Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Coal  (Read 580667 times)

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25696
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 426
Re: Coal
« Reply #900 on: November 27, 2017, 02:11:48 PM »
Sure, but the CO2 isn’t what’s killing 800,000 people a year.

I doubt the H&M rags’ emissions are any worse than the other trash they are burning.
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

numerobis

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 837
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Coal
« Reply #901 on: December 08, 2017, 12:59:02 PM »
Quote
54% of coal is cashflow negative today increasing to 97% by 2030 – making units reliant on lobbying to secure capacity market payments (which the European Commission wants to prohibit by 2025) and avoid air pollution regulations.

https://www.carbontracker.org/reports/lignite-living-dead/

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Coal
« Reply #902 on: December 08, 2017, 06:33:42 PM »
Quote
54% of coal is cashflow negative today increasing to 97% by 2030 – making units reliant on lobbying to secure capacity market payments (which the European Commission wants to prohibit by 2025) and avoid air pollution regulations.

https://www.carbontracker.org/reports/lignite-living-dead/

This suggests a rapid disappearance of coal in Europe.  Can't happen soon enough.

Alexander555

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2503
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 185
  • Likes Given: 49
Re: Coal
« Reply #903 on: December 08, 2017, 07:29:45 PM »
If 54 % is already cashflow negative. Than it's a disaster waiting to happen. Or electricity prices have to go up. Last year they installed 60 GW windmills. Lets say 20 000 windmills from 3 MW. This year will be the same. So that market will stay under pressure. But coal is still here to stay for a long time. China has 1 000 000 MW coal plants. To replace them they need for 2 000 000 MW windmils ( or something els, but lets say windmills). That's like 700 000 windmills from 3 MW. And per person they are still not using that much electricity. So normaly these coal plants start to go bankrupted on a large scale. Because they can not stay cash flow negative for dozens of years. So probably the electricity price will go up at some point.

Alexander555

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2503
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 185
  • Likes Given: 49
Re: Coal
« Reply #904 on: December 08, 2017, 09:25:28 PM »
And what about the cost of nuclear and gas fired power plants. How are they doing compared to solar and wind ?

numerobis

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 837
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Coal
« Reply #905 on: December 08, 2017, 11:07:03 PM »
It's a disaster for the shareholders of these utilities. It's great for climate.

The price won't go up much: soon (within ten years) it will be cheaper to build new wind and solar power plants than to continue operating these coal plants.

As for China, IEA suggests China installed 318 GW of renewables in the past 5 years. They expect it to slightly better in the next 5 years, by which token at a capacity factor of 20% it would take roughly 35 years to replace that coal (Chinese coal plants are only half-used, so we need not replace 1 TW). At a capacity factor of 30% it would take roughly 25 years:
https://www.iea.org/publications/renewables2017/#section-1-1

That's not tomorrow but it's still a huge problem for investors in recent coal-fired plants.

But the IEA, as it always does, assumes that installations of renewables will *slow* -- it's been predicting this for years. In the real world, installation rates are booming: every single year since the 70s there's been an increase in the rate of PV installations, and it's still growing 30% year-over-year (e.g. 74 GW last year, about 100 GW this year). Wind has been more variable but still averages double-digit percentage increases year-over-year when you fit an exponential.

So there's not much time left for operators of current coal plants. That's why, presumably, Chinese businesses are desperate to export their coal plants to nearby countries right now, before they lose every last potential buyer.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Coal
« Reply #906 on: December 09, 2017, 12:28:58 AM »
If 54 % is already cashflow negative. Than it's a disaster waiting to happen. Or electricity prices have to go up. Last year they installed 60 GW windmills. Lets say 20 000 windmills from 3 MW. This year will be the same. So that market will stay under pressure. But coal is still here to stay for a long time. China has 1 000 000 MW coal plants. To replace them they need for 2 000 000 MW windmils ( or something els, but lets say windmills). That's like 700 000 windmills from 3 MW. And per person they are still not using that much electricity. So normaly these coal plants start to go bankrupted on a large scale. Because they can not stay cash flow negative for dozens of years. So probably the electricity price will go up at some point.

If we're adding generation less costly than what we had been using then the price of electricity is going down.  Look at the current costs of wind, solar and NG in the US.  A combination of the three, NG filling in when wind and solar are not producing, is cheaper than operating a coal plant.  As that becomes common around the world coal plants will close. 




