Phasing out coal for cleaner nuclear energy is a major goal of mine, among other pro-nuclear activists...especially those of us on the left, politically, who see nuclear energy as the central energy source for a vast national public power entity once we remove energy production from the merchant (read "pirate") and investor owned utitlities. Well, that's 2 issues isn't it? Public vs private power and nuclear. We can stick with nuclear then.
Nuclear and gas are the only two baseload power sources that can replace nuclear. Renewables, while increasing its share of the load, still hasn't actually mitigated that much fossil burning, even in places like Europe where at best it's holding it's own. Nuclear can replace fossil fuel, like coal, almost on a MW per MW basis (renewables cannot do this) and, has the advantage of being able to use existing coal facilities to build from.
The Problem
Burning coal dominates the Missouri electrical scene:
Largest coal plants in Missouri (by MW capacity)
Plant Capacity CO2 emissions
Labadie 2389 MW 16,400,000 tons
Iatan 1576 MW 5,649,000 tons
Rush Island 1242 MW 6,828,000 tons
New Madrid 1200 MW 7,647,000 tons
Thomas Hill 1135 MW 8,348,000 tons
Sioux 1099 MW 6,043,000 tons
Meramec 923 MW 6,635,000 tons
Hawthorn 594 MW 5,029,000 tons
Montrose 594 MW 3,887,000 tons
Sibley 524 MW 3,252,000 tons
-----------------------------------------------------
Total: 10,177MW 63,681,000 tons
(Source: "SourceWatch")
There are, of course, dozens of other, smaller, older and dirtier plants in the State. It should be noted that the largest, Labadie, is right outside St. Louis and has been noted numerous times by the EPA for particularly dangerous levels of particulate and mercury effluent from the fly ash.
Source Watch notes that there are 11,810 MW of capacity in coal and according to the U.S. Department of Energy here, coal represents 86% of the fuel used to generate electricity. Not good.
Here are the actual stats for the state from the same source:
FUEL % of Generation
COAL 86
NATURAL GAS 3
PETROLEUM 0
NUCLEAR 9
HYDROELECTRIC 1
RENEWABLES .7
(wind/solar/biomass)
Coal clearly is the dominant source of generation in the state. (It should be noted that for residential heating, gas leads all others at about 70% with electricity 25%)
Until the recession it was expected that generation would have to increase a whopping 30% by 2030. Gas, as of now, is considered the 'best bet' for providing this. Gas of course is dangerous, kills people, gets them sick. Because there zero media coverage about this, it comes off "as clean" because it is "half as bad a coal". True enough. Which makes it "only half as clean as coal". It makes it 100 times more dirty than nuclear or renewables.
So how to phase out coal. It's clear Missouri has not taken to renewables...with a measly .7%. Clearly that number could go up...but as of now, it ain't happening. In fact the only thing that is "happening" are considerations for increasing the number of gas turbines around the state.M
Missouri is a great 'cross over state'. Located where it is, much of the gas going to the upper Mid-west, oil pipelines, transmission lines, rail lines, interstates, rivers etc all cross Missouri. It truly is the "Gateway State" in pure physical economic terms.
With coal providing over 11,000 MWs (11 GWs) of generation and putting the state of Missouri up there in terms of 'carbon footprint', clearly a phase of coal, then natural gas, is in order.
A recent decision by State has killed any chances of nuclear being financed by 'pay ahead' methods that utilities normally operate under, having the ratepayers pay a small increase through their monthly bills to finance new nuclear...and other...generation projects. Without going into the politics of this, lets examine a plan and then how to finance it, around the ban on pay-ahead financing.
The Plan
Coal plants in Missouri are spread about the state. Located by railroads, major highways, rivers and canals, building plants such as these was geographically 'natural' as these forms of transportation allowed for the spread of the power plants. This spread, too, naturally created a web, or network, for the Electrical grid as well, including the large 350 KV and above interstate tie between the Eastern US Grid and the Western Grid.
My proposal is to revive the proposed EPR build for the Callaway Nuclear Generating Station. But instead of one the State of Missiouri expidite approval to build 2 EPRs (3200MWs total), thus eliminating 2600 to 3000MWs of coal plants in the state. Agreement to shutdown the St. Louis based Labidie plant in St. Louis could be the first one, along with two of the smaller, and older ones on the list above.
The Callaway site can easily add 2 or 3 large reactors. Larger, or additional pumps to bring water from the Missouri River to a new reservoir could add recreational resources to the area and mitigate flood issues along the river. While the Callaway plant is located miles from the river, it doesn't mean flood control can't be incorporated as part of capital expenditures for the plant.
The next sites would be at existing coal facilities. A pair of AP1000s (2300MWs total) could be added to the Monstrose Station coal plant south-east of Kansas City. There is plenty of water for cooling and it's near large transmission lines. The same can be repeated at various south and north state coal station until all 11,000MWs of coal is phased out.
Given the amazing location of Missouri, they can actually overbuild for the state generation to export power south, north and east of the state, or use it to start phasing out natural gas.