1 reply to this topic

[eds]

The low cost of natural gas,
. . . has increased economic pressure on,
. . . coal and nuclear power plants.
At the same time,
. . . less demand for electricity,
. . . has reduced the power plants' revenue streams,
. . . while environmental rules have forced dozens of older
. . . coal, and oil-fired power plants to retire early.

Should they get Federal Aid?

8-28-2017 Source:  #Energy Costs are NOT equal?

[still learning]

eds, on 28 August 2017 - 05:46 AM, said:

. . . while environmental rules have forced dozens of older
. . . coal, and oil-fired power plants to retire early.

Should they get Federal Aid?

No.
If I just read that bit that I quoted, then my reaction is "No way."

The thing is though, I'm not sure "environmental rules" have caused the early closure of coal or oil-fired power plants.  I'd like to see some examples.  Oil-fired power plants I thought have been a thing of the past here in the US for some time, long ago converted to natural gas, oil being more valuable as transportation fuel.  It is my understanding that some older, less efficient, coal fired powerplants have been shut down by owners rather expend the money for both efficiency upgrades and the concurrently required environmental upgrades (for particulates, mercury, sulfur).  Not "retired early," but "finally."  Better to build a whole new plant sometimes.

The main subject of the above linked article "energy costs are not equal" was grid reliability, 24/7 electricity availability though, not environmental rules.  We're used to 24/7 electricity here in the US, mostly don't think about it (Houston hurricane folks a current exception).  Between integrating renewables into the grid and the changing economics of fossil-fuel electricity and the future possibility of some form of CO2 regulation (not with the current US administration), maintaining grid reliability is a challenge.

Maybe some sort of Federal aid would be a good idea, but I don't know what form it should take.