What are some threats to coal-fired boiler power stations going out of business?

Question

There is 23,000 MW of wind power planned in Texas. Can you guys think of some other reasons?

Answer 1

Upcoming carbon policy should have a big impact on coal power stations, since they are particularly bad emitters of carbon dioxide.  For example, a tax on carbon would put coal at a relative disadvantage compared to not only alternatives like wind but also to natural gas.

Answer 2

Sorry but most of that wind power is not on line yet. They are planning on 5 billion to connect them up.If the coal power goes off line we will have power like the third world countries...

Answer 3

sure--here's a "status report:"

>solar energy (today) can already compete with coal plants in cost if done on a commercial scale. And the cost is dropping--even individual (home) solar power is going to be cheaper within 10 years, and probably less time than that

>tidal power and geothermal energy are technologies tat work.  There is a lot of research going on to bring the cost down--and they are making real progress

>nuclear power plants built with modern technology will be both safe and cheaper than coal plants.

>we can cut power consumption significantly by introducing better building techniques and products like compact florescent lights (CFLs)--WITHOUT lowering our standard of living (the opposite in fact--the money saved will allow people to buy other things).

YOu can show the same pattern for the oil industry--a range of modern technology that either already is, or soon will be, as cheap or cheaper than oil.  The bottom line is that fossil fuels are becoming obsolete.

Answer 4

Wind power can't compete with coal and neither can ground based solar unless you've got much better energy storage systems then we have now (right now all wind does is reduce the CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and fool people into thinking they can solve the global warming problem without splitting Uranium).

23 GW of wind capacity probably means about 5 GW of average power given that the wind turbines don't produce power when the wind isn't blowing (which means you'll still have to have about 5 GW of reliable power to back it up and that means fossil fuels (methane probably, coal can't respond fast enough)).

The threat to coal comes from nuclear power which unlike wind and ground based solar can actually replace coal (notice how France has actually managed to get rid of coal while Germany which is investing a lot in wind and solar is still building coal plants?).  In the future fusion and space solar power will also provide threats to coal, assuming nuclear fission hasn't already wiped it out when we get them.  It wouldn't take much of a carbon tax to make coal uncompetitive with nuclear.

Answer 5

When the government stops supporting industries with out tax money.

Answer 6

That will replace maybe three coal or oil fired plants. It will help but wind and ground based solar can and will only be supplemental to major generation sources. What we really need is space based solar power plants, but because of a presidential decree by Jimmy Carter the Japanese and Europeans will probably beat us to the punch on it and 30 years from now be selling space generated power to us and reaping the profits. If it had not been for the most corrupt criminal we have ever had as president we would today be generating and selling space generated electricity over and above our needs and selling the excess to the rest of the world for profits that could run our whole economy almost tax free.

So blame the men really at fault for our energy shortage, the ones that put the United States behind the eight ball on energy, Jimmy Carter and every democrat that has served in the congress and senate for the last 30 years. Mad about taxes, complain to Carter. Mad about the price of oil, complain to Carter. Mad about anything energy concerned, complain to the man who made it so Jimmy Carter!

Answer 7

23,000Mw is a lot more than 3 power stations the average is ~1000 to 1500Mw

This is the most powerful power station in north america and it is 4000Mw

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanticoke_G...

Answer 8

its great if non poluting ways r found to make power but i just heard the chinese are building 125 new coal plants this year...2 a week!! and im sure they dont have the pollution controls our new coal plants do...i also heard that 50 % of the cars on the road in china have NO pollution controls...seems no matter what we do they are gona wreck the earth [and take us over]

Answer 9

Obanma and other misguided idiots.

btw,  how you going to get that power to the rest of the nation?

Answer 10

Most new facilities are designed with new CO2 entrapment system. Since CO2 can be sold the systems decrease thier Footprint and increase profit in time. The old operating systems are the ones they don't want to Revamp. due to the initial costs involved.

Answer 11

James, even without constant wind, 23,000 MW is a heck of a lot more than 3 coal plants.  Few coal plants exceed 1,200MW.

And Keith, no, very few new facilities are equiped with CO2 capture/sequestration technology.

Answer 12

Coal will always be one of the cheapest forms of energy-- the Chinese are building them left and right.

The only viable source for CONTINUOUS clean energy is nuclear. If we used both solar and wind with nuke backup power --- we could easily generate all the power we will ever need (for electric) far into the future. (with ZERO CO2)