Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Coal  (Read 273668 times)

b_lumenkraft

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1450
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 307
  • Likes Given: 1432
Re: Coal
« Reply #1400 on: June 07, 2019, 04:10:25 PM »
Problem with those studies is that they are distant future scenarios based on certain assumptions without backing from real world data.

I provided a link from Frauenhofer Institut. Frauenhofer is applied science. They do nothing else than evaluate technologies and research for what branch of the economy it might bring efficiency gains. They are the ones you want to listen to. And they clearly state that with today's technologies you can go 100% renewable and that it's not even more expensive and the only thing that needs to happen to make it true is the political will. So, you are drop dead wrong with this one.

Quote
It is almost impossibly difficult to predict which technologies will prevail over others.

This is not the question. Everything will serve our energy need as pointed out! But if we don't go the renewable path, we will kill our planet!

Quote
Climate change is not caused by lack of renewable energy but too much CO2e in the atmosphere.

WOW! *speechless*

bluice

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: Coal
« Reply #1401 on: June 07, 2019, 05:16:46 PM »
Before we conclude this discussion and move to other topics I want to ask you one question: If going 100% renewable and zero emission with no additional cost is possible already, why is NOBODY doing it? It’s like a free lunch.

b_lumenkraft

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1450
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 307
  • Likes Given: 1432
Re: Coal
« Reply #1402 on: June 07, 2019, 05:25:23 PM »
How we got here is obvious. Oil, coal and gas were cheaper, that's it. Do i really have to explain that to you? Not sure if trolling, to be honest.

bluice

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: Coal
« Reply #1403 on: June 07, 2019, 05:29:03 PM »
How we got here is obvious. Oil, coal and gas were cheaper, that's it. Do i really have to explain that to you? Not sure if trolling, to be honest.

Ok, I’m done.

If you consider challenging your dogmas is trolling, it’s better we finish here. Have a great weekend.

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 895
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Coal
« Reply #1404 on: June 07, 2019, 06:32:54 PM »
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.

Check out the Nature Climate Change paper that I referenced, much more thorough (and peer reviewed of course) and concludes that only the Balkans and part of the Mediterranean could provide the balancing required.

I wish that there was the sense of urgency required for people to accept that electricity would not automatically be there when required. The last time that was the case in the UK was the miners strike at the beginning of the 1970s and that was with only multi-hour rolling blackouts. The government was kicked out of office as a result. If only one country (or even the EU28) did this they would also suffer a severe economic penalty versus the non-complying countries, such as the US.

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 895
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Coal
« Reply #1405 on: June 07, 2019, 06:37:02 PM »
Coal India, that produces 80% of India's coal, plans an 8% production increase for the new fiscal year

Quote
Coal India targets more than 8 per cent growth in production at 660 million tonnes in 2019-20 compared to 607 million tonnes in the last fiscal and plans a capital expenditure of Rs 10,000 crore in the current fiscal, according to sources.

Renewable Energy Growth Unlikely To Keep Up With India Coal Imports, Says Fitch

Quote
India is expected to maintain the current level of thermal coal imports as the country’s energy demand is likely to increase, ratings agency Fitch Ratings Inc. said in a report. Growth in renewable energy capacity may not be able to keep pace, it said.

"Fitch expects India to maintain its level of thermal coal imports," the ratings agency said. Domestic output of dry fuel and logistics bottlenecks in coal transportation will also affect supply of coal to the market, it said.

“Indian coal imports increased by about 2 percent year-on-year in the nine months to March 2019,” it added. India’s thermal power plant utilisation increased in the second half of 2018 “driven by higher electricity demand and lower capacity addition,” it said.