In China and India we can expect coal plants to close rapidly because both countries are fighting severe air pollution problems and are under pressure by citizens to clean up the air.  Closing coal plants will help to clean the air and save money.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Coal
« Reply #907 on: December 09, 2017, 12:31:46 AM »
And what about the cost of nuclear and gas fired power plants. How are they doing compared to solar and wind ?

60% of US nuclear plants are losing money and have been losing money for a few years.  Wind and solar now cost less than fueling a CCNG plant (average cost).

CCNG plants are likely to stay in business for a long time because they provide dispatchable generation which can be quickly brought online.  Thirty years from now they may only be run a few hours a year.  And we might be running them with biogas.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Coal
« Reply #908 on: December 09, 2017, 12:35:06 AM »
Quote
They expect it to slightly better in the next 5 years, by which token at a capacity factor of 20% it would take roughly 35 years to replace that coal

Expect today's predictions of future renewable installations to look ridiculously low five years from now.

We're just now reaching 'cheap' and many people have yet to realize what has happened.  Plus some are in denial.  Money will speak.

Alexander555

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2503
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 185
  • Likes Given: 49
Re: Coal
« Reply #909 on: December 09, 2017, 06:25:10 AM »

"If we're adding generation less costly than what we had been using then the price of electricity is going down ". As soon as you are in a situation the your total production is low cost, it will be low cost. But for the moment it brings a big chunk of production in trouble. If they go bankrupted the price goes up, because there will be a shortage. The owners of these windmills and solar parks will benefit from that situation. And for the moment there is still a big part of fossil fuels in the total energy production, not just electricity.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Coal
« Reply #910 on: December 09, 2017, 06:49:46 AM »
If we need the output from coal plants then they won't go out of business.  We'll continue to pay them while we build the replacement we need.  Wind and solar install very rapidly.



Perhaps you're not aware of now rapidly coal has been disappearing from the US grid?



Coal is on the wane and the grids stay hot.

(And it's wind turbines, not windmills.  We aren't grinding corn but generating electricity.)

Alexander555

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2503
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 185
  • Likes Given: 49
Re: Coal
« Reply #911 on: December 09, 2017, 01:46:25 PM »
If wind and solar have the lowest cost, than they will have the highest yield. And normaly that's where the money goes. It's not looking really good for these coal and nuclear power plants. And on top of that you have plenty of cheap gas.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25696
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 426
Re: Coal
« Reply #912 on: December 09, 2017, 02:39:35 PM »
‘Death spiral’: half of Europe’s coal plants are losing money
Air pollution and climate change policies are pushing coal-fired electricity stations to the brink, says a new report. Closing them would avoid €22bn in losses by 2030
Quote
Supporters of renewables reject the charge that renewables are unreliable, pointing out the lack of blackouts despite the fast rising proportions of green energy on grids and plunging coal use, and also the dropping cost of battery storage. The UK, where coal use will end by 2025, has gone from 40% of coal-fired electricity to 2% since 2012. The EU’s emission trading scheme has been criticised for providing far too many carbon permits, meaning the carbon price is low.

The expected coal use across the globe in coming decades, particularly in Asia, has fallen sharply recently. In 2013, the International Energy Agency expected world-wide coal-burning to grow by 40% by 2040 – it now anticipates just 1% growth.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/08/death-spiral-half-of-europes-coal-plants-are-losing-money
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Coal
« Reply #913 on: December 09, 2017, 06:40:50 PM »
If wind and solar have the lowest cost, than they will have the highest yield. And normaly that's where the money goes. It's not looking really good for these coal and nuclear power plants. And on top of that you have plenty of cheap gas.

60% of all US nuclear plants are losing money and have been losing money for a number of years.  We are now facing a choice of subsidizing paid off nuclear reactors or closing them down.

Coal plants are going out of business.  They cannot compete in the new market where wind and solar produce the least expensive electricity and cheap natural gas can fill in for when wind and solar are not producing.

numerobis

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 837
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Coal
« Reply #914 on: December 09, 2017, 08:18:08 PM »
Quote
They expect it to slightly better in the next 5 years, by which token at a capacity factor of 20% it would take roughly 35 years to replace that coal

Expect today's predictions of future renewable installations to look ridiculously low five years from now.

We're just now reaching 'cheap' and many people have yet to realize what has happened.  Plus some are in denial.  Money will speak.

Today's predictions from the IEA look ridiculously low *right now*. They expect that each of the next five years there'll be less new renewables capacity coming online than there was in 2016 -- whereas the preliminary numbers unsurprisingly show 2017 higher than 2016.

