EPA chief Pruitt: Coal plants necessary to ensure grid reliability

[thackney]

EPA chief Pruitt: Coal plants necessary to ensure grid reliability
http://www.utilitydive.com/news/epa-chief-pruitt-coal-plants-necessary-to-ensure-grid-reliability/442049/
May 5, 2017

The head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said coal-fired power plants are key to preserving electricity reliability in an appearance on the Fox Business network this week. 

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said utilities need to be able to store "solid hydrocarbons onsite" to call on during times of peak demand and raised concerns about the vulnerability of a power system that relies too heavily on natural gas.

Pruitt's comments come as the Department of Energy conducts a 60-day review of the nation's baseload power generation to assess whether incentives for renewable energy are undermining power reliability. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission also concluded a technical conference this week on state power subsidies and their effects on wholesale market operations. ...

..."What would happen if we had an attack on our infrastructure when you’ve diverted to natural gas almost exclusively and you don’t have coal there as a safeguard to preserve the grid?"
 
Several energy industry observers say the Trump has a "credibility problem" when it comes to the baseload study's findings: He spent months on the campaign trail promising to bring back coal jobs and criticising renewables, so the study's recommendations will be closely scrutinized.

A parallel review of wholesale market operations by FERC is expected to be more independent. Earlier this week, power stakeholders told the commission that renewable energy mandates and nuclear subsidies in eastern power markets could undermine incentives to build new generation, potentially threatening power reliability.

Discussions at the conference focused largely on how to integrate those state policies into wholesale market operations. Because many of the mandates and subsidies are driven by state climate goals, a strong consensus emerged among conference attendees of the need to price greenhouse gas emissions in power markets.....

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I happen to agree that the most reliable power generation material is one stored on site, whether it is in the form of coal, nuclear, liquid fuels or some type of underground gas storage.

Does not mean they should all be that way, though.

[Cripplecreek]

After seeing millions of dollars and many years invested in potential new coal fired plants only to see the permits withdrawn I would be pretty gun shy about putting a lot of money into building a new coal fired plant.

The Rogers City Michigan debacle is a perfect example. After more than a decade of planning, environmental impact studies, and court fights the EPA did issue the permit only to have the state regulators under Granholm with the agreement of the buyers (Consumers/DTE) declare that we didn't need the plant. Within a few weeks a wind farm was approved to produce the electricity they said they didn't need.

 Wolverine Power Cooperative did continue to fight till 2013 when the EPA reissued their permit only to have Wolverine walk away because the EPA approved them for an un-achievable emissions standard.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

After seeing millions of dollars and many years invested in potential new coal fired plants only to see the permits withdrawn I would be pretty gun shy about putting a lot of money into building a new coal fired plant.

The Rogers City Michigan debacle is a perfect example. After more than a decade of planning, environmental impact studies, and court fights the EPA did issue the permit only to have the state regulators under Granholm with the agreement of the buyers (Consumers/DTE) declare that we didn't need the plant. Within a few weeks a wind farm was approved to produce the electricity they said they didn't need.

 Wolverine Power Cooperative did continue to fight till 2013 when the EPA reissued their permit only to have Wolverine walk away because the EPA approved them for an un-achievable emissions standard.

Any type of non-renewables will be subject to that type of fight, whether it is coal, nuclear, oil or gas.

I believe the difference here is this is being touted as an issue of national security, which it is.

As far as state or local government denying permits, this will only cause higher electricity prices for citizens, so those states which are more permissive like Texas will only get stronger and more prosperous.

Since Texas has its own grid, it is in a very enviable position to take in what other states slough off.

[Fishrrman]

"EPA chief Pruitt: Coal plants necessary to ensure grid reliability"

Of course they are.

Long after the natural gas fired plants have closed because the gas played out...
Long after the nuclear plants have faded out of usage by public demand...
Long after the solar and wind schemes have proved their unreliability...

... coal will still be here, for hundreds more years.

It's not only a fuel of the past -- it's the fuel of the future, after the other stuff is gone.

