Prairie State Energy Campus

Prairie State Energy Campus is a 1,600 megawatt base load, coal-fired, electrical power station and coal mine near Marissa, Illinois southeast of St. Louis, Missouri. Prairie State Energy Campus (PSEC) features low levels of regulated emissions compared to other coal-fired power stations, capturing sulfur from high-sulfur coal mined nearby instead of transporting low-sulfur coal from elsewhere.[1][2][3]

Prairie State Energy Campus
CountryUnited States
LocationLively Grove Township, Washington County, near Marissa, Illinois
Coordinates38°16′40″N 89°40′4″W
StatusOperational
Commission date2012
Owner(s)Prairie State Energy Campus (consortium)
Thermal power station
Turbine technologyCoal
Power generation
Units operational2
Nameplate capacity1,600 MW

Ken Bone, a power plant worker who asked a question during a 2016 Presidential debate, is employed at Prairie State. He is a Control Room Operator.[4]

Project

Proposed and led by Peabody Energy Corporation, the project is jointly owned by public electric utilities with Peabody initially retaining 5% ownership.[5] It is operated by Prairie State Generating Company, LLC. The first 800 MW generator went online in June[6] and the second in November, 2012.[7] The project's Lively Grove underground mine is expected to produce 6 million tons of high sulfur coal per year.[8]

PSEC stated it will be "among the cleanest major coal-fueled plants in the nation"[9] through use of pollution mitigation technology, producing as low as one-fifth the levels of regulated pollutants as typical U.S. coal-fired plants.[2] Noting that projected emissions nevertheless include 25,000 tons of soot and smog-forming pollutants yearly, the Sierra Club and other organizations unsuccessfully sued to stop the EPA granting an air permit.[10]

Carbon Dioxide Emissions

During construction the Chicago Tribune asserted PSEC would be the "largest source of carbon dioxide built in the United States in a quarter-century."[5] The company projected a 15% reduction in carbon dioxide (CO
2) pollution compared with other coal-fired power plants based on its use of efficient supercritical steam generators and no emissions from transporting coal.[11]

Judging that regulatory limits on carbon emissions were not likely in the near future, Peabody chose not to employ a more expensive integrated gasification combined cycle design that could more easily be retrofitted with carbon capture technology.[12] The Environmental Protection Agency first proposed limits in March 2012. The limit of 1000 lbs CO
2 emissions per megawatt-hour electricity would require future coal-powered generating stations to capture approximately half of their CO
2 output. The limit would not apply to existing and under-construction generating stations, including PSEC.[13]

In 2020 PSEC was among the ten largest industrial sources of CO
2 in the United States. The Biden administration took office with a platform of transitioning US electrical generation to net-zero CO
2 emissions by 2035. At the 2035 target date the plant will still have decades of expected lifespan remaining.[14][15]

Costs

PSEC started delivering electricity in 2012 at prices well above market rates.[6] Some of its investors resell the energy at a loss, some raise consumer rates, and two backed out of the project.[6] PSEC's original $2 billion estimated cost attracted municipal electric utilities to invest and to sign 28 year contracts. However, as of early 2010 the estimated cost had increased to $4.4 billion, requiring investors to borrow more money and raising the projected cost of electricity to undesirable levels.[5][16] Peabody in response capped construction costs at "approximately $4 billion" excluding some costs such as coal development and transmission lines.[16][17] In January 2013, with many municipalities adversely impacted by the high prices, the SEC subpoenaed information from Peabody.[18] In a bid to exit its share of the Prairie State project, the City of Hermann, MO filed a lawsuit in March, 2015 against the Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission and the Missouri Public Energy Pool, claiming that its share of $1.5 billion in debt issued to support Prairie State imposed an unconstitutionally high level of debt on the city.[19]

Peabody divested its 5.06% stake in the project in 2016, accepting $57 million for its original investment of nearly $250 million. The buyer was Wabash Valley Power Association, a Midwest cooperative.[20][21]

See also

References
  1. Tomich, Jeffrey (January 5, 2010). "Prairie State fuels debate: Coal-fired power plant will bring jobs but symbolizes fight over climate change". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Retrieved 5 October 2010.
  2. "US: Prairie State coal-fueled power plant advances". EnerPub Energy Publisher. Archived from the original on 10 July 2011. Retrieved 5 October 2010.
  3. Poe, William (April 2004). "King Coal Mounts a Comeback". St. Louis Commerce Magazine. Archived from the original on 9 November 2009. Retrieved 6 October 2010.
  4. Herzog, Katie (October 14, 2016). "Ken Bone: "If I was Energy King …"". Grist. Retrieved October 20, 2017.
  5. Hawthorne, Michael (July 12, 2010). "Clean coal dream a costly nightmare". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 19 September 2019.
  6. Tomich, Jeffrey (June 17, 2012). "Delays, cost overruns blemish Illinois coal project". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Retrieved August 23, 2012.
  7. "Moving Energy Forward: Prairie State's Unit 2 of Power Plant Goes Live" (Press release). Prairie State Energy Campus. November 2, 2012. Retrieved March 17, 2013.
  8. "New Illinois Mines Could Boost State's Production". Coal Age. 24 March 2011. Retrieved 23 May 2011.
  9. "Clean Electricity from Coal". Prairie State Energy Campus. Archived from the original on 29 January 2009. Retrieved 5 October 2010.
  10. "Prairie State/Peabody". Sierra Club. Retrieved 18 October 2017. On October 25th, 2006, the Sierra Club, the American Lung Association and the American Bottom Conservancy joined in a petition to the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit challenging the air permit for a proposed 1500 megawatt coal-fired plant.
  11. "PSEC Overview". Prairie State Energy Campus. Archived from the original on 15 July 2011. Retrieved 5 October 2010.
  12. Romero, Simon (May 28, 2006). "2 Industry Leaders Bet on Coal But Split on Cleaner Approach". The New York Times. Retrieved 6 October 2010.
  13. Schoof, Renee (Mar 28, 2012). "New EPA pollution rules won't apply to Lively Grove". Belleville News-Democrat. Retrieved April 11, 2012.
  14. Pulver, Dinah Voyles (January 18, 2021). "Biden's climate crusade: How his plan to cut carbon emissions, create jobs could impact U.S." USA Toay. Retrieved 2021-01-22.
  15. Hawthorne, Michael (January 21, 2021). "Coal-fired power plant in southern Illinois a major obstacle to Biden's push for carbon-free electricity by 2035". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2021-01-22.
  16. Hawthorne, Michael (July 24, 2010). "Prairie State coal-fired plant to cap costs". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 5 October 2010.
  17. "Prairie State and Bechtel Announce New, Fixed-Cost EPC Agreement Providing Greater Economic Stability" (PDF) (Press release). Prairie State Generating Company, LLC. July 22, 2010. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 7, 2011. Retrieved 2010-12-30.
  18. Tomich, Jeffrey (March 11, 2013). "For tiny town, gamble on coal plant becomes a fiscal crisis". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Retrieved March 17, 2013.
  19. Barker, Jacob (March 30, 2015). "Hermann, Mo., sues power commissions over Prairie State coal plant". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Retrieved April 1, 2015.
  20. Tate, Curtis (January 22, 2016). "Peabody sells stake in Illinois power plant for fraction of investment". McClatchy DC Bureau. Retrieved October 29, 2017.
  21. "Peabody Energy Completes Sale Of Interest In Prairie State Energy Campus" (Press release). Peabody Energy. May 19, 2016. Retrieved October 29, 2017.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.