ShareThis Page
Report: Natural gas surpasses coal for electrical power generating capacity |

Report: Natural gas surpasses coal for electrical power generating capacity

Stephen Huba
Black & Veatch
The Tenaska Westmoreland Generating Station, which came online in December.

Combined-cycle natural gas power plants like the one that opened in South Huntingdon in December are tipping the scales of U.S. electrical power capacity more toward natural gas and away from coal, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said Wednesday.

The EIA said that generating capacity from natural gas-fueled power plants like the Tenaska Westmoreland Generating Station surpassed the generating capacity of coal-fired power plants for the first time in 2018.

As of January, U.S. generating capacity at natural gas combined-cycle power plants totaled 264 gigawatts, compared with 243 gigawatts at coal-fired power plants, the EIA said.

Unlike steam and combustion turbines, combined-cycle units heat up fuel and use the fuel-air mixture to spin gas turbines and generate electricity. The waste heat from the gas turbine is used to generate steam for a steam turbine that generates additional electricity, according to the EIA.

As of the end of 2018, combined-cycle power plants accounted for about half of all U.S. natural gas-fired generating capacity, but they provided almost 90% of total natural gas-fired generation, the EIA said.

Stephen Huba is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Stephen at 724-850-1280, [email protected] or via Twitter .

Categories: Local | Westmoreland
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.