OLD COAL: Old coal plants are due to be retired as a result of new pollution regulations.
Image: Wikimedia Commons/Sidi762
Last month, when FirstEnergy Corp. decided to close six coal-fired power plants in its home state of Ohio and two other states, the moves became instant political ammunition for Republicans, who blamed the Obama administration's environmental regulations for the closures.
Because of the regulations on toxic power plant emissions announced last month by U.S. EPA, "500 hardworking Americans in three states will lose their jobs -- not to mention the countless indirect jobs," asserted Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio).
But the causes for the closures were not quite as simple or as immediate as that. Other forces helped push the FirstEnergy plants to the brink, according to energy experts. They include an underperforming U.S. economy, which is suppressing growth of electricity demand, and the lowest natural gas prices in a dozen years, which have made new gas-fired generation a compelling choice for utilities.
Plus, there are offsetting benefits. They begin with the potential for many more jobs in drilling, pipelines, steel, tools, chemicals and related industries -- employment that will be created thanks to the surge in development of natural gas from the Utica and Marcellus shale deposits running underneath the state's east side. The benefits also include a substantial reduction in health threats caused by the toxic emissions, EPA says.
The long, tangled history of the six plants doesn't really lend itself to a political whodunit, according to energy experts. "These decisions combine numerous factors, including future environmental regulations, power prices, gas prices, regulatory treatment of proposed expenditures, the company's financial condition, their appetite for putting in capital expenditures, and how risk-averse the companies are," said Metin Celebi, a principal with the Brattle Group consulting firm.
"There are multiple factors, and they include expected future market prices of power and gas as well as capital costs of retrofit equipment. A good portion of the coal plants facing closure are the old ones," Celebi pointed out.
"They tend to be less efficient to run, with higher heat rates, and tend to require further costs to maintain them, just to keep them operating. In addition to the age factor, most are lacking the major environmental controls. That makes them more at risk of retirement because of the costs of adding controls."
So was it declining energy prices or environmental regulation? "Clearly it is both," said Ira Shavel, a vice president of the Charles River Associates consulting firm. "Market prices are very low. A lot of coal plants can't compete with natural gas" generation, he said.
"Some of the units are fairly old, too. They are small -- all of which makes them more challenged. The small units have relatively high fixed operation and maintenance costs," Shavel said.
EPA's limits for airborne mercury and other toxic emissions, announced in December, affect 1,100 coal-fired plants across the country, 40 percent of which do not have advanced pollution controls. In response to concerns about the impact of the rule on the nation's power plants, the administration encouraged states to add a fourth year to the rule's three-year compliance timetable.
Further extensions could be granted on a case-by-case basis to meet pressing grid reliability issues, the administration said.
A corporate focus on saving larger plants
FirstEnergy spokesman Mark Durbin said the EPA requirements were the critical factor in the decision to close the plants. "It's definitely related to the new rules. ... Each of the units has to have something done to it. We couldn't justify that cost," he said.
At the same time, FirstEnergy faces substantial costs for installing added environmental controls on other coal plants that it will keep online. "Absolutely our focus is on the larger plants and what we have to do to meet the requirements," Durbin said.
See what we're tweeting about
13 Comments
Add CommentAre republicans just plain stupid or do they have severe brain damage form all the coal, oil, and natural gas polluting the air, water, and land? How noble of them to place a hand full of jobs above human health and life and the structural stability of their cities that will be damaged by the earthquakes caused by the fracking of the natural gas. It seems they will do anything to carry on Bush's legacy of death, destruction, poverty, and war to everyone except the upper 1%. The Ohio republicans should remember that they have a nuclear power plant sitting on a fault line at the Ohio River and the fracking for natural gas could bring that plant down to the ground.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe burning of fossil fuel should be outlawed in the United States and all that money put into the development and research of clean energy. In ten years, we all could be fossil fuel free.
