1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

Colorado to retool some Coal plants to burn NG

Discussion in 'Environmental Discussion' started by tripp, Mar 18, 2010.

  1. tripp

    tripp Which it's a 'ybrid, ain't it?

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2005
    4,717
    79
    0
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    This is primarily a move to improve air quality. With the coal fired Comanche 3 750 MW IGCC plant due to come on line soon (once they can get the deafening whine out of the cooling fans), the state is looking to retrofit some smaller and considerably older coal plants with natural gas. This would have the benefit of cleaning up the air quite a bit along with a reduce in CO emissions as well. Naturally the Coal industry is none too pleased, but the NG industry is so I suppose they cancel each other out.:D

    The CO energy mix is dominated by coal. NG is the second largest contributor. Wind also plays a pretty big role. There's some hydro, but it accounts for less than 10%, if I recall. There are plans to build a 212 MW CSP plant in the SW of the state starting in 2012.
     
  2. chogan2

    chogan2 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    1,066
    756
    0
    Location:
    Virginia
    Vehicle:
    2021 Prius Prime
    Model:
    LE
    Seems pretty smart to me, wish we'd see more of that. The other day I was looking at C02/KWH from coal-fired and natural gas plants, and I think it's about half. But that may have been comparing new equipment against old.

    I think things like this are a nice answer to the naysayers who tell use that carbon caps would kill us. Here we have the same amount of electricity for half the carbon. And the oil companies have found lots of natural gas in the last decade. Wouldn't pretend its the whole solution, but at today's price and supply figures, it looks fairly painless.
     
  3. rpatterman

    rpatterman Thinking Progressive

    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    756
    226
    0
    Location:
    Boulder, Colorado
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    II
    The other plus for NG plants is they can ramp up and down relatively quickly which makes them ideal for peak loads and back up for wind and solar.

    The goal is to have just enough coal fired plants for base loads and fill in for peak loads with renewables and natural gas.
     
  4. tripp

    tripp Which it's a 'ybrid, ain't it?

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2005
    4,717
    79
    0
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    and these are older, dirtier plants that they're converting. The Comanche 3 facility should be considerably more efficient and cleaner because it's an IGCC plant.
     
  5. richard schumacher

    richard schumacher shortbus driver

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    7,663
    1,038
    0
    Location:
    United States
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    Ultimately of course there will be no coal-fired power plants. The immediate goal should be to replace or retrofit them with NG.
     
  6. Wots

    Wots Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2007
    46
    9
    0
    Location:
    chicago
    Vehicle:
    2008 Prius


    I always thought we had more coal on hand then gas. Regardless, this should jack up our home heating bills.
     
  7. richard schumacher

    richard schumacher shortbus driver

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    7,663
    1,038
    0
    Location:
    United States
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    We do have a lot of coal, but the costs of its pollution make it too expensive to burn much more of it. I suspect the "coal age" will be nearly ended within 20 years.
     
  8. tripp

    tripp Which it's a 'ybrid, ain't it?

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2005
    4,717
    79
    0
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    Colorado has pretty good NG resources (we also have some coal) and there is currently a fair amount of excess supply.

    The coal fired plants that this proposal would convert or deactivate are located in the Denver metro area and have a significant impact on air quality... which means that there's a sizable impact on human health. That in turn means that the metro area probably incurs millions of dollars in healthcare costs each year that are directly related to coal fired pollution. So we may well save money. Yeah, as some point our NG prices might climb, but we'll be spending less on emergency room visits for asma (sp?) etc. Coal only looks cheap because society pays the external costs associated with it.