Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Coal  (Read 304153 times)

interstitial

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 159
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: Coal
« Reply #1350 on: May 29, 2019, 01:51:20 AM »


https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy/coal.html
from bp report posted by shared humanity


Looks to me like everyone but asia pacific is slowly droping or about the same.

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2984
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 313
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: Coal
« Reply #1351 on: May 29, 2019, 02:15:01 AM »
North America is going down for sure.  Europe down a smidgeon.  Others equal or up, to my eye.
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

interstitial

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 159
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: Coal
« Reply #1352 on: May 29, 2019, 03:36:59 AM »
CIS is down to.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 15406
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 403
  • Likes Given: 206
Re: Coal
« Reply #1353 on: May 29, 2019, 10:02:25 PM »
Imagine Great Britain not needing coal power for the grid.  It’s happening now!
Quote
Jamie Ratcliff (@Jamrat_) 5/25/19, 4:58 PM
This chart has blown my mind.
https://twitter.com/jamrat_/status/1132390396787613696
Chart below.

Quote
UK Coal (@UK_Coal) 5/29/19, 3:02 PM
GB National Grid: #Coal is currently generating 0.00GW (0.00%) out of a total of 34.18GW
Continuous hours without coal: 292 (12 Days 4 Hours)
https://twitter.com/uk_coal/status/1133810762961473536
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

BeeKnees

  • New ice
  • Posts: 85
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 45
Re: Coal
« Reply #1354 on: May 29, 2019, 10:10:56 PM »
Imagine Great Britain not needing coal power for the grid.  It’s happening now!
Quote
Jamie Ratcliff (@Jamrat_) 5/25/19, 4:58 PM
This chart has blown my mind.
https://twitter.com/jamrat_/status/1132390396787613696
Chart below.

Quote
UK Coal (@UK_Coal) 5/29/19, 3:02 PM
GB National Grid: #Coal is currently generating 0.00GW (0.00%) out of a total of 34.18GW
Continuous hours without coal: 292 (12 Days 4 Hours)
https://twitter.com/uk_coal/status/1133810762961473536

Sorry to disappoint but the UK has been importing electricity from other countries like Netherlands and Belgium that are still burning coal.

Exporting your coal burning isn't something to admire.

be cause

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 866
  • Citizenship .. a Lurker gets asylum
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 237
  • Likes Given: 200
Re: Coal
« Reply #1355 on: May 29, 2019, 10:35:28 PM »
.. and of course britain is still exporting coal .. oops .. and replacing what we do not burn with wood pellets that were once the habitat of armadillos .. and there's nothing green about that .. b.c.
2007 + 5 = 2012 + 4 = 2016 + 3 = 2019 ...

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1119
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 137
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Coal
« Reply #1356 on: May 29, 2019, 11:46:23 PM »
British Bullshit on Coal Reductions and Emissions

1. Replace coal with natural gas which is fine if you only count the carbon dioxide emissions. If you count the fugitive methane, reductions in climate dimming aerosols, and costs of liquefaction (for LNG) no better than coal.

2. Replace coal with wood pellets which is fine if you just lie and state that wood pellets are carbon neutral. Much research has shown them to be quite possibly worse than coal.

Quote
Wood pellets: Renewable, but not carbon neutral

https://phys.org/news/2018-03-wood-pellets-renewable-carbon-neutral.html

Quote
Most wood energy schemes are a 'disaster' for climate change

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39053678

3. Import electricity from countries that burn coal - thats counted as their emissions not yours (unless you are using a consumption basis for emissions)

Quote
The UK also has a 1GW link to the Netherlands and a 0.5GW cable to Ireland. A 1GW link to Belgium is to open early this year.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uk-electricity-generation-2018-falls-to-lowest-since-1994

4. Carry out policies such as austerity that keep economic growth stagnant since 2008 and do not support local electricity-intensive industry that gets closed down due to offshoring and import competition.

Quote
When the UK joined the EU we had a 45 million tonnes a year steel industry. Today we are battling to save an 11 million tonnes industry.

When we joined the EU we had a 400,000 tonnes a year aluminium industry. Today we have just 43,000 tonnes of capacity left.

When we joined the EU we had 20 million tonnes of cement capacity. Today we have 12 million tonnes

https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2016/06/16/how-joining-the-eu-led-to-a-big-decline-in-uk-industry/

Quote
Manufacturing accounted for 17% of the UK economy in 1990, but this fell to 11% by 2005, with services picking up the slack

Quote
The reduction in the UK’s per-capita electricity generation has saved 103 terawatt hours (TWh) since 2005, slightly more than the 95TWh increase in renewable output over the same period.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uk-electricity-generation-2018-falls-to-lowest-since-1994

6. Include financial services in GDP, when in fact they are rent-seeking not output-generating activities. The fastest growing sector of the UK economy.