But even with their prediction, the huge task of replacing coal in the Chinese grid turns out to be quite manageable, especially when you add on a bit of hydro, nuclear and gas.

In China, gas is rather more expensive than coal, so I expect they'll leapfrog to renewables more than the US did.

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6771
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1046
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Coal
« Reply #915 on: December 09, 2017, 11:47:09 PM »
Adani got no money and a lot of debt, at least 1.5 billion US$ needs refi next year. Even China won't lend.

http://ieefa.org/ieefa-australia-adanis-bad-month/

sidd

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Coal
« Reply #916 on: December 10, 2017, 03:20:42 AM »
Here's a history of annual predictions of how fast solar would grow (colored ~horizontal lines) vs. the actual rate of growth (black line shooting toward the stars).




Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25696
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 426
Re: Coal
« Reply #917 on: December 10, 2017, 05:30:20 PM »
Here's a history of annual predictions of how fast solar would grow (colored ~horizontal lines) vs. the actual rate of growth (black line shooting toward the stars).


 ;D  Much like these new-fangled and frivolous inventions:
« Last Edit: December 10, 2017, 06:01:34 PM by Sigmetnow »
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Alexander555

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2503
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 185
  • Likes Given: 49
Re: Coal
« Reply #918 on: December 10, 2017, 05:46:24 PM »
If wind and solar have the lowest cost, than they will have the highest yield. And normaly that's where the money goes. It's not looking really good for these coal and nuclear power plants. And on top of that you have plenty of cheap gas.

60% of all US nuclear plants are losing money and have been losing money for a number of years.  We are now facing a choice of subsidizing paid off nuclear reactors or closing them down.

Coal plants are going out of business.  They cannot compete in the new market where wind and solar produce the least expensive electricity and cheap natural gas can fill in for when wind and solar are not producing.

Would subsidizing nuclear reactors not prevend investments in more solar and wind ? Maybe it will bring the price up a little ( if you don't do it), but than you have a market that is running on it's own. And you have the gas as a back-up. That puts the US in a pretty comfortable situation. At least for electricity production.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Coal
« Reply #919 on: December 10, 2017, 06:49:26 PM »
Quote
Would subsidizing nuclear reactors not prevend investments in more solar and wind ? Maybe it will bring the price up a little ( if you don't do it), but than you have a market that is running on it's own. And you have the gas as a back-up. That puts the US in a pretty comfortable situation. At least for electricity production.

My impression is that we are subsidizing nuclear plants in order to save jobs and the economies of the towns that depend on the money those reactors bring into the area.  I watched the public media (mostly newspaper) arguments in Illinois when the issue of subsidizing reactors began to gain strength.

It was all about job loss and economic destruction.  And it was taking place in the Rust Belt.  Early on I didn't hear anything about low carbon electricity and climate change.  Later on (IIRC) climate change became part of the argument as to why we should pay to keep these money losing plants operating.

Clearly, were we to abruptly close our reactors we'd burn more coal and gas.  Keeping the reactors online for now means less CO2 emitted.

But I've seen no analysis about the best way to spend our money.  Should we  subsidize reactors for 10 to 20 years or should we speed up our wind and solar installation and create replacement RE generation? 

Perhaps subsidize for five years.  Take the five to fifteen years of subsidy we might have given to the reactors and use it to boost RE. 

What if we gave interest free loans to replacement wind and solar farms?  Utilities could sign super low cost wind and solar PPAs.  We'd get our money back (deflated a bit) over a 20 year period. 

We could build replacement generation in five years.

(I picked the 5, 10, 20 numbers out of the blue.  Someone needs to do some economic modeling to see what the two outcomes would look like.)


Alexander555

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2503
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 185
  • Likes Given: 49
Re: Coal
« Reply #920 on: December 10, 2017, 07:33:41 PM »
And at some point you will probably need much more electricity. Over here (11 million people) i have seen a calculation if all cars would be EV's. And i think it was something like 4000 MW extra .The US population is 30 times bigger  , so probably it's going to be something like the size of your nuclear park today ,that you will need extra in xx years. I think it's going to be a race to get all the things you need for full electrification. Like that lithium and cobalt. And once you have it, you can recycle it forever. I also look at that lithium as an investment, but it's hard to say something about it.

ghoti

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 767
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Coal
« Reply #921 on: December 10, 2017, 08:02:37 PM »
And at some point you will probably need much more electricity. Over here (11 million people) i have seen a calculation if all cars would be EV's. And i think it was something like 4000 MW extra .The US population is 30 times bigger  , so probably it's going to be something like the size of your nuclear park today ,that you will need extra in xx years.
The argument that electricity demand will soar if all cars are electric is as close to bogus as you can get. The real calculations show the EV demand increase is a very small percentage of overall demand. The numbers for the UK have already been posted here on another thread. You don't get from <1% EVs to 100% in a day. Increasing the electricity supply by 10-15% over decades in a non-issue especially with the price of wind and solar dropping like a stone and massive opportunities for expansion available.

