Coal

[Bob Wallace]

It’s 2018 and they’re bravely switching to *gas* to save the climate? That’s a bit of a reach.

You can't quickly turn off a coal plant when the Sun rises and then quickly turn it back on when the Sun sets.  That makes it very difficult to replace a coal plant with a solar farm.

You can shut down a gas plant rapidly when the Sun rises and avoid hours of fossil fuel consumption.

Gradually we will install enough wind, solar, and short term (one to three) day storage to keep gas plants offline most of the time.  A very few times per year we will hit a bad patch when we get too little generation from wind and solar to keep the grid going.  Then we can use those (now paid off) gas plants to get us through the tight spot.

Eventually we should be able to dispense with natural gas totally.  We might get the need for gas plant generation low enough to supply the fuel needs with biogas (compost and sewage).  Or come up with some other solution which we haven't yet though up.

[numerobis]

Good to see you’re back, Bob!

[crandles]

Good to see you’re back, Bob!

+1

[TerryM]

Missed your dulcet tones Bob!
Hope the vacation was enjoyable.
Terry

[numerobis]

About that particular plant: switching from coal to gas is an improvement, sure. About halves the CO2 and does even better reducing local and regional pollution. With the district heating, it's already a highly efficient plant in cold parts of the year.

It's just not exactly a huge leap into the future of green energy that demonstrates a strong commitment to anything.

[Bob Wallace]

Missed your dulcet tones Bob!
Hope the vacation was enjoyable.
Terry

A month in Spain and Turkey was enjoyable.

On returning home I found I couldn't go the last 3.5 miles without spending serious money on a bulldozer to plow snow so I went to my sister's house in Florida.  Which was also enjoyable.

[Sigmetnow]

Missed your dulcet tones Bob!
Hope the vacation was enjoyable.
Terry

A month in Spain and Turkey was enjoyable.

On returning home I found I couldn't go the last 3.5 miles without spending serious money on a bulldozer to plow snow so I went to my sister's house in Florida.  Which was also enjoyable.

I guess that makes you a climate refugee, of sorts.   Welcome back!

[CDN_dude]

Australian company wants to recommission coal-fired power plant in order to power...bitcoin mining!? Yes that's right, a match made in hell: the world's worst energy source matched with its dumbest energy use. Hopefully they fail and go out of business early and fast:

https://www.cnet.com/news/australian-coal-power-plant-reopened-blockchain-bitcoin-applications/#ftag=COS-05-10aaa0j

[oren]

Australian company wants to recommission coal-fired power plant in order to power...bitcoin mining!? Yes that's right, a match made in hell: the world's worst energy source matched with its dumbest energy use. Hopefully they fail and go out of business early and fast:

https://www.cnet.com/news/australian-coal-power-plant-reopened-blockchain-bitcoin-applications/#ftag=COS-05-10aaa0j

Maybe this should go under the "Human Stupidity - mental illness" thread 

[sidd]

"Maybe this should go under the "Human Stupidity - mental illness" thread "

Agreed, so i did. added a link.

sidd

[John Batteen]

That's the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time.  Wow.

[numerobis]

They’re really just bidding to reopen a coal-fired plant to sell electricity:

According to a spokesperson from Hunter Energy, it expects roughly 5% of the energy from the power plant will be used for blockchain related processes.

So the blockchain stuff is just to get fawning press and investors. They’re actually just out to refurbish a power plant.

[Sigmetnow]

Latest: Coal continues to decline in Wyoming
“Recent indicators don’t bode well for the state.”

BACKSTORY
Wyoming produces more than 40 percent of the nation’s coal, and mining contributes more than $1 billion annually to state and local budgets. But production has been declining for several years now as cheaper, cleaner energy takes its place. Despite President Trump’s promises to bring back coal, Wyoming miners saw a net loss in jobs during 2017 (“Can coal remain the bedrock of Wyoming’s economy?” HCN, 9/18/17).

