More Than 40 Percent of World Coal Plants Are Unprofitable, Says Report (reuters.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: More than 40 percent of the world's coal plants are operating at a loss due to high fuel costs and that proportion could to rise to nearly 75 percent by 2040, a report by environmental think-tank Carbon Tracker showed on Friday. London-based Carbon Tracker analyzed the profitability of 6,685 coal plants around the world, representing 95 percent of operating capacity and 90 percent of capacity under construction. It found that 42 percent of global coal capacity is already unprofitable. From 2019 onwards, it expects falling renewable energy costs, air pollution regulations and carbon pricing to result in further cost pressures and make around 72 percent of the fleet cashflow negative by 2040. In addition, by 2030, new wind and solar will be cheaper than continuing to operate 96 percent of today's existing and planned coal plants, the report said.

Comments

Cheaper solar and wind

[Anonymous Coward]

Does that include the measures needed to guarantee energy availability when people need it, instead of when the sun shines or the wind blows?

Re:Cheaper solar and wind

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, the first random brainfart that entered the tiny mind of an internet dweeb. Yes, I'm sure it does. Detailed studies tend to account for far more than your feels.

However, I was impressed by raising the base load myth without saying it directly. The problem with your idea is that existing non-renewable sources are already variable and unreliable, so the grid is already designed to cope with it. Even more hilariously, coal power plants are incredibly inflexible compared to wind and solar. Coal power plants can take up to 8 hours to reach peak operation from a warm start, and have suffer from large cycle stress that reduces their lifetime considerably. They are, ironically, fossils of a bygone era.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice propaganda. You are lying by presenting facts in a deliberately deceptive manner. Warm start. Right. No, jackass, coal and nuclear stabilize inside inner cycle with a large roasting mass.

Yes, coal is expensive when sabotaged and renewable cheaper when subsidized. You see any funds for decommissioning the suing wrong farms? Nuclear is fully funded and coal is over most of they production cycle.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Anonymous Coward]

Take into account artificial taxes like CO2 emission tax, excise tax etc.
Stop enforcing emission tax alone and profitability will go up immediately.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[orlanz]

Coal isn't being "sabotaged" by regulations. The environmental costs are being incorporated into its usage. And coal does get a lot of subsidies, from mining, usage, and disposal.

And coal plant designs are of a long gone era. Even the latest approved nuclear plants are 2-3 core design versions past current operations. This isn't true for coal. Of course renewables are all new. The only thing as old as coal is hydro.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[shilly]

Along with deaths from respiratory disease! Yay!

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Anonymous Coward]

Along with deaths from respiratory disease! Yay!

The original post says nothing about relaxing emissions of anything but CO2, so you are wrong nobody's lungs would be harmed by this. The original post was right, the problem with coal has been the artificial raising of their fuel costs, specifically tied to CO2 emissions.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Anonymous Coward]

Take into account artificial taxes like CO2 emission tax, excise tax etc. Stop enforcing emission tax alone and profitability will go up immediately.

Artificial? Since when does burning coal causes no CO2 emissions? Perhaps we should also start taxing those mountain hating coal mining companies for the toxic runoff from their mines that ruins the land of people down hill from their strip mining operation? ... and if you think that toxic runoff is some kind of 'artificial construct' like CO2 emissions I can introduce you to some very angry Appalachian Hillbillies who are ready willing and able to let you bathe in a pond of your choosing full of toxic coal mine runoff.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Anonymous Coward]

I think wind mills have been used more than two thousand years longer than coal.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Ol Olsoc]

Artificial? Since when does burning coal causes no CO2 emissions? Perhaps we should also start taxing those mountain hating coal mining companies for the toxic runoff from their mines that ruins the land of people down hill from their strip mining operation? ... and if you think that toxic runoff is some kind of 'artificial construct' like CO2 emissions I can introduce you to some very angry Appalachian Hillbillies who are ready willing and able to let you bathe in a pond of your choosing full of toxic coal mine runoff.

And how! Not too far away from me is land that was destroyed by coal mining, and before the companies had to restore the land.

I've thought of having tours of the area to show off what has been done. And as a twist, play down he obvious environmental impact, and play up the money lost.

Streams - once highly profitable tourist fishing destinations with almost no cost of doing business, and with high earning tourists who fish and stay in hotels and eat in restaurants. Millions lost every year (adjusted for inflation)

Deforestation. The trees - if any grow after the area is strip mined - are worthless. Usless for providing profit and jobs for logging. Untold millions lost.

Real Estate. The highwalls and tailing piles look like Mars, and are a profit opportunity lost. The modern trend of building communities 10 -15 miles out of town isn't going to work. The land is destroyed,

I reckon I'll have the human Ferengi bawling like babies in no time.

That's only slightly tongue in cheek. How we could ever allow one group - the mining interests, to permanently destroy land that could be useful for many purposes both profitable, providing entertainment, and ecologically sustaining is so short sighted.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Type44Q]

From Wikipedia: "Archeological evidence in China indicates surface mining of coal and household usage after approximately 3490 BC."

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[CanadianMacFan]

We aren't building wind mills today. Wind mills are used to grind small things into a powder, known as milling. We're putting up wind turbines which generate electricity. The technology in those ranges from thousands of years ago to today as the turbine itself and the blades are always being updated.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess they are or are not thanking the accountants for their habit of writing numbers down and keeping a ledger

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Anonymous Coward]

Coal is the best. We need to use more coal. Real news says so.

Just don't look into the Nuclear One deal. Real news doesn't want to talk about the Nuclear One deal even though it helped Russia meddle.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[drinkypoo]

"Coal isn't being "sabotaged" by regulations. A tiny portion of the environmental costs are being incorporated into its usage."

There, FTFY. Coal would have been gone long since if it had to pay anything like its full costs... which are arguably infinite, since we literally can't clean up after it.

Re:Cheaper solar and wind

[Joce640k]

Ah, the first random brainfart that entered the tiny mind of an internet dweeb. Yes, I'm sure it does.

What's needed is a thing called "storage". Tesla has been busy providing solutions to that:

https://electrek.co/2018/01/23...

Of course now you're going to say "what if there's no wind or sun for a whole month?"

Haters gonna hate.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[jd]

There's this thing called a battery. You may have heard of it.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you literally need to walk to the hardware store and literally say âoewe need this kind of broom to perform such and such task. Do you have one and How much is it?â

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Anonymous Coward]

Bingo! I got bingo! Whereâ(TM)s my prize!?

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Anonymous Coward]

Broom will literally clean up heavy metals and acid rain? Literally allow you to sweep from one coal slurry pond into another? Tool.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Anonymous Coward]

Six years of Obama administration stonewalling all repair and construction permits is most certainly "sabotage".

Stop lying.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. There are all sorts of brooms. Leave the bathroom once in a while

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Anonymous Coward]

Bent get you

Re:Cheaper solar and wind

[Cmdln Daco]

Haters gonna hate.

The common bromide of a cult member.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Cmdln Daco]

Before you can collect a prize you need to fix the bug in your auto-correct entry system.

Re:Cheaper solar and wind

[mikael]

You use the surplus energy generated from your renewal systems to push water uphill (potential energy), or to charge up batteries (electrical energy), spin up flywheels (kinetic energy), compress gas (kinetic energy), charge up hydrogen fuel cells (chemical energy). Then you release energy from these sources when you need it.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[mikael]

They had vertical windmills - an S shaped sail that sat on top of a millstone. Using just wind power alone, the natives could ease themselves from the tedious task of milling grain by hand.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[orlanz]

Republicans had majority...

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[blindseer]

From: https://www.merriam-webster.co...

windmill noun
windÂâmill | \Ëwin(d)-ËOEmil \
Definition of windmill

(Entry 1 of 2)

1a : a mill or machine operated by the wind usually acting on oblique vanes or sails that radiate from a horizontal shaft especially : a wind-driven water pump or electric generator

b : the wind-driven wheel of a windmill

2 : something that resembles or suggests a windmill especially : a calisthenic exercise that involves alternately lowering each outstretched hand to touch the toes of the opposite foot

3 [ from the episode in Don Quixote by Cervantes in which the hero attacks windmills under the illusion that they are giants ] : an imaginary wrong, evil, or opponent â"usually used in the phrase to tilt at windmills

It's a fucking windmill and so I'm going to call it a windmill.

Re:Cheaper solar and wind

[ShanghaiBill]

What's needed is a thing called "storage".

That is part of the solution. But there are two other solutions: 1) Wider grids. 2) Differential pricing.

Charge more when power is scarce, and less when it is plentiful. "Smart meters" are already installed in many areas, and people quickly find a way to change their usage patterns.

Of course now you're going to say "what if there's no wind or sun for a whole month?"

The total amount of wind / clouds is nearly constant. So if the wind isn't blowing in Nebraska, there is extra wind in Oklahoma. This is actually a benefit since wind power goes up as the cube of the wind speed. So double the wind concentrated in one area is much better than the same wind volume spread out.

We just need wider grids so the power can be moved from windy/sunny areas to becalmed and be-clouded areas. Even better if these grids are expanded east-west, so we can get a time shift as well. Arizona sunshine can power ACs in Florida after sunset.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[blindseer]

There's this thing called a battery. You may have heard of it.

Yes, I have heard of it. That's what the lawyer said I did when that treehugger got in my face and wouldn't stop screaming about how I'm ruining the planet for driving my truck.

