Coal, the comeback kid?

[SkyDekker 781]

3 hours ago, olofscience said:

Again...read your source link!

You new here? Anything beyond 140 characters and it gets a little confusing.

[brenthutch 348]

1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

You new here? Anything beyond 140 characters and it gets a little confusing.

Coal use up.  Full stop. I hope that clears up your confusion.

[billvon 1,670]

Coal, the bankruptcy kid:  (On the plus side, perhaps that means that Trump has found a new way to go bankrupt.  He really needs to get in to coal.)

=================

Vast majority of new coal-power plants ‘uneconomic’

Billions in state and corporate cash going into more than 620 planned projects risk becoming stranded assets, warns report

China has plans to install another 368 coal power plants that would all fail to recoup their cost, according to new analysis

Alex Hamer

 JUNE 30 2021

The vast majority of new coal-power plants being planned will struggle to make back their upfront costs, including all of those under construction in China, according to a new report by an independent think-tank. It is calculated that 92 per cent of facilities proposed or under construction globally would cost more to build than the future cash flow they would generate, according to research from Carbon Tracker, even under a “business as usual” scenario where countries implement fewer carbon emissions restrictions and miss Paris climate accord targets.

=================

https://www.ft.com/content/cf4399bb-bb6b-4465-95e6-6777bc0ab070

[brenthutch 348]

9 hours ago, billvon said:

Coal, the bankruptcy kid:  (On the plus side, perhaps that means that Trump has found a new way to go bankrupt.  He really needs to get in to coal.)

=================

Vast majority of new coal-power plants ‘uneconomic’

Billions in state and corporate cash going into more than 620 planned projects risk becoming stranded assets, warns report

China has plans to install another 368 coal power plants that would all fail to recoup their cost, according to new analysis

Alex Hamer

 JUNE 30 2021

The vast majority of new coal-power plants being planned will struggle to make back their upfront costs, including all of those under construction in China, according to a new report by an independent think-tank. It is calculated that 92 per cent of facilities proposed or under construction globally would cost more to build than the future cash flow they would generate, according to research from Carbon Tracker, even under a “business as usual” scenario where countries implement fewer carbon emissions restrictions and miss Paris climate accord targets.

=================

https://www.ft.com/content/cf4399bb-bb6b-4465-95e6-6777bc0ab070

Then why are they doing it?  Presumably they are rational actors with the same access to the information you are citing, what is their motivation?

FWIW I am agnostic with regard to coal, for me it is just a rational decision based on economics. 
 

Edited June 18, 2022 by brenthutch

[JoeWeber 1,571]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Then why are they doing it?  Presumably they are rational actors with the same access to the information you are citing, what is their motivation?

FWIW I am agnostic with regard to coal, for me it is just a rational decision based on economics. 
 

Same reason others invest in solar: it’s the future!

[billvon 1,670]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Then why are they doing it?  Presumably they are rational actors with the same access to the information you are citing, what is their motivation?

?? Same motivation that anti-vaxxers, flat Earthers, 9/11 Truthers and Trump supporters have.  Their desire to believe overcomes their rationality.  (That or they are simply getting bad information.)

[JoeWeber 1,571]

35 minutes ago, billvon said:

Their desire to believe overcomes their rationality.

Probably I'm splitting hairs here but I think they have a need to believe. Seems to me it's about personal investiture, tribal alignment, drinking buddies, and neighborhood BBQ's. That sort of thing.

[wolfriverjoe 933]

9 hours ago, billvon said:

?? Same motivation that anti-vaxxers, flat Earthers, 9/11 Truthers and Trump supporters have.  Their desire to believe overcomes their rationality.  (That or they are simply getting bad information.)

I think it's more along the lines of 'they need the power right now'.

I could be wrong, and certainly welcome correction if so, but a coal plant is fairly simple to build. Big but simple.

I know I've seen natural gas plants get built in a few months (there's one a few miles from my house).

Nuke plants take a LOOONG time to build.

Solar & wind aren't all that hard, but the 'bang for the buck' (amount of power compared to the size of the installation and time to build it) is nowhere near as attractive for people who need more power as soon as possible.

[billvon 1,670]

Coal, yesterday's kid:

Looks like Texas is keeping the lights on with . . . renewables.  Sorry Brent; no miserable people in Texas for you to enjoy.

Despite Texas GOP's rhetoric, renewables are keeping the lights on amid state's sweltering summer

'It's 100% certain that climate change is contributing to the current heat wave,' said the director of Texas A&M's Texas Center for Climate Studies.

By Sanford Nowlin on Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 12:52 pmSEND A NEWS 

Texas' power grid is again under strain as the state deals with soaring summer temperatures.