Alexander555

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2503
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 185
  • Likes Given: 49
Re: Coal
« Reply #922 on: December 10, 2017, 09:11:48 PM »
Over decades ? Oil consumption is still growing, at this rate we run out of oil in 20 years. So you don't have decades. And are you telling me that you don't need electricity for an electrical car ?You may be happy if there is some electricity left after you produced everything you need to have your renewable infrastructure. Because today they produce everything with an abundance of oil,gas, nuclear, coal..... But that will be different in the future. And how much energy will there be left, after you have everything that you need to have them. A solar panel already needs 10 % of everything it produces just to make the panel, than we are not talking about the transformers and all the rest. And what is left, that's what you have to replace your oil and gas and coal. And you let it sound like there is going to be an abundance . A non issue :)), i hope there are not to many like you on this planet, or we all go to hell

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Coal
« Reply #923 on: December 10, 2017, 09:21:40 PM »
We won't run out of oil in 20 years.

"A solar panel already needs 10 % of everything it produces just to make the panel, "

Solar panels pay back their cradle to grave embedded energy in under two years (less than one for thin film).  We really don't know how long solar panels will last.  Our oldest ones are now 40 years old and still going strong.

Some time back we passed point at which the planet generated more electricity/energy with solar panels than is used to manufacture and install the panels.  Oil bootstrapped solar.  Now solar runs on its own output.

Wind turbines crossed that threshold much earlier.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Coal
« Reply #924 on: December 10, 2017, 09:27:07 PM »
Quote
you let it sound like there is going to be an abundance

Short term we need to conserve energy use.  We need to use as little electricity as possible in order to close fossil fuels sooner.  But that's driven by a need to minimize extreme climate change, not a shortage of wind and solar energy resources.

Later, say 30 years from how, we should be using almost no fossil fuels and then if we wish we can use a lot more electricity.  As long as we're willing to pay for the extra panels and turbines.

EVs will be very useful during the buildout.  Because most cars sit parked 90+% of the time they can be dispatchable loads.  That will allow us to 'overbuild' wind and solar based on non-EV demand and soak up any unneeded electricity in EV batteries.

Alexander555

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2503
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 185
  • Likes Given: 49
Re: Coal
« Reply #925 on: December 10, 2017, 09:48:24 PM »
We won't run out of oil in 20 years.

"A solar panel already needs 10 % of everything it produces just to make the panel, "

Solar panels pay back their cradle to grave embedded energy in under two years (less than one for thin film).  We really don't know how long solar panels will last.  Our oldest ones are now 40 years old and still going strong.

Some time back we passed point at which the planet generated more electricity/energy with solar panels than is used to manufacture and install the panels.  Oil bootstrapped solar.  Now solar runs on its own output.

Wind turbines crossed that threshold much earlier.

No matter how you look at it, everything you build today (including your renewable infrastructere) is build with the help of oil, gas, coal, nuclear. And everything you build , you will have to rebuild in the future without the help of oil, gas , nuclear, coal... You will just have what these windturbines, solar panels, hydro .... are producing. You have to keep a recycling industry, a construction industry, a steel industry, a tech industry ....running with your renewables. Just to have your renewables. All these mega cities you have today, they are not build with renewables. But you will have to rebuild them in the future with your renewables. Because what's the point of having driverless cars if your cities are falling into pieces. Maybe somebody should calculate what that takes.

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2356
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 207
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Coal
« Reply #926 on: December 10, 2017, 10:12:02 PM »
Maybe somebody should calculate what that takes.

My Rough estimate using LCA for renewables is that the full U.S. infrastructure buildout for renewable energy (including storage) would take about 2.5 years of additional annual domestic emissions.  After that the work going forward (making EVs, etc.) can be powered using renewables.
Haiku of Futures Passed
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Coal
« Reply #927 on: December 10, 2017, 10:51:31 PM »
Quote
Maybe somebody should calculate what that takes.