FOLLOWUP
The future of Wyoming coal looks bleak: In late March, the U.S. Energy Information Administration projected that demand will stay flat for several decades.*  Last year, companies withdrew applications for 901 million tons of coal in the Powder River Basin. In December, Contura Energy sold two Powder River Basin mines for just $21 million, the amount of taxes it owes the state. And this winter, power-plant owners in Colstrip, facing eventual plant closure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promised the coal-dependent town $13 million to help its economy transition beyond coal.

https://www.hcn.org/issues/50.7/latest-coal-continues-to-decline-in-wyoming


*EIA projects that U.S. coal demand will remain flat for several decades
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=35572

[numerobis]

EIA:

In the AEO2018 Reference Case, coal-fired electricity generation capacity is projected to decline by 65 gigawatts (GW) from 2018 through 2030, with virtually no retirements from 2030 through 2050.

No retirements for 20 years... how now?

I guess these *are* the same people who assume that solar PV has about a 7-year life span and that we've hit the peak and we're about to head back to the rate we were installing it year before last from now on (with the projection updated every year).

[Sigmetnow]

EIA:

In the AEO2018 Reference Case, coal-fired electricity generation capacity is projected to decline by 65 gigawatts (GW) from 2018 through 2030, with virtually no retirements from 2030 through 2050.

No retirements for 20 years... how now?

I guess these *are* the same people who assume that solar PV has about a 7-year life span and that we've hit the peak and we're about to head back to the rate we were installing it year before last from now on (with the projection updated every year).

I can see the EIA thinking those coal-fired plants that are “easy” to shut down will have shut by 2030, and the rest are the really intractable, “never gonna switch” plants.  Maybe they are not permitted to project how many utilities will change their minds by 2030 when renewables have proved themselves so simple and cheap that today’s obstacles (new tech, inertia, politics) have faded away.

[numerobis]

Reading the report: they assume renewables output will drop in 2018 versus 2017, then rise quickly, then grow fairly slowly -- an average annual growth rate of 2.8%. Nearly double by 2050!

From 2020 to 2050, utility-scale wind capacity is projected to grow by 20 gigawatts (GW), and utility-scale
solar photovoltaic capacity is projected to grow by 127 GW

The usual.

They also assume only a tiny, tiny fraction of transportation will be electrified by 2050.

[TerryM]

They also assume only a tiny, tiny fraction of transportation will be electrified by 2050.

Perhaps their next meeting should be in China. Arrive by high speed (electrical) rail, e-busses to the convention center, then an e-taxi back to the hotel. Another day, another city.
After a week they might do much better at "seeing the future".


It's not that the world isn't advancing, it's that the Americas have fallen behind.
Terry

[Bob Wallace]

The EIA has long assumed that when subsidies for wind and solar are over in the US the rate of installation will take a huge hit.  They never seem to understand that the price of wind and solar continue to fall.  That wind and solar are now our least expensive sources of electricity.  And that a large majority of Americans want more renewables and less fossil fuels.

One part of the EIA charts the ongoing closure of US coal plants.  The people who predict the future use of coal seem unable to access that data.

[numerobis]

On the other hand, they *do* predict LEDs to pretty much wipe out all other light sources for commercial application in the coming decades.

I'm not quite sure why they predict around 20% of residential lighting to be CFLs still in 2050 though.

[Bob Wallace]

Here's a letter three of us sent to the EIA four years ago. 

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/01/10/horrible-eia-forecasts-letter-cleantechnica-readers/

After some difficultly we managed to route it through the White House and got someone at the EIA to read it.  They basically blew us off and kept on keeping on.

[oren]

Here's a letter three of us sent to the EIA four years ago. 

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/01/10/horrible-eia-forecasts-letter-cleantechnica-readers/

After some difficultly we managed to route it through the White House and got someone at the EIA to read it.  They basically blew us off and kept on keeping on.

Nice letter Bob. Even for a government agency with its inherent stupidity and hidden agendas, what they did there with the renewable forecasts is unbelievable.

[Bob Wallace]

I trust the EIA's data.  But I place no value on their predictions.

I suspect as a part of the government they are making predictions that protect their budget rather than predictions which are likely to be predictive.

If the EIA predicted the death of coal and nuclear and the ascendency of renewable energy I suspect the Koch-sponsored member of Congress would cut their funding in the next budget.  We have a significant number of elected officials (offals) who have no problem ignoring inconvenient facts.   

[numerobis]

I'm not ready to attribute the EIA/IEA predictions to outright corruption. It's a predictive model. Their model only has provision for technological change where they are forced to put it.