State-owned power utilities led the growth in thermal electricity generation, Fitch said adding that the utilisation of the central government-owned and private sector plants increased slightly.

https://www.businesstoday.in/current/corporate/coal-india-aims-8-growth-production-plans-capex-rs-10000-crore-fy20/story/353990.html

https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/renewable-energy-growth-unlikely-to-keep-up-with-india-coal-imports-says-fitch
« Last Edit: June 07, 2019, 06:43:44 PM by rboyd »

Ken Feldman

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 413
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: Coal
« Reply #1406 on: June 07, 2019, 07:32:13 PM »
Before we conclude this discussion and move to other topics I want to ask you one question: If going 100% renewable and zero emission with no additional cost is possible already, why is NOBODY doing it? It’s like a free lunch.

Open your eyes, it's already happening.

In the US, utilities are closing coal power plants and natural gas peakers and replacing them with renewables with battery storage.  That's because it costs less to build the new renewable power plants than it does to continue running a coal plant or a natural gas peaker.  And there are fewer and fewer combined cycle natural gas power plants in the planning and permitting phase because the projected point when renewables with battery storage will be cheaper than a natural gas power plant is now years less than the time required to pay off the investment in the power plant.

China, India and Vietnam seem to be the only countries where there is a continued demand for new coal plants.  That's because they have large populations that still aren't connected to the grid so they'll use any energy source that someone will sell them.  Even there though they'll stop building out coal plants within a few years because they're too expensive to run compared to renewables.

bluice

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: Coal
« Reply #1407 on: June 07, 2019, 08:06:42 PM »

Ken Feldman

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 413
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: Coal
« Reply #1408 on: June 07, 2019, 09:56:42 PM »
Despite the brief uptick last year, US carbon emissions are well below their peak, and expected to decline further as more renewables are deployed.



The above graph is from the US EPA's website.  Here's a link to an independent source on US carbon emissions:

https://www.c2es.org/content/u-s-emissions/

Quote
U.S. net emissions declined 12 percent from 2005 to 2017 due to a range of market- and policy-related factors. Electric power sector emissions fell 27 percent as a result of a shift from coal to natural gas, increased use of renewable energy, and a leveling of electricity demand. Improved vehicle efficiency helped reduce transportation-related emissions by nearly 6 percent, although transportation emissions have been increasing since 2012.



Ken Feldman

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 413
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: Coal
« Reply #1409 on: June 07, 2019, 10:26:07 PM »
And current projects for renewables along with planned retirements for coal indicate that coal's share of electricity generation will continue to decline.

https://www.windpowerengineering.com/business-news-projects/eia-forecasts-renewables-will-be-fastest-growing-source-of-electricity-generation/

Quote
EIA forecasts renewables will be fastest growing source of electricity generation

By Michelle Froese | January 24, 2019

EIA expects non-hydroelectric renewable energy resources such as solar and wind will be the fastest growing source of U.S. electricity generation for at least the next two years. EIA’s January 2019 Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO) forecasts that electricity generation from utility-scale solar generating units will grow by 10% in 2019 and by 17% in 2020.



Quote
Solar is the third-largest renewable energy source in the United States power sector, having surpassed biomass in 2017. The U.S. electric power sector plans to add more than 4 GW of new solar capacity in 2019 and almost 6 GW in 2020, a total increase of 32% from the operational capacity at the end of 2018. Because of this increase, solar is forecast to contribute slightly more than 2% of total utility-scale generation in 2020.

Even with the growth from renewable energy sources, fossil fuels will still provide most of the electricity generated in the United States. Coal and natural gas combined provided 63% of electricity generation in 2018 and EIA forecasts that they will provide 61% in 2020.

The EIA forecasts consistently underestimates the growth of renewables, so expect a higher share for renewables and a lower share for fossil fuels than stated above.

(Notice the dip in hydropower from 2017 through 2018.  There was an extended drought in the western US at that time which limited generating capacity.  The area has seen much better rainfall this year and so the share of hydropower will also increase in 2019.)

Archimid

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1908
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 134
  • Likes Given: 128
Re: Coal
« Reply #1410 on: June 07, 2019, 11:55:49 PM »
GE bet on fossil fuels, lost nearly $200B in misjudging renewable energy transition, study says

https://electrek.co/2019/06/06/ge-renewable-energy-transition/

Quote
General Electric’s profitability collapse over the past few years can be largely attributed to the company’s inability to judge the accelerating pace of the global energy transition away from fossil fuels and toward renewables, a new study claims.
 