That has been done.  The first study of which I am aware is Jacobson and Delucchi, 2009.  It's online.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030/

Jacobson's group at Stanford has done an analysis for each of the 50 states and most foreign countries.  You can check the mix of what would probably be the best based on the technology we have in hand right now.

http://thesolutionsproject.org/

Here's a more recent study that was just published.


http://energywatchgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Full-Study-100-Renewable-Energy-Worldwide-Power-Sector.pdf

numerobis

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 837
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Coal
« Reply #928 on: December 11, 2017, 02:07:21 AM »
It looks like we're going to go through *all* the standard FUD questions with Alexander. I haven't seen concern about birds yet, but that can't be far away.

ghoti

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 767
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Coal
« Reply #929 on: December 11, 2017, 02:39:45 AM »
It looks like we're going to go through *all* the standard FUD questions with Alexander. I haven't seen concern about birds yet, but that can't be far away.
Well he has cited Breitbart already so this isn't a surprise.

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Coal
« Reply #930 on: December 11, 2017, 02:55:12 AM »
It looks like we're going to go through *all* the standard FUD questions with Alexander. I haven't seen concern about birds yet, but that can't be far away.
"and I said to him Dicky Bird why do you sit.
Singing Willow, Titwillow, Titwillow"
Ko-Ko


Terry




Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Coal
« Reply #931 on: December 11, 2017, 04:00:24 AM »
It looks like we're going to go through *all* the standard FUD questions with Alexander. I haven't seen concern about birds yet, but that can't be far away.
Well he has cited Breitbart already so this isn't a surprise.


I'm feeling like he might be taking in new info and thinking a bit.   Perhaps he's a person who is able to modify their opinion if they run into new facts.


Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25696
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 426
Re: Coal
« Reply #932 on: December 11, 2017, 02:54:02 PM »
Electricity customers in the southeast U.S. are being forced to pay for for huge and unproven coal and nuclear projects, before any electricity is generated, due to industry lobbyists who pushed through state legislation to pay companies to build them.

Power Failure: How utilities across the U.S. changed the rules to make big bets with your money
Quote
Over the past decade, state legislatures across the country rewrote rule books for how power companies pay for new power plants, shifting financial risks away from electric companies to you and everyone else.

This rule change ignited a bonfire of risky spending — $40 billion so far on new power plants and upgrades, a Post and Courier investigation found.

Flush with your cash, utilities tried to build plants with unproven technology; they launched projects with unfinished designs and unrealistic budgets; they misled regulators and the public with schedules that promised bogus completion dates; they hid damning reports from investors and the public; they tried to silence critics and whistleblowers.

Then, when delays and cost overruns couldn’t be ignored, they asked state regulators to charge you more for their failures. ...
https://www.postandcourier.com/news/power-failure-how-utilities-across-the-u-s-changed-the/article_434e8778-c880-11e7-9691-e7b11f5b3381.html
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Alexander555

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2503
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 185
  • Likes Given: 49
Re: Coal
« Reply #933 on: December 11, 2017, 07:13:27 PM »
ok , smart guys. Let me fire another standard question. What would happen if the entire world would cut his fossil fuel use by let's say 3 % a year ? Just in theory.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Coal
« Reply #934 on: December 11, 2017, 08:02:59 PM »
After a number of years we would no longer be burning fossil fuels and climate change would not get as bad as it will get if we don't stop burning fossil fuels.

(If we are smart we will switch more than 3% of our energy use from fossil fuels to low carbon sources per year.  Every year we doddle means more pain.)

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Coal
« Reply #935 on: December 11, 2017, 08:16:21 PM »
In 2014 the world obtained 80.8% of its total energy from fossil fuels.  We need to be replacing at least 4% of total per year.  I suspect we can ramp up even faster now that renewables have become so cheap.

Quote
September, 2017

(UK) Government figures, to be published by National Grid this week, are expected to show that the price paid for electricity from offshore wind farms has dropped by more than 50% in under five years. According to Greenpeace UK, this would make offshore wind the lowest cost option for large-scale, low-carbon power.

http://www.windpowerengineering.com/business-news-projects/prediction-offshore-wind-costs-dropped-50-5-years/

Onshore wind and PV solar are now the two least expensive electricity sources in the US.




The cost of new renewable generation is falling below the cost of operating paid off coal plants.  It's becoming cheaper to close coal plants and replace them.  Then if one adds in the health costs created by coal pollution (expensive) then it becomes very clear that from a financial angle we should be installing renewables hand over fist.

