Do we really need a coal-burning plant?

[patric]

There seems to be some dissent as to whether or not we need to build another coal-burning electric generating plant in our part of the state.
It seems electricity use is DOWN...

Surprise Drop in Power Use Delivers Jolt to Utilities

An unexpected drop in U.S. electricity consumption has utility companies worried that the trend isn't a byproduct of the economic downturn, and could reflect a permanent shift in consumption that will require sweeping change in their industry.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122722654497346099.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

Great, now we can bail out the electric utilities for building too much generating capacity...

[patric]

'Michael Morris, the chief executive of AEP, one of the country's largest utilities, says he thinks the industry should to be wary about breaking ground on expensive new projects. "The message is: be cautious about what you build because you may not have the demand" to justify the expense, he says.'

[cannon_fodder]

More expense = higher rates = more revenue = higher "reasonable rate of return."  

It doesn't really matter if the power is needed.  If they get the plant approved they are guaranteed more revenue and more than likely more profits because of it.  Our utility setup is very messed up by various levels of regulation... why else would you see NEGATIVE wholesale power prices fairly often?

[sgrizzle]

2008 was a mild year in terms of summer and winter as well as problems in the manufacturing markets. It will take a year or two to be able to tell for sure why useage is down.

Keep in mind new plants are much more efficient than older ones. A new Coal plant in SE Oklahoma could generate for a fraction of what the existing gas plants cost.

Just because you have enough cars in your household doesn't mean you never buy another one.

[patric]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

A new Coal plant in SE Oklahoma could generate for a fraction of what the existing gas plants cost.

And add a lot more Mercury and other pollutants to Tulsa's air, which we will pay for further down the road (in terms of both health and environmental penalties).
Sorry, AEP needs to concentrate on making it's existing system more reliable, and get serious about burying lines.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by patric

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

A new Coal plant in SE Oklahoma could generate for a fraction of what the existing gas plants cost.

And add a lot more Mercury and other pollutants to Tulsa's air, which we will pay for further down the road (in terms of both health and environmental penalties).
Sorry, AEP needs to concentrate on making it's existing system more reliable, and get serious about burying lines.

The plant in SE Oklahoma being discussed isn't an AEP plant...

The "clean coal" that is currently used in Europe is supposed to be better environmentally. Hard to know for sure since none have been built here.

And didn't you hear? AEP has cancelled all line burying for the near future.

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle
The "clean coal" that is currently used in Europe is supposed to be better environmentally. Hard to know for sure since none have been built here.

oh yes because you know, it is impossible to go to europe an observe the effectiveness of the clean coal technology.  We have to build it here and see it for our own eyes.[}:)]

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by inteller


oh yes because you know, it is impossible to go to europe an observe the effectiveness of the clean coal technology.  We have to build it here and see it for our own eyes.[}:)]

So what specific improvements have been made relative to coal plants built to modern EPA standards?