The analysis comes from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), which says that “GE made a massive bet on the future of natural gas and thermal coal, and lost,” concluding:

GE destroyed an almost unprecedented US$193 billion (bn)1 or 74% of its market capitalization over 2016-2018.

Crossposted from the Gas and Oil Thread.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

interstitial

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 96
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: Coal
« Reply #1411 on: June 08, 2019, 12:13:40 AM »
Before we conclude this discussion and move to other topics I want to ask you one question: If going 100% renewable and zero emission with no additional cost is possible already, why is NOBODY doing it? It’s like a free lunch.
It is helpful to note just how recently renewable prices have changed from being more expensive then conventional energy to less expensive. I can't put an exact date on this transition because different markets vary with different restrictions and contractors. Sometime around 2018 for earlier markets until 2020 renewables have become or will soon become cheaper than coal and other traditional generation. Recently a California utility put out for bid two natural gas peaker plants. After some pushback they put out their requirements and made the bid technology neutral. They got a solar plus battery bid that was cheaper than the peaker plants and they don't have to buy fuel.

IRENA report from march in 2018
Quote
This conclusion pairs with a March report which found that in the US alone, constructing new wind and solar projects would be cheaper than continuing to run 74 percent of existing U.S. coal plants as of 2018.


Utilities in the U.S. IDK about other countries are bureaucratic and make decisions slowly. A short term plan for most businesses is a quarter for a utility it is 10 years. A long term plan is at least 50 years and sometimes 100+ years. Utilities with little pressure to consider CO2 emissions will take a few years to respond to these very recent price changes. Actually most utilities are slow to respond to this.

b_lumenkraft

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1450
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 307
  • Likes Given: 1432
Re: Coal
« Reply #1412 on: June 08, 2019, 09:14:57 AM »
I agree Interstitial, obviously.

The market forces are now dictating a transition, but as you correctly pointed out it's a slow process still.

We need politics to speed up this process. A 30 years transition might be economically feasible, but it's not ecologically possible. We need to do this in 10 years. We gotta hurry. Without the political push and governmental financing, the market will not save us.

BenB

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 184
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Coal
« Reply #1413 on: June 08, 2019, 02:19:26 PM »
Check out the Nature Climate Change paper that I referenced, much more thorough (and peer reviewed of course) and concludes that only the Balkans and part of the Mediterranean could provide the balancing required.

I have now. So, if the Balkans and Mediterranean provide the necessary balancing, that's what we use. Without having checked, I imagine their grids are linked to e.g. the UK's. Certainly Spain and Portugal are/will be (new HVDC interconnectors are being built/planned between France and Spain, which will massively increase capacity). But France is linked to Germany, is linked to Austria and Hungary (I guess), is linked to Romania and Slovenia (probably), etc. If they aren't, they can be.

Even then, output isn't uniform. However, as they state in the paper, solar is negatively correlated with wind, so using both is better than using either individually. And then you have hydro, which is totally despachable, demand management, batteries, etc. Solar in Morocco/Algeria with interconnectors, perhaps. Trying to solve the problem with one technology alone will never work. As the paper itself says: Further studies are required for designing an optimally balanced electricity system, considering also other generation types, storage, transmission, demand, and costs.

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3500
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 190
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: Coal
« Reply #1414 on: June 08, 2019, 07:50:15 PM »
The whole endless growth based economic system might have to change, but I have never heard a credible idea how to pull that off.

BAU will impose a very credible way of doing just that. Nature always has the last word. Her methods may seem unnecessarily cruel but they will prove to be highly effective.

magnamentis

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2199
    • View Profile
    • Philosophy Ethics Numerology Mikrocirkulation Vaskular Therapie Gesundheit Blut Gesundheit Schmerzen Multiple Sklerose Diabetes Immunsystem Fibromyalgia Modular Mobile Computing iOS Software OSX Android Custom Rom Rooted
  • Liked: 109
  • Likes Given: 110
Re: Coal
« Reply #1415 on: June 08, 2019, 10:21:15 PM »
The whole endless growth based economic system might have to change, but I have never heard a credible idea how to pull that off.

