There is no reason to ever build another coal plant in the United States

PIPEWRENCH · May 4, 2017

My opinion is pick the right energy that works in that part of the country. If there is little sun in the NE compared to the SW solar may not be the right choice. This goes for wind as well. In Pennsylvania their are millions of tons of coal sitting literal on the ground that has been dug out years ago. Building high efficient coal powered plant right next to all this coal and using it makes sense. We can use this coal efficiently and capture the byproducts cheaper than we can store nuclear waste for 10's of thousands of years. My uncle spent 45 years loading train cars with coal that was dug out of the ground and piled up long before he or I was born. He only managed to remove a few of the hundreds of piles of coal and culm that are now being burned for electricity or sold to other countries. Plus something needs to be done with these mountains of culm and coal that are destroying the rivers, streams, lakes, and ground water.

We have these mountains of coal and culm all over NE PA that need to be removed or used.

ALiberalModerate · May 4, 2017

countryboy said:
To mention nothing of the devastation of avian eco systems. Libs only care about wildlife when it furthers their agenda. :roll:

Coal kills exponentially more birds every year than Wind does.

Solar: Anywhere from about 1,000 birds a year, according to BrightSource, to 28,000 birds a year, according to an expert at the Center for Biological Diversity.

Wind: Between 140,000 and 328,000 birds a year in the contiguous United States, according to a December 2013 study published in the journal Biological Conservation. Taller turbines tend to take out more birds.

Oil and Gas: An estimated 500,000 to 1 million birds a year are killed in oil fields, the Bureau of Land Management said in a December 2012 memo.

[DATA MINE: Natural Gas to See Biggest Gains in Coal Country]

Coal: Huge numbers of birds, roughly 7.9 million, may be killed by coal, according to analysis by Benjamin K. Sovacool, director of the Danish Center for Energy Technologies. His estimate, however, included everything from mining to production and climate change, which together amounted to about five birds per gigawatt-hour of energy generated by coal.

Nuclear: About 330,000 birds, by Sovacool’s calculations.

https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/08/22/pecking-order-energys-toll-on-birds

Cat's exceed them all.

If someone cares about conservation and human health at all, then they should be for solar, wind, nuclear, hydro, natural gas, anything but coal.

I mean come on, do you honestly think that this:

Is cleaner than this:

Anything is better than coal.

UtahBill · May 4, 2017

Just a rough estimate, but I suspect we could eliminate all the "old coal plants", and be less dependent on "new coal" if each household replaced only the bulbs in high usage light fixtures with LED.....
I base this on a study done in an energy efficiency college class I took back in the 70's, just substituting LED for CFL, which was the new thing then....

joG · May 5, 2017

Nilly said:
https://thinkprogress.org/renewable-cheaper-than-coal-589e43113faf

I know many people here won't like the source, so here is a direct link to the report from Lazard (a leading financial advisory and asset management firm) that it quotes. The report is dates Dec 2016

https://www.lazard.com/media/438038/levelized-cost-of-energy-v100.pdf

View attachment 67217108

I can actually report from my friend who works in solar that thin film pv is now actually approaching $35 down from $51 - it's getting cheaper too fast to track :mrgreen:

I've been saying for a while now that the best way to tackle environmental issues is to make them economically attractive, and it's amazing to see it happening.

There is still a ways to go to curtail our energy footprint, and I want to bring attention to this particular paragraph of the article:

Again, it will be interesting to see who still denies the utility of renewable energy sources given this information. One can only imagine that they are either:

a) in the case of politicians - indebted to corporate interests that have an interest in seeing renewable energies fail
b) emotionally attached to the idea that renewables are poopoo and coal is patriotic

edit: For some reason my image is only uploading small but you can see it on both the article page and report (p.3) - Unsubsidized Levelized Cost of Energy Comparison

Reading your article, I thought I might point out that the best way to nudge the economy away from co2, methane etc is to cap and trade, while using the income from the sale of certificates to reduce taxes. That would optimise the switch. The problem is that consumers would notice the pressure immediately and realize, what the cost to our present lifestyle will be. That is why climate manage folks prefer inefficient methods.

longview · May 5, 2017

Nilly said:
From a market standpoint yes - but we can greatly accelerate adoption. We should do this for 2 reasons

1) Markets generally don't think long long term - they have shareholders to please that want quarterly results
2) Environmental externalities.

