106 U.S. Coal Plant Retirements Since 2010

March 5th, 2012 by Stephen Lacey

Last Wednesday was a big milestone for people who care about public health and a livable climate. Two utilities announced the planned closure of nine coal plants in Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, bringing total retirements (executed and planned) since January 2010 past the 100 mark to 106.

Two plants in Chicago owned by Midwest Generation, the Fisk Plant and the Crawford Plant, had been a key target for local activist groups. These two plants have been in operation since the early 1900′s and were last updated in the late 50′s and 60′s. Along with violating“grandfathered” (i.e. lax) air quality standards and causing hundreds of emergency room visitseach year, the two plants represented the largest source of local greenhouse gas emissions in 2010.

Local and national activists groups, along with the Mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, put intense pressure on Midwest Generation to shut the plants down.

The second set of plant closures come from the wholesale power provider GenOn Energy, which said it will close 3,140 MW of aging plants in Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. All of the plants are coal, except for one that is oil-fired. GenOn said new air quality regulations would make it difficult for the company to keep the plants operating.

A confluence of factors is making it very difficult for owners of coal plants — particularly old coal plants — to compete. A combination of high domestic coal prices, low natural gas prices, new air quality regulations, coordinated activist pressure, and cost-competitive renewables are making coal an increasingly bad choice for many power plant operators. Along with the 106 announced closures, 166 new plants have been defeated since 2002.

So just how much of an impact have these factors had on coal closures? Bruce Nilles, director of Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign sent along these numbers:

EXISTING COAL (ANNOUNCED/RETIRED SINCE JAN 1 2010)

106 coal plants, 319 units
42,895 MW (13% of fleet)
150 million MWh (8% of fleet)
162 million tons/year of CO2 (9% of fleet)
921,417 tons/year of SO2 (16% of fleet)
Average age: 55 years old
(For plants with available data – Data from Clean Air Task Force): 2,042 pre-mature deaths, 3,229 heart attacks and 33,053 asthma attacks prevented each year (about 15% of total health impacts from fleet). All together these plants retiring will save about $15.6 billion in health care costs.

So what’s going to happen to the lights when all that coal gets phased out? According to a group of forward-thinking power providers, there’s already enough unused combined cycle natural gas capacity installed to make up for over 100 GW of closures.

Of course, with questions about the life-cycle emissions of natural gas still unanswered, it remains to be seen how environmentally effective all that gas will be. But with record amounts of investment pouring into renewables and efficiency, and progressive utilities calling increasingly cost-competitive solar “the next big thing in the industry,” the forces are coming together to close the gap.

This article was originally published on Climate Progress and has been reposted with permission.

Coal power plant via shutterstock

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.

Tags: coal power plant retirements, coal power retirements, coal retirements

About the Author

Stephen Lacey is an editor at Greentech Media. Formerly, he was a reporter/blogger for Climate Progress, where he wrote about clean energy policy, technologies, and finance. Before joining CP, he was an editor/producer with RenewableEnergyWorld.com. He received his B.A. in journalism from Franklin Pierce University.

Bob_Wallace

Here’s the vehicle emission article…

http://cleantechnica.com/2012/03/09/care-about-your-heart-lungs-you-should-care-about-carbon-emissions-driving-costs-more-than-gas-prices-show/
Bob_Wallace

Nasaengtech, I can appreciate why you as someone who earns their living from coal might be reluctant to believe that your industry is causing significant harm in addition to the useful power it produces. (And thanks very much for expressing your opinion in a reasoned fashion rather than a rant.)

Let me steer you to the major study of the problems of burning coal – Paul Epstein’s highly regarded paper.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/16/usa-coal-study-idUSN1628366220110216

“Coal-fired plants currently supply about 45 percent of the nation’s electricity, according to U.S. Energy Department data. Accounting for all the ancillary costs associated with burning coal would add about 18 cents per kilowatt hour to the cost of electricity from coal-fired plants, shifting it from one of the cheapest sources of electricity to one of the most expensive.”

