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 (despite what China sometimes claims), and you'd have to convince them - and their populations - that upward economic mobility is no longer an option.
If India tried a huge cutback, they'd have riots.
If China tried a huge cutback, they'd have a revolution.
I'll be waiting for the inevitable talking points about how the US will never get off coal and natural gas because _strawman_ won't let it.
Here's the reality, the rest of the world is moving off fossil fuels at a quick clip, the US will be left behind if we still allow industry to drive the ship (e.g. having oil company executives making energy policy that enriches themselves instead of the needs of the nation).
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...
Even countries like Germany are having a hard time moving away from coal
Solar doesn't work well in Germany because it is about as cloudy as the Bering Sea. They should import solar from sunny places like Spain.
CO2 is a global problem. Solutions don't have to be localized.
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.
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.
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.
Riiiiiight. Are you angelosphere's other account, and will tell me that Germany controls wind next?
The costs are becoming competitive with other energy sources. The Netherlands already have a very dense transmission network so this is not that much of an issue. In the case of offshore wind, the government subsidized the transmission line to 4 huge new wind parks, but the parks themselves will receive zero subsidies: a first. And there were plenty of bidders for them.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
AC are a problem on slashdot. Didn't know there's a problem with Anonymous Cowards all over Asia.
aaaaaaa
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...
Baseload is a concept that exists only because of coal power plants (and later nukes) that cannot follow load (well, French nuclear power plants sort of can, but that makes them quite inefficient and somewhat unreliable, with an availability of 70% or so). Without these the whole base load concept will cease to exist.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Um, no.
Baseload exists because electricity demand is fairly predictable. You could draw a line under which the electricity demand never falls below which you could always match with baseload, and you could draw "sine waves" of demand which are fairly predictable and solutions can be found to
It is a lot easier to use baseload overcapacity to do things like pumped hydro to smooth daily demand fluctuations than it is to try and match an unpredictable supply to fluctuating and not completely predictable demand.
All other things equal, a generation source capable of delivering a consistent supply is better than one which is not able to guarantee consistent supply.
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.
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!
Coal is expensive, requiring hundreds of trillions in subsidies each year to be economic.
This is pretty silly, jd. Where did you get such a crazy number?
Look up the global GDP and you will realize why it makes no sense.
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.
According to the article, this is in the process of changing because solar is becoming the lower cost alternative.
1) Contraction - globally environments are in a phase of reduction
2) Impact - edge conditions are the first responders stripping models through innovation
3) Stress - thrashes modes of use down to survival conditions
4) Failure - Law of Diminishing Returns for those caught in the crux
It not only spells doom for big UTILITIES but general everyday work that impacts jobs, change to part-time gig work who feel the thrash; which tolls will be taken in the future. Innovation doesn't lead people out of the crux
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.
Umm, what panic? Is panic some dog whistle for "I do not like this news, so we must suppress it"?
First, your desire apparently needed classifying Fukushima images and reporting as top secret. Deal with it, not many people are going to see reactor buildings blowing up and think - I want one of those in my town. And DDT is not some sort of majick gift from God. It is a pesticide, and as such, suffers from the same problems of resistance as other pesticides. And while you are lamenting the "millions" of dark skinned people who died because of the media (care for giving the citations presenting the evidence of multiple millions dead because of removing DDT?)
Here's some reading material https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It is just another pesticide, and mosquitos were turning resistant to it in the mid 1950's.
But I mean it's the fucking media, amirite?
Any panic is on your end, for reading things that don't fit your narrative and that you want censored.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The media induced a panic about DDT
In all fairness though. DDT is a horrible chemical and shouldn't be used in places where people or animals are expected to exists in. I get your point though, people's knee jerks can bring about the end of something before a useful alternative is found. But to be devil's advocate, companies don't seem to ever want to find/use a useful alternative by themselves. It always seems like to get change to happen, it's always got to be this nanny nagging "oh no the world will end" kind of style. That's not true everywhere, granted, but for a lot of industries it doesn't seem like they want to advance until they're forced to do so. Especially in the coal industry.
This is pretty silly, jd. Where did you get such a crazy number?
Perhaps it's an estimated cost to clean up the pollution from coal power. However, that cost is actually infinite, since coal plants are distributing radioactive isotopes and soot across the planet and we physically can't clean that up. Therefore, coal is effectively receiving $INFINITY in subsidies.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
DDT was only banned for agricultural use. It is still available for use in mosquito control in countries that need it.
The problem is that overuse of DDT allowed mosquitoes to develop a strong resistance to it. Here's a nice study on that topic, but since you won't bother reading it I will quote "We conducted standard insecticide susceptibility testing across western Kenya and found that the Anopheles gambiae mosquito has acquired high resistance to pyrethroids and DDT"
Put simply, DDT doesn't work well for controlling malaria carrying mosquitoes anymore, and that was not caused by media induced panics about DDT. If anything, the media exposure that lead to banning DDT for all other uses probably prolonged it's usefulness for controlling mosquitoes.
How's life in the hypocrite lane?