About 70% of plants on PJM grid to become uneconomic in 2023

 
User avatar
CoalisCoolxWarm
Member
Posts: 2323
Joined: Wed. Jan. 19, 2011 11:41 am
Location: Western PA
Stoker Coal Boiler: Keystoker KA-6
Hand Fed Coal Furnace: old Sears rebuilt, bituminous- offline as of winter 2014
Coal Size/Type: Anthracite Buckwheat
Other Heating: Oil Boiler

Post by CoalisCoolxWarm » Fri. Jun. 18, 2021 3:19 pm

Penelec generation rates approved to go up in July 2021 bills...hang on to your butts


 
User avatar
anthony7812
Member
Posts: 5141
Joined: Sat. Mar. 12, 2011 2:04 pm
Location: Colley,Pennsylvania
Stoker Coal Boiler: VanWert VA 400
Coal Size/Type: Buck/Anthracite

Post by anthony7812 » Fri. Jun. 18, 2021 6:11 pm

Penelec already rapes my Arse. But then again wife and 3 daughters…. Really need to go coal dhw haha.

 
User avatar
Hambden Bob
Member
Posts: 8535
Joined: Mon. Jan. 04, 2010 10:54 am
Location: Hambden Twp. Geauga County,Ohio
Hot Air Coal Stoker Stove: Harman 1998 Magnum Stoker
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Blower Model Coal Chubby 1982-Serial#0097
Coal Size/Type: Rice-A-Roni ! / Nut
Other Heating: Pro-Pain Forced Air

Post by Hambden Bob » Sat. Jun. 19, 2021 10:46 pm

Artificial "Free Lunches" always go Belly Up. Coal has been maligned purposely to deface it as Our most plentiful and secure on shore fuel source. Enviromental Lummies,much like Jason and the Argonauts,are looking for that Golden Fleece. I do believe they're going to find it in Your Wallets... Dr. Berlin summed it up-Nice Troll! I'm ashamed I bothered to respond to it... This is,after all,a Pro Coal Site,and unashamedly and unrepentantly so....

 
User avatar
Rob R.
Site Moderator
Posts: 17980
Joined: Fri. Dec. 28, 2007 4:26 pm
Location: Chazy, NY
Stoker Coal Boiler: EFM 520
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Chubby Jr

Post by Rob R. » Tue. Jun. 22, 2021 8:28 am

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2021-6-2 ... renewables

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2018-11- ... y-part-iii

It appears that many of the costs of renewables that are thrown around do not include costs of storage, or whatever other power source is needed to pick up the slack on calm cloudy days.

 
User avatar
Richard S.
Mayor
Posts: 15183
Joined: Fri. Oct. 01, 2004 8:35 pm
Location: NEPA
Stoker Coal Boiler: Van Wert VA1200
Coal Size/Type: Buckwheat/Anthracite

Post by Richard S. » Tue. Jun. 22, 2021 9:19 am

Rob R. wrote:
Tue. Jun. 22, 2021 8:28 am
It appears that many of the costs of renewables that are thrown around do not include costs of storage, or whatever other power source is needed to pick up the slack on calm cloudy days.
I have mentioned this before and this is one of the reasons nukes and coal are in trouble. You have three basic categories of power plants. Base load, intermediary and peaking plants. Traditionally coal and nukes made up base load plants, they are run at capacity nearly continuously except for maintenance that is scheduled so only a few are offline at any given moment. Poer from these plants is the least costly because you are fully utilizing the capital investment in them.

Gas plants typically were used as intermediate and peaking plants as they are more suited for the up and down demands put on them even when the gas prices were high.

As more wind and solar comes online because of mandates the demand for power from base loads plants is waning. However getting rid of them is not an option because they need to be online to meet peak demands. Replacing them with gas is also a very expensive option because you lose the capital investment and need to invest to biuld the gas plant. Since they are not being used in that traditional role the cost per kWh necessarily rises.