The problem with accelerating adoption, is which technology to accelerate the adoption of?
The Government has a history of poor selection, the market on the other hand tends to select that which fills the need
for the lowest cost.
1) If someone in the market is not providing what is in demand, someone else will unseat them.
2)The perceived need to rush towards an solution to a problem which may, or may not exists, should not force people
to turn over their ability to choose which technology best fills their needs to the Government.
(While AGW is real, the likely low end range of ECS, makes it not much of a problem.)

ocean515 · May 5, 2017

Nilly said:
There is a difference between new energy generation capacity and existing energy generation capacity.

The market is still dominated by fossil fuels, but it's very telling that market forces are pushing us towards renewables.

Ah. I missed the nuance.

Given they were touching specifically on new facilities, that makes sense.

jonny5 · May 5, 2017

Nilly said:
We are letting the market decide. And they're choosing renewables. That's the point of the article. 2 years in a row where renewable new builds eclipse fossil fuel builds.

Also the cost of renewables is artificially high due to compliance taxes etc. Much more so than fossil fuels. Soft costs make up over 50% of solar builds

ies.

Our renewable new builds are highly subsidized and funded with tax dollars. Thats not the market. Thats govt bias. Would people choose solar or EV if they couldnt get nearly the entire cost funded by taxes?

joG · May 5, 2017

SouthernDemocrat said:
Coal kills exponentially more birds every year than Wind does.

https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/08/22/pecking-order-energys-toll-on-birds

Cat's exceed them all.

If someone cares about conservation and human health at all, then they should be for solar, wind, nuclear, hydro, natural gas, anything but coal.

I mean come on, do you honestly think that this:

Is cleaner than this:

Anything is better than coal.

The top picture has mystery and a promise of enchanted adventure. The bottom one holds all the excitement of a brand new IKEA desk.

minnie616 · May 5, 2017

joG said:
The top picture has mystery and a promise of enchanted adventure. The bottom one holds all the excitement of a brand new IKEA desk.

We need energy more than excitement but I do get excited seeing solar farms and the small windmill atop the streetlight pole that provides the energy for our local streetlight.

Cigar · May 5, 2017

minnie616 said:
We need energy more than excitement but I do get excited seeing solar farms and the small windmill atop the streetlight pole that provides the energy for our local streetlight.

Don't bother. :2razz:

minnie616 · May 5, 2017

Cigar said:
Don't bother. :2razz:

Too funny!

joG · May 5, 2017

Nilly said:
https://thinkprogress.org/renewable-cheaper-than-coal-589e43113faf

I know many people here won't like the source, so here is a direct link to the report from Lazard (a leading financial advisory and asset management firm) that it quotes. The report is dates Dec 2016

https://www.lazard.com/media/438038/levelized-cost-of-energy-v100.pdf

View attachment 67217108

I can actually report from my friend who works in solar that thin film pv is now actually approaching $35 down from $51 - it's getting cheaper too fast to track :mrgreen:

I've been saying for a while now that the best way to tackle environmental issues is to make them economically attractive, and it's amazing to see it happening.

There is still a ways to go to curtail our energy footprint, and I want to bring attention to this particular paragraph of the article:

Again, it will be interesting to see who still denies the utility of renewable energy sources given this information. One can only imagine that they are either:

a) in the case of politicians - indebted to corporate interests that have an interest in seeing renewable energies fail
b) emotionally attached to the idea that renewables are poopoo and coal is patriotic

edit: For some reason my image is only uploading small but you can see it on both the article page and report (p.3) - Unsubsidized Levelized Cost of Energy Comparison

Coal is much less expensive, if regulatory costs are taken out. Also, the costs of logistics, environmental damage and duplication are much higher than initially thought.

eohrnberger · May 5, 2017

SouthernDemocrat said:
We have a bridge fuel, its natural gas. It's not environmental regulations that is killing coal, its cheap and abundant natural gas that is.

Reading the thread title, that's what fist came to my mind as well.

But the low cost of clean burning natural gas is dependent on the productivity of fracking. Without fracking natural gas costs go up so much as to make coal attractive again.

