US coal power enters decline, prompting efforts to save it
thehill.com
thehill.com
> With that discount now available for any new wind or solar installation — and increased regulatory scrutiny of pollution and climate impacts from coal — the economics of coal increasingly don’t make sense, a series of recent reports by IEEFA and others have found.
Good job, US Government.
Separately though, I wonder if we shouldn't keep a few of these coal plants on some type of minimum possible electricity generation. There are multiple studies that show that SMR (small modular nuclear reactors) could be placed inside discontinued coal plants, and make them zero emission power plants (see for example [1] and [2]). Since a lot of the cost of a nuclear power plant is the non-nuclear turbine and the transformers and all the stuff required to hook the plant to the grid, that would help a lot for a nuclear renaissance.
[1] https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/repurposing-fossil-fuel...
[2] https://www.utilitydive.com/news/coal-plants-retire-advanced...
Using them as thermal batteries might work though.
No need to keep them on for any of the above. Just mothball them. This does nicely reveal the actual goal of all the nuclear "advocacy" though.
Your information is dated. Two SMR's exist, one in Russia, one in China ([1]).
> produce lower temperature steam at lower head than a coal burner
That is not a problem (see [2])
> The concept underpinning this approach is the use of multi-stage compressors which are capable of uprating SMR-160’s relatively low enthalpy steam (700 psi @ 595 Deg F) to the elevated pressure and superheat needed to run the turbogenerator of a fossil power plant. The needed enthalpy boost can be modified to support continued operation of any plant’s turbogenerator, and in most cases would not require any external energy input. A provisional patent application has been filed for this innovation which opens the pathway to repurpose any coal-fired plant by replacing its coal-fired boiler with clean steam from the SMR-160 plant.
[2] https://holtecinternational.com/2023/01/10/holtecs-smr-160-n...
And naval reactors definitely are the cheap, simple energy source of the future. This is why noone has built anything else since the 50s.
A non-modular demo scale pebble bed reactor also ain't it.
But you've already revealed your hand with that comment about continuing to burn coal juust in case it's not vaporware, so why are you still bothering to pretend it was about fantasy nuclear reactors?
US exports are increasing because other countries understand the long term need for dispatchable base load.
Often overlooked in the "get rid of coal" narrative is that Coking Coal is required for the production of iron and steel.
"OUTLOOK FOR COAL REMAINS HEALTHY"
https://www.coalage.com/from-the-editor/outlook-for-coal-rem...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-04-04/how-tesla...
https://www.niskanencenter.org/the-decline-of-coal-fired-pow...
https://rhg.com/research/electric-system-reliability-no-clea...
Industry dinosaurs in dying market with an unbroken history of denying reality when it benefits them denying reality to reassure investors isn't a great argument either.