Trump Orders Perry to Stem Coal, Nuclear Power Plant Closures

beerftw said:

No it is not, however economical and national security are different things, the market follows what is profitable, while the govt focuses on what ifs and how to keep things running 20 years from now rather than how to make money 3 years from now. This means it is in the govts interest to protect coal, to ensure even if it falls out of favor it is a viable backup source to keep the country rolling, rather than hoping a single source does not falter. This very instance came up during the oil embargo, where the govt had to revitalize coal because of how high oil rose in price, the same thing could happen again, do not count your chickens before they hatch and do not throw all your eggs in one basket, the same can be said for any energy source.

Click to expand...

There is absolutely no reason to subsidize or nationalize coal at this time. We have many other coal plants open and we still mine it. Now if you want a national reserve of coal that’s different but it still doesn’t require subsidizing or nationalizing it at this time.

beerftw said:

No it is not, however economical and national security are different things, the market follows what is profitable, while the govt focuses on what ifs and how to keep things running 20 years from now rather than how to make money 3 years from now. This means it is in the govts interest to protect coal, to ensure even if it falls out of favor it is a viable backup source to keep the country rolling, rather than hoping a single source does not falter. This very instance came up during the oil embargo, where the govt had to revitalize coal because of how high oil rose in price, the same thing could happen again, do not count your chickens before they hatch and do not throw all your eggs in one basket, the same can be said for any energy source.

Click to expand...

We have more options now than we did then. No, we are not going to keep whale oil on the table in the name of national security. Keep all options, right?

beerftw said:

Let me say this, protecting coal is a national security issue, current natural gas is in a boom and a boom almost always follows with a bust.

Click to expand...

No, that's not true. LNG production isn't going away any time soon.

We should remember the oil crisis in the 70's how any commodity can either run short or be leveraged to run costs sky high

Click to expand...

Then LNG seems like a great option because it isn't based on oil commodity prices.

Khayembii Communique said:

No, that's not true. LNG production isn't going away any time soon.



Then LNG seems like a great option because it isn't based on oil commodity prices.

Click to expand...

Lng will not go away anytime soon however production levels might. Lng has been around for a very long time but has only reached current levels due to recent advances allowing them to get it where they could not before. However it is in a boom cycle, and will likely bust, probably when prices fall low enough that it becomes unprofitable to drill or frack for it, china is already pushing their lng industry as well.


Lng is independant of oil, however it can hit the same problems as oil but independantly, lng production should be another card up the sleeve, not betting all on a single hand. If natural gas let's say was overstated and a few years from now proven reserves end up being far less and many big wells dry up, prices would go sky high because switching to smaller wells would happen which requires more manpower for less product to keep up with demand. Lng is estimated at 80-100 years at current production rates and reserves, however many have been speculating that reserves are highly overstated in both america and russia(2 largest lng exporters) and that the constant push to move to lng as the main source might strain lng supplies, and if expanded enough might only last a few decades at best.


We have many fossil fuels available, renewable tech is not close enough to take over but is close enough to supplement energy needs, and in a few decades could take over for many needs formerly used by fossil fuels. However if we push any single fossil fuel, coal would provide us the longest runtime, and even that would fall short fast if we put all our eggs in the coal basket, with a finite resource you cannot rapidly push a single one and expect it to last, but rather keep it diverse.

Deuce said:

We have more options now than we did then. No, we are not going to keep whale oil on the table in the name of national security. Keep all options, right?

Click to expand...

I do not think whale oil was ever on the table for national security, numerous other things already did what whale oil did, and many uses got replaced later, like whale oil candles replaced tallow candles which got replaced by parrafin candles, or whale oil as a friction modifier on many oils and fluids got replaced by zinc.

beerftw said:

Lng will not go away anytime soon however production levels might. Lng has been around for a very long time but has only reached current levels due to recent advances allowing them to get it where they could not before. However it is in a boom cycle, and will likely bust, probably when prices fall low enough that it becomes unprofitable to drill or frack for it, china is already pushing their lng industry as well.

Click to expand...

You repeating "it's in a boom cycle, and will likely bust" doesn't make it any more true.

Companies don't allow prices to fall low enough to not make a profit. Profit is the point of being a company.