The analogy I like to use here is if you had to purchase a car that can be driven 24 hours per day with some short time set aside for maintenance. The obvious and only choice is a gas vehicle, buying an electric car in addition to the gas car only increases your expenses. In addition to unnecessarily spending money on car that cannot meet your demands the cost per mile on the gasoline car also increases because the capital investment is not being fully utilized.

 
User avatar
LeoinRI
Member
Posts: 144
Joined: Mon. Dec. 24, 2018 5:59 am
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Fonderies de Lion
Coal Size/Type: Nut
Other Heating: J.S. Peckham Chicago #10, Weso, Our Glenwood 111, Sougland Excelsior 183

Post by LeoinRI » Tue. Jun. 22, 2021 9:59 am

Great references. Thanks.

 
User avatar
oros35
Member
Posts: 476
Joined: Mon. Feb. 02, 2009 3:47 pm
Location: Pittsburgh Pa
Hand Fed Coal Boiler: Cozeburn OWB burning Bit
Baseburners & Antiques: 1912 Smith & Anthony Hub Heater #215

Post by oros35 » Tue. Jun. 22, 2021 3:12 pm

anthony7812 wrote:
Wed. Jun. 09, 2021 10:58 am
Its the spent nuclear waste. If only a way to neutralize it, its over... nuclear hands down. This is coming from a Natural gas field guy. Cradle to grave even now nuclear has edge. But a natural gas compression station burning down could result in just property damage and its over. Nuclear however, hasnt had that track record on incidents. \
2 thoughts here.

Perception of nuclear is part of the problem. It's the same with an airplane vs. auto phobia. You are 19 times more likely to die driving to the airport than you are flying on the airplane. But why are so many people afraid of flying?
Statistically there are 17 deaths per year due to Natural Gas. There is less than 1 person per year that dies from nuclear power. Pretty much the same statistic as an airplane vs auto. Are you afraid to fly? If no, then why are you afraid of nuclear power? Just food for thought.
Basis of a bad track record for nuclear is false, driven by media and lack of understanding of nuclear.

Second, The total amount of spent nuclear fuel ever created in the history of US nuclear power would fit on a single football field. Safe storage of spent nuclear fuel is really not a big deal.


 
User avatar
Richard S.
Mayor
Posts: 15183
Joined: Fri. Oct. 01, 2004 8:35 pm
Location: NEPA
Stoker Coal Boiler: Van Wert VA1200
Coal Size/Type: Buckwheat/Anthracite

Post by Richard S. » Tue. Jun. 22, 2021 6:08 pm

oros35 wrote:
Tue. Jun. 22, 2021 3:12 pm

Basis of a bad track record for nuclear is false, driven by media and lack of understanding of nuclear.
The issue is you only need one major accident and that record is meaningless. You have TMI, Fukishima and Chernobyl all of which could be considered minor compared to what could of happened. The consequences of a major disaster near a major urban population are incalculable and will last for generations.
Safe storage of spent nuclear fuel is really not a big deal.
It's big deal because you need to do that for tens of thousands of years for the most radioactive material. I suppose in the future when space travel is inexpensive we can send it into the sun but until then we are stuck storing it.

I'm not necessarily anti nuke but let's not underestimate the risks and issues.

 
grumpy
Member
Posts: 12266
Joined: Sat. Jan. 02, 2010 12:28 am

Post by grumpy » Tue. Jun. 22, 2021 6:54 pm

Fukushima minor????

 
User avatar
Richard S.
Mayor
Posts: 15183
Joined: Fri. Oct. 01, 2004 8:35 pm
Location: NEPA
Stoker Coal Boiler: Van Wert VA1200
Coal Size/Type: Buckwheat/Anthracite

Post by Richard S. » Tue. Jun. 22, 2021 7:18 pm

grumpy wrote:
Tue. Jun. 22, 2021 6:54 pm
Fukushima minor????
It's minor relative to what could of happened. Fukishima and Chernobyl were very bad accidents but it's small potatoes to what could of happened. Chernobyl was much worse than Fukushima for both the amount of radioactive material emitted and other circumstances like it's location.

