Power Struggle: How the Energy Market Could Shift in 2016 - Bloomberg Business:
Wow. Absolutely perfect assessment of the energy world, past and future.
With pretty graphics to go along with the trends in energy.
So what will be the energy source(s) of the future.
The one thing for sure, is that it won't be coal. As the rest of the world gets out of coal, so will the 2.3B people in China and India. They simply can't afford the pollution and health costs that come free with cheap coal.
The assessment seems puts energy into perspective, and indicates how a clear transition from one form to another (wood to coal, and coal to oil) might not be what we can expect to look forward to in the future.
Don't want to ruin the ending, you will have to watch all 3 minutes of the video to find out what to expect in the energy world.
'via Blog this'
Showing posts with label clean coal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label clean coal. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 11, 2015
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Solar and wind just passed another big turning point, Cheaper n Better
Solar and wind just passed another big turning point:
So solar and wind power generation is reaching a threshold where renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuel-based power in Germany and UK. That is before counting the subsidies for renewables, and ignoring the massive externality costs of our historically favorite dirty black fuel.
Note the discussion of the virtuous cycle of renewable fuels. As base load power moves up from 5% renewables the costs of traditional power plants becomes more expensive, essentially they become more peak-power generators and less base-load power.
Solar has the added advantage of offing more distributed power generation, usually at the point of use. So solar starts to really cut down on the massive loss of power over distribution channels.
In the US, really cheap NatGas is a no-brainer decision for converting coal plants. It is so much cleaner in all respects. But new fossil fuel power plants will be harder and harder to justify to shareholders and to the PSC.
In the meanwhile, nuclear sits on the sidelines, leaving fission and fusion as a non option in the foreseeable future.
If momentum builds for homeowners and businesses to move to at-source power generation (say Solar City), the building momentum could be a real game-changer.
'via Blog this'
So solar and wind power generation is reaching a threshold where renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuel-based power in Germany and UK. That is before counting the subsidies for renewables, and ignoring the massive externality costs of our historically favorite dirty black fuel.
Note the discussion of the virtuous cycle of renewable fuels. As base load power moves up from 5% renewables the costs of traditional power plants becomes more expensive, essentially they become more peak-power generators and less base-load power.
Solar has the added advantage of offing more distributed power generation, usually at the point of use. So solar starts to really cut down on the massive loss of power over distribution channels.
In the US, really cheap NatGas is a no-brainer decision for converting coal plants. It is so much cleaner in all respects. But new fossil fuel power plants will be harder and harder to justify to shareholders and to the PSC.
In the meanwhile, nuclear sits on the sidelines, leaving fission and fusion as a non option in the foreseeable future.
If momentum builds for homeowners and businesses to move to at-source power generation (say Solar City), the building momentum could be a real game-changer.
'via Blog this'
Monday, August 3, 2015
Obama to Unveil Tougher Environmental Plan With His Legacy in Mind - The New York Times
Obama to Unveil Tougher Environmental Plan With His Legacy in Mind - The New York Times:
There's some good and some bad about this.
We really should have an energy policy in the country, but we don't. And the congress should be doing that planning and guiding of long-term energy and economic development. But no.
The video says saving on energy. That's not true, it will cost more for energy, the massive savings will come from improved health. Coal causes huge health and environmental impacts.
"The Clean Power Plan will ultimately save about $45 billion a year, the EPA says, by both shrinking Americans’ energy use and reducing health costs for asthma, lung cancer and other illnesses caused by air pollution. The EPA estimates the rule will also cut about $85 a year from the average American’s utility bill." via USA News.
Expect that the costs at the meter will be more, especially since it is so easy for the power utilities to pass them on, given a good (or bad) excuses. However, the health savings are each and every year forever. These are massive savings. Probably far greater than the $45B or so estimated.
The switch from coal is happening already without any such effort by the EPA. Clean(er) NatGas has been over-abundant and been the main gainer over the last 8 years. Also, we flair about half of the NatGas in the USA from fracking, why not figure out how to flair it into an electric generator and wire the energy back home?
Two secrets of coal is that about 10,000 people die each year in mining accidents, mostly coal. That's more than die in many years from natural disasters. The really dirty little secret of coal is coal ash. It has very high levels of heavy metals and such. It appears that we have no plan as to what to do with the ash, so it sits around in every state just waiting for disaster. Much like we have not plan for Nuclear waste.