(No one is accusing you of not being smart, Alexander.  Just not up to date with what has happened in the energy world.)

Alexander555

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2503
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 185
  • Likes Given: 49
Re: Coal
« Reply #936 on: December 11, 2017, 08:58:45 PM »
When you think about it in terms of running your economy on renewables. It would be the right way. I don't now exactly the numbers for all fossil fuels. But for oil we use something like 100 million barrels a day. So for oil that would mean 3 million barrels a day  less for a year , and again the years after. That will limit your economical possibilities. That would mean you have to make choises. And the most obvious chois i think would be to use your fossils to produce things like windturbines and solarpanels or even biomass. Things that generate energy. And if you continue doing that, after 20 , 30 , 40 .....years. You will have an economy that is mainly running on renewables. Because that's what you have. But today, and that's what i tried to explain above. We are not cutting down on fossils. We use them both, the fossils and the renewables to grow. And that growth, that's the economical system we are in. That will bring an economical bottleneck. I'm not even thinking about it in a way of climate change. Because to moment you get that bottleneck, not that much people will care about the climate, because they have other problems. And that growth is a problem, because politicians want to get elected, shareholders want dividends and high share prices, i want a job, a lot of places on this planet want these fossil fuels. It will take a little miracle. Full electrification is your best bet i think.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Coal
« Reply #937 on: December 11, 2017, 10:17:57 PM »
Quote
So for oil that would mean 3 million barrels a day  less for a year , and again the years after. That will limit your economical possibilities. That would mean you have to make choises. And the most obvious chois i think would be to use your fossils to produce things like windturbines and solarpanels or even biomass. Things that generate energy.

A light bulb or electric motor operates the same regardless of whether the electricity is generated by a coal plant or wind turbine.  As we add renewables and cut back on fossil fuels end users, be they someone living in an apartment or a massive factory, will operate without change.

Each year in the US (and many other countries) more electricity comes from wind and solar and less from fossil fuels.  In 2016 the US produced 6% less electricity with fossil fuels and 6% more with wind and solar than in 2010.  That number is on track to hit 8% this year.



We'll use what we need to use to meet demand.  The general public would not tolerate massive blackouts.  The only solution is to gradually fade out fossil fuels, replacing them with renewables. 

The job is not as tough as one might think at first.  Take a look at the two gray boxes on the far right of this chart.



The larger box is the energy we waste, "Rejected energy".  The heat from your car engine and the steam rising above coal and nuclear plants. 

The smaller box is the energy we actually use, "Energy service".  Since electric motors are so efficient this is basically what we have to replace.  (There is a small amount of heat waste with electric motors but nothing comparable to liquid fuel or steam engines.)

Quote
for oil we use something like 100 million barrels a day

That's with vehicles that average about 25 MPG.  EVs have an energy use that is higher than 100 MPG (fuel equivalent).  We don't have to replace 100 million barrels per day, something more like 20 to 25 million barrels per day.

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6771
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1046
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Coal
« Reply #938 on: December 12, 2017, 02:07:36 AM »
Coal leaves a lasting psychological imprint:

doi: 10.1037/pspp0000175

Obschonka et al. document the long lasting stamp of coal fulled industrial revolution on psychological characteristics of populations today. From the abstract:

"Analyzing data from England and Wales, we examine relationships between the historical employment share in large-scale coal-based industries (coal mining and steam-powered manufacturing industries that used this coal as fuel for their steam engines) and today’s regional variation in personality and well-being. Even after controlling for possible historical confounds (historical energy supply, education, wealth, geology, climate, population density), we find that the historical local dominance of large-scale coal-based industries predicts today’s markers of psychological adversity (lower Conscientiousness [and order facet scores], higher Neuroticism [and anxiety and depression facet scores], lower activity [an Extraversion facet], and lower life satisfaction and life expectancy)."

They see similar effects in the USA:

"Finally, a robustness check in the U.S. replicates the effect of the historical concentration of large-scale industries on today’s levels of psychological adversity."

From the body of the paper:

"In the U.K., the negative effect of large-scale industries was particularly robust (when controlling for historical confounds and using distance to coalfields as an instrument) in the prediction of lower Conscientiousness and well-being (life expectancy) and higher Neuroticism. In the U.S. robustness check, we found a similar pattern for lower Conscientiousness and higher Neuroticism in terms of region-level correlations (in addition to a negative correlation between large-scale industries and Agreeableness, which we did not find in the main U.K. analysis). The instrumental variable regression in the U.S. analysis confirmed the negative effect of large-scale industries on Neuroticism, and also revealed a negative effect of large-scale industries on well-being."

