Matador said:
yup, that's the puppy...
Still sure it was the 'tree huggers' and the regulators 'changing the rules'? ;D
Since it has been local news for years, I have watched the slow motion train wreck play out. In fact I have followed clean coal technology for decades, not exactly a new concept, and good in theory. In the words of my older a brother a consultant in the power generation industry "clean coal is just impractical". Too hard, too expensive and this opinion was shared decades ago before fracking and horizontal drilling dropped energy costs so much. All of his recent utility power generation projects have used NG for years. There was a government funded clean coal research project in (Illinois ?) that was abandoned decades ago as impractical. Of course the government still "officially" supports clean coal with new research grants.
Yes, Southern Company looks like the gang that can't shoot straight, this isn't their only high profile utility project failure. They currently have one (or two) new nuclear power plants in other states suffering huge cost overruns that may not ever be completed (GA and SC IIRC). While it is easy to argue that they are responsible for the increased local utility costs, the state regulators apparently can not force Southern Company (parent company) to pony up the extra $B for the local utility's excessive debt. The burden for paying the huge pile of cost overrun debt lands on the local ratepayers (like me). The local public utility commission recently disallowed a local utility (MS Power) proposed rate increase, supposedly to shield ratepayers from the cost burden, but BZZT it doesn't exactly work that way. The local utility will continue to borrow the money for the money already spent and debt incurred. We will have to pay that all back eventually with interest. I am old so kicking this can down the road is in my personal self interest, but it just isn't prudent. Even local politicians (like the utility commission) are reluctant to make voters take their unpleasant medicine (politicians are always more interested in being reelected than doing the right thing)..
The Kemper "clean" coal plant was based on unproved experimental "clean" coal technology. Despite the onerous delays and cost overruns, I am not sure the technology even works perfectly now. AFAIK there were a handful of test runs using coal, but when the power plant was finally turned on to make electricity (years late) it was burning NG because it is cheaper than the "clean" coal process.
The plant was supposed to be in service by 2014 at a cost of $2.4B. Now another $5B down that black hole the "clean" coal part of the project has been abandoned. If this plant was built to use NG from the start, it wouldn't even cost the original $2B. I don't recall all the details and am too lazy to look them up but I recall several exchanges with regulators about how much emissions would be tolerated and the government holding a hard line or even tightening the requirements. Perhaps this will be revisited again if domestic NG prices rise to world prices, but they seem to keep finding more NG reserves so will probably remain cheaper for years.
On paper a "clean" coal plant and two new nuclear power plants seems environmentally friendly and good corporate citizenship, but the regulatory environment around both of those technologies seems pretty challenging. The big nuclear power plant technology company (Japanese I think) recently declared bankruptcy because of failed projects. This is unfortunate because new technology nuclear plants are superior for safety (due to cooling design improvements) and promise better control over fissile byproducts, attractive for bomb making. (The main reason some countries pursue nuclear energy.)
I like the planet too, and dirty coal is guilty of releasing mercury and other heavy metal toxins into the atmosphere. Expecting the first attempt at "clean" coal power generation to meet every requirement seems overly optimistic. So yes I still blame regulators, along with parent Southern Company's gross project mismanagement. The government encouraged the pursuit of "clean" coal but it is unclear whether they really supported the practical execution of same.
Anybody have a spare $5B laying around? MS ratepayers can hardly afford this, but that is the (our) present reality.
JR
PS; On the subject of mercury, a concern surrounding improper disposal of CFL bulbs (that use mercury inside), an EU commission study stated that the energy saved by the higher efficiency CFL bulbs more than offsets any mercury inadvertently released by improper handling (EU burns a bunch of coal but I expect the calculus holds for here too).