They've got a model for lighting now because over the past 15 years that's been undergoing rapid and deep technological change that affects the overall market.

They've got models for vehicle fuel efficiency because policy changes drive big changes.

They have models of natural gas price versus coal price because that tradeoff has been happening for a long time. I bet they still have models of petroleum prices versus other fuels for electricity, because that used to be relevant, and why throw away a model you've developed?

Renewables haven't been relevant to the overall market until the past few years. Wind only hit 1% of electricity generation in 2008, solar in 2016. So they only had rough models of those marginal technologies. Suddenly they aren't quite so marginal anymore, but their models aren't there yet.

At least their data models unit figured out a couple years ago they needed to estimate rooftop solar.

[Richard Rathbone]

Britain powers on without coal for three days

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43879564

Going, going, ...

[Bob Wallace]

Here are the US coal plants (gray circles) scheduled to be closed by Feb 2019.  This is a chart from the EIA. 



They, at the agency level, understand that there will be no place to burn coal in order to keep coal as large a source as they predict twenty years from now.

I'm not charging the EIA with corruption.  Only failing to make realistic predictions due to self-protection. 

[Bob Wallace]

From Feb 2017 to Feb 2018 the US lost 5% of its coal capacity to plant closure.

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_02_c

[TerryM]

From Feb 2017 to Feb 2018 the US lost 5% of its coal capacity to plant closure.

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_02_c

Is 20 years a suitable time frame?
Terry

[ghoti]

Is 20 years a suitable time frame?

Whether it is or not that's the stated goal of the Power Past Coal Alliance - "To meet the Paris Agreement, the analysis shows that coal phase-out is needed by no later than 2030"
https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/canada-international-action/coal-phase-out/alliance-declaration.html

[Bob Wallace]

You mean if the US dropped 5% a year for the next 20 years?

Yes, no, maybe.

I simply don't know what is "enough" any longer.  We've already changed our climate.  We're already getting hurt.  In that light it's far too little.  If we're talking about extreme climate change which would kill billions of us and drive all of us closer to the poles and up the mountains to escape the heat a rate that slow might be OK.

My guess is that coal will disappear faster than that in the US.  As time goes on the economic advantages of quitting coal will become clearer to most and coal's political power will collapse.

It might take 20 years in China and India where coal is a larger part of their grids.  Both both countries are under a lot of pressure from their citizens to clean up air pollution and both seem to putting pedal to metal with wind and solar installations.

[gerontocrat]

READ!!!

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/27/in-the-battle-for-the-planets-climate-future-australias-adani-mine-is-the-line-in-the-sand

Bill McKibben (350.org)
In the battle for the planet's climate future, Australia's Adani mine is the line in the sand
 

In the US, Donald Trump is decimating decades of hard-fought environmental and climate standards – it’s all 18th century all the time. But the ageing fossil fuel assets and recent “market failure” of the Australian electricity grid is pushing political leaders to all-out brawling, pitting conservative inaction against the demand for solution-focused action.

A recent wave of blackouts and near misses and the proposal of the biggest coalmine in the world – the Adani Carmichael mine in Queensland – has created tinder-dry conditions that only needed one spark to go up in flames.It turned the deadlocked debate over how to fix Australia’s fossil fuel-laden and often failing energy “market” into an open war between those backing the dying coal industry with those set on using the moment to transition to renewable energy.

Indeed, one of the icons of the ageing coal fleet, the dirtiest coal power station in the developed world – Hazelwood in Victoria – turns off its turbines this week as it shuts down. The symbols couldn’t be clearer: Musk’s batteries or Adani’s mega-mine and dirty coal power. Which one represents the future?

As you formulate the answer, remember that the war is of course playing out against a tragic backdrop: the ongoing destruction of the Great Barrier Reef that is Australia’s great natural treasure, the thing it’s been charged by the world to protect. That horror is a human-created disaster, caused directly by man-made global warming that is increasing ocean temperatures by an alarming rate.

The decision about the future is also a decision about what kind of democracy you want. As in the US, the Aussie mining industry has for decades has a disproportionate amount of power over politicians. It cares about one thing only – not the greater good, but its own perpetuation.