Lng is independant of oil, however it can hit the same problems as oil but independantly

Click to expand...

No, it really can't, because LNG prices aren't controlled by a cartel who have an effective monopoly on production.

If natural gas let's say was overstated and a few years from now proven reserves end up being far less and many big wells dry up

Click to expand...

LNG production isn't like oil. It's not based on "many big wells".

however many have been speculating that reserves are highly overstated in both america and russia(2 largest lng exporters) and that the constant push to move to lng as the main source might strain lng supplies, and if expanded enough might only last a few decades at best.

Click to expand...

Go ahead and tell us who is saying that.

We have many fossil fuels available, renewable tech is not close enough to take over but is close enough to supplement energy needs, and in a few decades could take over for many needs formerly used by fossil fuels. However if we push any single fossil fuel, coal would provide us the longest runtime, and even that would fall short fast if we put all our eggs in the coal basket, with a finite resource you cannot rapidly push a single one and expect it to last, but rather keep it diverse.

Click to expand...

No, that's not how the industry works. There is no inherent need to "keep it diverse".

Khayembii Communique said:

You repeating "it's in a boom cycle, and will likely bust" doesn't make it any more true.

Companies don't allow prices to fall low enough to not make a profit. Profit is the point of being a company.



No, it really can't, because LNG prices aren't controlled by a cartel who have an effective monopoly on production.



LNG production isn't like oil. It's not based on "many big wells".



Go ahead and tell us who is saying that.



No, that's not how the industry works. There is no inherent need to "keep it diverse".

Click to expand...

Yes those prices can fall, not being controlled by a cartel is exactly why they would, china is entering the game and russia is more than willing to compete, as is south america, this simply means any of those factions can pump out more lng than demand and cause it to be unprofitable, china and south america would likely benefit the mmost from it, as their labor and regulations are low enough a price drop would hurt them far less than western countries.


Lng production is based off wells, the wells are not the same as many require fracking to make it accessable.


There have been numerous people over the years saying as such, and when you google the facts on it, there is literally only a single source the eia mentioning natural gas reserves which has led to much speculation.


Yes there is a need to keep it diverse, all fossil fuels are finite, and pushing towards a single source would make what would have lasted a century last 10-20 years, all that would do is make boom cycles in production followed by a massive crisis when that chosen source runs low and production can not keep up, causing prices to be high and forcing energy providers to re invent the whole system by shifting to a new energy source, when diversified all the fossil fuels would have a fairly long life, but pushing just one over the others would lead for a very short life.

beerftw said:

I do not think whale oil was ever on the table for national security, numerous other things already did what whale oil did, and many uses got replaced later, like whale oil candles replaced tallow candles which got replaced by parrafin candles, or whale oil as a friction modifier on many oils and fluids got replaced by zinc.

Click to expand...

There’s no reason for coal to be considered a national security issue in 2018

Deuce said:

There’s no reason for coal to be considered a national security issue in 2018

Click to expand...

Well yes there is actually, to claim otherwise would be to think what happened a thousand times before can not for any circumstance known to man happen 1001 times. Commodities can at points get volatile, prices can surge and drop, energy needs can get ruined by war, for example if we went to war with let's say russia, and russia cut off oil exporting countries right off the bat, the us would have less oil produced than needed to fight a war, that does not include civilian oil use, or the logistics needed to supply that oil. In a pinch natural gas could be used to power military and military reliant industries, however the civilian population would be without.

If we had more versatility like coal or nuclear or hydro electric dams, the issue would be far less troubling, however wind is dependant on nature as is solar, and both suffer energy storage problems, in sufficient areas they can provide the bulk of th power but still use fossil fuels to fill the gap.


There is no one fuel to fuel everything, the one type to rule them all thinking goes back to the bronze age, where bronze was superior over iron because pure iron was softer, over time they realized very few countries had tin and copper under their control, so any war would disrupt the weapons they needed for war. Also many of our super batteries and green power sources we build today are reliant on rare earth materials mined from china, so many of those setups require us being friendly with china. Want me to go further? what about those irish who were sure potatoes were abundant and would never run out and decided to push that as their main crop? I bet I can find many more instances in history of peoples seeing a boom and going all in without thinking about the consequences.

beerftw said:

Yes those prices can fall, not being controlled by a cartel is exactly why they would, china is entering the game and russia is more than willing to compete, as is south america, this simply means any of those factions can pump out more lng than demand and cause it to be unprofitable, china and south america would likely benefit the mmost from it, as their labor and regulations are low enough a price drop would hurt them far less than western countries.