NatGas is far better than coal, but it is still not sustainable. Since power plant planning is 50 to 100 years forward thinking, it seems that we should be doing likewise. Wind only works when the wind blows. Solar only works with the sun signs.
It seems that if we had a plan to be sustainable eventually, we would be better able to make decisions on the actions that a rational man (or woman) would make today.
Sadly, the coal miners and coal economies are stuck in the middle of this ugly downturn to their livelihood way of life.
Just saying...
'via Blog this'
There's some good and some bad about this.
We really should have an energy policy in the country, but we don't. And the congress should be doing that planning and guiding of long-term energy and economic development. But no.
The video says saving on energy. That's not true, it will cost more for energy, the massive savings will come from improved health. Coal causes huge health and environmental impacts.
"The Clean Power Plan will ultimately save about $45 billion a year, the EPA says, by both shrinking Americans’ energy use and reducing health costs for asthma, lung cancer and other illnesses caused by air pollution. The EPA estimates the rule will also cut about $85 a year from the average American’s utility bill." via USA News.
Expect that the costs at the meter will be more, especially since it is so easy for the power utilities to pass them on, given a good (or bad) excuses. However, the health savings are each and every year forever. These are massive savings. Probably far greater than the $45B or so estimated.
The switch from coal is happening already without any such effort by the EPA. Clean(er) NatGas has been over-abundant and been the main gainer over the last 8 years. Also, we flair about half of the NatGas in the USA from fracking, why not figure out how to flair it into an electric generator and wire the energy back home?
Two secrets of coal is that about 10,000 people die each year in mining accidents, mostly coal. That's more than die in many years from natural disasters. The really dirty little secret of coal is coal ash. It has very high levels of heavy metals and such. It appears that we have no plan as to what to do with the ash, so it sits around in every state just waiting for disaster. Much like we have not plan for Nuclear waste.
NatGas is far better than coal, but it is still not sustainable. Since power plant planning is 50 to 100 years forward thinking, it seems that we should be doing likewise. Wind only works when the wind blows. Solar only works with the sun signs.
It seems that if we had a plan to be sustainable eventually, we would be better able to make decisions on the actions that a rational man (or woman) would make today.
Sadly, the coal miners and coal economies are stuck in the middle of this ugly downturn to their livelihood way of life.
Just saying...
'via Blog this'
Monday, June 29, 2015
Wind And Solar Will Soon Become The 'Least-Cost Option' - Yahoo Finance
Wind And Solar Will Soon Become The 'Least-Cost Option' - Yahoo Finance:
It is interesting how quickly the prices of wind and solar have been dropping and are expected to continue.
Obviously, these must be only a part of the solution, unless batteries get to be a whole lot better, a whole lot faster. (Maybe?). The wind doesn't always blow, and the sun doesn't always shine.
One savings for solar, is that it doesn't need to be done remotely. The transport/distribution costs can be much lower. Both sun & wind do not require the massive volumes of water that conventional fossil and nuke need. (Except for the manatees, there is no real reason to heat up rivers and lakes.)
Those folks in the coal industries, even in China, are soon going to find that they are missing the boat. Coal is not sustainable. Once people start to think harder and longer about the externalities costs of coal, it is going to continue the downward spiral from favor.
'via Blog this'
It is interesting how quickly the prices of wind and solar have been dropping and are expected to continue.
Obviously, these must be only a part of the solution, unless batteries get to be a whole lot better, a whole lot faster. (Maybe?). The wind doesn't always blow, and the sun doesn't always shine.
One savings for solar, is that it doesn't need to be done remotely. The transport/distribution costs can be much lower. Both sun & wind do not require the massive volumes of water that conventional fossil and nuke need. (Except for the manatees, there is no real reason to heat up rivers and lakes.)
Those folks in the coal industries, even in China, are soon going to find that they are missing the boat. Coal is not sustainable. Once people start to think harder and longer about the externalities costs of coal, it is going to continue the downward spiral from favor.
'via Blog this'
EPA loss in supreme court.
High Court Strikes Down EPA Limits on Mercury Emissions http://www.wsj.com/articles/high-court-strikes-down-epa-limits-on-mercury-emissions-1435590069
The EPA must consider the cost of compliance when coming up with rules. That's what the Supreme Court ruled.
