Why is Tampa Electric proposing to build a coal-fired unit?
With the repowered natural gas-fired Bayside Station and the addition of natural gas-fired peaking units Tampa Electric’s generation mix has shifted from predominately coal to more than 40% natural gas. Without the addition of a solid-fuel fired baseload unit Tampa Electric’s fuel mix would be more than 50% natural gas by 2013. Florida’s fuel mix is also in need of diversification; the state is two and a half times more dependent on natural gas for the generation of electricity than the nation as a whole. Due to the vulnerability of the natural gas production and transportation infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico to hurricane damage and the resulting price volatility of natural gas, Tampa Electric believes that a fuel mix for electric generation that is less dependent on natural gas and more dependent on solid fuels provides customers with better price stability and increased reliability. In addition, following the interruptions to natural gas supplies to the State of Florida in the 2
Related Questions
- IGCC is reported to be more expensive to build than a conventional pulverized coal plant. How is IGCC Tampa Electric’s most cost effective option to meet customer demand?
- Why is Tampa Electric proposing an IGCC unit and not a conventional pulverized coal unit?
- What is Tampa Electric proposing to build for baseload generation?