Quote
Finance is Not the Economy

https://michael-hudson.com/2016/08/finance-is-not-the-economy/


Offshore wind has increased substantially, and the UK plans to replace its nuclear reactors (at an incredibly high cost) ... so some things for the Brits to be proud of. The political banning of onshore wind due to conservative NIMBYs is not such a proud thing though.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2019, 11:59:35 PM by rboyd »

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 15406
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 403
  • Likes Given: 206
Re: Coal
« Reply #1357 on: May 30, 2019, 02:11:25 AM »
Of course, you are all correct.  The U.K. should continue to produce and burn as much coal as it possibly can, because other countries burn coal so why not; and should enjoy the toxic pollution it causes while taking no steps whatsoever to reduce coal use in the country.
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 15406
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 403
  • Likes Given: 206
Re: Coal
« Reply #1358 on: May 31, 2019, 08:26:15 PM »
Quote
Carbon Brief (@CarbonBrief) 5/31/19, 10:12 AM

+++BREAKING+++

Great Britain has been running for a record TWO WEEKS without using coal to generate electricity – the first time this has happened since 1882.
The country’s grid has been coal-free for 45% of hours in 2019 so far. ...
https://twitter.com/carbonbrief/status/1134462774350962690
Graph below.

From 2016:
Countdown to 2025: Tracking the UK coal phase out
https://www.carbonbrief.org/countdown-to-2025-tracking-the-uk-coal-phase-out

Spiral graph below is from:  https://twitter.com/drsimevans/status/948534283253309440
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 15406
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 403
  • Likes Given: 206
Re: Coal
« Reply #1359 on: June 01, 2019, 07:00:28 PM »
Britain in two-week coal-free record - BBC News
Quote
Britain has not used coal to generate electricity for two weeks - the longest period since the 1880s.

The body which manages the way electricity is generated said coal was last used at 15:12 on 17 May.

Fintan Slye, director of the National Grid Electricity System Operator (ESO), said the British record for solar power had also been broken this month.

Britain broke the record for a week of no coal earlier this month , which Mr Slye said would be a "new normal".

The government plans to phase out the UK's last coal-fired plants by 2025 to reduce carbon emissions and Mr Slye said there was "still a lot of work to do".

But he added: "As more and more renewables come onto the system, we're seeing things progress at an astonishing rate."

The world's first centralised public coal-fired generator opened in 1882 at Holborn Viaduct in London. ...
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48473259
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

BenB

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 282
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Coal
« Reply #1360 on: June 03, 2019, 12:19:55 PM »
In 2009, GB used produced 147,137 GWh from natural gas, and 99,049 GWh from coal.
In 2018, the figures were 115,278 GWh and 15,379 GWh respectively. So, while being used to replace coal, natural gas use has fallen...
In fact, that 116,000 GWh reduction in coal and natural gas-fired generation has been replaced by:

~49,000 GWh increase in solar, unmetered (embedded) wind and energy savings.
~36,000 GWh increase in metered wind.
~17,00 GWh increase in biomass.
~9,500 GWh increase in imports from France
~6,500 GWh increase in imports from Netherlands.

See: https://www.ref.org.uk/fuel/index.php?tab=year&valdate=2019-06-02&share=N&pd=M


b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Coal
« Reply #1361 on: June 03, 2019, 01:19:33 PM »
These are interesting numbers. Showing that the 'gas is needed as peaker plant myth' is a myth pretty nicely.

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1119
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 137
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Coal
« Reply #1362 on: June 03, 2019, 11:36:38 PM »
These are interesting numbers. Showing that the 'gas is needed as peaker plant myth' is a myth pretty nicely.

No it doesn't, these are yearly generation numbers. Says nothing about the pattern of generation during the year. It could easily be that there is a large capacity that is used intermittently to the full when there is little or no wind and sun (plus the dispatchable biomass [wood pellets], and the on-demand imports from the Netherlands sand France).

The site that I linked to below shows the UK electricity mix, including hourly for the last month. The need for dispatchable gas (CCGT) is very obvious, with recurring periods of hardly any solar or wind generation. Without enough storage (only hydro will be able to provide the scale required for at least a decade if not longer) reliable dispatchable backup (e.g. natural gas) will be required.

http://gridwatch.co.uk/

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Coal
« Reply #1363 on: June 04, 2019, 09:35:20 AM »
No it doesn't, these are yearly generation numbers. Says nothing about the pattern of generation during the year.

I think your interpretation of the numbers is flawed.