[thackney]

"EPA chief Pruitt: Coal plants necessary to ensure grid reliability"

Of course they are.

Long after the natural gas fired plants have closed because the gas played out...
Long after the nuclear plants have faded out of usage by public demand...
Long after the solar and wind schemes have proved their unreliability...

... coal will still be here, for hundreds more years.

It's not only a fuel of the past -- it's the fuel of the future, after the other stuff is gone.

I don't think you understand the volume of Natural Gas available.  Particularly when you consider methane hydrates.  There is way more energy available in those than oil, coal, and traditional gas plays combined.

[EC]

How long does it take to spin up a coal fired plant, compared to a gas fired? Grid resiliency demands a pretty fast response.

How does gas get to the plant? If there's electrics involved (valves, pumps etc), do they have backup power until the plant can come online in case of a total meltdown of part of the grid?

[Joe Wooten]

How long does it take to spin up a coal fired plant, compared to a gas fired? Grid resiliency demands a pretty fast response.

How does gas get to the plant? If there's electrics involved (valves, pumps etc), do they have backup power until the plant can come online in case of a total meltdown of part of the grid?

It takes a while to spin up a coal plant from cold iron to full power, about 4-5 hours in an emergency. Everything has to be heated up slowly so differential expansion won't wreck equipment. That's why all coal fired plants are either baseload or swing units that do not shut down unless it's necessary. Same with nukes. It takes a minimum of 3-5 days to take a nuke from room temperature to full power. If not for regulatory driven delays for testing, that could be cut to 2-3 days.

[Cripplecreek]

I don't think you understand the volume of Natural Gas available.  Particularly when you consider methane hydrates.  There is way more energy available in those than oil, coal, and traditional gas plays combined.

Gas is also much easier and safer to extract. You don't have to remove mountaintops, dig massive pits or send men into mines for it. Also there isn't much in the way of waste produced by gas extraction.

[thackney]

How long does it take to spin up a coal fired plant, compared to a gas fired? Grid resiliency demands a pretty fast response.

There are different components to a complete generation supply.  Base Load needs to run all the time; this is where coal and nuclear fit well.  Long time to start up but typically efficient.  To meet the swing needs, changes from day peak to night minimum and upset conditions are better met with fast response gas turbines.

How does gas get to the plant? If there's electrics involved (valves, pumps etc), do they have backup power until the plant can come online in case of a total meltdown of part of the grid?

Most NatGas Transmission Pipelines are driven by compressors that have a NatGas engine.  They use fuel taken from the pipeline to power the compressor.  There are other electrical power needs but they typically have a back up NatGas or diesel generator on site for essential service needs.

I have been the lead engineer for design and construction of several major NatGas pipelines over the decades.

[EC]

@Joe Wooten  @thackney

Thank you both, kind sirs! 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

"EPA chief Pruitt: Coal plants necessary to ensure grid reliability"

Of course they are.

Long after the natural gas fired plants have closed because the gas played out...
Long after the nuclear plants have faded out of usage by public demand...
Long after the solar and wind schemes have proved their unreliability...

... coal will still be here, for hundreds more years.

It's not only a fuel of the past -- it's the fuel of the future, after the other stuff is gone.

You must have  been relying upon an old assessment, perhaps in Jimmy Carter days, of the amounts of coal vs natural gas.

Right now there exists no upward limit on the amount of natural gas extractable in the US.    The growth to date from unconventionals is staggering, and these are only for the early stages in just a few plays.

Since our technological revolution using horizontal drilling and staged fraccing, we now can access zones heretofore inaccessible.

To be even more dramatic:  every field ever discovered has unconventional zones in it.  That is the a lot of hydrocarbons, and most of it is in the form of natural gas.

This country should not have to worry about gas supply for many generations to come.

[Cripplecreek]

I think we're good on natural gas for a while.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I think we're good on natural gas for a while.

You underestimate with that map.

These are just the unconventional plays to date.  Some of those are liquids plays that have some gas.

They do not include any offshore horizons, where gas production is significant, nor do they encompass any conventional plays onshore.  All conventional plays have potential unconventional horizons as well.