The judge let me go. It turns out that you can't scream in someone's ear and think they can't push you out of their way.

If you want to see wind power displace coal then go buy yourself some windmills, sell electricity, and if you can stay in business doing this then coal plants will go away out of a free market competition. Using the force of government to prop up wind power only means that in the end we will see government prop up coal power to keep the lights on. Get rid of the subsidies, all of them. Taxes on carbon is likely to result in more charges of battery as people riot, as is happening in France. Government cannot solve this problem, only business and technology. If the wind power industry can't compete on an open market, such as producing electricity at a low enough cost to cover the expense of storage for when the wind does not blow, then it does not deserve to stay in business.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Antique Geekmeister]

I'm afraid that the updates are modest efficiency and cost improvements. Even if the hardware is free, yapping significant more wind energy, without significantly altering local ecologies and weather, sets physical limits on how much wind energy is available. Similar though not identical limitations exist for every energy resource. My concern for these renewable energy sources is that they have maximum limits within reach of our existing energy economy. Being natural, or "free" does not mean it's unlimited, and that is easy to lose track of.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Luckyo]

Both heavy metal emissions and SO2/NOx (substances that cause acid rain) problems have been solved in coal burning in larger plants quite a while ago. The problem that we cannot solve is CO2 emissions per power generated. It's too high.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you're a lying faggot. There are hundreds of plants without the clean-coal scrubber tech still in operation, you're a lying faggot of no value. Go eat more microplastics you trolling moron.

Re:Cheaper solar and wind

[Anonymous Coward]

"Smart meters" are already installed in many areas, and people quickly find a way to change their usage patterns..

Sure. I'm going to wear a sweater in my house in the winter. And I'll turn off the AC and be uncomfortable with just a fan in the summer.

Fuck that. I actually like living in the First World.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Anonymous Coward]

There's this thing called a battery. You may have heard of it.

Yup. I'm replacing them all the time.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Luckyo]

Of course there are. But the problem has been solved for those who are willing to buy the tech. So it is in fact solved.

P.S. In your desperate anti-science dogma, you keep conflating microplastics with plastic garbage. Reminder: we are quite full of microplastics, and we don't eat them. We drink them. And as far as we know, and as people who found them kept reminding us in their study, they are in fact biologically inert and too small to cause mechanical damage. So I'll be fine.

You on the other hand really should stop shoving green anti-science dogma in your head. It's unhealthy.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[ColdWetDog]

The highwalls and tailing piles look like Mars, and are a profit opportunity lost.

Uh, does Elon know about this?

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Anonymous Coward]

Absence of taxes is not the same thing as presence of subsidies.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[dunkelfalke]

Are you, by chance, Don Quixote?

Re:Cheaper solar and wind

[blindseer]

That's fine for large nations like the USA, what about Japan?

Oh, I know the answer. Japan is restarting many of their shuttered nuclear power plants, and has plans to build more.

Then think of all the other inhabited islands spread around the world. They can't spread out their electrical grid like you propose. This is especially true in places that are subject to hurricanes and such. A nuclear power plant in Florida kept running during a hurricane because under that large concrete dome they don't much care about how much sun and wind they get. With proper design earthquakes can be managed too. Fukushima didn't melt down because of the quake, it melted down because it was a design older than Chernobyl and lost the power needed to keep cool. A newer design would not do this.

Maybe an island nation like Japan could in the future rely on sun, wind, and storage for their power needs. Perhaps on an island differential pricing will help as well. What they can't do is widen their grid to gather more of the intermittent sun and wind.

Oh, and I'm sure someone will want to bring up tidal power or some other undersea power source. When that starts to be profitable then let me know. Until then Japan, Hawaii, and other islands will need oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear power to keep the lights on.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Rick Schumann]

How we could ever allow one group - the mining interests, to permanently destroy land that could be useful for many purposes both profitable, providing entertainment, and ecologically sustaining is so short sighted.

This is the sort of thing I'm referring to when I say "Capitalism gone bad" or "Out-of-control capitalism"; there was a time, dim in our memories now (and absent completely in the memories of some too young or too unaware of history to know it) when 'capitalism' operated differently, operated with more regard for the needs of society, i.e. capitalism that had more of a conscience. A good way for me to illustrate this, maybe, is it's like a certain yeast-like micro-organism that naturally exists in the human body: when it's not over-fed with sugars, it exists in a symbiotic role, helping regulate the natural balance of your body, but when it's fed too much sugar, it changes it's nature entirely, goes into a spore-like mode, over-reproducing, and actually causes harm. That's the road capitalism seems to have gone down, causing all the harm you mentioned in it's mad rush for more, more, more profit. Note that I'm not saying capitalism is bad; it's not, but there needs to be a sense of scale observed, to keep it from running mad and destroying everything in it's wake.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Rick Schumann]

FWIW, you're right about nuclear reactor/power plant design; but the NIMBYs and others who have been scared off of nuclear are standing in the way of it saving us from ourselves -- and being someone who voted for Rancho Seco to be shut down back in the 80's, I feel I have a right to admit we were both right for all the wrong reasons, and wrong for all the right reasons, if you catch my drift. There are now, in fact, much safer fission reactor designs that are not the 'high pressure' types currently in use, and that are inherently safer, theoretically meltdown-proof, but trying to get the DoE to allow them to be built, getting funding to build them, and getting people within the affected area to sign off on them being built, has prevented any of them from moving forward. We've got to get past this fear of the nuclear boogeyman though. Fission isn't as good as fusion will be once we get the details of it ironed out, but we need time to do that, and meanwhile we need to stop dumping the last several million years worth of natural carbon sequestration back into the atmosphere.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Anonymous Coward]

Solved in the sense the clean tech then makes coal more expensive than cleaner alternatives?

Re:Cheaper solar and wind

[Pinky's Brain]

No, it does not ... there is no scalable TWh storage technology to carry any significant power across a Dunkelflaute. The German's way to deal with the problem for instance as they were turning off coal and nuclear has been to just borrow power from their neighbours when there's shortage. except everyone is doing the same thing and excess generating capacity is disappearing fast.

http://notrickszone.com/2018/0...

As long as solar and wind are not cheaper than fueling the backup plants, or we get cheap scalable TWh scale storage, it is being subsidized. Merely being able to be cheaper than wholesale pricing at a given point in time is not enough. Now there is nothing inherently wrong with it needing subsidy, but the lies about it being profitable without it are dangerous. Politicians aren't very smart, they are prone to drinking their own koolaid. Then suddenly you'll get rolling blackouts.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Anonymous Coward]

Not in the administration.

Re:Cheaper solar and wind

[mspohr]

Numerous studies have uncovered they myth of baseload and shown that renewables can easily cover 100% of energy needs.
Here's one.
https://physicsworld.com/a/100...

Re:Cheaper solar and wind

[presidenteloco]

First of all, I have to congratulate the German people for having invented such a tremendous word "Dunkelflaute".

Second, a centralized large-scale hydrogen storage facility with fuel cells is indeed a scalable energy storage solution.
It can only be made with 40% round-trip energy efficiency, but just compensate for that by doubling or so the amount of wind and solar, which is relatively cheap and feasible.
Remember that right now, a lot of wind farms are being paid to not generate during times of surplus wind and low demand. Storing that energy at 40% efficiency is obviously much better than that.

Or do some research & development to improve adiabatic compressed air storage, which should achieve 70% round-trip energy efficiency.
These technologies, plus lithium batteries at the grid edge, can easily be a scalable energy storage solution.

We are also overlooking deep geothermal power generation. Current oil-drilling technology is good enough to take advantage of a lot of that resource. And geothermal can generate 24/7 with no GHG emissions.

The reason that this stuff, all well within our short term technological reach, is not done, comes down to that in the short term it would be more expensive, because of the artificial "free pollution" pass given to the fossil fuel energy industry. Slap a decent carbon tax on, one that would still be much less than the remediation costs of adapting to fossil-fuel-caused global warming and climate change, and these new energy technologies would be cost-competitive or superior immediately.

It's all down to lack of political will to make the needed changes. If you don't like more tax, a carbon fee and dividend works almost just as well at speeding the change and leveling the economic playing field for clean energy technology, while remaining revenue neutral for governments.

Re:Cheaper solar and wind

[Anonymous Coward]

>_ A newer design would not do this.

Dude, that phrase has been used a million times -- every time after a new nuclear accident happens.

Please, if you're going to be delusional:

a) don't assume we're gonna follow you and
b) do come up with a new argument -- buy one if you need, but no more BS like that.

Pretty please.

Re:Cheaper solar and wind

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course now you're going to say "what if there's no wind or sun for a whole month?"

Nuclear Winter. Trump's ultimate "bring back coal"

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Anonymous Coward]

My word. You're a fine example of a fucking retard, aren't you?

we don't eat them. We drink them.

As the food chain is entirely contaminated with microplastics, we do of course also eat them.

biologically inert and too small to cause mechanical damage

Real scientific research, conducted before the issue gained widespread publicity, disagrees with your feels.

...stop shoving green anti-science dogma in your head. It's unhealthy.

There only appears to be one anti-science person here, and it's you.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[shilly]

What's your magical CO2 emitting fuel that doesn't also release particulates and NOx? You should get a patent for it right away.

Re:Cheaper solar and wind

[currently_awake]

There are plenty of roofs in Japan to put solar panels. There are plenty of mountains for wind turbines. I visited Japan recently and saw none of either.

