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."
China and India are still busily building new coal plants
China and India are building new coal plants to meet rapidly growing demand for power. Most of that new demand is not for lighting, cooking, or transport, but for air conditioning.
If you want to reduce coal consumption, the best, most cost effective, and politically acceptable solution, is better ACs.
The worst ACs have three times the power consumption of the best for the same cooling capacity. There is huge room for improvement.
In US, yes, but not courtesy of pie in the sky "wind and solar". It's dying because it can't compete with natgas sourced from fracking and modern CCGTs. It's cheaper, plants are simpler, and it emits about half CO2 per energy produced compared to coal. Add on top of that the fact that the other product of burn cycle is water, and you don't need any catalytic and particulate filtration either, nor do you need automation investments to keep NOx and SO2 production low to zero.
It's just cheaper to build a CCGT. Bonus points for the fact that if someone decides to build a wind park next door, your CCGT can be fairly economically run in OCGT cycle to function as spinning reserve.
Oh, and something I forgot. Trump's most likely plan is to elbow US into the Australia's market of coal exports to East Asia. It keeps growing, and since coal is increasingly uneconomical in US, it would make sense to simply export it to China, India, Pakistan and ACEAN countries who are in dire need of it. It would also help with trade deficit issues.
The U.S. will eventually change its mind (as soon as it can change its administration to one that's actually responsible), and then it will have to struggle to catch up. China can also exploit its enormous head start, both for profit and for strategic leverage - including inserting espionage equipment into renewable devices sold to the the U.S.
It may well take the U.S. a decade or more to catch up, including still more deficit spending. The U.S. may well find itself unable to recover, and may even experience energy shortages if it cannot get the renewable tech it needs. The end result may be a significant shift of political power among first-world nations.
Computer over. Virus = very yes.
The most savings you had if old ACs would be replaced by new ones: in the developed world!!
Great! So, in a developing country where a 1st world AC unit will run say $780k-1.8m, and drive up the rental price by 50%, people will obviously flock to that building right? Especially when the building on the other side of town uses a far less efficient version, but has a lower rental price because the cost of electricity is lower and in the long term costs less per unit.
That is nonsense. They cost exactly the same.
No, they don't. The price of electricity for example is a good gauge for this. If the system is cheaper you're not paying as much for maintenance because it doesn't require the specialists. With a lower cost per kWh, rounded out with tax benefits you can come out a head.
Om, nomnomnom...
I know the "but Germany" argument comes up here and there, but it is simply wrong.
To the contrary: even though Germany had a moratorium on nuclear energy after Fukushima-Daiishi in 2011, the share of coal (including lignin) generated electricity had just a small uptick until 2013 and is even faster declining since (from 62% in 1990 to 52% today).
So, they're only running 52% coal, as compared to the USA's 30%? Yep, much greener in Germany....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
The media induces panics all the time. Remember in 2011 they scaremongered about nuclear power? Germany got rid of its nuclear plants and is digging for coal. The media induced a panic about DDT and millions have died of malaria as a result. Fear mongering is standard practice for the media and they won't stop because they don't bear the costs of their malfeasance.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
According to this source (https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts), the energy mix is about 36% coal and 33% renewables. Still looks greener in Germany.
China to add 259 GW of coal capacity, satellite imagery shows
How do you square that with the fact that China hit peak coal 4 years ago?
http://ieefa.org/ieefa-update-...
The new plants are replacing older ones and are also much more efficient.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC