Re: What is Liquidfied Natural Gas

Turning Away From Coal
Utilities are increasingly looking to natural gas to generate electricity
Article
Stock Quotes
Comments (1)
Email
Print
Save
↓ More

smaller
Larger
By REBECCA SMITH

Power companies are increasingly switching to natural gas to fuel
their electricity plants, driven by low prices and forecasts of vast
supplies for years to come.

While the trend started in the late 1990s, the momentum is
accelerating and comes at the expense of coal. Some utilities are
closing coal-fired plants; others are converting them to run on gas.

The switch is occurring globally and is getting a push from regulators
who want to limit emissions that contribute to climate change, haze
and health problems such as respiratory illness. Though efforts in
Congress to pass legislation attaching a price to carbon emissions
appear stalled for now, utilities still anticipate eventual carbon
restrictions. The Tennessee Valley Authority, for example, recently
announced a 20-year development plan that emphasizes nuclear and gas,
and includes fewer coal units.

'Migration' Occurring
"It's pretty clear that, whether it's caused by future carbon
legislation or action by the EPA, the migration away from coal has
begun," says Constellation Energy Group Chief Executive Mayo Shattuck.

Coal-burning facilities are expected to slip to 10% of total new
capacity in the U.S. in 2013, down from 18% in 2009, the U.S. Energy
Information Administration reports. Gas, meanwhile, is expected to
soar to 82% of new capacity in 2013 from 42% last year.

Natural gas also has the edge in Europe. In 2009, far more gas- than
coal-burning plants were built in the European Union—24% of new
capacity versus 8.7%.

In China and India, though, no such shift is occurring—yet. Both
nations rely on coal—an abundant local resource—for most of their
power and lack the sort of integrated gas-pipeline networks that make
switching to gas possible in the U.S. China's government has pledged
to roughly double the percentage of electricity the country gets from
non-fossil sources, to 15% from 8%, by 2020. But much of that new
energy will come from hydropower. India, meanwhile, has agreed to cut
its carbon emissions 20% from 2005 levels by 2020. But the country
doesn't have enough domestic gas to support a large-scale shift to
that fuel, although government agencies are considering increasing
imports of liquefied natural gas to take advantage of a growing global
glut.

The falling price of natural gas in the U.S., to about $4 per one
million British thermal units, has helped gas capture an
ever-increasing share of power generation. Hardly a week goes by
without a company announcing changes that push coal to the sidelines,
usually in favor of natural gas, renewables or nuclear plants.

Small Won't Survive
Most big coal-burning utilities have invested billions of dollars to
install pollution-control equipment on their largest coal-fired
plants. But they are replacing or idling smaller coal plants for which
such expenditures can't be justified.

In August, Xcel Energy Inc., XEL -0.97% based in Minneapolis, notified
regulators it wants to close a coal-burning plant in Boulder, Colo.,
and convert four units at its Cherokee plant in Denver to burn natural
gas instead of coal. Xcel says the changes would cost the company $1.3
billion but still would be $225 million cheaper than installing
pollution-control equipment on the aging coal units.

The program should help satisfy Colorado state goals to reduce
releases of nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and
mercury. The state is reviewing Xcel's plan, which the utility says
could raise customer bills an average of 1% annually for several
years.

Calpine Corp., CPN -1.12% Houston, says it will convert to gas some of
the coal-fired plants in Delaware and New Jersey that it is buying
from Pepco Holdings Inc., POM -0.58% in a $1.65 billion deal. The
units are older plants that are in need of upgrades. Calpine says it
can change the burners for less than it would cost to add
pollution-control equipment like scrubbers.

Progress Energy Inc. PGN -0.73% of Raleigh, N.C., intends to close
four coal-burning plants and replace two of them with gas-fired plants
by 2017. The company says it's cheaper to build gas-fired plants than
it is to outfit the coal units with the necessary pollution-control
equipment.

Other utilities are backing away from coal projects because the
recession is giving them more breathing room to figure out other ways
to meet future energy needs.