Re:Cheaper solar and wind

[ShanghaiBill]

There are plenty of roofs in Japan to put solar panels. There are plenty of mountains for wind turbines. I visited Japan recently and saw none of either.

Japan is really dragging their feet on renewables. There is plenty of wind capacity in Hokkaido (firmly in the "roaring forties") and northern Honshu. With electricity prices of 20 cents (22 yen) / kwh, wind turbines would easily be profitable. All they need to do is lay down some transmission infrastructure and remove the bureaucratic red tape.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Ol Olsoc]

The highwalls and tailing piles look like Mars, and are a profit opportunity lost.

Uh, does Elon know about this?

Never thought of that! Could be a great place to train.

Re:Cheaper solar and wind

[Anonymous Coward]

>_ A newer design would not do this.

Dude, that phrase has been used a million times -- every time after a new nuclear accident happens.

Please, if you're going to be delusional:

a) don't assume we're gonna follow you and
b) do come up with a new argument -- buy one if you need, but no more BS like that.

Pretty please.

In other words...

"I don't have an argument against nuclear power except that of telling people on how 1970s era reactors were poorly designed."

Sound about right? It does to me. That's like saying we shouldn't be flying a Boeing 787 because the de Havilland Comet was falling from the sky.

If you want to argue against new nuclear power plants then make an argument that is relevant against new nuclear reactors. Don't expect me to take you seriously when you bring up Chernobyl when discussing a new reactor built in Alabama. Three Mile Island isn't even a good example of the dangers of nuclear power. Nobody died from that and I heard on good authority that the reactor was still functional, and could have been safely restarted.

Don't tell me I should just spread out my solar panels and windmills when I live on an island. I can't do that. I need power and I need it 24/7. I know I can get that from nuclear power. If you want to stop me from getting it then you need to provide something that keeps my lights on, not an argument that was out of date 20 years ago.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Anonymous Coward]

we need to subsidize coal, so they can continue to pollute.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Ol Olsoc]

How we could ever allow one group - the mining interests, to permanently destroy land that could be useful for many purposes both profitable, providing entertainment, and ecologically sustaining is so short sighted.

This is the sort of thing I'm referring to when I say "Capitalism gone bad".

Capitalism without any sort or moral structure destroys itself.

Re:Cheaper solar and wind

[Anonymous Coward]

You use the surplus energy generated from your renewal systems to push water uphill (potential energy), or to charge up batteries (electrical energy), spin up flywheels (kinetic energy), compress gas (kinetic energy), charge up hydrogen fuel cells (chemical energy). Then you release energy from these sources when you need it.

When you can make that happen cheaper than coal and nuclear power then I can expect you to make gobs of money and likely win a Nobel prize. More than 40% of coal plants are not making a profit, which tells me that more than 50% of coal plants are profitable.

What's keeping these unprofitable coal plants operating? I'm guessing it's the utilities putting up windmills to get a piece of the government subsidies. The utilities don't much care if one coal plant doesn't make a profit so long as the total balance sheet is in the black. Wind subsidies are coal subsidies. That's because the utilities own both and they will take government money if it keeps them in business. The politicians don't seem to care much either since the laws often specify subsidies on wind generating capacity instead of actual production.

If the coal plants don't make money then someone is paying to keep them running. My guess is it is governments. If you want to make that stop then ALL energy subsidies need to stop. That's because, again, the utilities will just take the wind subsidies to stay in business.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Coal is heavily subsidized in the US
2. Coal is not made to bear external costs.
3. Despite this, coal _is_ losing in the marketplace, in the sense that its absolute use and relative use in energy consumption are decreasing.

So what are you talking about?

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Anonymous Coward]

Permits are a function of the executive branch, not the legislative.

Re:Cheaper solar and wind

[mspohr]

I guess facts and scientific studies are now counted as "trolling".

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah the age old attacks on intelligence without really engaging in conversation.

Most of the coal fired plants are very old and tend to produce fewer wattage than newer gen plants. The story is simply a reprint of what we have known for years. Consumption and load will ultimately define how we power the future. LED lighting is an example of smart and good progress in reducing one aspect f our overall consumption. I look forward to more progress.

Please stay away from your divisive rhetoric. You are just perpetuating the belief that progs are merely assholes.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[blindseer]

1. Coal is heavily subsidized in the US

No, it's not. Not on a per kWh basis. https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...

2. Coal is not made to bear external costs.

Nothing is going to change that. Carbon taxes won't fix that because the people that sell the carbon based fuels just pass that cost on to the people buying the fuel. The people buying the fuel bear this external cost in whatever form that takes, be it global warming or air pollution. The only way to fix that is to use an alternative that is cheaper and cleaner than coal, that's nuclear power. Nuclear power has it's own external cost but that's far lower than anything else.

3. Despite this, coal _is_ losing in the marketplace, in the sense that its absolute use and relative use in energy consumption are decreasing.

Coal is losing to natural gas and nothing else. This is a good thing.

So what are you talking about?

I'm tired of the lies. I'm tired of promises of future technologies that never come to be.

Wind and solar cannot displace coal, at least not any time soon. This might change in the future with the batteries that keep getting promised so we need something that works today. Nuclear works today. Most everything I hear against nuclear power is a lie or a political construct. Most everything I hear in favor of wind and solar is also a lie. Maybe it's true that wind, solar, and batteries are the future but that's not helpful today. What can you offer *TODAY* as a solution? Batteries are not a solution today, therefore wind and solar are not a solution today. What works today is nuclear power, as proven by hundreds of operational nuclear power plants all over the world.

Here's an idea, let's not put our eggs in one basket. I keep hearing that nuclear power is not helpful because it takes ten years to finish a single nuclear power plant. That's a lie but let's go with it. Another lie I keep hearing is that in ten years we will have solved the problems of making batteries big enough and cheap enough so that wind and solar power can replace all the coal. Okay then, let's start building those nuclear power plants, and work on those batteries. In a decade from now let's see who cleans up the air and water first.

Here's the neat part about that nuclear power, they aren't asking for money from the government, they ask only for permission. Give them permission and nuclear power plants will get built. If you say they can't get built without a government loan then I say fine, don't give them a loan. I'm still quite certain that they get built. They need a permit though, but the government has issued maybe a half dozen in the last 50 years. They'll have to issue a dozen every year if we are going to solve the problems of global warming, pollution, and so on. That's not growth by the way, that's just replacing the existing coal power plants being shut down. If you want to see natural gas get replaced too then that means 24 new gigawatt sized nuclear power plants every year, or more likely half nuclear and half wind/solar/batteries/whatever.

If we don't see nuclear power plant permits then we will just see more natural gas. I'm fine with that too, because I'm not convinced global warming is a real problem. If you think it is then we can't wait for battery technology to save us, we need a solution *TODAY*. If the global warming alarmists can't agree on more nuclear power to solve this problem then I have to wonder just how seriously they take this problem.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[K. S. Kyosuke]

coal and nuclear stabilize inside inner cycle with a large roasting mass.

What?

Yes, coal is expensive when sabotaged and renewable cheaper when subsidized.

Except that today, coal is subsidized (by healthcare), whereas renewables stand on their own legs. And boy, will your brain vessels rupture when you learn about the carbon tax initiatives... :-p

You see any funds for decommissioning the suing wrong farms? Nuclear is fully funded and coal is over most of they production cycle.

Again, what?

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Solved, my ass

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Anonymous Coward]

Math be hard yo. But I'll give you some hints. Find out the total square footage of all occupied roofing real estate in Japan.

Then find out how many square feet miles kilometers whatever you want would be required for photovoltaic to be able to meet the power demands of Japan. Then compare the two.

They are only restarting their nuclear plants because we have about another 50 years for the market to catch up.

By 2080 this conversation is going to seem like it's a bunch of foolish people because the math clearly shows the entire worlds energy needs that are currently being met by non-renewables will be able to be met just by photovoltaics alone.

What will be needed will be high capacity power lines and pumped storage.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Luckyo]

That is a story of improper disposal of coal ash. How is it in any way relevant to my statement of:

>Both heavy metal emissions and SO2/NOx (substances that cause acid rain) problems have been solved in coal burning in larger plants quite a while ago. The problem that we cannot solve is CO2 emissions per power generated. It's too high.

Re:Cheaper solar and wind

[grep -v '.*' *]

Of course now you're going to say "what if there's no wind or sun for a whole month?"

Like a _decade_ ago I read a report from an engineer in the UK about renewable energy vs "standard" energy. He was just a guy doing his own research (I don't believe he was astroturfing or Funded by Big Whatever).

This was a decade ago before the BatteryWall. But he was looking at solar (50% utilization because: night), wind, hydro, coal, gas, etc. One of the surprising things HE came up with was that like you said, wind stops sometimes. Guessing here, I think that in the UK / Europe every decade or so wind stops for up to two weeks, so needs some kind of a backup. Also, the cost of having a coal/oil/NatGas plant in stand-by mode was nearly the normal operating costs of the plant.