So, the ecomentalists appear to have a choice to make on the bridge fuel, natural gas + fracking, or coal. Wanna make a bet that they want, and will try to, have their cake and eat it too?

joG · May 5, 2017

minnie616 said:
We need energy more than excitement but I do get excited seeing solar farms and the small windmill atop the streetlight pole that provides the energy for our local streetlight.

No doubt that contrary to the wind park the slow majestic motion of the alone standing turbine on the top of the mountain has a good feeling. And the little solar panels on the emergency telephones along the Autobahn make one happy, till one thinks of the ecological costs of batteries, logistical infrastructure and in the grit duplication.

Anthony60 · May 5, 2017

Seems that the mindset is that the left is for renewable energy and the right is for fossil fuels. Speaking for myself, that is wrong. I am for free market capitalism, and whatever energy source rises out of that.

What I am not for is having government, like when Obama was president, telling me what energy source I need to use, blowing hundreds of millions of our tax dollars on it, and doing such for political reasons. That's not what the federal government is for, but corrupt politicians love to take advantage of the situation.

Nilly · May 5, 2017

jonny5 said:
Our renewable new builds are highly subsidized and funded with tax dollars. Thats not the market. Thats govt bias. Would people choose solar or EV if they couldnt get nearly the entire cost funded by taxes?

Read the OP, and look at the report.

It compares unsubsidized cost of energy.

Anthony60 said:
Seems that the mindset is that the left is for renewable energy and the right is for fossil fuels. Speaking for myself, that is wrong. I am for free market capitalism, and whatever energy source rises out of that.

What I am not for is having government, like when Obama was president, telling me what energy source I need to use, blowing hundreds of millions of our tax dollars on it, and doing such for political reasons. That's not what the federal government is for, but corrupt politicians love to take advantage of the situation.

See above. I would also note however, that in the late 1800 and early 1900's, govt had the foresight to heavily invest in fossil fuels, because they foresaw that it would give America an edge in the future. They were right.

You may disagree but there absolutely is a place for long term govt investment with our tax dollars.

Cigar · May 5, 2017

Germany Breaks Record: 85% of Energy Comes From Renewables Last Weekend

Germany's "Energiewende"—the country's low-carbon energy revolution—turned another successful corner last weekend when renewable energy sources nearly stamped out coal and nuclear.

Thanks to a particularly breezy and sunny Sunday, renewables such as wind and solar, along with some biomass and hydropower, peaked at a record 85 percent, or 55.2 gigawatts, and even came along with negative prices for several hours at the electricity exchange.

Conversely, coal use was at an all-time minimum. According to DW, on April 30, coal-fired power stations were only operational between 3 and 4 p.m. and produced less than eight gigawatts of energy, well below the maximum output of about 50 gigawatts.

"Most of Germany's coal-fired power stations were not even operating on Sunday, April 30th," Patrick Graichen of Agora Energiewende told RenewEconomy. "Nuclear power sources, which are planned to be completely phased out by 2022, were also severely reduced."...

Germany Breaks Record: 85% of Energy Comes From Renewables Last Weekend

Nilly · May 5, 2017

joG said:
Coal is much less expensive, if regulatory costs are taken out. Also, the costs of logistics, environmental damage and duplication are much higher than initially thought.

Source?

The OP shows that, even unsubsidized, renewables are cheaper.

Plus when it comes to regulatory costs, renewables are more burdened than coal:

natsb · May 5, 2017

Visbek said:
Energy can be stored; e.g. molten salt is fairly promising.

Energy use also peaks during the day.

Just making a dent in emissions is a huge step, and one that gets easier as the cost for renewables falls.

Unless there are options. There's already a molten salt solar facility in use:

Molten Salt Tower Receiver ? SolarReserve

Yes, energy use peaks during the day. But it does not go away at night.

No, molten salt is not really all that promising. First of, we should point out that molten salt plants do not use solar panels, they use mirrors. The discussion here has been about solar panels.

Now for the fun stuff:
Most expensive form of renewable energy.
Parasitic power consumption is up to 40%.
High maintenance cost. Salt corrodes everything it touches; go figure.

Sorry, the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project is not a solar facility in use. It is a demonstration project that Solar Reserve hopes will trigger sales someday. To date, they have sold none.

