Re: re 180,000 MW new capacity: Update

[Eugene Coyle <eugenecoyle@xxxxxxx>]

Thanks Mark,

    But I'm still wondering.  Your correspondent's last paragraph is not
credible, just on the surface.  Hundreds of units have come on line just in
the last fortnight?  Ridiculous.

    Here are some numbers from US DOE's Energy Information Agency.  And this
projection may be what Cheney relied on when he said we had to build a new
power plant a week for the next 20 years.  Even if that were to occur it
wouldn't be "hundreds in a fortnight."

EIA says that we need 1,300 plants by the year 2020.  (Not, N.B., 2003.)  This
based on an average plant size of 300 mW.  Of that total 92% would be gas
fired.Thus in 20 years, by 2020, the EIA projects about twice what your
informant says will happen by June 2003.

    Regardless of how the EIA's forecast turns out to comport with the
unfolded future, I think you can see from this that wherever the figures you
are relying on come from, they don't seem plausible.

Gene Coyle

Mark Jones wrote:

> [Eugene Coyle wondered whether plans for new power plant capacity will come
> to fruition.  Mark]
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rsalt@xxxxxxx [mailto:rsalt@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: 28 June 2001 21:35
> To: energyresources@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [energyresources] That incredible 180,000 MW new capacity:
> Update
>
> Karl, Murray, and others who were wondering:
>
> My incredulousness got the better of me and I delved into the
> breakdown of this new US electrical capacity projected to be online
> by this time (June) 2003. Here is what I learned:
>
> (1) Of the total 180,000 MW, 135,000 MW will use natural gas as its
> primary fuel. (Backup fuel is #2 fuel oil.)
>
> (2) Of the 135,000 MW fueled by NG, 55,000 MW represents peaking
> units.
>
> (3) The remaining 80,000 MW attributes to gas-fired base load units.
>
> (4) These new combustion turbines have a "heat rate" of 6500 BTU/WKH.
>     (I calculated this number back to an implied efficiency of 50%.)
>
> Assuming that a recession obviates fueling the peaking units, I
> calculate the projected increase in required NG production to be:
>
> 80,000 MW x 1000 KW/MW x 6500 BTU/KWH x 24 H/D x 365 D/Y / 1000
> BTU/cu-ft = 4.56 trillion cu-ft per year
>
> Compare this to current usage of 20 TCF/Y.
>
> Some of this new capacity will be used to retire old units,
> especially in California, that have been activated by the current
> crisis despite having heat rates as poor as 12000 BTU/KWH.
>
> The 135,000 MW represents over 1100 units. They are in various stages
> of planning, design, and construction. Hundreds have come online in
> the past fortnight. Why do I begin to see them as 21st century Moai?
>
> Regards,
> Dick in Florida
>
> ~~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~
>
> Whats a Moai?
>
> ~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~
>
> Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
> Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/