Of course it is hard to estimate the cost of the pollutants, that have been going on for a couple centuries now.
With natural gas being so cheap, and most of the conversions already complete, the whole issue is rather mute point.
But it does set back EPA action on CO2 emissions, where is the coal lobby would like to consider the cost of externalities nonexistent.
Still in the absence of Congress and its inability to do anything, you have the problem of the Fed and the EPA trying to do the heavy lifting.
Saturday, May 30, 2015
Inside the war on coal
Inside the war on coal:
Wow, this is a very thoughtful and well presented article on Coal.
The real demise of coal is too fold: raising costs of trying to make coal a little cleaner (less dirty); and the increase of cheaper alternatives.
Number 1 in all of this is the dirty cheap costs of NatGas which is a by-product of much oil production. We in the US flair about half of the NatGas we produce because it gets in the way of the valuable oil production process.
NatGas is soooo much cleaner to burn and produces only half the CO2 emissions.
As people and communities realize the real costs of burning (dirty) coal, the political will to back coal simply because it is cheap is seriously waning. As the externality costs start to mount, people are less inclined to have the plants in their back yard.
But, the Sierra club can not take that much of the credit. Basic economics is ruling. The EPA wants cleaner coal, which makes it more expansive at the same time that NatGas, wind and solar are all getting better and cheaper.
'via Blog this'
Wow, this is a very thoughtful and well presented article on Coal.
The real demise of coal is too fold: raising costs of trying to make coal a little cleaner (less dirty); and the increase of cheaper alternatives.
Number 1 in all of this is the dirty cheap costs of NatGas which is a by-product of much oil production. We in the US flair about half of the NatGas we produce because it gets in the way of the valuable oil production process.
NatGas is soooo much cleaner to burn and produces only half the CO2 emissions.
As people and communities realize the real costs of burning (dirty) coal, the political will to back coal simply because it is cheap is seriously waning. As the externality costs start to mount, people are less inclined to have the plants in their back yard.
But, the Sierra club can not take that much of the credit. Basic economics is ruling. The EPA wants cleaner coal, which makes it more expansive at the same time that NatGas, wind and solar are all getting better and cheaper.
'via Blog this'
Friday, February 27, 2015
Falling Chinese Coal Consumption and Output Undermine Global Market - WSJ
Falling Chinese Coal Consumption and Output Undermine Global Market - WSJ:
Finally, Finally, Finally...
China has finally started to cut back on it's production and use of dirty coal. China now consumes far more than half of the world's coal.
It's a perfect time for them to do so, with all energy prices so low, the Chinese economy growing slow(er) and the costs/consequences of pollution from coal becoming more and more conspicuous.
It is also interesting that this article talks about peak coal. It seems that peak oil and peak coal have been pushed back with the overwhelming supply of cheap(er) oil and gas from new technologies (fracking, horizontal drilling, etc.)
In China's case it may be peak pollution, where the health costs, environmental costs and quality of life costs are are starting to overpower the perception of coal being a cheap energy source.
Doing non-sustainable stuff, especially for long periods of time, has its costs and unintended consequences.
Sustainable Growth...
'via Blog this'
Finally, Finally, Finally...
China has finally started to cut back on it's production and use of dirty coal. China now consumes far more than half of the world's coal.
It's a perfect time for them to do so, with all energy prices so low, the Chinese economy growing slow(er) and the costs/consequences of pollution from coal becoming more and more conspicuous.
It is also interesting that this article talks about peak coal. It seems that peak oil and peak coal have been pushed back with the overwhelming supply of cheap(er) oil and gas from new technologies (fracking, horizontal drilling, etc.)
In China's case it may be peak pollution, where the health costs, environmental costs and quality of life costs are are starting to overpower the perception of coal being a cheap energy source.
Doing non-sustainable stuff, especially for long periods of time, has its costs and unintended consequences.
Sustainable Growth...
'via Blog this'
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Clean Power Plan | TBO.com, The Tampa Tribune and The Tampa Times
Why I support the EPA’s Clean Power Plan | TBO.com, The Tampa Tribune and The Tampa Times:
This July 28, 2014 article by Lynn Ringenberg (Professor Emeritus at USF) discusses the horrible health and wellness impacts of burning coal.