The paper itself is, unfortunately, hidden behind a pay wall, but being in the industry you might want to purchase copy or go to your university library and read it

Now some have argued that 18 cents per kWh in hidden costs are too high, arguing that Epstein put a too high price on dead children because they had not yet proved that they would turn out to be income earners.

Personally I don’t care to get into that argument. Devalue future earnings of those killed by coal emissions and we still are paying extra over and above what we pay at the meter. If we want to make wise decisions about our energy future we need to take all costs into account. If one source gets subsidies, add them in. If a source causes tax or health insurance premium costs to rise, add them in.

Vehicle exhaust? Absolutely. Another hidden cost of burning fossil fuel. There’s an excellent article on this site that was published in the last couple of days.

The bottom line – fossil fuels are far more expensive than what we pay in direct costs. And we need to be aware of those costs when we discuss whether clean technology is or is not affordable.

Currently PV solar, large rooftop installations in sunny locations, produces electricity at ~$0.16/kWh. That can’t compete against electricity coming from a paid off coal plant that’s producing for <$0.05. But add in even $0.12/kWh of hidden coal costs and one can see that solar has already reached grid parity with coal.

And wind, at ~$0.05/kWh, is an incredible bargain.
Jeremydotcomm

OK… I’m sure anybody who read my post is calling me an asshole hillbilly by now but here are a couple questions I have for you.
1. How are your efforts coming along to replace the burning of fossil fuels to heat homes.

2. How many jobs have they created?
- Bob_Wallace
  
  Here’s some alternatives to burning fossil fuels for home heat:
  
  1) Much more efficient homes. Insulate, weatherstrip, do all the stuff that keeps heat from leaking out. We can make existing houses much more efficient.
  
  And we can build new houses so that they need little heat aside from what is given off my the people lining inside, sunlight coming in the windows and from the refrigerator.
  
  2) Ground-effect heat pumps. Stick a long plastic pipe underground where it is “55 degrees” year ’round and use circulate water from that “moderate climate” through a modified air conditioner. (You know how much easier to heat your home when it’s 50 outside rather than 20. And how much easier to cool when it ‘s 80 rather than 100.)
  
  Use renewables to create the electricity needed to drive the compressors and pumps.
  
  I’m going to guess that there are a lot more people doing efficiency upgrades to existing buildings than are mining coal.
  
  Ground-effect heat pumps are starting to take off. I’ll bet there are a lot more folks installing those systems than are mining coal. If not now, then soon.
  
  Hilllbilly? Nope, you don’t get to use that sacred word unless you’re from hilllbilly country. Like I am. I grew up in Appalachia. I know a little bit about mining coal. It’s time to start leaving coal in the ground.
  
  Assholes are as assholes do. You don’t need to choose to be one. Feel free to discuss your ideas and your worries with us. I find that when people take time to discuss things usually all learn something new.
Jeremydotcomm

OK assholes Im a coal miner out in remote Wyoming and thats all I’ve ever done and that’s all I know how to do. So your efforts I take personally because your trying to starve my kids. And for your info, my mine is just going to start shipping the coal over to China and India who will pay alot more than the US ever did. So it’s going to still be burned just not in the US. So the only thing you did was drive utility prices up and employment down for Americans. Wow!
- Bob_Wallace
  
  Do yourself and your kids a favor and get yourself retrained as a wind technician. Right now the industry needs twice the trained workers available and the industry is growing rapidly.
  
  At the end of your working career you can look back with pride that you helped make a better life for your grandchildren and great grandchildren. You will have provided for you family and made the world a better place.
  
  (You will have also helped to make the price of electricity cheaper. Wind on the grid brings down the cost of power.)
  
  Just a friendly suggestion from an asshole…
DinAstorNY

There is only a 1% difference between shutdown and CO2 reductions. Closing down coal is good but all of the worst offenders should be first on the list.
- Bob_Wallace
  
  I’m pretty sure the worst offenders are the ones on the list.
  
  Utility companies made the decision that these plants are less efficient and too expensive to upgrade in order to meet new standards. Cheaper to shut them down and replace them with cleaner generation.