Sentences with phrase «cheap natural gas plants»

The project has been plagued by billions of dollars in cost overruns, stagnant demand for electricity, competition from cheap natural gas plants and renewables, and the bankruptcy of Westinghouse Electric, the lead contractor and the designer of the AP1000 reactor that was supposed to be the foundation of a smarter, cheaper generation of nuclear power plants.

Not exact matches

She also toured Three Mile Island, walking viewers through how cheap natural gas is shutting that plant down when one of the worst nuclear accidents in history could not.

As cheap natural gas squeezes the margins of nuclear generators, there's only one company currently building reactors in the country — Southern Co., at its Vogtle plant in Georgia.

While the requirements have raised the cost of operating coal - fired plants, experts say a bigger factor in coal's decline has been cheaper natural gas.

Natural gas is still so cheap that solar has trouble competing with existing plants, but when it comes to new gas plants, solar is getting within striking distance, especially if gas prices rise more than forecasted.

Natural gas, which is critical to these Nucor plants, was cheap in Trinidad.

The reasons are familiar by now: cheap natural gas, cheap renewables, stagnant electricity demand, and old coal plants getting outcompeted on the market.

It expects to lose about $ 60 million annually on the plant because of competition from cheap natural gas.

Although plans to close the plant are purely financial, largely spurred by competition from cheap natural gas, and will save the company $ 250 million in the next five years, Cuomo has threatened legal action against Entergy.

ALBANY — The Cuomo administration's plan to save nuclear power plants will force utilities to pay for emissions credits that cover their losses in the face of cheap natural gas.

But, he said it will likely not solve the financial difficulties for upstate nuclear power plants, which have been suffering losses from the upstate - downstate bottle neck and competition from cheap natural gas.

Nuclear and coal - burning power plants across the state are struggling to compete with cheap natural gas and some have announced closures in recent months.

The nuclear industry's decline was hastened by the cheap price of natural gas and costly repairs to aging power plants.

Maxwell Ball, manager for clean coal technologies at SaskPower in Regina, which owns the plant, says that the company was surprised to learn that it would be cheaper in the long term to keep burning coal at Boundary Dam and sell the carbon dioxide to oil companies to boost production in the oil field than to build a new natural - gas plant.

Since then, cheap natural gas and shallow, easy - to - mine coal burned in traditional power plants have prevented the technique from taking off.

NuScale claims it will be able to produce power at about seven to nine cents per kilowatt - hour — roughly the same as big nuclear plants, only a few cents more than the cheapest modern natural gas — fired or coal - fired plants, and one - third the cost of a typical diesel generator.

President - elect Donald Trump has vowed to revive the flagging U.S. coal industry, but a new analysis suggests cheap natural gas and falling prices for wind and solar power mean there are few places where it makes sense to build a new coal - fired power plant.

Today the cheapest way to make H2 is in a chemical plant that breaks down natural gas.

A lot of the systems design that people are looking at — like Christopher Clack — even if you can get the renewables up to 80 percent, then you have a piece there probably natural gas «peakers» [power plants that run in periods of high electricity demand], at least based on current technology, are way cheaper than any [energy] storage.

Cheap natural gas from Pennsylvania fracking may cause petrochemical industry build green field plants in northern Appalacia.

The biggest drop was in emissions from coal — which is primarily used to generate electricity — as power plants switched to cheaper natural gas and as the use of carbon - free wind energy more than quadrupled.

[W] ith the inability of the Connecticut House to pass a bill that would have allowed the state's only nuclear power plant, Millstone, to compete on equal footing with cheap natural gas and heavily subsidized renewables earlier this month, Connecticut is now in danger of losing its largest source of zero - carbon energy.

«Increasingly, power plants are turning to natural gas because it has become abundant, and therefore cheap.

Power generators are turning away from coal for a host of reasons: In some instances natural gas is cheaper; many states are requiring utilities to generate a certain portion of electricity from renewable resources; individual cities (and even an entire Canadian province) have decided to stop purchasing electricity created by burning coal; and new Environmental Protection Agency regulations are making it more expensive and less economical to use coal plants.

