Pace of coal-power boom slackens
Rising construction costs and potential climate legislation in Congress halt at least 18 proposed power plants in the past nine months.
(Page 2 of 2)
Construction abroad – notably in China and India, which are building power plants and factories at a fast clip – has led to a shortage of steel, concrete, and engineering expertise. That drives up costs, changing the construction calculus. Costs for the average new US coal-fired plant have risen by about 40 percent since 2000, according to a new EEI study.Skip to next paragraph
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
The setbacks for coal plants worry some experts. "These plants are clearly not coming in as quickly as announced," says Ken Kern, director of the office of systems, analyses, and planning at NETL. "The question we have now is: Are these coal plants going to arrive in time to meet the nation's growth in power demand?"
Forty-five new coal plants are currently listed by NETL as "progressing," meaning they are under construction or near construction, or have received some permits. Projects in late stages of development are more likely than not to be completed.
That number is not high enough to comfort Mr. Kern, who worries that the electric grid will not be as reliable as it needs to be because it will lack the capacity to meet peak demand. The National Energy Reliability Council raised similar concerns in a report this week, citing a "high degree of dependence on natural gas" in Florida, Texas, the Northeast, and southern California that, it said, could lead to power failures.
EEI's Mr. Legg describes himself as "continuing to be bullish" about the prospects for coal power, because he thinks it's the fuel most likely to supply future demand for electricity, which is forecast to rise 40 percent by 2030.
Utilities will need to add about 139 billion watts of coal-fired generating capacity by 2030 to meet demand and replace old plants being retired, according to the DOE's Energy Information Administration. That's some 278 coal-power plants at 500 megawatts each – about 12 per year for the next 23 years.
That would be an environmental disaster if the new plants use conventional pulverized coal-burning technology rather than advanced coal gasification that allows for capture and storage of greenhouse gases, says John Thompson, director of the Coal Transition Project of Clean Air Task Force, a Boston-based environmental group. The US needs to slash carbon emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 to avoid the worst effects of global warming, he says.
"We should catch our breaths – and do the right thing," he says, referring to a switch to gasification and carbon-capture technology.
"There's no question the local concerns are ratcheted up with at least the perception that these facilities have on global climate," says James Stanton, director of NERC compliance at ICF International, an energy consulting firm in Fairfax, Va. "The NIMBY stuff has always been there, but now it's not just 'not in my backyard;' it's 'not on my planet,' too."