Click to expand...

Okay well first off you're agreeing with me that it's not being controlled by a cartel, then in the same sentence claim that "those factions can pump out more lng than demand and cause it to be unprofitable" i.e. a cartel. You need to get your position straight before posting.

Second off, that's not how LNG production works. No individual LNG project has a material impact on price. Wells are too small. Drill projects are based on well cycle, future spot price, and investment/expense over that period. Unlike oil, this is a period of a few years into the future, not decades. There is no cartel that can "pump out more lng than demand and cause it to be unprofitable".

Yes there is a need to keep it diverse, all fossil fuels are finite, and pushing towards a single source would make what would have lasted a century last 10-20 years

Click to expand...

First, nobody is pushing towards a "single source". Coal is one source that we're pushing to do away with. That doesn't mean there's only one source.

Second, your figures for years of LNG in the ground is laughable and I'm guessing completely unsourced.

all that would do is make boom cycles in production followed by a massive crisis when that chosen source runs low and production can not keep up, causing prices to be high and forcing energy providers to re invent the whole system by shifting to a new energy source, when diversified all the fossil fuels would have a fairly long life, but pushing just one over the others would lead for a very short life.

Click to expand...

Utilities know what they're doing. And that involves phasing out coal.

Chomsky said:

Coal is history, but I wouldn't count nuclear out. It's at least worth exploring as technology moves forward.

Click to expand...

I think the focus should be on smart grid tech and energy storage so that we can transport the energy further with less loss all while being able to capture and release as needed energy during peak demand more efficiently. The worst thing about nuke energy is how political it is and now we have nuke energy sites sitting on fault lines.

Khayembii Communique said:

Okay well first off you're agreeing with me that it's not being controlled by a cartel, then in the same sentence claim that "those factions can pump out more lng than demand and cause it to be unprofitable" i.e. a cartel. You need to get your position straight before posting.

Second off, that's not how LNG production works. No individual LNG project has a material impact on price. Wells are too small. Drill projects are based on well cycle, future spot price, and investment/expense over that period. Unlike oil, this is a period of a few years into the future, not decades. There is no cartel that can "pump out more lng than demand and cause it to be unprofitable".



First, nobody is pushing towards a "single source". Coal is one source that we're pushing to do away with. That doesn't mean there's only one source.

Second, your figures for years of LNG in the ground is laughable and I'm guessing completely unsourced.



Utilities know what they're doing. And that involves phasing out coal.

Click to expand...

Utilities tend to work toward minimizing cost -- which is a good thing. There's also additional pressure to phase out coal -- namely the existing plants are aging, and we aren't replacing them (for a variety of reasons). The concern here is more one of grid security. A coal plant is extremely resistant to interruptions, especially since it's fuel is stored onsite. A natural gas pipeline break, unfavorable weather, or nighttime won't stop it. They can also be easily stopped, started, rotated, etc.

Note that the administration isn't saying that we should stop the movement away from coal, or that there aren't better alternatives. They are only seeking to delay the rapid closing of a number of plants over the next two years, and to come up with a plan for managing this transition and adding resilience to the system before we loose these assets.

dcsports said:

Utilities tend to work toward minimizing cost -- which is a good thing. There's also additional pressure to phase out coal -- namely the existing plants are aging, and we aren't replacing them (for a variety of reasons). The concern here is more one of grid security. A coal plant is extremely resistant to interruptions, especially since it's fuel is stored onsite. A natural gas pipeline break, unfavorable weather, or nighttime won't stop it. They can also be easily stopped, started, rotated, etc.

Click to expand...

Grid resiliency is big, and utilities are conservative, but there's more the regulators can do to help facilitate a more rapid move away from coal than they are. For example, encouraging the development of microgrids and other DER's adds to grid resiliency while at the same time facilitating a move away from coal. Perry's recent recommendation to store additional fuel on-site, for example, was intended to promote grid resiliency but in the wrong direction (with the added point of being completely unproductive, but that's beside my point).

