Luminant to shut down two power-generating stations by Jan 1st. (Rule: how much, houses)

[Trainwreck20]

Luminant - News Release

Capacity Reduction
The idling of Monticello Units 1 and 2 and the derates that result from switching to 100 percent Powder River Basin coal at Monticello 3 and Big Brown units 1 and 2 will reduce Luminant's generating capacity by approximately 1,300 megawatts – about 9 percent of the company's total.

I don't know what the total state-wide percent reduction is (once you figure in other generators), but it will still be several percent. Hope next summer is not as hot!

Edit: just did a quick check, 1,300 MW is about 2% of our peak use this past summer.

[Trainwreck20]

You are saying that they supported the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)? Making them shut down two units within three months and forcing them to haul fuel from Montana instead of locally? And still spend 100s of millions on controls?

Honestly, I am sure it won't cost them anything in the long run, but it will cost the people using the electricity.....

[SVTRay]

It maybe a good time for a wind turbine or solar panel...

[bluescreen73]

Poor KK&R. They might actually have to invest some of their own money in their facilities.

While they're retrofitting these plants, why not add insulation to the ones that froze up and caused the rolling blackouts in February?

[loves2read]

what he is saying is that the power plants did not oppose the closing of the plants as much as they could have--
there is some upside to what they are doing for them--
by reducing the amount of power going out to the grid price becomes more competitive and goes up--which benefits them in the long run
plus they did not put the money into bringing the plants up to code because that would have taken money out of their coffers vs putting money in--which closing them will do

the fact that electric users will be paying more for power--maybe suffering more brown outs--that people likely will be laid off if these plants are closed
that tax money to the school districts and the cities/county will also be reduced--
that was not really a factor that held any sway for why the plants should have been upgraded and stayed in operation...
screw the people
another down side of deregulation of utilities and letting business rule itself...

[Trainwreck20]

what he is saying is that the power plants did not oppose the closing of the plants as much as they could have--

They are (and have been) vehemently opposing the rule (specifically its short time-line) that essentially forces them to close the plants

plus they did not put the money into bringing the plants up to code because that would have taken money out of their coffers vs putting money in--which closing them will do

The plants currently meet every code that applies to them. The 'code' that requires them to shut down was recently enacted, and no Texas plants were included in the original rule - Texas was added long after the comment period and just prior to the promulgation of the rule. Luminant also knows/knew that the continued operation of these plants was not likely, but they also need a little time to either build new capacity, allow others to build capacity, or have time to add on controls to possible meet the rule. You just can't suddenly add a billion plus dollars of controls (from concept to operation) in 5 months.

In the end result, Luminant will lose 9% of its capacity, so its portion of the pie will shrink. Even if it manages to get some of that money back, others operators will get portions of it, as well.

I actually support shutting down/cleaning up those plants, but the 'surprise!' manner in which it was done is extremely frustrating.

that was not really a factor that held any sway for why the plants should have been upgraded and stayed in operation

It was a huge factor, but it just can't be done before Jan 1. And I am very, very sure that EPA would be decrying the 'awful behavior' and 'lack of regard for the citizens' if they ran a day past Jan 1, much less the year or more past that time required to even begin to meet the rule.

[losttechnician]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

They are (and have been) vehemently opposing the rule (specifically its short time-line) that essentially forces them to close the plants


The plants currently meet every code that applies to them. The 'code' that requires them to shut down was recently enacted, and no Texas plants were included in the original rule - Texas was added long after the comment period and just prior to the promulgation of the rule. Luminant also knows/knew that the continued operation of these plants was not likely, but they also need a little time to either build new capacity, allow others to build capacity, or have time to add on controls to possible meet the rule. You just can't suddenly add a billion plus dollars of controls (from concept to operation) in 5 months.

I actually support shutting down/cleaning up those plants, but the 'surprise!' manner in which it was done is extremely frustrating.

It was a huge factor, but it just can't be done before Jan 1. And I am very, very sure that EPA would be decrying the 'awful behavior' and 'lack of regard for the citizens' if they ran a day past Jan 1, much less the year or more past that time required to even begin to meet the rule.

In any case, I am all for breathing cleaner air and reducing particle emissions.

How *this* was done, though.... Adding Texas to the CSAPR after the last minute, was just plain wrong. Frankly, ERCOT does not have enough capacity to replace the lost generation.

Solar panels and wind turbines look great on paper, but do the math. 720 KW wind turbines would require about 1800 units to replace that lost 1300 MW. Where are you going to put 1800 wind turbines, and can you depend on them to turn at capacity 24/7 like those coal fired steam driven turbines? Can you depend on the sun shining enough to replace that capacity?

Many wind turbine farms have turbines spaced at about 7 times rotor width, and many rotors are about 300 feet in diameter. Again, do the math, and see how much land would be needed for 1800 wind turbines. And don't forget not to put those things in migratory bird flight paths. Seems that some of those wind turbine farms have been pretty rough on the bird population.