The numbers show a decrease in gas plants while more renewables are added to the grid. That means, the need for peaker plants is lower than the peaker plant myth is trying to tell us. This logically means you can have a 100% renewable grid with less storage than expected. This is not news to the experts, but it helps to bust the myth.

As you correctly point out, the grid these days is so that if there is little or no wind and sun in your region, in some other region you have it and share the energy. The grids are interconnected. And there is still a lot of room to widen this interconnectivity.

A world grid doesn't need a single KWh of storage. Somewhere there is sun or wind!

And even if the world grid will never become a reality (which i highly doubt) there are so many different ways to store energy, it's ridiculous to think this one fossil solution could possibly be the one thing needed.

BenB

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 282
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Coal
« Reply #1364 on: June 04, 2019, 04:03:55 PM »
Just to add to what b_lumenkraft says, the aim is to reduce CO2 emissions, and the emission of other pollutants. Reducing the amount of natural gas and coal burned does exactly that. And adding renewables leads to a reduction in gas and coal-fired generation – that's what the figures show. They also clearly show that overall, coal is not being replaced by gas, it is being replaced by renewables.

If the end state involves having some gas-fired power stations in reserve that are needed very occasionally, that's no great tragedy. Emissions follow power generation, not the number of power stations. For the moment, we don't need to worry about the end state - plenty more renewables can be added to replace even more of the coal- and gas-fired generation. Let's try to get to 80% clean power (renewables+nuclear) - by then the technology will undoubtedly make it easier to replace the remaining 20% than it is today.

BeeKnees

  • New ice
  • Posts: 85
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 45
Re: Coal
« Reply #1365 on: June 04, 2019, 04:37:55 PM »
They also clearly show that overall, coal is not being replaced by gas, it is being replaced by renewables.
I can only comment on UK, but initially gas was the big jump in replacement for coal.
See the change from 2015 - 16 and that gas has stayed steady at around 40% since then. 
https://infogram.com/british-electricity-since-2012-1g502y9z1okdpjd?live

Recent weeks the coal free period has been achieved by upping the biomass to 7-8% and not through a reduction in gas or an increase in renewables.

https://infogram.com/british-electricity-over-last-28-days-1g0n2ozdd3xnp4y?live

My feeling on this is that there is an element of headline grabbing and the UK government has lost it's way. 
« Last Edit: June 04, 2019, 04:46:45 PM by BeeKnees »

BenB

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 282
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Coal
« Reply #1366 on: June 04, 2019, 05:04:50 PM »
BeesKnees, look at the figures above for the difference between 2009 and 2018. Yes it's true that both coal and gas have fluctuated in between, but their combined contribution has steadily fallen, with coal falling most, particularly in the last few years. Year-to-year fluctuations depend partly on coal and gas prices, but also on the "Carbon Price Support", which favours natural gas over coal.

In terms of whether the UK government has done a good job, I quite agree that they have been pretty awful, but the interesting thing is that in spite of the reluctance to support renewables, emissions have fallen a great deal, with renewables playing the biggest single role in that. And several very large offshore wind farms are under construction and in planning, so that trend will just continue over the coming years. The UK is also building/planning several new interconnectors with Norway, France, Denmark and Ireland, which will enable it to integrate more renewable energy. If it really tried...

Shared Humanity

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3939
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 404
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: Coal
« Reply #1367 on: June 04, 2019, 05:26:15 PM »
After increasing 1% in 2017, worldwide coal consumption expected to increase again in 2018.

https://www.iea.org/coal2018/

BenB

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 282
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Coal
« Reply #1368 on: June 04, 2019, 05:30:34 PM »
SH, not great news, but not awful either:

From the link: Global coal demand in the next five years is set to be stable, with declines in United States and Europe offset by growth in India and other Asian countries ­– though China, the main player in the global coal market, will see a gradual decline in demand. In terms of the total energy mix, coal’s contribution will decline from 27% to 25%, mainly due to growth of renewables and natural gas.

A few years ago, the mainstream forecasts all argued that coal demand would continue to expand extremely rapidly for the foreseeable future. I suspect that the forecasts continue to overestimate rather than underestimate demand for coal in 5 years' time.

Shared Humanity

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3939
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 404
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: Coal
« Reply #1369 on: June 04, 2019, 06:19:20 PM »
BenB...I do agree that we are very near or have already arrived at peak coal consumption. I hope that we start seeing a rapid decline in consumption.

BenB

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 282
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Coal
« Reply #1370 on: June 04, 2019, 06:38:22 PM »
Absolutely. If there were the political will, which in democracies includes how people prioritise the issue in their voting decisions, I believe it could happen quite quickly. Will it? Fingers crossed...

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1119
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 137
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Coal
« Reply #1371 on: June 04, 2019, 07:52:36 PM »
The numbers show a decrease in gas plants while more renewables are added to the grid.