Note that the administration isn't saying that we should stop the movement away from coal, or that there aren't better alternatives. They are only seeking to delay the rapid closing of a number of plants over the next two years, and to come up with a plan for managing this transition and adding resilience to the system before we loose these assets.

Click to expand...

Disagree with this. I think Perry is handling it okay. But I think Trump wants to stop the movement away from coal.

Khayembii Communique said:

Okay well first off you're agreeing with me that it's not being controlled by a cartel, then in the same sentence claim that "those factions can pump out more lng than demand and cause it to be unprofitable" i.e. a cartel. You need to get your position straight before posting.

Second off, that's not how LNG production works. No individual LNG project has a material impact on price. Wells are too small. Drill projects are based on well cycle, future spot price, and investment/expense over that period. Unlike oil, this is a period of a few years into the future, not decades. There is no cartel that can "pump out more lng than demand and cause it to be unprofitable".



First, nobody is pushing towards a "single source". Coal is one source that we're pushing to do away with. That doesn't mean there's only one source.

Second, your figures for years of LNG in the ground is laughable and I'm guessing completely unsourced.



Utilities know what they're doing. And that involves phasing out coal.

Click to expand...

Saying no cartel can pump out enough to make it unprofitable is fairly unsound thinking, for example russia could easily ramp up production high enough to drop global prices where obtaining natural gas would cost money rather than making money, chinas industry is just starting, but looking at how they handle youg industries they will likely subsudize it and sell it well below cost, which would hurt other countries like america and russia.

You are assuming no one would be willing to push for more production than needed in order to bankrupt other countries industries, however doing such is a fairly easy task.

poweRob said:

I think the focus should be on smart grid tech and energy storage so that we can transport the energy further with less loss all while being able to capture and release as needed energy during peak demand more efficiently. The worst thing about nuke energy is how political it is and now we have nuke energy sites sitting on fault lines.

Click to expand...

We need to focus on not just energy storage but energy storage not reliant on rare earth materials we get from china, there is currently hydro electric, where water is pumped uphill with excess electricity to shore up electric shortages or excess demand, but that is not enough.

If someone made a battery available for common use materials that could store large amounts of energy wind and solar could be supreme and coal and other materials could mostly stay in the ground on standby rather than in use.

beerftw said:

We need to focus on not just energy storage but energy storage not reliant on rare earth materials we get from china, there is currently hydro electric, where water is pumped uphill with excess electricity to shore up electric shortages or excess demand, but that is not enough.

If someone made a battery available for common use materials that could store large amounts of energy wind and solar could be supreme and coal and other materials could mostly stay in the ground on standby rather than in use.

Click to expand...

You have many ways to regulate supply of and demand for electricity. That you for example have batteries, hydrogen fuel cells, sustainable bioenergy, hydropower and concentrated solar power plants with thermal storage.

In Sweden you have an interesting experiment with a house as far north as Alaska that will entirely be powered by solar panels. Accomplished by a self-sufficient energy system that consists of solar cells, batteries, hydrogen and fuel cells that interact.

https://www.interregeurope.eu/eners...irst-solar-house-adapted-to-the-cold-climate/

That you see great advancement in both renewable energy and storage.

“Something’s changed about solar power, only in the last year or two. It’s not just environmentalists who think solar will soon be everywhere. Sober utility economists are now looking at cost projections and reaching conclusions that might have been regarded as nutty just a few years ago. The price just keeps plunging. Solar power is now cheaper than coal in many places and in less than a decade is likely to fall below wind and natural gas to be the lowest-cost option almost everywhere. But it’s not just the price that’s tipping the balance. Innovations like solar panels that double as roof tiles and progress in the battery technology needed to even out the power flow on nights and cloudy days are offsetting fading solar subsidies and a U.S. president who’s a cheerleader for fossil fuels.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/solar-energy

You also have countries and regions that already have a large percent of their electricity from renewable energy.

That Denmark got 43 percent of electricity from wind power in 2017 and planes to have 80 percent of electricity consumption from renewables in 2020.

https://www.dailyscandinavian.com/2017-new-wind-energy-record-denmark/

While Scotland got 68 percent of it's electricity from renewables in 2017.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...scotland-climate-change-oil-gas-a8283166.html