3 3
brenthutch

Coal, the comeback kid?

Recommended Posts

https://time.com/6180579/germany-coal-power-russia/
“Germany is resorting to desperate measures to keep the lights on and its massive industrial parks running, turning to dirty fuels even if that means a surge in carbon emissions. The nation has almost six gigawatts of facilities that are currently part of a national reserve, many of which were supposed to be closed down as part of the coal phase-out plan.”

Can someone please tell me why they just don’t put up more solar panels and windmills? (Since they are cheaper, cleaner and more scalable ¬¬)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coal, failing consistently and on a terminal decline.

 

Coal’s Unstoppable Decline Means Carbon Emissions From Electricity Will Keep Dropping For Years To Come

 

The U.S. electric sector has been burning less coal every single year. So much so that carbon emissions from coal in the U.S. electricity sector are more than 50% lower today than just a decade ago. This is a result of the declining economics of coal power plants due to low natural gas prices, increasing numbers of low-cost renewable plants, and more stringent environmental regulations.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidcherney/2021/01/13/coal-producers-affirm-us-carbon-emissions-from-electricity-will-keep-declining/?sh=10d024712ba1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
10 minutes ago, billvon said:

Coal, failing consistently and on a terminal decline.

 

Coal’s Unstoppable Decline Means Carbon Emissions From Electricity Will Keep Dropping For Years To Come

 

The U.S. electric sector has been burning less coal every single year. So much so that carbon emissions from coal in the U.S. electricity sector are more than 50% lower today than just a decade ago. This is a result of the declining economics of coal power plants due to low natural gas prices, increasing numbers of low-cost renewable plants, and more stringent environmental regulations.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidcherney/2021/01/13/coal-producers-affirm-us-carbon-emissions-from-electricity-will-keep-declining/?sh=10d024712ba1

U.S. emissions hardly matter.  It’s China, India and to a lesser degree the rest of the developing world that control the future of coal consumption.  But having the world’s largest reserves of coal, we will continue to mine and export it. 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/265510/countries-with-the-largest-coal-consumption/

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, billvon said:

Coal, failing consistently and on a terminal decline.

 

Coal’s Unstoppable Decline Means Carbon Emissions From Electricity Will Keep Dropping For Years To Come

 

The U.S. electric sector has been burning less coal every single year. So much so that carbon emissions from coal in the U.S. electricity sector are more than 50% lower today than just a decade ago. This is a result of the declining economics of coal power plants due to low natural gas prices, increasing numbers of low-cost renewable plants, and more stringent environmental regulations.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidcherney/2021/01/13/coal-producers-affirm-us-carbon-emissions-from-electricity-will-keep-declining/?sh=10d024712ba1

Hi Bill,

As the, then Saudi Oil Minister said many years ago, 'The Stone Age did not end because they ran out of rocks.'

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Bill,

As the, then Saudi Oil Minister said many years ago, 'The Stone Age did not end because they ran out of rocks.'

Jerry Baumchen

Considering coal is in fact a stone, we still are very much still in a Stone Age of sorts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

As the, then Saudi Oil Minister said many years ago, 'The Stone Age did not end because they ran out of rocks.'

Yep.  And we did not switch from horses to gas cars because they ran out of horses - and we're not switching to EV's now because we are running out of gas (or gas cars.)

Not only does coal kill thousands of Americans a year, and not only is coal a huge source of atmospheric carbon, but it's also the second most expensive source of power we have today, second only to nuclear power.  Even when both are fully depreciated, coal costs roughly twice as much as nuclear (since they have to keep shoveling the stuff in.)  And even fully depreciated, it's still more expensive than NEW wind or solar.  In other words, even if you have a coal power plant fully paid for, and are paying for nothing other than the coal and the manpower to run it, you're still going to be paying $42 per megawatt-hour.  New solar is $28-$41/MWhr and new wind is $26-$50/MWhr - even taking into account all the construction costs.

It's great that it's no longer just environmental concerns driving the end of coal.  Now it's cold, hard cash.  Utilities can simply no longer afford it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, billvon said:

Yep.  And we did not switch from horses to gas cars because they ran out of horses - and we're not switching to EV's now because we are running out of gas (or gas cars.)