The numbers are for output, not number of gas plants. Utilization can fall - with the same number of plants producing less overall electricity. This is quite possible with increases in renewables, as the increase in volatility of demand will reduce overall natural gas demand - BUT not reduce the peak requirement (i.e. no solar or wind production). Its the PEAK required output, not the average, that drives the required natural gas capacity. Show me actual numbers for UK natural gas electricity production capacity that have fallen and I will reconsider.

There is still some room to increase inter-country connectivity for the UK, even with possible cables to Iceland to utilize their geothermal energy. There was some talk of Germany connecting more to Scandinavia to use their pumped hydro as a "battery".

With respect to foreign solar+wind, there are periods when there is no solar (night time and the usual cloudy northern european winters) and very little wind across large areas - not just the UK. So you may end up importing someone elses fossil fuel backup production and/or nuclear.

There are other options, such as reducing electricity demand. The UK has done this through a mixture of deindustrialization and more efficient appliances and light bulbs, but could do a lot more. Also, making demand patterns more responsive to wind+solar variability - such as a greater use of storage heaters and washing machines that switch on when renewables are producing more of the power (within limits).

The required capacity for NG peaker plants will remain for much longer than we would like, the actual utilization of them will fall over time but dealing with the 2-3 day periods of little or no solar+wind over Northern Europe will still require them. Interconnectors are very expensive to build, and most definitely wont be able to replace the gas peaker plants for the foreseeable future, as with batteries.

I wish it were better, bit thats just the reality rather than a "myth".









b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Coal
« Reply #1372 on: June 05, 2019, 06:16:26 AM »
BUT not reduce the peak requirement (i.e. no solar or wind production).

So tell me, why can't storage (i.e. pumped (hydro) storage, batteries, power to gas, etc) not be used for peak requirement?

BenB

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 282
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Coal
« Reply #1373 on: June 05, 2019, 12:11:28 PM »
Also rboyd, why does it matter if there are lots of natural gas-fired power plants sitting (relatively) idle?

Idle gas plants don't produce pollution.
Idle gas plants don't cost much - capital costs have already been paid, and operation and maintenance costs are low. Fuel costs vary with use.

In the long run I'm sure most of them will be closed down and replaced by the things that b_lum mentions, but in the short to medium term, if we have them, why not use them when needed (which will be increasingly rarely)?

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Coal
« Reply #1374 on: June 05, 2019, 12:26:21 PM »
Sure! During the transition phase they will be closed in a way so it doesn't hurt the grid.

That's a given. Of course, no one is arguing to just turn them all off without any plan, not even me. ;)

All i'm saying is, there is a plan, it is technologically possible, and at the end of the day, we even save a shitton of money (externalities).


BenB

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 282
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Coal
« Reply #1375 on: June 05, 2019, 01:06:12 PM »
Totally agree, b_lum, I'm not arguing with you, I'm just challenging rboyd's assertion that if renewable generation doesn't reduce the number of (potentially) operational gas-fired power stations, it somehow doesn't count or isn't doing any good.

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Coal
« Reply #1376 on: June 05, 2019, 01:13:39 PM »
+1 :)

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 15406
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 403
  • Likes Given: 206
Re: Coal
« Reply #1377 on: June 06, 2019, 12:24:37 AM »
This achievement represents a huge cultural shift for the UK, in addition to the physical change.

Quote
UK Coal (@UK_Coal) 6/4/19, 4:33 PM
This #Coal free run ended at 18 Days 6 Hours 10 Minutes.

This is the longest run without coal for Great Britain since 1882.

Generation during this time was met by: Gas 40%, Nuclear 20%, Wind 13%, Imports 11%, Biomass 8%, Solar 7%, Large Hydro <1%, Storage <1%
https://twitter.com/uk_coal/status/1136008160567877633
Charts below.
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Coal
« Reply #1378 on: June 06, 2019, 09:22:56 AM »
Turns out, the UK is using coal as peaker plants...  ;D  ;)

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 15406
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 403
  • Likes Given: 206
Re: Coal
« Reply #1379 on: June 06, 2019, 03:18:34 PM »
Turns out, the UK is using coal as peaker plants...  ;D  ;)

 ;D  +1
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

bluice

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 130
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 154
Re: Coal
« Reply #1380 on: June 06, 2019, 03:55:39 PM »
So tell me, why can't storage (i.e. pumped (hydro) storage, batteries, power to gas, etc) not be used for peak requirement?
Pumped hydro is a scarce resource that cannot be built everywhere. Large scale hydro also has a massive environmental footprint.

Batteries and power to gas are novelties that don't exist in grid scale solutions or would cost prohibitively. This may change in the long run but in the long run we are all dead.