Not hating here, but: the sun goes down / wind stops occasionally / dry spells happen / oil rigs run dry / nuke rods expend / etc. How DO you always keep the base load powered -- no excuses -- never mind handling peaks or growth? And remember: "I didn't think a solar eclipse could last for a month" isn't an excuse. :-)

Other power storage systems are: pumping water uphill, moving heavy trains uphill, compressing gas, speeding up a spinning flywheel. Notice that all of those end up power a generator, Tesla is at least bypassing that. But how expensive it is to replace the batteries and controlling assembly once exhausted, never mind the resources used in creating new ones? (That same question can be asked of ALL of them, not just the PowerWall. Tesla's the new kid on the block, so he's got some long term 'splainin to do besides New! Shiny! Pretty!)

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Anonymous Coward]

Enforcement is, not definition and parameters.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[jpaine619]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's wrong. It's far more likely that we discovered the black rocks that burn real good before we managed to build anything as complicated as a windmill.. or built boats for that matter..

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[jpaine619]

Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.

You're a cunt

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[jpaine619]

A tiny portion of the environmental costs are being incorporated into its usage.".

Dear complaining liberal,
Nature made coal for us to burn and be happy.. It has no other use than to catch fire. If we don't burn coal we make nature sad that we are rejecting her gift.

Please, think of nature. Make her happy by burning coal.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Uberbah]

there was a time, dim in our memories now (and absent completely in the memories of some too young or too unaware of history to know it) when 'capitalism' operated differently, operated with more regard for the needs of society, i.e. capitalism that had more of a conscience

You mean the good old days like a couple hundred years ago, when you could buy and sell shares in companies that bought and sold human beings in the slave trade?

Re:Cheaper solar and wind

[Uberbah]

All of the FUD around wind and solar power can be addressed with infrastructure that has been used to back up nuclear power, like pumped storage.

Re:Cheaper solar and wind

[Megol]

"Smart meters" are already installed in many areas, and people quickly find a way to change their usage patterns..

Sure. I'm going to wear a sweater in my house in the winter. And I'll turn off the AC and be uncomfortable with just a fan in the summer.

Fuck that. I actually like living in the First World.

Your thinking skills are mirrored in your quoting ones.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[K. S. Kyosuke]

The problem having been solved would have made this event imposible. Hence this event having happened refutes the existence of a solution.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[dunkelfalke]

Takes one to know one.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[drinkypoo]

Both heavy metal emissions and SO2/NOx (substances that cause acid rain) problems have been solved in coal burning in larger plants quite a while ago.

We can literally find power plants and other industrial polluters emitting in excess of their permit as rapidly as we can pay people to climb smokestacks. Source: a guy who used to actually do that for the government. And this was before Trump, you can bet your ass it's worse now.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[omnichad]

If you'll accept Merriam-Webster adopting such lazy usage. After all, the English language has no formal gatekeeper and any word usage that becomes common gets in the book, whether stupid or not. Just don't pull out the pitchforks when they update the definition of "modem" to include a desktop computer tower.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[omnichad]

There are relatively few places where coal could have been found near the surface. And how likely do you really think it is that anyone is going to keep trying to burn rocks after granite and quartz fails?

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[omnichad]

Since OPs premise is that you can't clean up after it, it's not really relevant if done small portion are willing to spend money cleaning up during. Nothing really solved.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[jpaine619]

There are relatively few places where coal could have been found near the surface. And how likely do you really think it is that anyone is going to keep trying to burn rocks after granite and quartz fails?

We discovered marijuana didn't we? How many plants you think they had to go through before they figured that one out? It only takes one person to discover it, you shortsighted.... sheesh.. Did you invent the wheel? Well then how the fuck do you know about them?

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[jpaine619]

I'll take one for the team.. Fine, I'm a cunt.. And I spot one.. You

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Luckyo]

So in your view, literally none of the problems humans had in primeval times have been solved, because there can be mistakes which lead to improper handling of the solution, which result in disastrous consequences?

In what world is that a sane view to hold?

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Luckyo]

As someone who has family working in building various burners, I've no idea when you did what you claim to do, or if you ever did that. I do know for a fact that in US today, as well as EU the norms are overwhelmingly strictly enforced, and typically followed because there are economic incentives to hit certain targets on emissions in most developed countries over long period of time. Benefits that in some cases are so great that when fuel is below certain thresholds forcing the plant to emit more than is sufficient for certain economic incentive threshold to be hit, plant owner will literally execute a controlled shut down of the plant so they can maintain the sufficient buffer to be able to emit.

And since everything is logged on control systems of the plant, you didn't need people climbing smoke stacks in decades beyond replacing the sensors. You just make the query from each sensor. Falsifying this data is not just very hard to do, but would put actors who would agree to such an act in prison in most developing countries today.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Luckyo]

Wait, you think that the acid from acid rain is still causing severe harm in regions where NOx and SO2 emissions have been taken care of?

Our biosphere has very powerful circulation of elements. The damage is taken care of in a matter of years by the normal activity of the nature itself if the cause is halted.

Even heavy metals get flushed out of the system eventually, through that tends to take longer. But luckily in most cases, heavy metal poisoning is extremely localized problem, to the point where contaminated area can simply be abandoned for a few decades with minimal economic impact. The only one that really can't be addressed this way is mercury, most specifically mercury in the oceans. And that is because mercury keeps getting emitted in developing countries that just don't care about emissions.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[omnichad]

Wait, you think that the acid from acid rain is still causing severe harm in regions where NOx and SO2 emissions have been taken care of?

No. Your reading comprehension is just very poor.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[omnichad]

And you think that discovering subsurface black rock that burns is easier than observing that fallen tree branches float and maybe tie a few together to make a raft?

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Rick Schumann]

Capitalism without any sort or moral structure destroys itself.

I agree, it probably does. The questions are, though, how long will that take, and how much collateral damage will occur in the meantime? Also doesn't help if the government doesn't punish corporations for being bad, or worse, encourages them.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Rick Schumann]

Trollololol. GTFO.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[K. S. Kyosuke]

A realistic world? Sure, in a country with very strict regulations, this could have been a solved problem, but in places like the US or China, it is not, despite the technological means. Blame the crooks in your society on it if you will.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[dunkelfalke]

Well, then we will certainly get on well.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Luckyo]

The world you're describing is diametrically opposed to any kind of observable reality. In real world, when you generate a solution for the problem that needs lack of this solution to persist, the problem either goes away entirely, or becomes small enough to be irrelevant.

Example: vaccination and mumps, measles and rubella. Just because some people don't vaccinate, and in some regions vaccines aren't used doesn't mean that problem of complications associated with mumps, measles and rubella infections haven't been solved.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Luckyo]

Feel free to elaborate.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Whibla]

Capitalism without any sort or moral structure destroys itself.

That would be in a similar way to which a nuclear bomb destroys itself.

Likewise the damage is not limited to the bomb...

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Ol Olsoc]

Capitalism without any sort or moral structure destroys itself.

I agree, it probably does. The questions are, though, how long will that take, and how much collateral damage will occur in the meantime? Also doesn't help if the government doesn't punish corporations for being bad, or worse, encourages them.

What happens is Capitalism is destroyed and turned into corporatism as soon as the market selects a winner. The issue with greed is that the winners are often endowed with huge amounts of greed, and do not want competition, and want nothing less than total control.

The problem with that kind of pathological greed is that it has no concept of when to stop. It wants all of the money. Instead of harnessing the greed for good, it wants to gut those that initially supported it.

If the USA continues on it's present path, after the most greedy are finished turning the country into a bananna Republic, they will turn on each other. there is no money to take from the poor any more at that point.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Ol Olsoc]

Capitalism without any sort or moral structure destroys itself.

That would be in a similar way to which a nuclear bomb destroys itself.

Likewise the damage is not limited to the bomb...

Kinda. But if there is a throttle, it can be harnessed.

Just like a car engine. run it wide open, and it is finished after a short time. With a nice throttle, it can run a long time.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[omnichad]

Not if you can't read

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Luckyo]

So you've got nothing. Ok. Thank you for conceding.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Uberbah]

Your ignorance of history is your embarrassment, not my problem.

https://www.historyanswers.co....

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Rick Schumann]

Listen ASSHOLE, there was NO REASON TO BRING RACE INTO THIS. Fuck the fuck off.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Uberbah]

Good, good. Let the capitalist butthurt flow through you.

There was also the publicly traded British East India company that spend a few hundred years invading and occupying India. There were the publicly traded coal companies that paid their workers starvation wages - in company scrip that could only be redeemed at company stores. Or the publicly traded companies that sold asbestos or cigarettes long after they knew the health effects while lying to the public, the publicly traded war contractors that make robot planes that blow up children....could go on all day.

Capitalism, like colonialism, is one of the worst inventions mankind has ever produced. Facts.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[jpaine619]

I've read plenty of articles about surface deposits of coal.. But regardless, we're both speculating..

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Anonymous Coward]

A dictionary is not a reference of how to use words, but how words are used. A dictionary is a historical record and is meant to be useful for future generations to understand how we currently use words.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[omnichad]

Yes - they definitely exist. But trees near bodies of water are way more plentiful. Probabilities are on the side of boats before coal.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a fucking windmill and so I'm going to call it a windmill.

I'm going to call a nuclear power plant a kettle. All it does is boil water.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Anonymous Coward]

Your sig is hilarious.

Re:Cheaper solar and wind

[Anonymous Coward]

> Of course now [they]'re going to say "what if there's no wind or sun for a whole month?"

ObReply: "That means you, personally, have been buried alive and have been a zombie for over four weeks. Give up and die already!"

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[jd]

Coal is subsidized to the tune of 22 trillion a year.

You are armed because you are a moron. Not all armed people are morons, it just happens you're one.