"However, one should stress that although the massive historical industrialization of these regions was often based on (spatial proximity to) coal resources, it was not necessarily the coal itself that created the local psychological climate; rather, it is likely that the stressful work and living conditions, together with selective migration patterns and lasting economic hardship, led to the collective psychological consequences observed in our study."

sidd

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Coal
« Reply #939 on: December 12, 2017, 06:40:25 PM »
Quote

We have seen the fall of coal.

The Dow Jones Coal Index, which stood at over 723 at its high in 2008, was down over 94% to 41.36 on December 8. Just as telling, all of the companies that were its components in 2008 have disappeared. There is now only one company in the index, and it is new, cobbled together out of the wreckage of those that once were.

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/12/12/hand-writing-wall-natural-gas/



sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6771
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1046
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Coal
« Reply #940 on: December 13, 2017, 12:48:44 AM »
Gas replacing coal and mebbe nukes in Ohio, 955 and 900 MW gas plants goin in.

"Ohio’s energy landscape has changed dramatically since a decade ago, when the state got about 85 percent of its electricity from burning coal and much of the rest from nuclear plants. Ohio historically has been one of America’s most coal-reliant states.

Ohio now gets 59.8 percent of its electricity from coal, still well above the national average but much less than just a few years ago. Its percentage of electricity from natural gas now exceeds 24 percent, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration."


https://www.toledoblade.com/Energy/2017/12/07/State-board-to-consider-Oregon-natural-gas-power-plant.html

sidd

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25696
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 426
Re: Coal
« Reply #941 on: December 25, 2017, 03:08:05 PM »
Australia, December 20.

”AEMO can predict with a large degree of accuracy any swings in output from wind and solar, but has made it clear that supply is most threatened by unexpected outages from a large thermal unit.”

Intermittent: Another big coal unit trips – that’s four in a week
Quote
A 700MW unit at the Eraring coal fired power station in New South Wales tripped on Monday afternoon, taking to four the number of big coal units that have failed without warning in less than a week.

The failure of the Eraring unit at 6pm on Monday follows unexpected trips at of a 420MW unit at Milmerran in Queensland on Tuesday, a 700MW unit at Mt Piper in NSW on Wednesday, and a 560MW unit at Loy Yang A (unit 3) in Victoria on Thursday.

The Mt Piper unit remains out of service, due to tube leaks, along with a 420MW unit at Liddell (out for six months due to turbine blade issues), and lingering problems at another 560MW unit (Unit 1) at Loy Yang A, which has been out for more than a month since tripping in early November.

It means that, aside from the unexpected trips, the equivalent of another Hazlewood power plant (more in fact) is out of service and unavailable as the summer heat intensifies.

The intermittent and unreliable nature of the coal fired power stations will be of particular concern to the Australian Energy Market Operator, charged with keeping the lights on and hoping it has enough reserve capacity to deal with failing coal and gas units.

AEMO last week issued a market notice pleading for operators to check their equipment and make sure it was in a good operational state and able to deliver something close to its rated capacity.

It is worried of a repeat of the events in NSW last February, when with two of four units at Liddell sidelined (840MW), the two biggest gas generators (more than 1,100MW) failed and a widespread blackout was only narrowly averted.
...
http://reneweconomy.com.au/intermittent-another-big-coal-unit-trips-thats-four-in-a-week-47037/

Image below from:  https://twitter.com/bradsmith_aus/status/943694353918148608
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25696
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 426
Re: Coal
« Reply #942 on: December 25, 2017, 03:16:15 PM »
”Even coal is getting out of coal.”

Australia:   Voters are burning politicians who won't ditch coal
Quote
Like kids' temporary obsessions with fidget spinners and Pokémon, the short attention spans of modern prime ministers lead to enormous mountains of waste. Just as last season's must-have toys quickly become landfill, last year's political fads waste enormous amounts of time, money and political capital.

Take coal, for example. In the last month, Newcastle, the world's largest coal port, announced its intention to diversify away from coal; BHP-Billiton, the world's largest mining company, announced its intention to withdraw from the World Coal Association; and the Queensland government was re-elected after abandoning its support for subsidies for the world's largest export coal mine. And, of course, AGL, the largest consumer of coal in Australia, just committed to replacing its ageing Liddell coal-fired power station with a suite of renewable energy and gas projects.

Even coal is getting out of coal.