Texas' spiking electrical demand amid this summer's extreme heat has renewed concerns about the stability of the state's power grid.

While Texas' Republican leadership continues to dog renewable energy sources as it tries to maintain its cozy relationship with the state's deep-pocketed oil and gas sector, experts say solar and wind are pretty much saving our asses right now.

“Texas is, by rhetoric, anti-renewables. But frankly, renewables are bailing us out," University of Texas professor and energy wonk Michael Webber told CNN this week.

Wind and solar supplied 27 gigawatts of electricity during Sunday's peak demand, Webber and other energy experts told the news network. That accounted for around 40% of the total energy required to keep the lights on.

https://www.sacurrent.com/news/despite-texas-gops-rhetoric-renewables-are-keeping-the-lights-on-amid-states-sweltering-summer-29147649

[brenthutch 348]

40%!  Wow that is impressive!  What is providing the other 60%?

Meanwhile in Germany (A county with a much greater energy demand)

German Vice Chancellor and Economy Minister Robert Habeck (Green Party): “That’s bitter, but it’s simply necessary in this situation to lower gas usage, To reduce gas consumption, less gas must be used to generate electricity. Coal-fired power plants will have to be used more instead,” the Economy Ministry said in a statement.

No mention of wind and solar from a member of the Green Party!

 

[Stumpy 162]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

 

No mention of wind and solar from a member of the Green Party!

 

It's painful watching how much you have to twist or misrepresent the facts to fit your narrative. Really not sure what you hope to achieve by it.

For those intellectually less challenged individuals wondering what BS Brent is spouting this time, it's a very short term response to impending russian gas shortages. From the same article:

"Germany, a long-time heavy user of Russian gas, began cutting down on imports after the latest invasion Ukraine. Its climate target to phase out coal by 2030 remains in place, as does its policy to shut down its three remaining nuclear power plants by 2023.

Berlin also plans to expand its renewable energy generation - already one of the most ambitious countries - and improve gas storage and energy efficiency measures."

 

Edited June 20, 2022 by Stumpy

[Phil1111 587]

25 minutes ago, Stumpy said:

It's painful watching how much you have to twist or misrepresent the facts to fit your narrative. Really not sure what you hope to achieve by it...

 

Just the current state of the GOP and republicans in America. Misinformation and lies are intermingled to meet a narrative. Big interest groups with cash in coal country. Buy politicians who spin the lies and the base gobbles the lies up.

This weekend in Texas the GOP voted to rename President Biden the "Acting President". Because he won a fraudulent election.

[SkyDekker 781]

On 6/17/2022 at 7:19 PM, brenthutch said:

Then why are they doing it?

You can't honestly ask such a dumb question.

[olofscience 265]

10 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

You can't honestly ask such a dumb question.

who said anything about being honest?

 

He couldn't engage without making strawmen arguments or loaded questions. It's just impossible for him.

Edited June 20, 2022 by olofscience

[brenthutch 348]

6 hours ago, Stumpy said:

It's painful watching how much you have to twist or misrepresent the facts to fit your narrative. Really not sure what you hope to achieve by it.

For those intellectually less challenged individuals wondering what BS Brent is spouting this time, it's a very short term response to impending russian gas shortages. From the same article:

"Germany, a long-time heavy user of Russian gas, began cutting down on imports after the latest invasion Ukraine. Its climate target to phase out coal by 2030 remains in place, as does its policy to shut down its three remaining nuclear power plants by 2023.

Berlin also plans to expand its renewable energy generation - already one of the most ambitious countries - and improve gas storage and energy efficiency measures."

 

And in that article the Economy Minister, Robert Habeck does not mention wind and solar (that would be the parts that are between the quotation marks)

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/06/19/german-green-party-announces-a-return-to-coal/

 

[billvon 1,670]

Coal, the cancer kid:

 

Reliance on coal linked with lung cancer incidence

The more a country relies on coal-fired power plants to generate energy, the greater the lung cancer risk is among its citizens . . . .

Researchers found that, for every 1-kilowatt increase of coal capacity per person, the relative risk of lung cancer increases 59% among men and 85% among women.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/reliance-on-coal-linked-with-lung-cancer-incidence/

[JerryBaumchen 750]

16 minutes ago, billvon said:

Coal, the cancer kid:

 

Reliance on coal linked with lung cancer incidence

The more a country relies on coal-fired power plants to generate energy, the greater the lung cancer risk is among its citizens . . . .

Researchers found that, for every 1-kilowatt increase of coal capacity per person, the relative risk of lung cancer increases 59% among men and 85% among women.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/reliance-on-coal-linked-with-lung-cancer-incidence/

Hi Bill,

5 yrs ago, one of my best friends * died of lung cancer.  That IMO is not a fun way to go.