Doubling the nominal renewable capacity by a backup capacity of any kind makes otherwise competitive RE a lot more expensive.

I won't start to advocate nuclear here because it doesn't lead to meaningful conversation (I agree to disagree here) but we have to understand converting to zero carbon is difficult and expensive. RE's intermittency is a real issue and there is no simple solution around it. That's why adding a lot of RE does not equal to large enough reduction in emissions.
In PIOMAS we trust

BenB

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 282
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Coal
« Reply #1381 on: June 06, 2019, 04:24:08 PM »
bluice, you're repeating a lot of arguments that get frequently made, and frequently rebutted.

The UK has 4 GW of interconnectors and another 8 GW under construction or planning:

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/electricity/transmission-networks/electricity-interconnectors

Demand rarely rises above 40 GW and is on a downward trend, although EVs may reverse this. 12 GW is 30% of 40GW, so 30% of a worst-case scenario is covered through interconnectors. This only includes interconnectors planned at the moment, and due for completion by 2022, so it could obviously go much higher than this in the long term.

Demand side response (DSR) can provide a significant amount of spare capacity for short-term spikes in demand and/or drops in renewable generation. Lots of power companies are investing heavily in this, so that even relatively small-scale users can take part in this market. EVs and vehicle-to-grid technology will potentially play an important role here.

Grid-scale batteries do exist, and are increasingly being deployed. Not on a huge scale yet, but growing. Li batteries is the main technology at the moment, but lots of other technologies are being tested and deployed on a small scale.

In addition, you have existing hydro (including pump-back and pumped storage), which can be turned on and off in response to changes in demand, nuclear and, as has been said a few times already on this thread (if my memory serves me right), existing natural gas-fired power stations that can step in to cover short-term requirements.

Finally, using arguments about why renewables will never cover 100% of demand when most countries are in the 10-30% range is also a bit of a straw man. It will take us decades at current rates to get to 80% let alone 100%. Let's speed up deployment and get to 60%+ as quickly as possible. That's when things start getting a bit trickier, but technology will almost certainly have caught up by then.

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Coal
« Reply #1382 on: June 06, 2019, 05:07:18 PM »
Agreed, Ben.


We had this talk already, Bluice. I provided multiple links with reliable studies by neutral sources debunking all your points made above.

Haven't you read any of them?

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1119
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 137
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Coal
« Reply #1383 on: June 06, 2019, 07:42:19 PM »
Totally agree, b_lum, I'm not arguing with you, I'm just challenging rboyd's assertion that if renewable generation doesn't reduce the number of (potentially) operational gas-fired power stations, it somehow doesn't count or isn't doing any good.

I did not assert this, I asserted that the capacity required for NG plants may not decrease given that there will periods with no/very low wind and no solar production - debunking the assertion that the need for such plants was a myth (except in countries like Canada which have a large % of hydro available). I am very happy that the average usage of coal and natural gas in the UK is falling, as it reduces GHG emissions.

I am very much for increases in renewables, as I am also very much for accuracy and validation of statements made about the level of complexity and scope/scale of actions required to remove fossil fuels completely. The higher percentage share of solar and pv, the harder things get - in the absence of large scale hydro or batteries (at least a decade if not more away), or the ability to borrow from bigger neighbours (as with Denmark).

There are also the socio-economic issues, e.g. the coal miners in Germany. In this respect, Margaret Thatcher's politically-driven destruction of the UK coal mining industry very much facilitated the rapid phasing out of coal in the UK. There will also be the ongoing issue of how to keep the NG plants in place as their average utilization rates continue to decrease.

I will continue to be a "royal pain in the arse" to anyone making statements that are not backed up by reality, and am more than happy to be proven wrong (as I have been on this forum).

SteveMDFP

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1419
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 176
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Coal
« Reply #1384 on: June 06, 2019, 08:03:22 PM »

Doubling the nominal renewable capacity by a backup capacity of any kind makes otherwise competitive RE a lot more expensive.
 

Probably true.  But expensive RE is much cheaper than continued environmental destruction.  A proper carbon fee would accelerate the transition, and accelerate initiatives on efficiency.

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1119
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 137
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Coal
« Reply #1385 on: June 06, 2019, 08:23:13 PM »
If there is no/very little wind and sun then multiplying the capacity does not solve the backup problem.

Quote
The energy mix is becoming increasingly green, as the shares of wind and solar power are rapidly rising. Depending on the weather, they can now provide a significant portion of the electricity supply. But what happens when there is no wind to blow away the clouds?

Thick clouds cover the winter skies over huge swathes of Germany. And there’s nearly no wind to blow them away. This dreary time of year weighs on some people’s mood. But for renewables, it’s like a knock-out punch.