But last year, cheap coal imports and low carbon trading prices negatively impacted spark spreads and squeezed natural gas — fired power plants to the margins or out of the merit order.

Coal production would ramp up as coal - fired plants are being phased out in favor of cheaper natural gas and carbon - free renewable energy.

The assumption undergirding EP's analysis was that cheap natural gas, heavily - subsidized solar and wind, and flattening electricity demand, make nuclear plants less economical everywhere, not just in deregulated markets.

The plants join a series of generators recently stricken by financial pressure primarily by competition from cheap natural gas, expanding renewable capacity, and lethargic power demand growth.

Few new coal plants are being built in the United States anyway, as utilities increasingly favor cheaper, cleaner, and newly abundant natural gas.

Showing data from financial firm Lazard and other sources, their presentation said natural gas, coal and even some nuclear power plants were the lowest - cost producers of electricity on the planet, cheaper than wind or solar.

These findings align with PJM's broader assessment of its future grid reliability as more and more coal and nuclear plants find themselves economically uncompetitive in the face of flat demand, cheap and plentiful natural gas, and a rising share of zero marginal - cost clean energy.

Many of these plants are struggling to compete with cheap natural gas and renewable energy in power markets, and granting them cost recovery would keep them from retiring, the agency argued.

But with coal - fired power plants already beleaguered by cheap natural gas prices and other environmental regulations, experts said getting there won't be easy.

In a new report from Moody's, and reported on by SNL, the ratings agency predicts that cheap natural gas could lead to another massive wave of coal - fired power plant closures over the next year and a half.

In other words, cheap natural gas is lowering the price of wholesale electricity, which is cutting into the revenues of all power plant operators.

On a per KW basis, the cheapest plants to build are natural gas at around $ 1,100 per KW.

Facing economic pressure from cheap natural gas and renewable energy, roughly one - half of U.S. nuclear plants in competitive markets are at risk of early retirement.

Regulation of carbon emissions from the power sector under provisions of the Clean Air Act depends almost entirely on the Environmental Protection Agency's determination that cheap natural gas generation is the «best available» alternative to coal power plants.

Low - cost natural gas is making gas - fired power plants cheaper and more competitive to operate, causing less cost - competitive coal and nuclear to retire.

Natural gas is still so cheap that solar has trouble competing with existing plants, but when it comes to new gas plants, solar is getting within striking distance, especially if gas prices rise more than forecasted.

Energy efficiency's stunning success in lowering carbon emissions should get more attention, and not just because it is cheaper than building new natural gas - fired power plants.

It takes six decades between the time the decision is made to go with a particular energy generation form and the time it's end of life; committing to coal or natural gas right now, today, is the less economical choice, and fiscally irresponsible, because by the time the plant is built, there will be a 50:1 ratio of cheaper solar / wind / hydro / geothermal / wave years of service committed to.

That said, we have seen a bunch of plants basically killed by the same thing that's killing coal plants, namely cheap natural gas.

In fact, not only are natural gas plants much cheaper to build, but they're ready in about half the time of coal.

Then there's «intermediate load,» with the next - cheapest tier of power plants, and at the top of that second hump, «peak load,» satisfied by (usually natural gas) «peaker plants» that are expensive to run but easy to ramp up and down quickly.

Goals like these are especially notable to the extent that they would supplant even natural gas, which is abundant, cheap, flexible and widely used to replace old coal plants as they become uneconomic and shut down.

Firstly, it is difficult to imagine how the cost of a coal or natural gas plant with CCS can ever be short - sighted cheaper (external costs externalized) than a similar plant without CCS.

The rise of cheap and plentiful shale natural gas is hastening the fall of older, coal - fired power plants.

The company announced plans to close the plants in October, saying they were having trouble competing against low power prices, cheap natural gas and Texas» growing wind and solar sector.

Thus oil / gas companies, the banks that finance them, the federal agencies that regulate them and Obama himself all parrot the hype that fracking will supply cheap natural gas to fuel US power plants for the next 100 years.