For example, CMS Energy Corp., CMS -1.33% Jackson, Mich., had planned
to seek regulatory approval in August to build an 830-megawatt "clean
coal" power plant in Bay City, Mich. But it has indefinitely deferred
the project, citing slack electricity demand and a forecast for
continued low natural-gas prices. As a result, the company says, it's
cheaper to buy electricity from others than to build a $2 billion coal
plant.

"We're going to monitor the gas market," says CMS spokesman Jeff
Holyfield. "But for now, it doesn't make sense."

Questions of Cost
Not everyone is willing to give up on coal, of course. Many big
coal-burning utilities are trying to find ways to use coal more
cleanly. But even they have suffered setbacks.

American Electric Power Co. AEP -0.70% failed in its bid, in July, to
get Virginia customers to pay $54 million of the cost of creating an
experimental carbon-capture-and-storage system at its Mountaineer
coal-fired plant in West Virginia. The plant is owned by AEP's
utilities in Virginia and West Virginia. But the Virginia utility
commission said it wasn't fair to levy so much of the expense on
Virginians when AEP customers in many other states who were not being
charged stood to benefit, too. AEP, based in Columbus, Ohio, is
appealing the decision.

Duke Energy Corp. DUK -0.59% has been hurt by escalating costs at a
state-of-the-art coal-gasification power plant under construction in
Indiana. The Edwardsport plant, which is more than half complete, is
expected to cost about $3 billion, or 50% more than the $2 billion
original estimate. The new cost estimate exceeds the sum that
Charlotte, N.C.-based Duke is being allowed to recover from customers.
The Indiana commission was expected to hold hearings this month.

Ms. Smith is a staff reporter in The Wall Street Journal's Los Angeles
bureau. She can be reached at rebecca.smith@wsj.com.

On 5/30/12, EARL DOYLE <lesjulia1@gmail.com> wrote:
> "...active U.S. coal mines that produced at least 10,000 short tons of
> coal during the reporting year.
> As of January 1, 2011, the recoverable reserves at producing mines
> were 17.9 billion short tons."
>
> that will last the U.S. one million 800 thousand years
>
> HOLY SHIT!!
>
> http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=coal_reserves
>
> On 5/30/12, EARL DOYLE <lesjulia1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> According to a U.S. Department of Energy Gas Hydrate Analysis , U.S.
>> gas hydrate resources alone exceed 200,000 TCF (Trillion Cubic Feet).
>> And global natural gas energy from gas hydrates may well exceed
>> 500,000 TCF.
>>
>> More recent data suggests, however, that actual global gas hydrate
>> resources may be more in the range of about 25,000 TCF to 135,000 TCF
>> as indicated in this Gas Energy From Methane Clathrate discussion from
>> Wikipedia (Note: For consistency and simplicity sake I translated the
>> Wikipedia numbers from metric scientific notation measurements into
>> the TCF figures above).
>>
>> That still far exceeds known, proved natural gas energy reserves of
>> about 6,000 TCF. It also far exceeds the total known natural gas
>> energy from all sources other than gas hydrates of about 13,000 TCF.
>>
>> To say that gas hydrates are a vast natural gas energy resource is a
>> vast understatement.
>>
>> Though recovering and bringing this form of natural gas energy to
>> market will prove challenging, it is a challenge that must be met. The
>> incredible size of these deposits holds the promise of energy supplies
>> that can last well beyond this century.
>>
>>
>> On 5/30/12, Leader of 71 <lesjulia1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> A typical LNG process. The gas is first extracted and transported to a
>>> processing plant where it is purified by removing any condensates such
>>> as
>>> water, oil, mud, as well as other gases such as CO2 and H2S. An LNG
>>> process
>>>
>>> train will also typically be designed to remove trace amounts of mercury
>>> from the gas stream to prevent mercury amalgamizing with aluminium in
>>> the
>>> cryogenic heat exchangers. The gas is then cooled down in stages until
>>> it
>>> is liquefied. LNG is finally stored in storage tanks and can be loaded
>>> and
>>> shipped.
>>>
>>> The liquefaction <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquefaction_of_gases>
>>> process
>>> involved
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups
>>> "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
>>
>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en