Retrofitting Old Coal-fired Power Plants, Retirement, or Replacement were Three Options Analyzed in Hot Topic Hour on July 28

This week’s Hot Topic Webinar included a discussion of a rather provocative concept – building new coal-fired power plants. Debbie Fox, an environmental attorney and director of McIlvaine’s CO₂ mitigations publications, co-hosted the session with Bob McIlvaine. Debbie reviewed the “train wreck” of environment regulations which will have an impact on coal-fired power plants over the next three to five years. These rules are likely to cause the retirement of 10-30 percent of our existing coal-fired fleet. Debbie discussed the option of replacing many of the nation’s older, inefficient coal-fired units with new ultra-supercritical units, in terms of the capital costs and corresponding environmental benefits. One participant noted than most of the cost effective retrofits have already been completed and confirmed that retirements and replacement of capacity are likely to be pressing issues in coming years.

Debbie reviewed the environmental and capital cost consequences of three scenarios. They were: replacing 9 percent, 19.9 percent, or 30.4 percent of the existing fleet with new coal-fired units instead of spending the money for air pollution control for those plants.

                    Cost of replacing Old Coal-fired Power Plants with New Ones

The oldest plants need the most air pollution control equipment. The difference between the capital cost to meet the new air rules vs. the capital cost to build complete new units is not that much. For another $100 billion you can replace 30 percent of all the plants with new ones.

This does not show the difference in levelized cost per kWh. But it would be reduced as the percentage of new plants in the mix increases. This leads to a logical conclusion. Why not replace all the old coal-fired power plants with new ones?

Bob McIlvaine led general discussion on

• Replacing all coal-fired power plants with new coal-fired power plants.

• High level agreement with environmental lobby on a path forward for the U.S.

1.      Set CO₂ limits for coal-fired power plants in 2050.

2.      Operate new fleet for as little as 25 years.

3.      High level of removal of pollutants e.g. 99% SO₂, 95% NO_x and 95% mercury, 0.01 lbs/MMBtu for particulate.

4.      Ultrasupercriticals can be the clean coal alternative without sequestration.

• Political path necessary to achieve this

1.      Bank bailout decision made in two days.

2.      Mitchell SO₂ bill in late 80s replaced overnight with cap and trade.

3.      Economic problems open the door to a new approach.
 

• Common metric to measure all harm and good.
   
• Cost of alternative forms of energy
   

1.      Wind and solar will be competitive but not now.

2.      Shale gas wells may not be so productive.

3.      Gas price will rise to historic 1 to 8 ratio to oil.
 

• Environmental impacts of alternatives

1.      Methane emissions with shale gas higher than estimated.

2.      Only unconventional gas will be produced in the U.S. in the future.

3.      Methane global warming potential should be based on 20 years not 100.

4.      An 800 MW peaking gas-fired power plant plus renewables in California is a high emissions combination.

Support data

Methane emissions are covered in Power Plant Air Quality Insights # 3

The impacts of replacing all the old coal-fired power plants in the world with new ones is also addressed in

Equivalent tons of CO₂ and Quality Enhanced Life Days are two alternative common metrics to measure all harm and good. http://www.mcilvainecompany.com/SURS/subscriber/Default.htm