Re: Cheaper solar and wind

[Anonymous Coward]

FWIW, you're right about nuclear reactor/power plant design; but the NIMBYs and others who have been scared off of nuclear are standing in the way of it saving us from ourselves --

Oh boy.

NIMBYs, Greenies and hippies in combies have no impact on the placement of Nuclear facilities.

and being someone who voted for Rancho Seco to be shut down back in the 80's, I feel I have a right to admit we were both right for all the wrong reasons, and wrong for all the right reasons, if you catch my drift.

Obviously you didn't take it seriously and never learned the lessons. Perhaps you were just going with what you thought people think is popular.

There are now, in fact, much safer fission reactor designs that are not the 'high pressure' types currently in use, and that are inherently safer, theoretically meltdown-proof,

No there isn't. Show me!

but trying to get the DoE to allow them to be built,

That's the NRC's job.

getting funding to build them,

it's a bad investment, that's why no one wants to invest.

and getting people within the affected area to sign off on them being built,

Residents have no input to placement of Nuclear facility by law

has prevented any of them from moving forward.

except that it hasn't.

We've got to get past this fear of the nuclear boogeyman though.

Or you have to learn about radionuclides and bio-accumulations.

Fission isn't as good as fusion will be once we get the details of it ironed out, but we need time to do that, and meanwhile we need to stop dumping the last several million years worth of natural carbon sequestration back into the atmosphere.

A post full of motherhood statements.

No source

[Anonymous Coward]

Something smells fishy. TFAs first two paragraphs seem to contradict each other. Thereâ(TM)s no source information available. And I can guarantee you oil investors/producers arenâ(TM)t stupid. They wouldnt/couldnt continue operating at a loss...that premise is ridiculous.

Id leave some room for the possibility of it being true lately (only recently in the last couple of weeks) as oil prices have fallen...but that is only a temporary condition until if/when prices recovery and/or adjustments are made to production/supply to bring the price back up.

This seems more like some propaganda piece aimed at convincing people âoeoil bad - alternative energy good - save the trees - climate change - yada yada yada.â

Re: No source

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI can anyone explain to me how to use quotes on /. without mucking up the formatting?

Using safari on iOS in this instance. Is it just me?

Re:No source

[Joce640k]

They wouldnt/couldnt continue operating at a loss...that premise is ridiculous.

Not if there's a government propping them up, because, "jobs".

Re: No source

[Anonymous Coward]

How are the two first sentences contradictory? First first stated that more than 40% of the plants surveyed were unprofitable, in part because of high fuel costs, and the second that investors are divesting sure to high fuel costs, additional taxes on fossil fuels and the lowering cost of renewables.

Can you please explain how these paragraphs are contradicting each other?

Re: No source

[nospam007]

"FYI can anyone explain to me how to use quotes on /. without mucking up the formatting?"

Wot? Next you'll ask for accented characters and umlauts, I'm sure.

"Using safari on iOS in this instance. Is it just me?"

It's just you. ...and me and everybody else.

Re: No source

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI can anyone explain to me how to use quotes on /. without mucking up the formatting?

Using safari on iOS in this instance. Is it just me?

Don't use iOS. It's made for morons. Unless you're a moron too. In that case, carry on.

Re: No source

[Anonymous Coward]

I cant help it. They took my Windows Phone from me.

It was Google or Apple at that point. I just picked a poison.

Re: No source

[Anonymous Coward]

Here are samples of the correct characters:

apostrophe (ASCII 39): '
double quote (ASCII 34): "

Bookmark my comment, and copy-paste the characters to write your posts.

Re: No source

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems the topic sentences of the first two paragraphs conflict as to the reasoning.

First paragraph says *high fuel costs.*

Second paragraph says its *tougher emissions cut targets.*

Which is it?

Re: No source

[Anonymous Coward]

Bravo, you were about as helpful as this post!

Re: No source

[Anonymous Coward]

Well if theyâ(TM)re taking subsidies into consideration, and that puts them into the black, then this article is super misleading.

Re: No source

[Anonymous Coward]

"Testing."

Re:No source

[KermodeBear]

It is propaganda. Notice how they mention "regulations and carbon pricing," and you must also be aware that "renewable" energies are often heavily subsidized. You can make anything unprofitable with enough government interference in the free market.

Re:No source

[bill_mcgonigle]

And I can guarantee you oil investors/producers arenÃ(TM)t stupid. They wouldnt/couldnt continue operating at a loss...that premise is ridiculous.

Subsidies distort the otherwise sane markets. Here in NH we have woodchip subsidies to produce power, which helps the loggers and logger tool providers, but now everybody who heats their homes with wood pays double what the costs were before subsidies, in addition to the higher tax rates to support the subsidies. It's an emotional transfer of wealth system from the middle class to a specific class of men (which also happens to be unconstitutional here).

Get rid of all the subsidies (aka corporate welfare) and see what's profitable and what's not. That includes foreign wars to "protect" certain fuels.

Re: No source

[Anonymous Coward]

Seeing if long pressing ' and " works

Re: No source

[Anonymous Coward]

Here are samples of the correct characters:

apostrophe (ASCII 39): '
double quote (ASCII 34): "

Bookmark my comment, and copy-paste the characters to write your posts.

I believe he or she means quotes like above.

Re: No source

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI can anyone explain to me how to use quotes on /. without mucking up the formatting?

Using safari on iOS in this instance. Is it just me?

Are you saying there isn't a "Quote Parent" button when you reply to a post?

Or that you can't use markup when you reply? E.g. <quote>Here some text I want to quote</quote>
For extra credit you can figure out how I was able to use < and > like that to write the <quote> markup example.

Re: No source

[Anonymous Coward]

1 â
2 â(TM)
3 â
4

`

Re: No source

[Anonymous Coward]

I've often wondered the opposite. How do people accidentally write

ThereÃ(TM)s

instead of

There's

?

Re: No source

[Anonymous Coward]

1 "
2 â
3 âoe

Re:No source

[hey!]

There's no logical contradiction here. Nobody is saying that 40% of plants being unprofitable is a *sustainable* situation; in business you are sometimes stuck covering losses for a time; it'd be a hell of a lot easier if that never happened.

The plant owners may be regulated utilities that can't pass their increased costs from individual plants onto consumers until the next rate setting. Even then they may not be able to make the unprofitable plants profitable; they just have to cover the losses with surpluses from other plants until they can get their shiny new natural gas plants online.

Or they may have a contract to supply baseload power to a different company. You can bet that the very day the contract runs out they'll shut down the money-losing plant, but for now you're stuck.

Finally, there is a sense in which you can be "unprofitable" even when your operating revenues exceed your operating costs. Suppose you have your money in a savings bank that pays you a 2% interest rate, but the bank across the street pays 3% and is just as safe, it's like throwing that additional 1% interest money away. Economists call the difference between what your investment earns and what you should be earning with that money "opportunity costs". An investment that doesn't make at least a "normal profit" is called "unprofitable" by economists, even when it more than covers its own operating costs.

Re: No source

[Anonymous Coward]

Additional taxes, and/or sunsetting subsidies can cause costs to increase. I still don't understand how the statement " higher fuel cost" and "increased emission standard" see contradictory. Higher taxes on coal miners, for example, would increase the cost of coal.

Re:No source

[Hadlock]

Solar and wind were already cost effective a decade ago on every island on the planet, the problem was sourcing quality materials and labor to install them. This problem has been solved, and the price of solar and wind continue to fall, as does grid scale battery technologies. There is no reason to not forecast solar and wind destroying coal in the long term. Public utilities like them because it improves their image with their customers, plus maintenance and fuel costs are rock solid stable to forecast for decades at a time.
 
Long term, energy problems are solved globally, forever, using local resources. This solves a lot of global problems, like invading oil-rich countries periodically to ensure energy supply for one's economy. And the price will continue to come down to the point where even subsidized, clean energy will end coal.

Re:No source

[Anonymous Coward]

No, because "electricity", without coal plants we would be in REAL trouble.

Re:No source

[wisnoskij]

That would be factored in. The government taxes, regulates, and gives away money. All of these are taken into consideration when doing any accounting.

Nat Gas

[Mr D from 63]

Natural Gas has depressed prices so much, coal can't compete. Intentionally reduced capacity factors, using more gas instead, makes it even harder for coal.

Re:Nat Gas

[Anonymous Coward]

Clean American coal is the lifeblood of America and will save this great nation

Re:Nat Gas

[Anonymous Coward]

Clean American coal is the lifeblood of America and will save this great nation

... yeah and TRUMP DIGS COAL!!! So ... uhhh ... in your face you ... uhhh ... LIBTARDS!! MAGA! MAGA! MAGA! ... USA! USA! USA! ...

Re:Nat Gas

[Anonymous Coward]

... even if we have to brush every piece of coal by hand!

Re:Nat Gas

[Anonymous Coward]

No coal is declining in the US. Partly fuel price, O&M, regulatory costs. But mostly competition from wind and natural gas (far cleaner, plenty of it, more efficient). Also coal is not clean in any sense, we have to design significant cleanup into the process. Activated carbon, direct sorbent injection, bag houses, scrubbers, fly ash handling - it is far too costly to maintain those systems with better fuel options.

Sorry - coal will fade into the background In favor of newer technologies. You can hang your MAGA hat on that.

Re:Nat Gas

[Anonymous Coward]

No coal is declining in the US.