[Bob Wallace]

Donald Trump is trying to decimate environmental regulations.  It's not something easily done.  He can do some minor damage around the edges but about the worst he can do short term is to slow inspections and enforcement.

We must take at least one house of Congress away from Republicans the coming November.  That will block any new legislation that would create real harm.  And if we can take both houses then we  can probably keep Trump from doing much at all by blocking his most horrendous Cabinet and agency head appointments.  And by tying him up with public investigations into the possibly illegal actions he and his administration have already taken.

[TerryM]

Donald Trump is trying to decimate environmental regulations.  It's not something easily done.  He can do some minor damage around the edges but about the worst he can do short term is to slow inspections and enforcement.

We must take at least one house of Congress away from Republicans the coming November.  That will block any new legislation that would create real harm.  And if we can take both houses then we  can probably keep Trump from doing much at all by blocking his most horrendous Cabinet and agency head appointments.  And by tying him up with public investigations into the possibly illegal actions he and his administration have already taken.

You had me right up to the last sentence.
Donald isn't a competent politician, so "tying him up" won't make a lot of difference. We definitely need to win every seat that we can in both houses, and we need to win with candidates who are not themselves tied to Big Oil.
Personally I think the only path to victory is to run strong progressive candidates who can distance themselves from the corporate toadies that make up all the Republicans, and an unsettling number of the Democratic Party Leadership.
Terry

[Bob Wallace]

It takes a majority of the votes to win.  A majority of the Electoral College  votes.

If a candidate who is too far to the left runs there's a chance of losing the EC votes in those swing states.

All liberals are progressive.  All roughly share the same goals.  It's a matter of some wanting change very fast and some reconciled that if you don't sell the majority of citizens on your ideas then you'll not go as far, as fast in the long run.

IMO, the 'most progressive' hurt their cause by talking a too extreme/advanced case and scaring those close to and a bit right of center. 

In 2020 we need another Barrack Obama.  A good steady hand who can oversee the massive repair of the Trump destruction while moving a progressive agenda at a rate that doesn't scare the horses.

[SteveMDFP]

+1 to Bob's comment.

I'd only add that "all politics is local."

More-progressive candidates can win in more-progressive districts/states.
Centrist Democrats are what's needed in less-progressive districts/states.
It is counter-productive to attack those particular centrist Democrats.

[Bob Wallace]

+1 to Bob's comment.

I'd only add that "all politics is local."

More-progressive candidates can win in more-progressive districts/states.
Centrist Democrats are what's needed in less-progressive districts/states.
It is counter-productive to attack those particular centrist Democrats.

If what it takes for a Democrat to win in a very red state is to promise to vote with Republicans on every piece of legislation then we should accept that person.

If they don't win then a Republican will vote with Republicans.  No difference.

But if they do win then they get counted as a Democrat helping Democrats take Congressional leadership roles and Congressional committee chairs.

Right now Republican control of committees means that investigations are not following leads that might turn out to harm Republicans/Trump.  And the Senate leader is not allowing legislation he does not like being introduced.

People are not going to get elected in Louisiana if they oppose oil or in West Virginia if they oppose coal. 

[TerryM]

That's certainly the belief of both the DNC and the DCCC.
The Republicans began cleaning their house a few decades ago. Which party has been more effective in getting their legislation past?
Terry


OT
Sounds like a beautiful boat Bob. Mine never left fresh water, and had far more miles over road than over water.

[Shared Humanity]

It might take 20 years in China and India where coal is a larger part of their grids.  Both both countries are under a lot of pressure from their citizens to clean up air pollution and both seem to putting pedal to metal with wind and solar installations.

In 2017, China installed 3 times the amount of new wind generating turbines as did the U.S.

[Shared Humanity]

China's cumulative installed capacity is more than twice that of the U.S.

[Shared Humanity]

China's leadership role in global solar electricity generation is even more pronounced than wind.

https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2018/03/global-solar-installations-jumped-29-percent-in-2017.html

[numerobis]

And similarly, China has a leadership role in global coal-fired electricity generation. And their capacity is growing (though their use of coal isn't).

[Bob Wallace]

In 2015 coal produced 72% of China's electricity.  That's a lot of coal generation to replace.  To get there in 20 years China would have to be replacing coal with low carbon generation at the rate of 3.4% of 2015 per year.