BAU will impose a very credible way of doing just that. Nature always has the last word. Her methods may seem unnecessarily cruel but they will prove to be highly effective.

first thing and that would work is to prohibit interest and especially interest on interest.

it has to be the other way areound, parked money has to lose value. think it to the end and i'm sure you'll ultimately agree, even though for most this sounds as a strange approach. the forced growth is mostly if not solely due to interest on capital and even worse interest on interest.

BTW @bluice well said about the dogmas and especially if those dogmas are aggressively based on illusions. it's very easy to say stop driving while if there would be a full stop out of the blue or within very short time we would have a very polluting and killing war.

this is just one simple statement, the topics are all to entwined and complicated but if  a drug addict stops out of the blue to consume he can/will die, such things, that doing the right thing too fast kills, do really exist and idealism does not produce any good. so many forget the last few disasters that were based on idealism or at least fueled by such illusions, i.e. the USSR and many more.
http://magnamentis.com
Knowledge, Understanding & Insight Are Among The Best Sources For Personal Freedom & Vitality !

sidd

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4536
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Coal
« Reply #1416 on: June 11, 2019, 01:11:33 AM »

sidd

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4536
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 0

BenB

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 184
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Coal
« Reply #1418 on: June 14, 2019, 11:19:45 AM »
Another coal-fired power station will close earlier than planned, because it is losing (a lot of) money:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-48628334

Quote:

Energy firm SSE has announced it is closing its last coal-fired station - the Fiddler's Ferry site near Warrington, Cheshire.

The company said the plant, which employs 158 people, will close on 31 March 2020 and it was beginning a consultation with trade unions.

SSE said the station's losses were "unsustainable".

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 5008
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 737
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Coal
« Reply #1419 on: June 14, 2019, 08:25:21 PM »
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

Ken Feldman

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 413
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: Coal
« Reply #1420 on: June 14, 2019, 11:09:43 PM »
Adani still has hurdles to clear.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-13/adani-mine-approval-still-big-questions-remain/11205280

Quote
Adani can clear the land that is home to the endangered southern black-throated finch.

It can lay asphalt for its huge trucks, set up power and sewage and water treatment plants, and the buildings from which its mine managers will call the shots.

It can dig up and stockpile the earth that now sits on its coal pits and excavate the entrances to its underground mines.

And it can sink bores deep underground to suck out the water in its coal seams, leaving the black stuff dry for the digging.

Quote
But the Queensland environment department said today it was satisfied Adani had identified the "main" source of the springs and would accept "further work ... to identify any potential contribution from other aquifers".

It has forced Adani into two years of extra groundwater, earth and possibly seismic testing.

Adani can begin box cut mining but not underground mining until the tests are completed.

Quote
Adani also sought to turn another defeat into victory. No bank will touch it. So it cut its plan for initial output to 10-15 million tonnes a year, and announced it would pay for the mine itself.

This still begs questions:
•Will billionaire owner Gautam Adani plough more than a quarter of his reported $7 billion fortune into an Australian venture when he could buy similar coal cheaper from Indonesia?
•Will Adani's plan to burn Australian coal to sell power to Bangladesh (at almost double the going rate in India) come off?

Quote
But Bloomberg commentator David Fickling has predicted Adani could make twice as much buying Indian government bonds.

And two other potential monkey wrenches remain.

One wildcard is if traditional owners who oppose the mine win a pending Federal Court appeal ruling about Adani's Indigenous Land Use Deal.

That would send Adani back to the drawing board trying to win over an Indigenous representative group split 6-6 down the middle. It may never get that deal again.

Another wildcard is the protest movement that used the Maules Creek mine as a dress rehearsal for the Carmichael mine. Their blockades managed to delay the NSW project by a decade.

What will the world's appetite for thermal coal be like in ten years?