Jerry Baumchen

* I had known him for over 50 yrs.

[brenthutch 348]

1 hour ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Bill,

5 yrs ago, one of my best friends * died of lung cancer.  That IMO is not a fun way to go.

Jerry Baumchen

* I had known him for over 50 yrs.

My grandfather died of the same thing, but then again he was a two pack a day smoker (Winstons)

As I posted earlier I am no great fan of coal, however given the choice of burning coal or having the lights go out, I would choose the former (just like most of the world)

Edited June 20, 2022 by brenthutch

[wmw999 1,564]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

As I posted earlier I am no great fan of coal, however given the choice of burning coal or having the lights go out, I would choose the former (just like most of the world)

And just like nearly everyone on this forum. However, your stated position as a rule as far as i can tell is that cheapest in the short is always best, especially if it pisses off the libs.

I have the means to support energy sources that look like better choices for the long run, including technology that reduces the need to consume as much energy in the first place. By subsidizing that, even at my own cost, I hope I’m helping to make it more available for others. Kind of like how early adopters helped make internal combustion engines the go-to choice in a different era.

Wendy P. 

[billvon 1,670]

8 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

And just like nearly everyone on this forum. However, your stated position as a rule as far as i can tell is that cheapest in the short is always best, especially if it pisses off the libs.

Or more accurately "whatever pisses off the libs is always best, especially if it's cheaper."

My own solution to "the lights going out" is . . well, I'll post that in its own thread.

[brenthutch 348]

4 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

And just like nearly everyone on this forum. However, your stated position as a rule as far as i can tell is that cheapest in the short is always best, especially if it pisses off the libs.

I have the means to support energy sources that look like better choices for the long run, including technology that reduces the need to consume as much energy in the first place. By subsidizing that, even at my own cost, I hope I’m helping to make it more available for others. Kind of like how early adopters helped make internal combustion engines the go-to choice in a different era.

Wendy P. 

My position is that economics trump ideology and any effort to overcome this simple reality are expensive, futile and counterproductive. (Germany going back to coal is a perfect example) As a Libertarian I fully support your personal choices, I just don’t want those choices to be foisted on the American people at the hand of a strong arming federal government.

[SkyDekker 781]

15 hours ago, brenthutch said:

(Germany going back to coal is a perfect example)

No it isn't. And you thinking it is, is exactly everything that is wrong with your position.

[brenthutch 348]

5 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

No it isn't. And you thinking it is, is exactly everything that is wrong with your position.

I’m not saying Germany no longer has aspirations to end the use of coal, I am saying that when it comes down to a choice between shuttering factories and freezing, and burning coal, they will/are choosing the latter.

[SkyDekker 781]

10 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I’m not saying Germany no longer has aspirations to end the use of coal, I am saying that when it comes down to a choice between shuttering factories and freezing, and burning coal, they will/are choosing the latter.

All these years about advocating for coal and all you were ever saying is that when people are faced with freezing they are going to find a way to stay warm?

I suggest a communications course.

[CygnusX-1 35]

20 hours ago, billvon said:

Coal, the cancer kid:

 

Reliance on coal linked with lung cancer incidence

The more a country relies on coal-fired power plants to generate energy, the greater the lung cancer risk is among its citizens . . . .

Researchers found that, for every 1-kilowatt increase of coal capacity per person, the relative risk of lung cancer increases 59% among men and 85% among women.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/reliance-on-coal-linked-with-lung-cancer-incidence/

You say that like it is a bad thing. Having an increase in cancer risk is a good thing for everyone:

• It is good for the economy (why do you hate economic progress?)

Just think of all the jobs created when cancer rates skyrocket. There are cancer centers employing - doctors, nurses, lab technicians, custodial workers, receptionists, administrators, etc. All these people would be out of work without coal causing lung cancer.

Then there is all the drug companies who are researching ways to cure coal inspired lung cancer. Just think of all the scientists, more lab technicians, custodial workers, and veterinarians. All out of a job. Do you really want that?

Not to mention all the miners, people that process and transport the coal. Gas station operators that supply the fuel to the trucks/trains that transport the coal. Let's face it, the whole country would shut down if we were to ban coal generated power plants!

• It is good for the environment (why do you hate nature?)

With all these people dying from lung cancer and being buried in the ground improves the population of worms to decompose the bodies. The worms create waste products that the plants use as nutrients to grow beautiful big trees and grass. And its not just worms, but probably ants, beetles, fungus, bacteria. All these things are good for the environment. We need more people dying not less to help the environment!

 

Edited June 21, 2022 by CygnusX-1