The US is now about 30% coal generation.  That would take 1.5% replacement per year.  Easier.

[Bob Wallace]

That's certainly the belief of both the DNC and the DCCC.
The Republicans began cleaning their house a few decades ago. Which party has been more effective in getting their legislation past?
Terry

Republicans have had total control of the Congress and White House for 1.25 years and have passed only a single large bill.  Their massive wealth transfer to the wealthy, er, tax reform bill.

During Obama's first two years a massive stimulus bill was passed in order to help the US start clawing its way out of the recession.  The very important health care bill was passed.  Sweeping reforms of financial regulation.  Major changes in student loan programs.  Created legislation to help women achieve pay equity.  Created legislation to protect LGBTs.

[Bob Wallace]

US Powder Basin coal producers feeling squeezed: The President and CEO of Cloud Peak Energy, Colin Marshall, told investors that it was “obviously very close” to where it was not worth selling additional volumes of thermal coal. Cloud Peak Energy, which was spun off from Rio Tinto in 2009, has faced increased costs, flat prices, declining demand and increasing competition from other fuels. Arch Coal, another major Powder River Bain producer, has flagged it expects its Black Thunder mine in Wyoming to produce somewhere between 62 million and 68 million tons (56–62 million tonnes) of coal in 2018, down by between 11 and 15 per cent on the company’s previous statements. The Black Thunder mine, one of the world’s largest, produced 101 million tons (92 million tonnes) in 2014. (S&P Global, S & P Global)

This is pretty big news.  IIRC Powder Basin coal is the least expensive.  If they are seeing their business shrinking then the end is certainly coming for US coal.

[sidd]

i went thru some of those mines last year. the mine landscapes are Mordor.

Hansen was right, trains of death, goin for miles with three locomotives to get em over the mountains.


sidd

[numerobis]

It’s cheap to mine but IIRC they had capacity constraints — they couldn’t load as much coal onto ships to China as they wanted.

[Bob Wallace]

That's very true that they've had problems getting a West Coast harbor to allow them to load boats.  People in West Coast cities don't want that mess in their communities plus there's a lot of resistance to abetting climate change.

But shipping to Asia would be a replacement market.  Some place to sell product as their US market shrinks. someone to buy some of their coal. 

The coal industry is collapsing in Asia as well. 

[numerobis]

And I applaud the West Coasters. Same story with oil and gas in BC: the gas terminal was delayed so long that it was no longer economically worth building when it finally got approved, and the oil terminal is still being debated. The longer that it's delayed, the better; ideally long enough to sink the pipeline (because otherwise a literal oil tank is bound to sink at some point).

[TerryM]

Europe may need to forgo coal as the largest insurer will no longer be providing insurance.

https://sputniknews.com/world/201805061064182700-Biggest-EU-Insurer-Ditches-Coal/

Investment in "coal and attendant technologies will be phased out by 2040", as Allianz moves to financing renewables.
Terry

[Sciguy]

Renewabes are now cheaper than coal in India:

https://qz.com/1272394/cheap-solar-and-wind-energy-prices-are-killing-indias-coal-power-plants/

Over the last year, wind and solar power tariffs have fallen to a record low of around Rs2.4 per unit, much lower than the average of Rs3.7 per unit at which analysts say coal-based power is currently being sold on India’s power exchanges.

As a result, coal-based power plants are falling out of favour with power distribution companies (discoms).

“The (coal-based power) plants are ready but… no discom was coming forward for long-term PPAs (power purchase agreements) because they were getting power at a cheaper rate from renewable sources,” Sudhir Kumar, associate director at CARE Ratings, told Quartz.

Last financial year, for the first time, India added more power capacity from renewable sources than coal.

[numerobis]

Wow. They have 10 GW not viable under market pricing, and another 20 GW questionable. That's a lot of existing or near-term capacity going away.

Of course, the vested interests are cap in hand:

In an attempt to make amends, India’s power ministry last month proposed a scheme where a government-owned entity would purchase power from coal-based plants that currently don’t have any PPAs to keep them going. Under the pilot project, the government plans to invite bids from stressed coal-based assets for signing medium-term three-year agreements. This, however, will be capped at 2,500 MW of capacity, still leaving out around 7,500 MW of thermal power capacity.