Chalk Point closing

puggymom

puggymom

Active Member
I'm all for cleaner energy but lets build some new plants (ones that consistently produce a reliable amount of energy) before we close the older ones down. This just reads more unemployment and stress on the electrical grid.
 
Hessian

Hessian

Well-Known Member
Would a ...

pro business Republican administration change their minds?
ie...keeping hundreds of jobs & keep our energy costs lower?

I have driven by the road to the plant for the past 28 years,...just two years ago they installed a light because of all the additional construction trucks heading down there.
So,...would I be wrong to assume that they tried to keep pace with emission regulations & EPA nazis,...and just can't do it anymore?
 
PJay

PJay

Well-Known Member
Yay! Before you know it we'll be pooing in the woods, reading by candle light and burning everything to keep warm. Can't wait!
 
NorthBeachPerso

NorthBeachPerso

Honorary SMIB
Don't worry, there'll be more than enough electricity when the 3rd reactor at CCNPP comes on-line. Until then we can just use LNG from the expansion at the Dominion plant.


What's that you say? Those things aren't happening?
 
C

czygvtwkr

Guest
In the 1990s my thermodynamics professor said coal power plants rarely close, they just are inactive except one day a year. As long as they were fired up one day a year they did not have to be upgraded to new environmental standards. He also told us about going into the heat exchanger room with shotguns to clean off the slag.
 
RPMDAD

RPMDAD

Well-Known Member
Let's see there's 2413 MW taken out of the grid plus 271 laid off employees. Sounds great for the economy, and the consumers. But oh wait MOM, is babbling on about energy wind farms off the coast of Ocean city, that will fix everything right. Even though he hasn't provided energy for one light bulb from them yet.

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1004/ML100481066.pdf
 
Last edited:
O

officeguy

Well-Known Member
czygvtwkr said:
In the 1990s my thermodynamics professor said coal power plants rarely close, they just are inactive except one day a year. As long as they were fired up one day a year they did not have to be upgraded to new environmental standards.
Click to expand...

That is how it used to work. If the plant was still 'active' one day out of the year, it was able to operate under its original pollution permits.

A couple of years ago, the goverment moved the goalposts and decided that all the plants have to be brought up to current standards. Utilities across the country applied for rate increases to pay for the work and took the tax benefits of investing their ratepayers money. At the same time, we are drowning in natural gas and NG plants <75MW need very few federal permits. So in the last couple of years, everyone is running like a chicken without a head into building batteries of 74.9MW gas plants flooding the market with electricity that is 'cheap' compared with operating a coal plant.

There are two mechanisms at work that squeeze out the coal plants: The anti-coal administration and the abundance of cheap NG.
 
Blister

Blister

Well-Known Member
Baynet got it almost half right as always.

Coal-fired units at 2 Md. power plants slated to retire - Baltimore Sun

Chalk Point added natural gas capability to its coal and oil fired units back in the 80's. The problem has been an adequate gas supply through the pipeline. The Baltimore Sun article says only that the coal fired generation will close.
If they get a sustainable supply of natural gas Chalk Points megawatt output will only decrease slightly. Dickerson has 2 combustion turbines at roughly 100MW each that could stay online.
This still would cause a loss of a large number of jobs at both plants, but not the total closure that Baynet announced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top