"There is no such thing as clean coal."
The good news is that Natural Gas is so plentiful in the states and so very very cheap, that it is seriously supplanting coal in power plant production. NatGas is so plentiful and contain in oil, that 40% to 50% of all US NatGas produced is flared into the atmosphere as an oil byproduct.
Of course the EPA is pushing this conversion along to NatGas. In the absence of an energy policy in the USA, the EPA is the very last stop in this decision process as to produce power, short term and long.
But here is the BIG problem. As we cut back on energy and oil and coal usage in the USA, we move the coal power production to other countries. Our exports are way up. And other countries don't use the same cleaning technologies as we (scrubbers and such).
Here's a great discussion of our coal usage and export-imports at The Energy Collective by Meredith Fowlie on July 29, 2014.
No matter what you feel about the EPA stepping up and getting involved in coal power, greenhouse gas emissions, etc. The EPA is the last, and arguably the worst way to address energy policy, health issues from fossil fuel consumption and global warming.
Some would argue, the EPA actions are better than doing nothing at all.
The EPA is the wrench used to hammer the square nail. Coal has huge impact on health and wellness, so let's export all we've got. We take make the green, they take the black.
'via Blog this'
This July 28, 2014 article by Lynn Ringenberg (Professor Emeritus at USF) discusses the horrible health and wellness impacts of burning coal.
"There is no such thing as clean coal."
The good news is that Natural Gas is so plentiful in the states and so very very cheap, that it is seriously supplanting coal in power plant production. NatGas is so plentiful and contain in oil, that 40% to 50% of all US NatGas produced is flared into the atmosphere as an oil byproduct.
Of course the EPA is pushing this conversion along to NatGas. In the absence of an energy policy in the USA, the EPA is the very last stop in this decision process as to produce power, short term and long.
But here is the BIG problem. As we cut back on energy and oil and coal usage in the USA, we move the coal power production to other countries. Our exports are way up. And other countries don't use the same cleaning technologies as we (scrubbers and such).
Here's a great discussion of our coal usage and export-imports at The Energy Collective by Meredith Fowlie on July 29, 2014.
No matter what you feel about the EPA stepping up and getting involved in coal power, greenhouse gas emissions, etc. The EPA is the last, and arguably the worst way to address energy policy, health issues from fossil fuel consumption and global warming.
Some would argue, the EPA actions are better than doing nothing at all.
The EPA is the wrench used to hammer the square nail. Coal has huge impact on health and wellness, so let's export all we've got. We take make the green, they take the black.
'via Blog this'
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Pain in the Ash: Spill spews tons of coal ash into NC Dan River - CNN.com
Spill spews tons of coal ash into North Carolina's Dan River - CNN.com:
Oh what a pain it is! ... A Pain in the Ash, so to speak.
One of the dirty little secrets of Coal is the ash!. The massive 2008 spill in TVA should have been a bit of a wakeup call. But this phone has been ringing for centuries. There's impurities in coal, including sulfur and heavy metals like lead and arsenic. See the EPA letter on the TVA spill. And coal power releases 100 times as much radiation into the environment as a nuclear power plant. High concentrations of uranium and thorium are released into the environment around a plant from the fly ash. See APA on this ash issue.
The other secrets are that about 10,000 people die in mines per year, most of them coal, and often in China. There's the impact to air and water that many estimates impact the health of hundreds of millions of people.
The bull in the China closet, of course, is -- well -- China. They burn more than half of the world's coal right now. PRC is still opening still are opening 1 to 2 coal power plants per week, unless that has changed. And they are much less worried about how much pollution escapes into the air and water. The summer Olympics were distinctive for the air pollution, and athletes trying to compete in smog.
This smog and pollution is "shared" with neighboring countries, and the world at large. Even the Americas on occasion get a beautiful sunset, complements of the Peoples Republic.
As well, coal is a huge greenhouse gas producer of CO2, something that is invisibly shared with the whole of the planet... and no one knows what the true costs and full consequences are. But we do know that CO2 as a greenhouse gas lasts about 100 years, so whatever the impacts are, they will be very, very, very long lasting.
