas of the less invasive hydro power using water motion to generate power. Several of these technologies can be placed in streams without hurting wildlife populations and without diverting the streams. These would seem a better approach than any new hydro dams. Also, high altitude wind is a proming technology given the constant winds at heights of 1km or more. Lastly energy storage technologies such as pressurized air under water and flywheels can provide for energy when natural generating output is lower.

[E3 wise]

you are right about responces possibly being biased, but I really want people to give ideas about how to bring about more of these changes, because any change needs committed individuals standing together in large numbers to get noticed, think occupy wall street, a small group can bring about change.  But first they have to demonstrate a concensus.