Not only does coal kill thousands of Americans a year, and not only is coal a huge source of atmospheric carbon, but it's also the second most expensive source of power we have today, second only to nuclear power.  Even when both are fully depreciated, coal costs roughly twice as much as nuclear (since they have to keep shoveling the stuff in.)  And even fully depreciated, it's still more expensive than NEW wind or solar.  In other words, even if you have a coal power plant fully paid for, and are paying for nothing other than the coal and the manpower to run it, you're still going to be paying $42 per megawatt-hour.  New solar is $28-$41/MWhr and new wind is $26-$50/MWhr - even taking into account all the construction costs.

It's great that it's no longer just environmental concerns driving the end of coal.  Now it's cold, hard cash.  Utilities can simply no longer afford it.

But Santa, being a magical person, will still be able to bring it to naughty kids regardless of cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
23 minutes ago, billvon said:

Yep.  And we did not switch from horses to gas cars because they ran out of horses - and we're not switching to EV's now because we are running out of gas (or gas cars.)

Not only does coal kill thousands of Americans a year, and not only is coal a huge source of atmospheric carbon, but it's also the second most expensive source of power we have today, second only to nuclear power.  Even when both are fully depreciated, coal costs roughly twice as much as nuclear (since they have to keep shoveling the stuff in.)  And even fully depreciated, it's still more expensive than NEW wind or solar.  In other words, even if you have a coal power plant fully paid for, and are paying for nothing other than the coal and the manpower to run it, you're still going to be paying $42 per megawatt-hour.  New solar is $28-$41/MWhr and new wind is $26-$50/MWhr - even taking into account all the construction costs.

It's great that it's no longer just environmental concerns driving the end of coal.  Now it's cold, hard cash.  Utilities can simply no longer afford it.

Then why is Germany firing up its old coal plants instead of adding more wind and solar? Why do India and China continue to add coal fired capacity?

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, billvon said:

Even when both are fully depreciated, coal costs roughly twice as much as nuclear (since they have to keep shoveling the stuff in.)  And even fully depreciated, it's still more expensive than NEW wind or solar.  In other words, even if you have a coal power plant fully paid for, and are paying for nothing other than the coal and the manpower to run it, you're still going to be paying $42 per megawatt-hour.  New solar is $28-$41/MWhr and new wind is $26-$50/MWhr - even taking into account all the construction costs.

Indeed.

It has been several years since Xcel here in CO put out an invitation for bids to increase their available power, and renewables came in cheaper than anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Then why is Germany firing up its old coal plants instead of adding more wind and solar? Why do India and China continue to add coal fired capacity?

Because they were smart enough to recognize that energy from coal is actually power from Solar! Black is the new Green.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Australia too

While I'll be fair here and not blame everything on the net-zero goal, it certainly hasn't been helpful that the governments (past and present) have been disparaging to the coal industry, blocking many new coal and gas projects, and now expect cooperation. Also, curiously, at least one scientist reckons Australia is already at net zero and even waggishly suggested that Australia should bill other countries for scrubbing their emissions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, metalslug said:

. Also, curiously, at least one scientist reckons Australia is already at net zero and even waggishly suggested that Australia should bill other countries for scrubbing their emissions.

Ah yes. From Wikipedia:

"He is a member of the academic advisory council for climate change denialist pressure group The Global Warming Policy Foundation,[25] "

"He is currently the non-executive deputy chairman of KEFI Minerals since 2006,[31] independent non-executive director of Ivanhoe Australia Limited since 2007,[32] chairman of TNT Mines Limited since 2010,[24][33] non-executive director of Niuminco Group Limited (formerly DSF International Holdings Limited) since 2011,[34][35] and non-executive director of Silver City Minerals Limited since 2011.[3][30][36][37][38] Plimer was appointed director of Roy Hill Holdings and Queensland Coal Investments in 2012.[39]

According to a columnist in The Age, Plimer earned over $400,000 (AUD) from several of these companies, and he has mining shares and options worth hundreds of thousands of Australian dollars.[40] Plimer has stated that his business interests do not affect the independence of his beliefs.[36] He has also warned that the proposed Australian carbon-trading scheme could decimate the Australian mining industry.[19][41]"

I wouldn't place too much weight on anything he says. His income is literally dependent on saying this sort of stuff.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Stumpy said:

I wouldn't place too much weight on anything he says. His income is literally dependent on saying this sort of stuff.

Give him a few years; he will be an anchor on FOX News telling everyone that CNN is biased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Stumpy said:

I wouldn't place too much weight on anything he says. His income is literally dependent on saying this sort of stuff.