 
User avatar
warminmn
Member
Posts: 8108
Joined: Tue. Feb. 08, 2011 5:59 pm
Location: Land of 11,842 lakes
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Chubby Junior, Efel Nestor Martin, Riteway 37
Coal Size/Type: nut and stove anthracite, lignite
Other Heating: Wood and wear a wool shirt

Post by warminmn » Tue. Jun. 22, 2021 8:01 pm

Fukishima has yet to be over and could easily be one mishap from being the worst ever. And what about terrorists or foreign powers bombing a nuclear plant? It likely will happen to some country. I'll take any other power source before nuclear.

When Chernobyl happened there weren't many small farm animals born that lived for a long time anywhere near it. Who even knows the human cost. Now the plant is a wild place and other than a tourist destination with short visits will be no mans land for a very long time. What if it happened near a large metro area with millions of people needing to be relocated?

 
franco b
Site Moderator
Posts: 11416
Joined: Wed. Nov. 05, 2008 5:11 pm
Location: Kent CT
Hand Fed Coal Stove: V ermont Castings 2310, Franco Belge 262
Baseburners & Antiques: Glenwood Modern Oak 114
Coal Size/Type: nut and pea

Post by franco b » Tue. Jun. 22, 2021 11:01 pm

We could put the plant where there were few people, like on some hill in Freetown NY.

 
User avatar
freetown fred
Member
Posts: 30293
Joined: Thu. Dec. 31, 2009 12:33 pm
Location: Freetown,NY 13803
Hand Fed Coal Stove: HITZER 50-93
Coal Size/Type: BLASCHAK Nut

Post by freetown fred » Wed. Jun. 23, 2021 6:51 am

Damn Richard--here I thought we were bro's!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL

 
User avatar
oros35
Member
Posts: 476
Joined: Mon. Feb. 02, 2009 3:47 pm
Location: Pittsburgh Pa
Hand Fed Coal Boiler: Cozeburn OWB burning Bit
Baseburners & Antiques: 1912 Smith & Anthony Hub Heater #215

Post by oros35 » Wed. Jun. 23, 2021 9:26 am

Richard S. wrote:
Tue. Jun. 22, 2021 7:18 pm
It's minor relative to what could of happened. Fukishima and Chernobyl were very bad accidents but it's small potatoes to what could of happened. Chernobyl was much worse than Fukushima for both the amount of radioactive material emitted and other circumstances like it's location.
Chernobyl is as bad as it gets. They were a graphite moderated reactor that was an inherently unstable design. Their fuel was ejected through the roof of the building. They were an open design without a containment building. All other commercial reactors in the world are water moderated, with a containment building, and the design is night and day different in safety. Fukushima was minor compared to Chernobyl.

The world has learned from the last 60 years and events like Chernobyl. Designs have been changed to correct flaws. Even with Fukushima, there have been major design changes and response strategies implemented to ensure that even won't happen again. Yes, events can still happen, but the industry has learned from it's mistakes.

 
User avatar
Richard S.
Mayor
Posts: 15183
Joined: Fri. Oct. 01, 2004 8:35 pm
Location: NEPA
Stoker Coal Boiler: Van Wert VA1200
Coal Size/Type: Buckwheat/Anthracite

Post by Richard S. » Wed. Jun. 23, 2021 10:04 am

oros35 wrote:
Wed. Jun. 23, 2021 9:26 am
Chernobyl is as bad as it gets.
After the initial explosion the fuel was still melting through the floor into the basement which contained a giant pool of water. Had it reached that estimates suggest the resultant explosion would of destroyed the entire facility and made much of Europe/Russia uninhabitable forever as a practical matter.


Post Reply

Return to “Coal News & General Coal Discussions”