That’s exactly what happened in January 2017: from 17 to 25 January, thick clouds allowed almost no sunlight to get through to solar panels in Southern Germany. At the same time, extended lulls were registered in the North. As a result, electricity generation from the wind and sun almost came to a standstill. This phenomenon is referred to as the ‘dark doldrums’ and it once again highlighted how dependent the energy transition is on the weather. According to experts, such dark doldrums can occur several times a year.

Quote
The larger the area in question, the higher the likelihood that enough sun and wind will always be available for electricity generation somewhere. Energy from one region can then be used to cover shortfalls in other regions. Accordingly, a very high level of supply security could be achieved with a pan-European power distribution system.

https://www.en-former.com/en/dark-doldrums-when-wind-and-sun-take-a-break/

I am no fan of climate-changer denier Euan Mearns, but he is very thorough in doing the math to validate claims like the one above. The attached link is for his analysis of Spain+Germany+UK+France+Denmark+Ireland+Belgium+Finland+Czech Republic for wind speeds. Even with all these countries attached, there are periods of little or no wind energy availability (plus cloudy and/or nighttime). If anyone has an analysis that includes more southern countries (perhaps Portugal facing the Atlantic Ocean) it would be much appreciated.

http://euanmearns.com/wind-blowing-nowhere/

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Coal
« Reply #1386 on: June 06, 2019, 08:38:19 PM »
I am no fan of climate-changer denier Euan Mearns, but he is very thorough in doing the math to validate claims like the one above.

Seriously? The dude is completely delusional. Every denier is inherently delusional. But when it comes to calculating this, he is not at all biased? Whom are you trying to kid here??

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Coal
« Reply #1387 on: June 06, 2019, 08:45:53 PM »
BTW, rboyd. You clearly violated the forum rules. Here are no links allowed to climate change denier.

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1119
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 137
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Coal
« Reply #1388 on: June 06, 2019, 09:16:29 PM »
I am no fan of climate-changer denier Euan Mearns, but he is very thorough in doing the math to validate claims like the one above.

Seriously? The dude is completely delusional. Every denier is inherently delusional. But when it comes to calculating this, he is not at all biased? Whom are you trying to kid here??

You have stats to disprove his analysis, rather than just shooting the messenger? Actual research papers back up his analysis (which was based on publicly available data) for the chosen countries. From the paper below it looks like South East Europe and parts of the Mediterranean would be the best place to provide balancing wind capacity - but the scale of capacity and inter-connector lines required would be incredibly expensive and politically difficult to put in place.

Retrofitting houses and other spaces to need less energy for heating would make a big dent in natural gas demand, for example most houses in Germany are significantly energy inefficient. A much quicker payoff than constructing Europe-wide electricity grids to reduce the times when NG backup plants will be required.

Balancing Europe’s wind power output through spatial deployment informed by weather regimes - 2017 Nature Climate Change

Quote
Atlantic-European weather regimes cause important wind electricity surpluses and deficits in European sub-regions lasting several days to weeks, which are more difficult to address than local short-term fluctuations. Peripheral regions of Europe in Northern Scandinavia, Iberia, and the Balkans exhibit a high potential for enhanced wind electricity generation during severe lulls in the North Sea region. In addition, these lulls come along with prevailing cold conditions and therefore high demand

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5540172/

The energy transition will not work without a heating transition

https://www.kfw.de/PDF/Download-Center/Konzernthemen/Research/PDF-Dokumente-Fokus-Volkswirtschaft/Fokus-englische-Dateien/Focus-No.-129-June-2016-Heating-transition.pdf

So, in the absence of a massively expensive and politically challenging Euro-grid connecting very large-scale wind farms in the Balkans and the Mediterranean with Northern Europe (for which there are no plans for) a large amount of NG capacity will be required as backup - until we get large enough scale battery capacity sometime in the 2030's perhaps. As this horse has now been thoroughly beaten to death I will desist from further comment.

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1119
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 137
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Coal
« Reply #1389 on: June 06, 2019, 09:23:10 PM »
BTW, rboyd. You clearly violated the forum rules. Here are no links allowed to climate change denier.

Really? I explicitly noted that he was a climate denier, and that I am not a fan, and referenced technical work that has nothing to do with climate denial. You can read the Nature Climate Change (certainly not a denier source) paper I referenced in my next comment that agrees with the analysis.

The message may not be to your liking, but attacking the messenger is simply another form of denial.


Shared Humanity

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3939
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 404
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: Coal
« Reply #1390 on: June 06, 2019, 09:39:38 PM »
There are other ways of dealing with intermittent power. My brother owns a cabin on 30 acres in rural Wisconsin. He has a contract with the utility that allows them to cut off his power for up to 8 hours when demand requires it. He pays slightly less for his electricity in this contract.