How is this different from alarmists Mike Cannon-Brookes and Simon Holmes a Court ?  How would it make sense for Plimer to not be financially invested in something he believes in?  Can you actually refute the science argument that he makes ?  Err.. no, you have nothing there.  You probably also think that reducing Australia's 1%  (of global) carbon emissions will reduce it's bushfires and east coast flooding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, metalslug said:

How is this different from alarmists Mike Cannon-Brookes and Simon Holmes a Court ?  How would it make sense for Plimer to not be financially invested in something he believes in?  Can you actually refute the science argument that he makes ?  Err.. no, you have nothing there.  You probably also think that reducing Australia's 1%  (of global) carbon emissions will reduce it's bushfires and east coast flooding.

:rofl: Even oil and gas companies are now admitting that human driven climate change is a thing. He is in a very small population that hasn't even evolved that far yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Stumpy said:

:rofl: Even oil and gas companies are now admitting that human driven climate change is a thing. He is in a very small population that hasn't even evolved that far yet.

Quote

Can you actually refute the science argument that he makes ?

I'm correct then. You have nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, metalslug said:

I'm correct then. You have nothing.

He doesn't make a scientific argument. He makes a bunch of assertions with no real evidence behind them. If you don't understand this I can't help you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, metalslug said:

How is this different from alarmists Mike Cannon-Brookes and Simon Holmes a Court ?

?? It's not.  Go with scientists, not media darlings or industry shills.  People like Syukuro Manabe, James Hansen, Phil Jones, Naomi Oreskes and Veerabhadran Ramanathan.

Quote

Can you actually refute the science argument that he makes ?

Sure.  He claims that the wild lands of Australia absorb 940 million tons of CO2 a year and that people emit 417 million tons of CO2 a year, so they are "net negative."  Those numbers are sorta accurate.  What he fails to consider is that those same wild lands also emit ~800 million tons of CO2 a year from natural causes - primarily decomposition and animal exhalation/digestion.  Termites alone emit 177 million tons of CO2 in Australia a year.  Thus the NET CO2 that Australia emits is positive.

Look up the carbon cycle for a good explanation of the existing carbon cycle that was largely balanced before people got here.  The carbon cycle has a limited capacity to absorb "extra" CO2 - but we have far exceeded that capacity.

Quote

  You probably also think that reducing Australia's 1%  (of global) carbon emissions will reduce it's bushfires and east coast flooding.

Reducing Australia's carbon emissions AND US carbon emissions AND China carbon emissions etc etc. absolutely will reduce flooding and brushfires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2022/05/31/indias_bad_boys_reopen_100_coal_mines_as_demand_skyrockets_835058.html
 

“In a bold and rebellious move, India has ordered reopening more than 100 dormant coal mines to meet skyrocketing domestic power demand.”:ohmygod:

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-coal-output-set-moderate-growth-2022-industry-body-2022-03-30/

“China is expected to see its coal output to grow further in 2022 after hitting a record last year”:ohmygod:

I forget who it was that said that the increase of coal use in the developing world would dwarf the cuts made by the US and EU. Looks like they might have been correct 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/2/2022 at 11:04 AM, billvon said:

Coal, failing consistently and on a terminal decline.

 

Coal’s Unstoppable Decline Means Carbon Emissions From Electricity Will Keep Dropping For Years To Come

 

 

As Paul Harvey would say “And now, for the rest of the story”

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2022/03/20220317-eiacoal.html

“In 2021, coal exports from the United States increased by 23% to 85 million metric short tons (MMst) from 69 MMst in 2020, according to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). 

Steam coal exports increased by 47% to 40 MMst, and metallurgical coal exports increased by 8% to 45 MMst. In 2021, the percentage of domestic coal production that was exported rose to 15%.”

So you see, it really doesn’t matter how much coal we burn in the US, we will continue to mine it, export it and it will be consumed elsewhere and our efforts will have ZERO impact on global emissions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/9/2022 at 4:12 AM, billvon said:

Reducing Australia's carbon emissions AND US carbon emissions AND China carbon emissions etc etc. absolutely will reduce flooding and brushfires.

Partial blackouts/brownouts now impacting parts of Australia, a country with some of the largest energy resources under their feet and this (below) is an indication of the emerging electorate in a country that contributes 1% to global emissions. I look forward to seeing this person protesting at the Chinese embassy ("wait.. what?"). 

KimCarson.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

3 3