Slashdot Mirror
The End of Coal Could Be Closer Than It Looks (bloomberg.com)
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a report on Monday saying that the world's electrical utilities need to reduce coal consumption by at least 60 percent over the next two decades through 2030 to avoid the worst effects of climate change that could occur with more than 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming. While that reduction seems out of reach, Bloomberg crunched some numbers and found that "it's possible to meet consumption-cut targets on the current path." From the report: The conventional wisdom is that this isn't possible, as rising demand from emerging economies, led by China and India, overwhelms the switch from fossil fuels in richer countries. That may underestimate the changing economics of energy generation, though. For one thing, it assumes that Asian countries will continue to build new coal-fired plants at a rapid rate, even though renewables are already the cheaper option in India and heading that way in China and Southeast Asia. For another, the falling cost and rising penetration of wind and solar is so recent that we're only just starting to see how they damage the business models of conventional generators. Thanks to the deflation of recent years, renewables already produce energy at a lower cost than thermal power plants. That causes the overall price of wholesale electricity to fall, reducing a conventional plant's revenue per megawatt-hour. When this drops below the generator's operating costs, the only away to avoid losing money is to switch off altogether. As a result, capacity factors -- the share of time when the plant is on and producing electricity -- decline as well, further undermining returns.
The shift from an always-on "baseload" demand profile to a peaks-and-troughs one like this carries its own problems. The act of ramping up and down consumes fuel and causes the physical plant to wear out faster. Absent expensive refurbishments, that could take a decade off the 40- to 50-year life of a coal plant -- and banks will get progressively less likely to fund long-term refurbs as wind and solar further damage the economics of fossil power. Researchers at the Australian National University this year modeled the effect of this sort of scenario on that country's generation mix. Assuming that the cost of renewables continues to evolve in line with current trends, they found the average retirement age of coal plants falls to 30 years from 50 years. As a result, coal-powered generation drops by about 70 percent between 2020 and 2030. "Let's assume the addition of net new generation stops in 2020; that plant life reduces to 30 years from 40 years; and that capacity factors gradually fall from the current 50 percent to 35 percent, still well above the levels of the U.K.'s coal generators in recent years," the report says in closing. "The effect of those operating changes alone reduces coal-fired electricity output in 2030 by about 40 percent relative to the higher scenario. [...] Factor in a price on carbon or other robust government intervention and the decline would be much faster."
The shift from an always-on "baseload" demand profile to a peaks-and-troughs one like this carries its own problems. The act of ramping up and down consumes fuel and causes the physical plant to wear out faster. Absent expensive refurbishments, that could take a decade off the 40- to 50-year life of a coal plant -- and banks will get progressively less likely to fund long-term refurbs as wind and solar further damage the economics of fossil power. Researchers at the Australian National University this year modeled the effect of this sort of scenario on that country's generation mix. Assuming that the cost of renewables continues to evolve in line with current trends, they found the average retirement age of coal plants falls to 30 years from 50 years. As a result, coal-powered generation drops by about 70 percent between 2020 and 2030. "Let's assume the addition of net new generation stops in 2020; that plant life reduces to 30 years from 40 years; and that capacity factors gradually fall from the current 50 percent to 35 percent, still well above the levels of the U.K.'s coal generators in recent years," the report says in closing. "The effect of those operating changes alone reduces coal-fired electricity output in 2030 by about 40 percent relative to the higher scenario. [...] Factor in a price on carbon or other robust government intervention and the decline would be much faster."
Here's a link to the current state of energy consumption worldwide. As you can see fossil fuels are growing, and recyclables are not keeping up with increased demand, never mind making inroads into the fossil fuel demand
https://gailtheactuary.files.w...
Well coal's future may be uncertain but wishful thinking on the internet will likely outlive us all.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...
Globally, coal is even more alive. "Think the Big Banks Have Abandoned Coal? Think Again." Even a solar magazine admits: "China to add 259 GW of coal capacity, satellite imagery shows." For reference, 259 GW is more than twice the amount of power capacity that mighty Texas has FROM ALL SOURCES.