Many economist suggest a tax on something that has distinctive, negative externalities. Maybe coal would be a candidate!? Taxes on cigarettes are an example. A gradual tax domestically seems logical. Maybe the rest of the world should tax all the coal that gets exported to China, as well. How about an import tax on those products that are primarily produced by dirty Chinese electricity?
The dirty little secrets of coal are getting out. It's been 2 centuries that coal has ruled the power infrastructure. It is time to seriously address this "open" secret.
If you are a stockholder or a customer of Duke, it is time to give the Duke a nudge, and elbow, or even a brisk kick in the 'ash!...
'via Blog this'
Oh what a pain it is! ... A Pain in the Ash, so to speak.
One of the dirty little secrets of Coal is the ash!. The massive 2008 spill in TVA should have been a bit of a wakeup call. But this phone has been ringing for centuries. There's impurities in coal, including sulfur and heavy metals like lead and arsenic. See the EPA letter on the TVA spill. And coal power releases 100 times as much radiation into the environment as a nuclear power plant. High concentrations of uranium and thorium are released into the environment around a plant from the fly ash. See APA on this ash issue.
The other secrets are that about 10,000 people die in mines per year, most of them coal, and often in China. There's the impact to air and water that many estimates impact the health of hundreds of millions of people.
The bull in the China closet, of course, is -- well -- China. They burn more than half of the world's coal right now. PRC is still opening still are opening 1 to 2 coal power plants per week, unless that has changed. And they are much less worried about how much pollution escapes into the air and water. The summer Olympics were distinctive for the air pollution, and athletes trying to compete in smog.
This smog and pollution is "shared" with neighboring countries, and the world at large. Even the Americas on occasion get a beautiful sunset, complements of the Peoples Republic.
As well, coal is a huge greenhouse gas producer of CO2, something that is invisibly shared with the whole of the planet... and no one knows what the true costs and full consequences are. But we do know that CO2 as a greenhouse gas lasts about 100 years, so whatever the impacts are, they will be very, very, very long lasting.
Many economist suggest a tax on something that has distinctive, negative externalities. Maybe coal would be a candidate!? Taxes on cigarettes are an example. A gradual tax domestically seems logical. Maybe the rest of the world should tax all the coal that gets exported to China, as well. How about an import tax on those products that are primarily produced by dirty Chinese electricity?
The dirty little secrets of coal are getting out. It's been 2 centuries that coal has ruled the power infrastructure. It is time to seriously address this "open" secret.
If you are a stockholder or a customer of Duke, it is time to give the Duke a nudge, and elbow, or even a brisk kick in the 'ash!...
'via Blog this'
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Clean Coal Might Really Be a Possibility!!! WOW!
Energy | Homeland Security News Wire:
Clean Coal Might Really Be a Possibility!!! WOW!
It may take me years to take back all the trash talk I have had about Coal.
Dirty, Dirtier, Dirtiest Coal... But no such think as Clean.
Dr. Fan at Ohio State has pioneered the technology called Coal-Direct Chemical Looping (CDCL). This lab project has contained 99% of the carbon dioxide from coal.
Well maybe. This will bear some watching as it moves forward out of the labs and into the power plant.
Coal, of course, is still not a renewable resource (unless you count charcoal -- good for my Kamado grill, but not so much so for mainstream energy production!-)
Wow, if we could find a cure for coal, that would put us 30-40 years ahead. Of course, it would have to be cheap, or we (China, US and India) wouldn't use it. And then we'd be back in the same dirty boat, right up to our coal ash.:-(
'via Blog this'
Clean Coal Might Really Be a Possibility!!! WOW!
It may take me years to take back all the trash talk I have had about Coal.
Dirty, Dirtier, Dirtiest Coal... But no such think as Clean.
Dr. Fan at Ohio State has pioneered the technology called Coal-Direct Chemical Looping (CDCL). This lab project has contained 99% of the carbon dioxide from coal.
Well maybe. This will bear some watching as it moves forward out of the labs and into the power plant.
Coal, of course, is still not a renewable resource (unless you count charcoal -- good for my Kamado grill, but not so much so for mainstream energy production!-)
Wow, if we could find a cure for coal, that would put us 30-40 years ahead. Of course, it would have to be cheap, or we (China, US and India) wouldn't use it. And then we'd be back in the same dirty boat, right up to our coal ash.:-(
'via Blog this'
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)