People will be very upset when they find out the internal combustion engine will be banned.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJames.. You can't 'ban' electriciy from fossil fuels or you'd be 'banning' 70% of the USA's electricity...of which the vast majority comes from coal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCoal is the world's fastest growing source of energy and that trende will contoinue for decades. A dollar invested is cleaner coal plants is multiples more benefit for the environment than a dollar flushed down the toilet in 'feel good' renewables.
"Because of the regulations on toxic power plant emissions announced last month by U.S. EPA,..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWRONG! These standards have been in the works since the 80s and the industry KNEW what was in them. They lobbied against this for so long, killing and sickening thousands in the interim, all to pump up their quarterly profit statements. Making these standards sound like they were a surprise to the power industry is misleading at best!
"It took us five years to do that [install pollution controls]. That's just one project. Multiply that by the plants that need to have work," Durbin explained. "It could reach into billions of dollars."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat! Since you are sitting on billions of dollars in cash on hand, getting you to spend this money to hire workers and buy equipment helps the economy and lowers unemployment! Those pollution control technologies don't build themselves!
"A dollar invested is cleaner coal plants is multiples more benefit for the environment than a dollar flushed down the toilet in 'feel good' renewables."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnce again, WHERE'S YOUR SOURCE? How come you guys NEVER provide ANY evidence to back up your claims? How many times have I had to ask you for the common courtesy of sharing with all of us your source for this "surprising" information? What lifespan do you use for the "clean" coal plants and "feel good" renewable energy systems do you use in your model to reach your conclusions?
"geo", that comment isn't even worth commenting on, but I will try to give you some valuable information. Your comment sounds like a soundbite you got from Faux News, Rush Limpballs, or GW Bush.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCoal burning power plants are about 400% to 600% polluting, nuclear power plants are about 1,400% polluting - considering the dangers of the radiation and the time it takes to clean it up and it to leave the environment.
Geothermal power plants are 1% polluting, and that is because of the minerals that come up in the steam, and you can even extract those valuable minerals and resell them. One geothermal power plant in California can produce 3 tons of silver a year and about 1 to 2 tons of gold and 100 tons of lithium. You cannot see a profit in that? One geothermal power plant can produce as much energy as three nuclear power plants of equal size; even the solar field in Arizona produces more energy than one nuclear power plant and it didn't cost $50 billion dollars to build the solar ray or take ten years to start producing energy. So where does flushing the money down the toilet on clean energy come in? I think you need to get your head out of the toilet or out of the GOP's behind.
sault- You made three ranting comments in a row. Alot of exclamation points and capital letters and in the third one demand "WHERE'S YOUR SOURCE?", all without providing a single source for your own claims. Are you the pot or the kettle?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJimmy- You throw out a lot of big statements, but, to quote sault, "WHERE'S YOUR SOURCE?". Your numbers sound extremely inflated and are nice big round numbers. The kind you never get in a real study.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article seems to actually report the news, without as much of the usual slant that we've all grown to expect on this site. Bravo.
James, repubs are stupid as proven by their voting for bush and whichever of the fools they chose this time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you want facts, just google. Thing is Sault's will come out fine, jellyroll, alan not so much.
Facts are these are killing and hospitalizing people and old, not eff, labor intensive units that shouldhave been close decades ago but for corporate greed and bought and paid for congress critters.
"Postman1", if you would just read the articles here on SciAm, you wouldn't have to ask, "WHERE IS YOUR SOURCE". I do not have to give you the exact percentage that coal, oil, and natural gas pollutes when I say, "just about 400%." When you start quoting Faux News, Rush Limpballs or GW Bush, then you should always give a source because they are three really stupid sources that hate science or anything to do with clean energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLike "jerryd" said, (taken out of context) "get your head out of the GOP's behind and Google it."
jimmy- See your buddy, sault's comment number six, second paragraph. Then get your head out of the liberals' behinds. (To paraphrase you)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFacts are other than the US, Russia and Aussie land, the rest of the world runs out of coal in under 30 yrs.
EIA coal reserves website has the recent numbers.