Now Asia - which accounts for close to 80% of total global coal usage - is increasingly turning to the U.S. to supply coal. We are still the world's third largest coal producer. The U.S. supplies both types, met coal to produce steel and steam coal to produce electricity. "U.S. coal exports increased by 61% in 2017 as exports to Asia more than doubled."
The U.S. has a 360-year supply of coal to bolster our expanding export market. The trade war with the U.S. however, could have China looking to expand domestic supply, and the country's coal production caps have been found to be "technically infeasible."
The fact is that both China (65%) and India (75%) are hugely dependent upon coal-based electricity, which will be needed in even bigger quantities to lift their low Human Development Index closer to those in the West, where universal electricity access has more people living better and longer. Can you really blame them? "The Statistical Connection Between Electricity and Human Development."
Solar works great in Germany. In fact Germany is fifth in installed solar capacity. Not sure what you are talking about. But Germany still loves their coal. That is why they have been increasing their carbon output.
Solar works great in Germany. In fact Germany is fifth in installed solar capacity.
But it doesn't, it's highly inefficient. The reason they produce as much as they do, is because rooftops everywhere are pretty much covered with PV cells. The cost to recoup the initial costs are over a period of 20-30 years(the pv panel life is around 25 years). This is pretty much the same as in Canada for instance, and one of the reasons why "green energy" like windmills and solar make next to no sense since they have to be heavily subsidized by the government to break even.
Om, nomnomnom...
We're 40 years on from the pollution crisis media induced panic and all of those 'in the next 5 years' predictions haven't come true.....
In those 40 years we have phased out leaded petrol, leaded paint, chlorofluorocarbons, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) to name just a few. We are still seeing the effects of these, despite them being banned for decades.
So the "crisis" has been reduced, but not eliminated. And it has been reduced because we did something about it, not because the media induced a panic. If anything, the media raised awareness so that we would act.
sustainable living
is because rooftops everywhere are pretty much covered with PV cells.
It is not even 1% of rooftops that are covered with solar cells, probably not even a half a percent.
The cost to recoup the initial costs are over a period of 20-30 years(the pv panel life is around 25 years).
No idea about the already existing plants.
However, if I invest now 10,000 into a roof top solar plant with battery storage and join a virtual power plant for reserve power/balancing power, I will earn over a course of 20 years 10,000. Earn! Not safe in costs, but earn!
Your idea about costs of solar panels are completely outdated.
(the pv panel life is around 25 years) ... but that stops around 80% original peak capacity.
The warranty is 30 years. They basically live for ever. No idea where this retarded "panel life is _" comes from. If it does not get destroyed by hail (and for that you need a big bunch of hail) ripped from the roof by an Orkan (that are our Hurricanes) burned or has rotting connections because of a bad day during manufactoring: they hold for ever. Sure they degrade
This is reposted and repeated on /. so often since 10 or more years: it should be common knowledge by now.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Germany gets 25% of their energy from coal.
Germany is even cutting down forests to build new coal mines.
Why . . . ?
Germany continues to remain heavily reliant on coal, partly to offset Chancellor Angela Merkel's decision in 2011 to phase out nuclear power by 2022.
https://www.dw.com/en/no-chanc...
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Fossil fuel subsidies by the US run to $200 trillion a year.
How are we managing a $200 trillion subsidy when the entire US GDP is only about $20 trillion? For that matter, $200 trillion exceeds the entire world GDP. http://statisticstimes.com/eco...
As a follow-up: The second argument is often, that Germany buys the missing electrical energy from Poland's coal plants, which is also wrong. (It's a nice chart, you can also see the daily trends in energy production.)
Here's a link that speaks to that
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12o...
In a nutshell, absent extreme temps in either direction, today's panels degrade very, very little over 20 years.
At or near the equator, UV will kill them at about 1-2% a year.
In very cold wet climates, snowload and wind degrade them about the same.
That doesn't make them a panacea of course. Non-distributability is the main problem. A tough not to crack.