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Coal
« Reply #1391 on: June 06, 2019, 09:44:30 PM »
that has nothing to do with climate denial

As if marketing against renewables and climate change denial would be paid from different entities.
Are you so naive that you seriously believe that?

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1119
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 137
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Coal
« Reply #1392 on: June 06, 2019, 09:54:46 PM »
that has nothing to do with climate denial

As if marketing against renewables and climate change denial would be paid from different entities.
Are you so naive that you seriously believe that?

I do not engage in personal attacks, and do not countenance them against myself, and therefore will be ignoring your posts from now on.

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Coal
« Reply #1393 on: June 06, 2019, 10:01:48 PM »
I take that as a yes.

Thanks for leaving me alone. Very much appreciated.

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1119
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 137
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Coal
« Reply #1394 on: June 06, 2019, 10:10:34 PM »
There are other ways of dealing with intermittent power. My brother owns a cabin on 30 acres in rural Wisconsin. He has a contract with the utility that allows them to cut off his power for up to 8 hours when demand requires it. He pays slightly less for his electricity in this contract.

Absolutely, there should be much, much more work done with respect to demand management. Part of a systemic way at looking at the problem which seems to be lacking at the moment. We need renewables + demand management + demand reduction all together to get off fossil fuels. It would need a lot of "socializing" though, such an assumption of unlimited energy supply especially in North America.

Reminds me of the "kettle (and now perhaps microwave) problem" in the UK, where multiple power plants have to be on standby for when the commercial break would arrive in the middle of a highly-viewed television program. Millions of people leap up to "put the kettle on", probably microwave a quick snack and "take a pee".

I have a Japanese water heater that keeps the water hot enough for tea, perhaps if everyone had one of those the kettle problem would go away - or perhaps the internet has killed the problem? Then again "Game of Thrones" seems to have a very large viewership when it first airs, as do sporting events.


Ken Feldman

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 675
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 66
  • Likes Given: 92
Re: Coal
« Reply #1395 on: June 07, 2019, 01:09:16 AM »
Here's a link to a pre-print paper on arxiv.org reviewing recent studies about how to overcome the intermittency problem for wind and solar.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1904/1904.01667.pdf

Quote
A review on the complementarity of renewable energy sources: concept, metrics, application and future research directions
by: J. Jurasz1,2,*, F.A. Canales3, A. Kies4, and M. Guezgouz5, A. Beluco6

Quote
Abstract: It is expected, and regionally observed, that energy demand will soon be covered by a widespread deployment of renewable energy sources. However, the weather and climate driven energy sources are characterized by a significant spatial and temporal variability. One of the commonly mentioned solutions to overcome the mismatch between demand and supply provided by renewable generation is a hybridization of two or more energy sources in a single power station (like wind-solar, solar-hydro or solar-wind-hydro). The operation of hybrid energy sources is based on the complementary nature of renewable sources. Considering the growing importance of such systems and increasing number of research activities in this area this paper presents a comprehensive review of studies which investigated, analyzed, quantified and utilized the effect of temporal, spatial and spatio-temporal complementarity between renewable energy sources. The review starts with a brief overview of available research papers, formulates detailed definition of major concepts, summarizes current research directions and ends with prospective future research activities. The review provides a chronological and spatial information with regard to the studies on the complementarity concept.

Quote
1. Introduction and motivation
Over the last years, variable renewable energy sources (VRES) have become a cost competitive and environment-friendly alternative to supply power to isolated and large-scale power grids around the globe. Nevertheless, because of their intermittent/variable/stochastic/non-dispatchable characteristic, they cannot provide the grid with various additional and mandatory services other that delivering a certain volume of energy (however, it is worth mentioning that besides active power, inverters of renewable power generators can also provide reactive power for voltage control and could be programmed to provide inertia [1]). In order to explore how to effectively improve VRES integration into the power systems, more needs to be known about the underlying behavior patterns and dynamics of their power generation. Over the recent years many investigations have been focus on this VRES grid integration [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7].
Several solutions worth mentioning were presented by Jacobson and Delucchi (2011) [8] who suggested to apply them in order to facilitate the process of VRES integration:
 interconnecting spatially distributed generators;
 using complementary or/and dispatchable generators in hybrid configurations;
 application of demand-response and flexible loads;
 deploying energy storage;
 oversizing and power to hydrogen;
 using the concept of vehicle to grid – use of electric vehicles as storage;
 forecasting of VRES generation.
Notably, two of the referenced concepts mention the use of a combination of VRES sources, which exhibit a complementary nature of their operation. First is the hybridization of energy sources (like solar-wind, wind-hydro etc.) and the second is the use of spatial distribution of generators to smooth the power output of given VRES. Both concepts are based on the complementary (to various extent) nature of renewable energy sources.

