Posted on 06/21/2013 6:50:15 PM PDT by thackney
Tenaska Inc. has dropped plans for a 600-megawatt power plant in West Texas, marking the latest in a series of coal-fired projects abandoned because of cheap and abundant natural gas.
The Omaha, Neb.-based company on Friday also announced that it no longer will pursue the development of a coal-fired power plant in Illinois, saying it will shift its attention to natural gas and renewable sources.
Since Tenaska began pursuing the coal projects in 2006, several market and policy changes “have contributed to our belief that these projects are no longer viable,” said Dave Fiorelli, the company’s president of development.
The company pledged to capture at least 85 percent of its carbon dioxide under a 2010 agreement with the Environmental Defense Fund. Despite the agreement, the Sierra Club still opposed the project, saying the plant still would emit too much pollution and require too much water.
“Coal is a bad bet for utilities everywhere, and after years of fighting the inevitable, Tenaska learned this the hard way,” said Bruce Nilles, senior director of the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign. “The cost of coal will continue to rise as clean energy, especially Texas wind, gets cheaper and cheaper.”
It’s going to be a real hoot when the low information voters don’t have anywhere to plug in their “smart” phones and electric cars. LOL! Their boy is sticking it to them and they’re too stupid to even know it. His goofy windmills aren’t going to cut it.
Maybe in Obamaworld. But in the real world coal is cheap and wind is not. Texas wind is not bad but gets a higher per-megawatt subsidy (11.6%) than coal (6.9%) see http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/subsidies/ A lot of the coal subsidy was synfuel related, not a subsidy for producing electricity from coal which is still cheap and relatively unsubsidized.
Viva Lost Wages.. Viva Lost Wages.. VIVA
.. LOST .. WAGES!!!!
If I was a gamblin’ man, I’d bet ALL-IN on a carbon tax by 2020 or sooner
I wish we had adults in charge in Washington, DC.
I swear, these liberals remind me of the mindset of teenage girls, who love to lecture us about everything wrong with the world, from their teenage/lack of life experience/lack of maturity point of view.
That is percentage of total subsidies. It is not a per-megawatt comparison.
If it was per-megawatt(hour), the subsidy of wind compared to coal would be a couple of orders of magnitude higher.
Additionally, the report mentions in the fourth section that it contains none of the external costs.
The environmental costs and health costs of burning coal, and, to a lesser degree, natural gas are externalized. And of course the cost of the melt down of the Japan nuke reactor, as well as the Russian reactor were completely externalized.
These costs are externalized by socializing them.
Also, externalizing these costs is a form of subsidy. A very big subsidy. If those external costs(enviro and health) for burning coal showed up on the ratepayers' electricity bill, the bill would be a lot higher.
These costs are spread across society so the ratepayer avoids them. A subsidy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.