There is a place for solar and wind produced electricity, and the amount of "green" generated electricity will continue to grow, but the time to be shutting down base load generation is not here yet. That time will come, but that time is not now.

Retrofitting these plants to meet the regulations might be possible, but look at the reality of the time frame and money required to do so. Well, the money does not matter, after all it will be a pass through expense to the customer, who will bear the costs as significantly higher electric bills.

But the time frame... Baghouses and scrubbers will be required, and for just the scrubbers..... 3 year lead time from plan engineering to commissioning, and that is assuming that the rest of the country's other coal fired plants are not in line in front of you. These scrubbers are not a little piece of equipment you can pick up at Home Depot, and there are just a handful of companies in the world that build them.

No matter how you try it, 3 year's lead time can't be crammed in the calendar before Jan 1 2012.

So what is Luminant gonna do? Close the plant, I guess.

Reduce the pollutants, and clean the air up! But do it on a realistic time table. This way might make my lights go out, and that is just not acceptable to me, or much of the population.

[TX75007]

Originally Posted by SVTRay

It maybe a good time for a wind turbine or solar panel...

Solar and wind generate less than 25% of rated load on average, have higher maintenance costs per KW generated, and do not work all the time. And all the parts need replacement in 10-15 years.

Main load coal, gas, dams, and nukes run 95-99% of the time and generate at 90-110% of rated capacity. And the plants last for 50-100 years given current SLEP techniques.

I still don't understand why people still think solar or wind are viable except as a minor source.

[losttechnician]

Moderator cut: orphaned

Okay, let's define "base load". IMHO, base-load is not so much the *method* of generation, as it is the "most used" method of generation. Agreed, that the most used method of generation is coal fired. Also, IMHO, the reason why coal fired generation is the most used (call it base load) is the $/MW cost factor.

Coal is cheaper per MW than NG, although both are available 24/7. In some systems (Luminant's is one), nuclear is cheaper per MW than coal or gas, so it is used as base load as well, but for sake of this argument nuclear won't count.

FYI, my mind is made up on the cost/MW of coal vs NG, as I do know this for a fact in the business I make a living out of. Also the reason why it is used as base load generation. After all, this is business as you said, and business is going to run the cheapest generation possible.

Base load and peak load are indeed two different cats, however peak load is totally and completely dependent on base load. If 1300 MW of base load is taken out, then it still won't be available for peak load either.

So therefore.... 1300 MW of base load generational capacity gone, is 1300 MW of peak load generational capacity gone.

No denying that, or getting around it. Peak load capacity is directly dependent on base load capacity. That means a very close relationship.

Now if base load capacity is taken out, but replaced with another form of generational capacity, then it all evens out. But the fact remains that 1300 MW of generational capacity removed from Luminant's (and by definition ERCOT's) portfolio, means there is not enough capacity to meet peak load demands with the PUC (and ERCOT) regulations for reserve capacity, and very likely not enough capacity to meet peak load demands AT ALL. Then comes the dirty words that power companies hate to use.... "Rotating outages", "Rolling blackouts", and "load shedding". Cute little euphemisms for folk's losing their TV, air conditioner, and internet access.

The State of Texas' PUC requires a 12.5% reserve capacity.
The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) requires a 12.5% reserve capacity.

No getting around either one. The PUC answers to the State, ERCOT answers to NERC (Fed equivalent), and Luminant answers to them.

So, regardless of semantics (base load/peak load) here, 1300 MW's of un-replaced generational capability in ERCOT's system is a serious issue. I won't argue the fitness of solar in the mix, because I agree with you, nor will I argue the fitness of wind generation. The only real issue here is the unanswered loss of 1300 MW of generation from Luminant's system.

Moderator cut: orphaned

Sure, that is the goal. But the goal of getting ridding of that much coal fired generation by Jan 1, 2012 is unrealistic, both from a consumer's standpoint, and a grid standpoint. I believe neither can stand the loss of 1300 MW of generation on that date.

Now a thing not mentioned is ties to other grids. With limited ties to other grids, ERCOT has an extremely limited opportunity to import electricity. They have done so in emergency situations for years, but as a dependable source of power, the ties frankly were not designed to be. And altogether, the ties still do not bring enough capacity to satisfy the sudden absence of mothballed production.

Right now, my point remains valid. ERCOT cannot handle the loss of 1300 MW of generational capacity on Jan 1, 2012.

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by losttechnician

How large of an area would be required (with today's solar technology) to produce 1300 MW, reliably enough, 24/7 to replace the loss ERCOT has forecasted?

"solar 24/7" LOL I just had to chuckle.

Seriously, all of the information Y'all are providing is interesting to me, I appreciate it.