To keep this on topic, use of coal power plants was not addressed in the paper. :P

BenB

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 282
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Coal
« Reply #1396 on: June 07, 2019, 10:46:00 AM »
Comments of Euan's figures:

  • He finds a small number of very short periods (3/4 in a year, lasting around a day) when wind is low across all of the countries he is looking at. This is the kind of shortfall that batteries, interconnectors and demand management are very good at covering. We even have (I think I've mentioned this before) plenty of underused natural gas plants if all else fails.
  • His figures are from 2013. Since then, wind power has increased massively, which all things being equal will tend to reduce fluctuations.
  • Almost all wind power was onshore in 2013, whereas now a significant proportion is offshore. Offshore has a much higher capacity factor, and hence fewer periods of very low generation.
  • Italy, Portugal, Norway, Sweden, Poland and all other countries in eastern/south-eastern Europe were not included in his analysis. Greater geographical spread will generally reduce fluctuations. Italy had decent wind on the day he focuses on: https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/italy/rome/historic?month=2&year=2013. As did Portugal.
  • We're facing a climate emergency. If in the worst case scenario we had to do without all non-essential electricity use for 3 days a year, that wouldn't be the end of the world.

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Coal
« Reply #1397 on: June 07, 2019, 11:10:30 AM »
Ben, i totally agree with that.

One thing though to consider: If you debunk this shit, you kinda giving it legitimacy. You create the impression these lies are worth considering in the first place. These awful people need to be ridiculed, shunned, insulted, for most. Best to ignore them at all.

My two cents anyway.

BenB

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 282
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Coal
« Reply #1398 on: June 07, 2019, 12:05:05 PM »
Perhaps you're right. I take the view that there are lots of people reading who don't contribute, and if no answer is given, they assume that it's because we don't have any answers.

Anyway: let's all get back to topic (coal).  ;)

bluice

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 130
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 154
Re: Coal
« Reply #1399 on: June 07, 2019, 03:48:32 PM »
We had this talk already, Bluice. I provided multiple links with reliable studies by neutral sources debunking all your points made above.

Haven't you read any of them?
Problem with those studies is that they are distant future scenarios based on certain assumptions without backing from real world data. It is almost impossibly difficult to predict which technologies will prevail over others. People who do that by skill or sheer luck end up billionaires.  Predicting what will happen several decades into future is just as fantastical now as it was in the sixties imaginations of year 2000.  Unfortunately on actual year 2000 we had no permanent moon base, no flying cars and no nuclear energy "too cheap to meter".

But now we should take this for granted (emphasis mine):

Quote
"The new study by the Energy Watch Group and LUT University is the first of its kind to outline a 1.5°C scenario with a cost-effective, cross-sectoral, technology-rich global 100% renewable energy system that does not build on negative CO2 emission technologies. The scientific modelling study simulates a total global energy transition in the electricity, heat, transport and desalination sectors by 2050. It is based on four and a half years of research and analysis of data collection, as well as technical and financial modelling by 14 scientists. This proves that the transition to 100% renewable energy is economically competitive with the current fossil and nuclear-based system, and could reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the energy system to zero even before 2050.

“The report confirms that a transition to 100% renewables is possible across all sectors, and is no longer more expensive than the current energy system,” said Hans-Josef Fell, former Member of the German Parliament and President of the Energy Watch Group, in advance of the publication. “It shows that the whole world can make the transition to a zero emission energy system."

http://energywatchgroup.org/new-study-global-energy-system-based-100-renewable-energy

So basically what this says is that we can switch to 100% renewables with zero emissions and 1,5 C warming and it doesn't even cost us anything extra. Seriously. Pardon my skepticism, but usually if something sounds too good to be true, it is. Like fusion power which is always three decades away.

Meanwhile we have data showing high adoption of renewables doesn't reduce emissions fast enough. There also seems to be a steep curve of diminishing economic returns when the renewable share of electricity mix gets higher.

I am not a climate denier or a fossil fuel advocate. My main concern is that such renewable scenarios create pathways that tie our precious economic resources to an energy system that remains dependant on natural gas and coal and doesn't reduce enough emissions. I'd be happy to be proven wrong but examples such as the disastrous German Energiewende aren't giving much hope.

Climate change is not caused by lack of renewable energy but too much CO2e in the atmosphere. What we need is yearly increasing price on carbon to put a cost on the externalities. That will direct the market to find best ways to reduce emissions. Nuclear, especially GenIV may play a role. Unfortunately that may not be enough. The whole endless growth based economic system might have to change, but I have never heard a credible idea how to pull that off.
In PIOMAS we trust