Punctuation would have been your friend here.

Re:Nat Gas

[Tyger-ZA]

... even if we have to brush every piece of coal by hand!

Brushing the coal to make "clean coal" sounds like a homeopathic idea.

Re:Nat Gas

[fibonacci8]

You have to tap the side of a glass with the coal to make it truly homeopathic.

Re:Nat Gas

[nojayuk]

Brushing the coal to make "clean coal" sounds like a homeopathic idea.

Otto Frisch, the nuclear scientist wrote a parody scientific paper back in 1955 set in the distant future when nuclear fuels had become scarce, entitled "On the Feasibility of Coal-Driven Power Stations". It suggested that coal be machined into similar-sized spheres for optimum packing within the furnace among other things. Its energy density was derisory of course compared to safe clean uranium. The gaseous emissions would be dealt with by captive balloons of some sort since it was unthinkable to allow the toxic wastes from the coal-burning furnace to enter the atmosphere we breathed.

https://www.mpoweruk.com/coal....

Re:Nat Gas

[currently_awake]

Clean Coal means you burn coal but capture the CO2. The reason it's not in use is disposing of the captured CO2 is more expensive than dumping it into the air. It's also more expensive than the sale price of the energy generated.

Temporary

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess these coal plants are stuck in a fixed-rate contract. When the rates can be renegotiated, the plants will become profitable again (unless the electricity demand is less than the offer without coal, but I doubt it).

Re: Temporary

[orlanz]

Usually the price is regulated and regulators won't jack prices because of the direct consumer impact. Additionally when the operating costs of these plants were considered, they didn't think about all these current and new regulations that jacked up the cost of operations and overhauls.

But the analysts basically say to divest out of coal because the trajectories of many long term factors are against it. Ie: more regulations, other energy options becoming cheaper, and increasing fuel costs.

Thou, I think in our globally connected world, thinking out 20+ years is a bit difficult. You are almost guessing. 20 years ago, I don't think anyone was predicting our current situation.

Re: Temporary

[Anonymous Coward]

Are these coal plants private or nationalized?

If a private coal plant is running at a loss and regulators won't jack prices, then it should already have closed.

If a coal plant is nationalized and would make a profit in the free market, then the correct thing to say is that *electricity is subsidized*, not that coal plants are unprofitable.

Re: Temporary

[Anonymous Coward]

Usually the price is regulated .

BS - power producers are facing market prices that vary by demand in the USA. What YOU pay for electricity as a retail customer may be regulated, but what producers get paid is not thus regulated.

Re: Temporary

[Ol Olsoc]

But the analysts basically say to divest out of coal because the trajectories of many long term factors are against it. Ie: more regulations, other energy options becoming cheaper, and increasing fuel costs.

Thou, I think in our globally connected world, thinking out 20+ years is a bit difficult. You are almost guessing. 20 years ago, I don't think anyone was predicting our current situation.

Another big factor against coal - it's a finite resource, and getting harder to get. Hard to imagine putting all that work into something that is going away.

The coal shills in here and other places have a real bit of cognitive dissonance. I can only guess at the cause, but it would seem that there is some sort of story line that either coal is in infinite supply, or that even if we run out one day, just like that, we'll switch over to something else. Or more likely, not eve thinking about that.

And good luck with replacing all of this with nuc power.

Re: Temporary

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess you wouldn't pick up a $20 bill on the ground because it's a finite resource, unlike a job which is renewable. Imagine putting all that work to pick up something that is going away the moment you pick it up!

Re:Temporary

[mikael]

It was discussed in the past on slashdot. The price an energy provider can charge depends on two prices. When supply exceeds demand, it's the cheapest provider who dictates the price. Everyone will trying undercutting each other to their minimum profit margin. When demand exceeds supply is the most expensive provider who dictates the price. Everyone else can charge up to that price. The costs depend on spin up time to heat up the systems: renewable > gas > nuclear > coal

Re:Temporary

[Anonymous Coward]

Power stations based on coal could only make a profit when their were spikes in demand due to extreme weather, but those are covered by the extra capacity created by renewables and storage systems.

Re: Temporary

[hierofalcon]

Coal getting harder to get? No - other than due to NIMBY problems. Harder to ship because environmental wing nuts don't want coal trains to cross their land or coal to be shipped out their ports - yes, but harder find and extract? No.

Re: Temporary

[Ol Olsoc]

I guess you wouldn't pick up a $20 bill on the ground because it's a finite resource, unlike a job which is renewable. Imagine putting all that work to pick up something that is going away the moment you pick it up!

What a weird reply. I had a guy like you that worked for me at one time. He'd latch onto a sentence, then contradict me. When the whole time he wasn't paying attention, because if he had, he would knove known what I was talking about. One of the few people I enjoyed firing.

The point is my dense friend, that if nothing is around when coal isn't economically available any more, the resulting economic upheaval will have people killing each other over that stupid 20 you tried to use as an argument.

Now take a chill, and pay attention.

Re: Temporary

[Ol Olsoc]

Coal getting harder to get? No - other than due to NIMBY problems.

You don't say? NIMBY isn't the right word You don't have a back yard when they strip the coal out. Or if you are in the valley they dumped the top of the mountain they stripped to get at the coal.

Harder to ship because environmental wing nuts don't want coal trains to cross their land or coal to be shipped out their ports - yes, but harder find and extract? No.

First, Far right wing Environmentalists? Or don't you know what a wing nut is?

Second, I have know idea how you figure that a railroad's right of way can be pre-empted by these right wing environmentalists. Our local railroads carry whatever is legal to carry. We have plenty of cars that carry coal every day.

You have some interesting ideas - perhaps you have a newsletter?

Re: Temporary

[hierofalcon]

Eastern coal mining != Western coal mining.

Check Portland, Oregon's efforts to block shipments of western coal through their port for sale to China. For news articles search portland coal shipments in google.

Re: Temporary

[Anonymous Coward]

The $20 bill example isn't latching onto a sentence, it is summarizing your entire point. Coal gives us more time to prepare for the next step, just like the $20 bill gives you more time to look for a job. You're arguing that buying some time is pointless if that time is finite, which just isn't true.

I had a guy like you who would think in absolutes and reach erroneous conclusions. Wait I didn't, you're the first one.

Re: Temporary

[Ol Olsoc]

The $20 bill example isn't latching onto a sentence, it is summarizing your entire point. Coal gives us more time to prepare for the next step, just like the $20 bill gives you more time to look for a job. You're arguing that buying some time is pointless if that time is finite, which just isn't true.

I had a guy like you who would think in absolutes and reach erroneous conclusions. Wait I didn't, you're the first one.

You can't tell me what my argument is - sorry, AC but you cannot.

Now, stop being an anonymous coward, and I'll discuss it with you, I've wasted as much time on AC's as they deserve. for the month.

mod DowN

[Anonymous Coward]

United States of 'superiOr' machinPe. support GNAA, EFNet servers.

lies, lies and more lies

[Anonymous Coward]

More bias Slashdot.Org. Nothing to see here but false liberalism, as usual.

Re:lies, lies and more lies

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, facts are liberal biased!

Good

[Alain Williams]

Hopefully this will lead to increased adoption of cleaner power production - that is not so bad for the environment.

I am not saying that all clean power is cheaper but the more of it that gets used the cheaper that it will become.

Re:Good

[El Cubano]

Hopefully this will lead to increased adoption of cleaner power production - that is not so bad for the environment.

I agree. When I was younger I spent lots of time outdoors. Preserving the natural beauty of the world should be something humanity strives to do.

I am not saying that all clean power is cheaper but the more of it that gets used the cheaper that it will become.

I think what was happened is that we have reached the "tipping point" where clean energy is actually competitive in the marketplace. Interestingly, all the various governments around the world that have pushed for clean energy production have varying economic and regulatory philosophies (as evidenced by the various approaches to regulation of dirty power and economic incentives/penalties for varies participants in the energy market), but the end result has been the same: for the longest time it just looked like a money pit, and now we start to see some large scale benefit.

I think that a solution based on market forces (i.e, people doing what benefits them economically) will always be stronger, healthier, and more effective than one based on regulatory forces. Granted, sometimes regulatory forces are required (e.g., to maintain clean air and water in the era of industrial production and dirty power), but those are never as good as market forces because regulations mean people do what they are required to do (and people will try to find ways to avoid meeting the requirements) while market forces mean people act in their own best interests.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no such thing as "market forces". Markets are maintained artificially by massive application of state violence, both directly (military and police action) and indirectly - by deterring individuals and groups from organizing and from usurping power over economic activities. In the present day and age, "market forces" are the larger owners and managers of capital, in combination with the political class which is subservient to them

Yeah right

[110010001000]

Never trust these "independent think tanks". These are the lobbyists that everyone complains about. They are bought and paid for.

Re:Yeah right

[Anonymous Coward]

It is plausible though. Just look how coal was basically removed from the UK grid in the last years and replaced by natural gas and renewables.

Re:Yeah right

[Anonymous Coward]

Never trust these "independent think tanks". These are the lobbyists that everyone complains about. They are bought and paid for.

I agree. But we can look at the free markets and see that with natural gas and other energy sources being cheaper, power companies volunteering to switch over from coal regardless of the regulations.

The promise of bringing coal jobs back was an empty one because the economics doesn't support that happening. It's unfortunate that a large chunk of our electorate listened to the lie of the "war on coal" and the demonization of Obama and the EPA.