But only a year ago, after an unprecedented cyclone in South Australia knocked down a dozen electricity transmission towers, Malcolm Turnbull and his front bench started the craze of blaming blackouts on renewable energy and assuring us that coal would be with us for "many, many, many decades to come". They were heady days. Scott Morrison got so excited that, like a kid sneaking a yo-yo into class, the Treasurer got in trouble for bringing a lump of coal into the House of Representatives.
...
https://amp.theage.com.au/comment/voters-are-burning-politicians-who-wont-ditch-coal-20171222-h098qa.html
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25696
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 426
Re: Coal
« Reply #943 on: December 28, 2017, 03:20:27 PM »
Poland wants to build a big new coal plant — but says it will be their last one.

Quote
Three construction groups have submitted offers to build a 1,000-megawatt coal-fired unit at Poland's Ostroleka power plant for state-run utilities Energa and Enea, Energa said in a statement on Thursday.

Energa revived the Ostroleka power plant project in 2016 in response to the Law and Justice (PiS) government's wider plan to stick to coal as the basic source of energy in the longer term.
...
Ostroleka, which is expected to be ready by 2023, will be the last coal-burning plant to be built in Poland, the energy minister said earlier this year.

Poland plans to reduce the share of coal in its energy mix to 50 percent by 2050 from around 80 percent currently.

($1 = 3.5034 zlotys)
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/three-groups-offer-to-build-polish-coalfired-power-plant-20171228-00202
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25696
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 426
Re: Coal
« Reply #944 on: January 01, 2018, 03:47:13 PM »
Excellent long-read on the current state of mid-Appalachian coal country, and how it came to be that way.

The 100-year capitalist experiment that keeps Appalachia poor, sick, and stuck on coal
https://qz.com/1167671/the-100-year-capitalist-experiment-that-keeps-appalachia-poor-sick-and-stuck-on-coal/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Coal
« Reply #945 on: January 01, 2018, 05:04:23 PM »
Excellent long-read on the current state of mid-Appalachian coal country, and how it came to be that way.

The 100-year capitalist experiment that keeps Appalachia poor, sick, and stuck on coal
https://qz.com/1167671/the-100-year-capitalist-experiment-that-keeps-appalachia-poor-sick-and-stuck-on-coal/

Sigmetnow,

Welcome to the Emperor's club!

Best,
AbruptSLR
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25696
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 426
Re: Coal
« Reply #946 on: January 01, 2018, 05:18:19 PM »
Excellent long-read on the current state of mid-Appalachian coal country, and how it came to be that way.

The 100-year capitalist experiment that keeps Appalachia poor, sick, and stuck on coal
https://qz.com/1167671/the-100-year-capitalist-experiment-that-keeps-appalachia-poor-sick-and-stuck-on-coal/

Sigmetnow,

Welcome to the Emperor's club!

Best,
AbruptSLR

What a way to usher in the new year!  :)

Thanks, my fellow Emperor!
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

oren

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9799
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3582
  • Likes Given: 3914
Re: Coal
« Reply #947 on: January 01, 2018, 07:48:31 PM »
Kudos, Sigmetnow.
That was a long and sad read. May your other posts be happier.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25696
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 426
Re: Coal
« Reply #948 on: January 04, 2018, 03:46:30 PM »
And here’s a short, sad read.  :'(

U.S.:  Coal mining deaths double in 2017
Quote
Workplace deaths in the coal mining industry increased last year to their highest point in three years.  A total of 15 miners died on the job in 2017, Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) data show, compared with eight in 2016.  That year saw the fewest mining deaths since records began.
...
West Virginia saw the bulk of the 2017 miner deaths, with eight.

The Senate last month approved David Zatezalo, a former coal mining executive, to lead MSHA, the main agency responsible for coal mine safety.

Zatezalo faced numerous questions about his own safety record throughout the confirmation process. He was previously head of Rhino Resources when MSHA took multiple enforcement actions against the company.

Zatezalo sought to assure senators that he would take strong enforcement actions when necessary.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/367034-coal-mining-deaths-skyrocket-in-2017


Quote
Under the Trump administration and a Republican-controlled Congress, mining companies could be taking more risks under the assumption that enforcement will be more lax. The House of Representatives wants to cut MSHA’s coal enforcement budget by $11 million, or almost 7 percent, after cutting the division’s budget by $7.9 million in FY 2017.
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-coal-miner-fatalities-8612b16c60a1/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6771
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1046
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Coal
« Reply #949 on: January 09, 2018, 06:33:04 AM »