I could bring up the problems they are having dealing with the massive insect, bird and bat kill rates, but renewable energy fans seem to find animals expendable.

natsb · May 5, 2017

Cigar said:
Germany Breaks Record: 85% of Energy Comes From Renewables Last Weekend

Germany's "Energiewende"—the country's low-carbon energy revolution—turned another successful corner last weekend when renewable energy sources nearly stamped out coal and nuclear.

Thanks to a particularly breezy and sunny Sunday, renewables such as wind and solar, along with some biomass and hydropower, peaked at a record 85 percent, or 55.2 gigawatts, and even came along with negative prices for several hours at the electricity exchange.

Conversely, coal use was at an all-time minimum. According to DW, on April 30, coal-fired power stations were only operational between 3 and 4 p.m. and produced less than eight gigawatts of energy, well below the maximum output of about 50 gigawatts.

"Most of Germany's coal-fired power stations were not even operating on Sunday, April 30th," Patrick Graichen of Agora Energiewende told RenewEconomy. "Nuclear power sources, which are planned to be completely phased out by 2022, were also severely reduced."...

Germany Breaks Record: 85% of Energy Comes From Renewables Last Weekend

This only represents a few hours on one day. Tell us, what was the coal plant to renewable source rate that night when the sun went down that night? Could it be that the coal plants were producing 100% of the power needed?

Cigar · May 5, 2017

natsb said:
This only represents a few hours on one day. Tell us, what was the coal plant to renewable source rate that night when the sun went down that night? Could it be that the coal plants were producing 100% of the power needed?

I keep Clicking and no Facts show up.

Maybe you forgot to post it.

ALiberalModerate · May 5, 2017

eohrnberger said:
Reading the thread title, that's what fist came to my mind as well.

But the low cost of clean burning natural gas is dependent on the productivity of fracking. Without fracking natural gas costs go up so much as to make coal attractive again.

So, the ecomentalists appear to have a choice to make on the bridge fuel, natural gas + fracking, or coal. Wanna make a bet that they want, and will try to, have their cake and eat it too?

Even with the absolute worst case scenario in terms of the environmental impacts of fracking, its still exponentially cleaner than coal mining.

minnie616 · May 5, 2017

joG said:
Coal is much less expensive, if regulatory costs are taken out. Also, the costs of logistics, environmental damage and duplication are much higher than initially thought.

Actually , Michigan is getting of its coal plants , many are gone and the rest will be gone by 2020. Michigan will be only using natural gas and renewable energy after the last coal plant is closed in 2020.

From the Detroit Freepress:

25 Michigan coal plants are set to retire by 2020

Also no new coal plants in Michigan despite Trumps stance.

Michigan's biggest electric provider phasing out coal, despite Trump's stance | MLive.com

jmotivator · May 5, 2017

General rule of thumb when judging statistical analysis is to first determine if the source's statistics are based on unproven assumptions, and second to determine if the source has adequately backed up the assumptions with other data.

In general I am finding the rise of "levelized cost" analysis of power costs by "green" sources to be fairly dubious as the version of "levelized cost" being used is no longer the strict economic analysis of quantifiable economic data on energy acquisition and distribution, but has now introduced things like EPA "carbon cost" which is assumptions of the cost of global warming, etc. on future generations. This kind of WAG makes the whole statistic a WAG.

joG · May 5, 2017

Nilly said:
Source?

The OP shows that, even unsubsidized, renewables are cheaper.

Plus when it comes to regulatory costs, renewables are more burdened than coal:

As I pointed out in another post, I really don't have any one source. I have been following alternative vs traditional energy plants down to the plant level since the early 1990's. So finding one that would be right for you, would be easier for you.

It has been probable since the 1980s that the costs of alternatives would fall and slowly become cheaper than carbon based power. We are certainly getting near that point and have actually achieved it for certain circumstances.

As Germany pushed into alternatives new aspects of the costs have surfaced. The backups and infrastructure are expensive and the environmental externalities were severely underestimated and still are not widely discussed.

There is no reason to ever build another coal plant in the United States

PIPEWRENCH

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist

UtahBill

joG

longview

ocean515

jonny5

joG

minnie616

Cigar

minnie616

joG

eohrnberger

joG

Anthony60

Nilly

stb

Cigar

Nilly

stb

natsb

natsb

Cigar

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist

minnie616

jmotivator

Computer Gaming Nerd

joG