The fact is that the economics is becoming more and more favorable to "green" energy every year and those who's livelihoods depend on it are going to have to adjust. No one can bring back the old days. The past is the past: adjust or be left behind.

Re:Yeah right

[110010001000]

It might be plausible, but you never know with these "think tanks". They are being paid by someone.

Re:Yeah right

[110010001000]

I don't think anyone voted for Trump because of coal (unless you live in West Virginia). I don't know why people are so fixated on that.

Re:Yeah right

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it's all part of the "Liberals destroying America" narrative. It was also a bogus reason for people to have some sort of policy reason to hate Obama. "I'm not a racist. I hate Obama for his policies."
"War on Coal" and the ACA were two policies that they hated him for. EPA hurting jobs and "job killing government regulations" were some others.

Anyway, the fact is that this think tank is right. Coal costs more because other energy sources are just cheaper. Coal is dying because of the free markets. That's it.

Re:Yeah right

[smoot123]

It is plausible though.

I was with you up until the part which said plants under construction might not be profitable. I find it hard to believe anyone would build a plant where they can see the numbers aren't going to work. At least, not in any sort of free market. That's why nuclear plants don't get built (in the US): investors see the high (and highly variable) costs and don't fund the plant.

If the plant is being built by a government, well, governments aren't all that big on profit and loss so this report won't matter to them.

Re: Yeah right

[Applehu Akbar]

Only if their findings donâ(TM)t correspond with your preconceived position.

Re:Yeah right

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it's all part of the "Liberals destroying America" narrative. It was also a bogus reason for people to have some sort of policy reason to hate Obama. "I'm not a racist. I hate Obama for his policies."

What if you really didn't like his policies of increased foreign wars, leading from behind, executive order overload, increased deportations, nationalization of industries, etc.? Does that mean you're a racist, even if you were a big fan and supporter of John James for Senate?

Re:Yeah right

[Ultra64]

Ok, what things did they say that were false?

Re:Yeah right

[110010001000]

Who knows? Whenever I read "independent think-tank" it goes right in the garbage. Those are lobbyists. There is a reason most of the "think-tanks" are in DC (or London)

Re:Yeah right

[Ultra64]

>Who knows?

Then I guess your posts can go right in the garbage.

Re:Yeah right

[Jeremi]

It might be plausible, but you never know with these "think tanks". They are being paid by someone.

Literally everyone is being paid by someone, with the possible exception of the homeless. Therefore, the only place to get reliable news is skid row?

More Than 100 Percent of World Solar Plants

[Anonymous Coward]

More than 100 percent of world solar plants are unprofitable.

Do you know how many babies they have to kill to build a solar plant? It's a lot.

Under Construction?

[Anonymous Coward]

How profitable are they if you only count the ones that are actually operating.

In the real world a building under construction is usually not making much money.

Negotiation tactic

[Anonymous Coward]

Electricity producers have the incentive to claim that they are losing money so that they can lobby the regional regulators to increase the cost for customers. Eventually the kWh price increases, and boom, the coal plants are again profitable... at least for a while.

Donâ(TM)t get me wrong, renewables will be an important component for some of our electricity usage. However fossil fuels and nuclear will remain a 35-75% component of the mix.

What do I do with this information?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wasn't planning on starting a coal business anyway.

Re:What do I do with this information?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was planning on you starting a coal business, so there goes my weekend.

Cheaper solar and wind: wind-breaker.

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Wind is as old as hydro. The designs just were different. Kind of like hydro. Passive solar has a long history too.

Missing data point

[virtig01]

Utilities are one of the most regulated and subsidized industries in the world. Additionally, in some places, generating capacity is government-owned, and public enterprises frequently operate at a loss. So the real question is: how much of all generating capacity is unprofitable?

Coal will die, but saying that plants are currently unprofitable isn't necessarily an indication of anything. It needs to be compared on a relative basis to alternatives.

Re:Missing data point

[blindseer]

So the real question is: how much of all generating capacity is unprofitable?

Precisely. I get political fliers in the mail all the time asking me to vote for politicians that support wind subsidies, asking me to call my congresscritters to support wind subsidies, or even from my utility asking me to pay extra for electricity produced from wind.

If wind power is in fact cheaper than coal then I should not be seeing these fliers in my mail.

Wind is not cheaper than coal. This is especially true when taking into account the over capacity needed to compensate for the poor capacity factor, the natural gas turbines needed for when the wind does not blow, or whatever else is needed to make up for how unreliable wind power is as an energy source.

I use wind as an example here because I live in "tornado alley"... oops, I mean "the wind corridor". I see windmill parts getting trucked down the interstate every day. This entire industry lives and dies on government subsidy. We hear in the news on how President Trump made use of some kind of executive decree to keep coal and nuclear power plants open. I suspect that the subsidies on wind and solar power had something to do with these plants being scheduled for retirement.

Get rid of the subsidies, let the market decide the price, and we'd see these coal plants go out of business naturally instead of being propped up by subsidy or government decree.

Oh, another thing, individual parts of a business might be running at a loss but this has no reflection on the business as a whole. A large utility might own a bunch of windmills, solar panels, hydro dams, nuclear power plants, and coal power plants. Even if some of the coal power plants are operating at a loss the utility may choose to keep them open. Why? Because they'd likely experience a greater loss by closing them. Losing customers, reduced sales, or having to pay fines, because of a brownout costs money. Building a new plant costs money. If they believe this loss is temporary, they already have upgrades on the hydro dam underway as an example, they might run this coal plant at a loss for years just so they can maintain a profit on the whole of the business.

Something is keeping these coal plants open when operating at a loss. My guess is it's government interference preventing market forces from closing them, upgrading them, or allowing prices to rise to match costs so they can make a profit.

So, what percentage of wind power is operating at a loss? My guess is it's far higher than 40%, because if it was 0% then I wouldn't be getting these fliers in my mail asking to prop up that entire industry.

Re:Missing data point

[AmiMoJo]

On-shore wind in the UK is profitable without subsidy now. Off-shore will take a few more years.

But a better question is how much of the subsidy is necessary to keep the lights on and how much is enabling unnecessary environmental damage.

Source "environmental think-tank Carbon Tracker"

[raymorris]

The stated source is "a report by environmental think-tank Carbon Tracker". So people whose full-time job is literally energy propaganda.

In other news, Coke tastes bad, according to a report by Pepsi. Linux sucks, according to Microsoft

The only thing suprising here is how many Slahdotters let BeauHD get away with posting this crap.

Nothing surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

In any competitive field at any given time near half the companies are losing money or barely make it into black. Of course this is also true for power generation. It's just the default state in any stabilized market.

Re: Nothing surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Insightful

Good: Base-load.

[Anonymous Coward]

Solar and wind still aren't good for baseload generation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load

Storage needs to increase greatly.

Re: Source "environmental think-tank Carbon Tracke

[Anonymous Coward]

If I had mod points youâ(TM)d get "+insightful."

In America this doesn't matter

[rsilvergun]

so long as coal miners can decide our presidential elections by swinging Ohio and Virginia. That said, I've yet to hear anyone from the left give those workers a viable alternative to working in the mines. So far the answer has been "Time to reskill". Those guys know coal mining is a dying thing. They'd reskill if they could.

What we really need is a federal jobs guarantee like they did in the 30s. But nobody wants to pay for that. So expect more political distortions.

Re:In America this doesn't matter

[110010001000]

I sincerely doubt that coal miners won the presidency for Trump. Also, I don't know any coal mines in Virginia. You must be thinking of West Virginia.

Re: In America this doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

No, what we need is to give them what they want: deregulation. Once free of mine safety regulations, what to do with coal miners will be a moot question. Don Blankenship and company will take care of the problem for us all.

But wind/solar are indeterminate.

[WindBourne]

We need to limit wind/solar and instead have a matrix of clean energy. Basically, we need to include hydro, Geothermal, and nukes.

Re:But wind/solar are indeterminate.

[Anonymous Coward]

What will happen if the solar power systems use up all the sunlight???

Re:But wind/solar are indeterminate.

[drinkypoo]

We need to limit wind/solar and instead have a matrix of clean energy. Basically, we need to include hydro, Geothermal, and nukes.

Did you and blindseer issue from the same malignant vagina? We don't need nukes. Batteries are already good enough and almost already cheap enough to do that job better than nuclear ever could. Nuclear doesn't ramp up and down when you need it, but battery storage systems are immediate. Base load is a stupid myth and by the way, the wind is always blowing somewhere. That's what power distribution is for. Aren't your lips chapped from all the time you spend fellating nuclear power? There's billions in that industry already, your suction can make no practical difference.

Re:But wind/solar are indeterminate.

[Anonymous Coward]

The US has 10 GW of nuclear production; if we dedicated 100% of the output from the Gigafactory we'd have enough storage to run for 2 hours. Hope you don't need 3 hours, because there goes 60% of your electricity capacity! So how many years do we dedicate 100% output of the Gigafactory, to replace that nuclear? Six years, for a 12 hour buffer? Twelve years for a 24 hour buffer? Go for the typical recommendation of 48 hours of reserve, meaning 24 years of production, dedicated to nothing but batteries for the power grid?

Re:But wind/solar are indeterminate.

