Ercot/Texas/PUC had to approve every plant that shutdown. And big shutdowns happened after Obama was out of office.


https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/more-than-4000-mw-of-coal-power-slated-for-retirement-in-texas-but-why/amp/

samurai_science said:

---

If we still had Sandow, Big Brown, Monticello, and Gibbons Creek online, we wouldn't have this problem. Obama and his war on coal caused this.

---

This drive to put up wind farms and solar panel fields is not economical if all cost are considered. Availability, subsidies, etc. make it not competitive with most fossil fuels including coal. It makes no sense to tear down a lignite plant that has been paid for due to some environmental upgrade that some unqualified agency is pushing.

We are subsidizing this renewal theory that is not economical. Nuclear is the only true way to go.

Bubblez said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

Manhattan said:

---

DamnGood86 said:

---

This is the coat of "going green".

If we rely heavily on solar and wind, what happens when solar and wind are not producing? You either experience blackouts or you have to have a very costly conventional system of sufficient capacity sitting idle in reserve, which you can fire up at a moments notice.

We told them we do not want blackouts so there you go. Enjoy your green energy and empty wallet.

---

Texas closed their coal plants because natural gas was so cheap, not because of "green"

---

Riiiiiiiight.

But China is rolling coal cause they like paying more

---

China imports a significant portion of its natural gas which is not the case for coal. That is not an issue here.

---

You guys are beyond hope. Coal is cheaper than natural gas when both are available. Government influence is the only thing that would change that.

---

And coal also spits out mercury, lead, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, particulates, and other heavy metals in far greater quantity than natural gas.

---

Irrelevant

Manhattan said:

---

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-real-costs-of-u-s-energy/#:~:text=The%20full%20cost%20of%20electricity,generated%20from%20existing%20coal%20plants.

Quote:

---

The full cost of electricity from a new natural gas plant is roughly 6.5 cents per KWh, according to a new Hamilton Project paper. This is more than 25 percent less than the full cost of electricity generated from existing coal plants.

---

---

Do you actually believe this nonsense? Serious question.

"But the real cost of that energy is, in fact, 170 percent higher. Each KWh of coal-generated electricity comes with an additional 5.6 cents of damages to our well-being. This includes about 3.4 cents in adverse health impacts, according to a recent National Academies of Science report. The remaining 2.2 cents, based on the US government's social price of carbon calculations, results from climate change-related damages."

What government involved boost to natural gas are you talking about? Keep in mind Obama was president for eight years.

Manhattan said:

---

What government involved boost to natural gas are you talking about? Keep in mind Obama was president for eight years.

---

Read the article

Coal costs 3.2 cents per KWh

Manhattan said:

---

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-real-costs-of-u-s-energy/#:~:text=The%20full%20cost%20of%20electricity,generated%20from%20existing%20coal%20plants.

Quote:

---

The full cost of electricity from a new natural gas plant is roughly 6.5 cents per KWh, according to a new Hamilton Project paper. This is more than 25 percent less than the full cost of electricity generated from existing coal plants.

---

---

Quote from the article you posted

• Consider: coal power plants provide roughly 45 percent of U.S. electricity at a seemingly bargain price just 3.2 cents per Kilowatt hour (KWh) of electricity, or enough power to run your microwave for an hour.

ETA: several posters beat me posting the truth

Read the article on Vistra, wholesale in Texas went to $25/MWh because of gas.

DamnGood86 said:

---

This is the coat of "going green".

If we rely heavily on solar and wind, what happens when solar and wind are not producing? You either experience blackouts or you have to have a very costly conventional system of sufficient capacity sitting idle in reserve, which you can fire up at a moments notice.

We told them we do not want blackouts so there you go. Enjoy your green energy and empty wallet.

---

Wind power does not work in extreme temps. Solar doesn't work well when it's cloudy or at all night.

Manhattan said:

---

Ercot/Texas/PUC had to approve every plant that shutdown. And big shutdowns happened after Obama was out of office.


https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/more-than-4000-mw-of-coal-power-slated-for-retirement-in-texas-but-why/amp/

---

Incorrect. Eroct has no bearing on if a plant closes or not. Are you daft? Approved or not the plants were going to close.

Not topic of OP, but wind generation plays the primary role in coal plant closures in Texas. Very low gas prices in 2016-2020 was the death knell. Coal competes directly with wind for off-peak generation and those prices were regularly negative 5+ years ago due to wind subsidies. Gas plants tend to be smaller and more nimble for turndown so they satisfy both base load and called upon for dispatch.

The cost of both coal and gas generated electricity is dominated by fuel costs. Coal is cheaper ($/MMBtu) than Natural Gas from that standpoint.

A lot of this discussion got derailed -

The $8B of artificial "new or over" charges was due to an ancillary service change on the grid and how they implemented. This is with the current fleet - it's nothing to do with the past. Had they not put this service in in June the impact would have been $8B less in 3 months. You read that correctly - it had an 8B negative impact in the way in which it was rolled out.

It literally did nothing besides move megawatts from on-line to off-line - these megawatts per the Bloomberg article are generators like Forney and Lamar that provide $25 power for the past 20 years for consumption - it's not new generation and ECRS was supposed to be for batteries to provide them with revenue - that was the pitch.

The market monitor and PUCT commissioners were against how this service was being operated and somehow it went forward anyway. That is why the IMM wrote a report - they never do that.

gonemaroon said:

---

A lot of this discussion got derailed -

The $8B of artificial "new or over" charges was due to an ancillary service change on the grid and how they implemented. This is with the current fleet - it's nothing to do with the past. Had they not put this service in in June the impact would have been $8B less in 3 months. You read that correctly - it had an 8B negative impact in the way in which it was rolled out.

It literally did nothing besides move megawatts from on-line to off-line - these megawatts per the Bloomberg article are generators like Forney and Lamar that provide $25 power for the past 20 years for consumption - it's not new generation and ECRS was supposed to be for batteries to provide them with revenue - that was the pitch.

The market monitor and PUCT commissioners were against how this service was being operated and somehow it went forward anyway. That is why the IMM wrote a report - they never do that.

---

So is this report getting any traction? It's hard to understand what exactly ERCOT is doing but I know our energy went through the roof this summer

I think Ken Paxton coverage kept it from spinning circles as much as it should -

Electric retail prices are so far removed from competitive levels it's embarrassing for Texas.

Manhattan said:

---

Ercot/Texas/PUC had to approve every plant that shutdown. And big shutdowns happened after Obama was out of office.


https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/more-than-4000-mw-of-coal-power-slated-for-retirement-in-texas-but-why/amp/

---

This conveniently neglects that investing in meeting rising standards for emissions is something a plant operator has to look at over the life span of the improvement. If the determination was made that they needed a 20 year solution of x dollars but the likelihood of the regulators changing the standard and making it a variable of x plus y dollars to continue to operate, the decision to shutter it makes more sense.

This is how the war on coal was won. It wasn't just 'this guy got them to close it' it was 'investing in improving/operating coal power plants is not worth the risk due to the high antipathy the Democrats have toward letting them actually continue to operate cleanly/safely.'

Edit to add: ERCOT doesn't and didn't have an ability to tell someone they have to keep operating a coal plant for 20 years. They functionally had their hands tied and had to approve the closures. That's also selective at best and functionally just a wrong talking point.

Abbot
Energy and the border

You're failure
Huge failure