• 6 minutes Trump vs. MbS
  • 11 minutes Can the World Survive without Saudi Oil?
  • 15 minutes WTI @ $75.75, headed for $64 - 67
  • 1 hour Satellite Moons to Replace Streetlamps?!
  • 2 days US top CEO's are spending their own money on the midterm elections
  • 40 mins U.S. Shale Oil Debt: Deep the Denial
  • 18 hours EU to Splash Billions on Battery Factories
  • 23 mins The Dirt on Clean Electric Cars
  • 1 hour Owning stocks long-term low risk?
  • 2 hours Can “Renewables” Dent the World’s need for Electricity?
  • 2 days Uber IPO Proposals Value Company at $120 Billion
  • 1 day The Balkans Are Coming Apart at the Seams Again
  • 2 days A $2 Trillion Saudi Aramco IPO Keeps Getting Less Realistic
  • 1 day 47 Oil & Gas Projects Expected to Start in SE Asia between 2018 & 2025
  • 2 days OPEC Is Struggling To Deliver On Increased Output Pledge
  • 13 hours The end of "King Coal" in the Wales
Alt Text

Hurricane Florence Could Send Coal Prices Soaring

While the actual impact and…

Alt Text

Trump’s Bizarre Bid To Bailout Coal And Nuclear

The Trump administration is doing…

Alt Text

Why China Can’t Shake Its Coal Dependency

China’s drive to reduce its…

MINING.com

MINING.com

MINING.com is a web-based global mining publication focusing on news and commentary about mining and mineral exploration. The site is a one-stop-shop for mining industry…

More Info

Trending Discussions

Are Coal-Fired Power Plants Set For A Boost?

Coal

U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry has come up with a controversial plan to slow the closure of coal-fired power plants, under the guise of stabilizing the power grid.

The background of the yet-to-be-passed policy dates back to April, when Perry instructed his second-in-command to develop a 60-day review that looks at how regulatory burdens, subsidies, and tax policies “are responsible for forcing the premature retirement of baseload power plants.” He also wanted to know whether wholesale energy markets adequately compensate actions that, in his view, strengthen grid resilience such as on-site fuel supply usually provided by coal and nuclear plants.

The view of Perry and the current DoE is that America's power grid would become vulnerable if more coal-fired power plants – a form of reliable baseload power – were to close down. It cites the 2014 polar vortex in the Arctic, which sent most of the country into a deep freeze and hiked electricity demand, as an example of a situation that put the power grid in jeopardy. To counteract such a threat, the energy department is suggesting that power plants with fuel on site would be a bulwark against such events.

The details of Perry's proposal to have electricity companies pay the costs for power plants that keep 90 days of fuel on site, is described in Scientific American:

Perry and the DoE issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (pdf), or NOPR, which, if enacted, would dramatically alter the power sector. The NOPR requests that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)—an independent agency that regulates electricity transmission—require utility companies to pay not just for the electricity they buy from power plant companies and supply to consumers, but also for the fixed costs associated with power plants that keep 90 days of fuel on site. That sort of “cost recovery,” as it is called, would be largely unprecedented. Related: Big Oil Urges OPEC: Keep Floor Under Oil Prices

The only power plants that keep fuel on site are coal and nuclear plants; non-renewable energy plants that produce electricity from wind and solar do not consume fuel. Natural gas plants get their fuel from pipelines not from stockpiles.

Could Perry's plan actually turn into policy? “We do not expect FERC [the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission] to reject this proposal outright,” Christine Tezak, managing director of research for ClearView Energy Partners, an energy research and analysis firm, told Scientific American. “We expect the FERC to take it seriously, if not literally.”

The article goes on to say that critics believe the electricity grid is strong enough to withstand outlier weather events, without subsidizing coal and nuclear power. The argument in favour of NOPR is that allowing coal-fired power plants to recover some of their expenses from utilities, which would likely get passed onto consumers in the form of higher rates, “would in theory restore something closer to the real value of those plants.”

By Mining.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:


x


Back to homepage

Trending Discussions


Leave a comment

Leave a comment




Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News