Re:US emissions fell 2.1% in 2019
by philipkglass on Wednesday January 08, 2020 @01:29PM
(#21994288)
If you build a bunch of $2B shiny new gas facilities, as we are doing today, utilities will want to run them for decades.
They'll want to run them for decades if they remain the cheapest options. Any combination of these developments could retire them well short of their technically achievable lifetimes:
- States and municipalities implement more ambitious decarbonization laws.
- Storage-backed clean energy costs fall.
- Natural gas prices rise as unprofitable producers exit the market.
Additionally, gas plant load factors can decline even without shuttering the facility if renewables bid below their pricing much of the time. Burning half as much gas in a year is a big emissions improvement even if the plant remains in business.
Natural gas plants are less "sticky" than coal plants for a number of reasons.
They employ small numbers of people compared to coal plants, so there is less political incentive to subsidize them just to prevent job losses.
There are few, if any, new natural gas plants co-located with gas production facilities. "Mine mouth" coal power plants had an additional element of stickiness because the mining jobs and plant jobs are eliminated together when the power plant closes, amplifying the local incentives to keep coal plants running for jobs.
Natural gas plants are much cheaper to construct than coal plants, so their costs are recouped faster.
They'll want to run them for decades if they remain the cheapest options. Any combination of these developments could retire them well short of their technically achievable lifetimes:
- States and municipalities implement more ambitious decarbonization laws.
- Storage-backed clean energy costs fall.
- Natural gas prices rise as unprofitable producers exit the market.
Additionally, gas plant load factors can decline even without shuttering the facility if renewables bid below their pricing much of the time. Burning half as much gas in a year is a big emissions improvement even if the plant remains in business.
Natural gas plants are less "sticky" than coal plants for a number of reasons.
They employ small numbers of people compared to coal plants, so there is less political incentive to subsidize them just to prevent job losses.
There are few, if any, new natural gas plants co-located with gas production facilities. "Mine mouth" coal power plants had an additional element of stickiness because the mining jobs and plant jobs are eliminated together when the power plant closes, amplifying the local incentives to keep coal plants running for jobs.
Natural gas plants are much cheaper to construct than coal plants, so their costs are recouped faster.
See Table 1 in this 2016 report:
https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/powerplants/capitalcost...
Natural gas combined cycle plants have overnight capital costs of $978/kW, while the cheapest new coal option is $3636/kW.
This report from 2017 indicates that NGCC plants might be even cheaper than that:
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=31912
It says that the actual cost of NGCC plants built in 2015 was $614/kW, nearly 6 times cheaper than the estimated cost of a coal plant.