Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on August 5, 2012
Unprecedented number of US coal-fired power stations to be shut down in 2012
The Obama Administration continues to move forward with plans to completely shut down the American coal industry, as a record 57 coal-fired power stations are slated for shutdown in 2012. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), 175 coal-fired generators that collectively represent a whopping 27 gigawatts (GW) worth of electricity-generating capacity are set to retire between 2012 and 2016.
A significant uptick from previous years, this high number of shutdowns represents 8.5 percent of the total coal-fired generating capacity during 2011. It also represents a 400 percent increase in shutdowns compared to the amount that occurred during the previous five-year period, when only 6.5 GW worth of coal-fired generating capacity was nixed from operation.
Based on the data, the bulk of these 175 plant shutdowns is set to occur in 2015, when 61 plants generating nearly 10 GW worth of electricity have been indicated for shutdown. The average age of the plants to be shut down during the 2012 to 2016 period is roughly 56 years old, while the areas most affected by the shutdowns will be the mid-Atlantic, Ohio River Valley, and Southeast regions of the U.S.
Framed by many media sources as a voluntary phase-out, the coal industry is actually being gradually forced into retirement as a result of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations that specifically target coal production. Birthed during the Nixon era and amplified during the current Obama era, this forced regulatory phase-out of traditional energy sources is moving along as planned, and will likely have a continued negative impact on energy costs and availability.
“Under Obama, the EPA has proposed and promulgated the Utility Maximum Achievable Control Technology rule — more commonly known as ‘Utility MACT’ — imposing expensive control retrofits on coal-fired plants,” says U.S. News & World Report.
“The agency itself estimates the costs to the economy because of the new rule will be $10 billion per year. Private studies indicate it is more likely to be twice that, leading to higher electricity rates and, when combined with new rules on so-called ‘greenhouse gases,’ force most of these plants to close.”
Should the federal government be allowed to forcibly phase-out private coal production?
Sure, traditional coal-fired power plants are considered by many to be heavy polluters, as they emit toxic chemicals and can cause other widespread problems like acid rain. But at the same time, coal power generation, which is largely decentralized, represents a significant portion of the already-ailing American economy, and thousands of people rely on coal both for affordable energy and for employment.
Nuclear power, which was long considered to be a much cleaner form of energy production, has its own inherent problems, as was made evident with the recent disaster at Fukushima. And so-called “clean” energy production, which includes things like wind and solar, have not worked out so well either, as they tend to cost far more than traditional energy production methods; produce far less energy than is needed; and have a history of fraud and failure here in the U.S.
10 Comments on "Unprecedented number of US coal-fired power stations to be shut down in 2012"
MrEnergyCzar on Sun, 5th Aug 2012 1:49 am
Nuke plants won’t be getting as many extensions anymore either….
MrEnergyCzar
Duke on Sun, 5th Aug 2012 1:52 am
Mr Energy Czar: We can’t afford to decommission the nuke plants due to legacy costs and military needs. Plus as I’m SURE you are aware the natural gas replacing coal will run down in the next few years.
Coal will have a resurgence after all other options are exhausted. The period we are entering is called consolidation of the coal industry. Those companies strong enough to hold on now will see tremendous growth in the future.
BillT on Sun, 5th Aug 2012 2:41 am
Actually, Duke, I think we will continue to contract our energy supply in all areas. Why? Demand is also dropping. When factories moved to Asia, they took their energy use/demand with them. We now import energy in the form of ‘stuff’. Of course China uses more energy. They need it to make the stuff they export to Walmart.
Demand will continue to shrink as paychecks shrink or freeze at today’s levels. More money will be spent on necessities like food, shelter, and clothes. The 1% cannot ramp up their energy use to compensate for the 99% shrinking their’s. Think about it. The idea of constant growth is over. Contraction is the new norm, and neither capitalism nor fiat banking can exist in a contracting economy.
DC on Sun, 5th Aug 2012 7:46 am
The coal industry is in trouble, because the economy is tanking, a well known story of course. The less well known story is the energy content of coal is tanking as well. Less energy per ton means its becoming more expensive to dig it out of the ground. Takes more trainloads now then it did a few decades ago to get that same 1GW of energy. Coal boys dont talk about that much. But there happy to sell it to China, will take any coal they can get, good or bad there not picky. Sure the US govt introduced a few modest regs that should have been in place 60 years ago, but Obama has far less to do with this than the duke energy shill writing this imagines.
Kenz300 on Sun, 5th Aug 2012 4:10 pm
The old, tired coal fired plants that are being shut down have lived long past their expected useful lives.
Cheap natural gas is the reason they are closing. It is cleaner, cheaper and is more flexible when used in a power plant. The plant output can be more easily adjusted to meet demand.
MrBill on Sun, 5th Aug 2012 4:18 pm
Another example of blaming Obama when it’s the current economics of coal vs gas as Kenz300 points out, as well as coal being forced to be economically responsible for a small portion of it’s toxic emmissions. Maybe someday it will be safe for pregnant females to eat fish caught in America.
Bob Owens on Sun, 5th Aug 2012 8:27 pm
It’s time to move on to solar. It can provide the jobs we want with the energy we need without the pollution. Like it or not, soon solar will be all we will have. But will that really be so bad? I don’t think so. If I was young again I would love to have a job climbing up those windmills and fixing them. Farmers will love the income from them and we just might get to like the view of the windmills in the setting sun, turning in the breeze. Sure beats wars for oil.
Kenz300 on Mon, 6th Aug 2012 2:30 pm
Wind, solar, wave energy, geothermal and second generation biofuels made from algae, cellulose and waste are the future.
The cost of wind and solar decline every years while the cost of oil, coal and nuclear keep increasing.
Gale Whitaker on Tue, 7th Aug 2012 3:38 am
Kenz300
Have you read Kunstlers'”The Long Emergency”? He points out that it takes huge amounts of cheap oil to manufacture, install and maintain wind, solar and wave machines. I think we are looking at a future that is more like 19 century. I think we will be depending on trains and horses for transportation.
Kenz300 on Tue, 7th Aug 2012 6:11 pm
Biofuels can now be made from waste or trash. Every landfill can now be converted to produce biofuels, energy and recycled raw materials for new products. There are a lot of landfills in the world and a lot of trash. Since the trash is already being collected it provides cheap inputs to the process. We can provide locally produced fuel and local jobs. We need both fuel and local jobs.
Currently oil has a monopoly on transportation fuels. That is beginning to change. Biofuels already are 10% of the US fuel supply and growing. Electric vehicles are being introduced by almost every major auto manufacturer this year or next. CNG and LNG are growing in use to power trucks and cars. Walmart, Waste Management, Staples and others are converting their trucks to use LNG. Ford, GM and Chrysler are now selling CNG powered trucks.
Yes, oil was a wonderful resource and may may have reached its peak but we have begun to diversify away from oil.
Climate change’s impact and over population may rival Peak Oil.