[hierofalcon]

A broad mix is something nobody wants, but it's absolutely essential. Solar systems are going to be overtaxed if there's another really big volcanic eruption. Not that we won't have lots of other problems as well, but without power, it'll just be much worse. One volcanic eruption at a time is bad enough - Laki, Tambora, Krakatoa, to say nothing of the super volcanoes. Get several in a single year and it would be bad. Wildfires don't help either but are more localized. Solar is great - as long as the sunshine can reliably hit the collectors.

Re:But wind/solar are indeterminate.

[blindseer]

Nuclear doesn't ramp up and down when you need it, but battery storage systems are immediate.

You wrote that but didn't see the obvious (to me at least) implications. What if we mate a large battery with a nuclear power plant? That means we have a means to get power, rain or shine, day or night, and still be able to load follow.

Aren't your lips chapped from all the time you spend fellating nuclear power?

As oppose to your lips and wind power?

IMHO, batteries won't save wind and solar power. I suspect that in fact they will lead to their death. If we can charge a battery from coal or nuclear power, and let the battery handle the minute by minute shift in demand, then we don't have to worry about where or when the wind blows.

With a fleet of nuclear power plants, to have a sufficient overcapacity for maintenance periods and unscheduled outages, and a fleet of batteries, then we can have a 100% nuclear powered world. Just like we could have a 100% wind and solar powered world with enough batteries backing up wind and solar. I don't believe either world is realistic, and neither should you.

There's billions in that industry already, your suction can make no practical difference.

There's billions of dollars, likely trillions in fact, riding on who can build the better energy source. Batteries alone cannot save wind power from competition from nuclear power. There's billions of dollars in nuclear power too. Some of that from the military because it turns out we abandoned wind powered ships a long time ago. Nuclear power makes the navies of the world move now. That means technology in nuclear power will improve if only to make warships move faster. That technology will find its way into the commercial designs and the result will mean cheaper nuclear power in the future.

Nuclear power is not dead. It will not die at the hands of wind and solar so long as there are aircraft carriers at sea. Because nuclear power is so safe, clean, energy dense, low CO2, plentiful, and reliable, it will find its way into the commercial electrical generation market. Again, this might be only to keep nuclear engineers employed so the navies of the world can keep warships moving at sea.

We need "nukes". The level of vacuum you can create will not change this unless you can find a way to make an aircraft carrier move by wind and solar power at a performance that exceeds nuclear power.

Re: But wind/solar are indeterminate.

[WindBourne]

Drinkypoo, don't you get tired of pushing nothing but solar/wind? And now, you are trolling. Even now, Denmark, Portugal and Germany have spent the most money on solar/wind and still can not come close to doing 100% of their energy. And if hit by multiple volcanos, they will lose a lot of their power. You sit here and speak out about AGW, but then speak against real solutions for it. The only solution that will work is 'all of the above' of clean energy. And yes, that includes, not just nukes, but Geothermal as well. Ask Indonesia, costa Rica, and Iceland about it. Back in America, Wind and solar are nice, but both depend heavily on the sun. Yellowstone WILL erupt at some time. When it does the last thing we need is to not have the energy to drive our cars, our hospitals, etc.

Re: But wind/solar are indeterminate.

[Anonymous Coward]

What about when an asteroid hits a nuke plant and spreads radiation around the globe? You can only wish you had nice clean solar and wind instead. Another one WILL hit at some time.

Re: But wind/solar are indeterminate.

[Anonymous Coward]

What about when an asteroid hits a nuke plant and spreads radiation around the globe? You can only wish you had nice clean solar and wind instead. Another one WILL hit at some time.

Fukushima is already doing that.

Good: Free Market Religion.

[Anonymous Coward]

Tragedy of the Commons illustrates the fallacy of the "free market" and everyone acting in their own best interest being good for all, including the participants. Regulatory forces are societies way of guiding people's behavior in directed ways, that they may not perceive as being in their own best interest, but in the long term is.

Don't know why they are building them.

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the new coal plant will have an hard time paying for their bonds especially in the later years as renewable power keep them off. If dispatching of power is base on increment cost then renewable will always be dispatched first since there incremental cost is much lower. Many of these coal power plant will be idled.

Re:Don't know why they are building them.

[110010001000]

Maybe you are wrong and the people funding them know better. Do you think people like to lose money?

Re:Don't know why they are building them.

[careysub]

Maybe you are wrong and the people funding them know better. Do you think people like to lose money?

In the U.S. you are arguing over the properties of the empty set, everything is vacuously true! This is amusing, here for example we have a web page devoted to new coal plant construction in North America and there is nothing listed. Investors do not like to lose money and as a result there are no coal plants being build! The money has spoken.

Virtually all planned coal plant construction is in China or India, where they are more strongly influence by government policy than profit-and-loss.

By the same token, not wanting to lose money, there are currently only two nuclear power units under construction in the U.S. (the Vogtle 3 and 4 units) , both massively over budget (planned cost $1 billion each, actual cost $9 billion each). Seven other plant projects that started at about the same time have bailed out. That the two Vogtle units are still being completed is due to the sunk cost fallacy and the political effect of having multiple minority owners (the decision to cancel and eat the cost is too difficult for too many, and so it continues. Getting any more nuclear power plants built in the U.S. requires finding a way to make them profitable. No hippies are holding them back.

Re:Don't know why they are building them.

[110010001000]

There are no coal plants being built in the US because natural gas in the US is very cheap and there is no point to building a coal plant. However, for example, when Japan closed their nuclear power plants after their disaster, it turned to coal and natural gas to make up the difference. Likewise Germany has 3 coal plants being built. There is no massive government conspiracy to "use coal". No one wants to use coal. The decision is related to money somehow.

Re:Don't know why they are building them.

[Nidi62]

Maybe you are wrong and the people funding them know better. Do you think people like to lose money?

Maybe they assume they can just funnel some money to their buddies in power to make sure they make a profit.

Re:Don't know why they are building them.

[110010001000]

That is definitely possible. Everyone likes money.

Re:Don't know why they are building them.

[dunkelfalke]

Two, actually. The third has already been finished.

Re:Don't know why they are building them.

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, the coal power stations being built in Germany will replace existing older coal power stations, so overall pollution and CO2 production will be reduced.

I was promised

[Anonymous Coward]

trump promised me a job with coal. dey tuk er jerbs!

WHICH IS THE BEST GAMING SMARTPHONE IN ASUS ROG PH

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.technewgadgets.com/2018/12/which-is-best-gaming-smartphone-in-asus-rog-phone-and-Xiaomi-black-shark-helo.html

Misleading: coal being killed by natural gas

[XXongo]

The summary is a little misleading. A portion of the competition for coal is indeed the "falling cost of renewables", but that ignores the other competition that's the main reason coal is not profitable: the low cost of natural gas, and the low cost of building turbines that produce electrical power with natural gas.

Natural gas power plants also spin up and spin down more quickly than old coal plants, allowing them to track the short-term changes in the demand curve better.

Here's a graph. Notice that the drop in coal is mirrored by a rise in gas. https://www.eia.gov/energyexpl...

Re:Misleading: coal being killed by natural gas

[Spamalope]

And fracking produces natural gas along the way. So much so that there is a glut of natural gas. So that does make the cost of natural gas plants attractive so long as fracking keeps the price down. The plant costs are so high that utilities can't change course quickly, as they're stuck with any choices they make for a very long time. Changes mostly happen through replacement cycles.

Re:Misleading: coal being killed by natural gas

[Luckyo]

Even that is only half of the truth. The other half is how much of Western world started treating electric generation vs consumption. On many spot markets, wind and solar get "first dibs", in that no one else gets to sell their generation until all of wind and solar are sold. This is followed by various power generation systems that are ranked in order of CO2 emissions. That means coal lands on the bottom, and is legally forbidden from selling when others are producing enough to cover the consumption.

Hence the lack of profitability. When you plant takes many hours to spin up or spin down, and you can't sell much of what you produce because you're forbidden from doing so even if you can sell at prices lower than competition, you're going to go into red very quickly.

That's why CCGTs are popping up. They can spin up and take load much faster, so when wind drops out of the grid, they can pick up the load and get paid premium for peaking, and they can also economically produce during longer periods of higher consumption. Add to that the unique situation in North America where fracking is producing massive amounts of natgas that is essentially free as a byproduct of oil extraction, and you have a situation where in developed countries, coal is really struggling.

But go outside developed countries, without the rules for punishing coal and subsidizing wind and solar, and situation reverses completely. Unlike natgas, biomass and other coal replacements in developed countries coal is inherently very cheap to extract, transport and store. That means that in developing world, coal continues to be one of the most economical sources of power.

The only problem with coal we still can't solve is CO2 emissions per power generated. It's just too high. But developing countries overwhelmingly don't care about it. They just go with what is inherently cheap and efficient. Which is more often than not coal.

Re: Misleading: coal being killed by natural gas

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit, wind and solar get 'first dibs' because they always bid zero because they have no fuel cost and just take the spot price decided on the marginal unit ignoramus

Re:Misleading: coal being killed by natural gas

[DNS-and-BIND]

Sounds like with the climate emergency going on, that we're going to have to start bombing these coal plants. We already make war for energy, it's about time we started doing it for the climate.

Re: Misleading: coal being killed by natural gas

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no need. The math says we will be on 100% renewables by 2080.

I plotted out the growth curve of just photovoltaics, not counting solar concentration or wind, and assuming no increase in the adoption rate, if the growth rate remains the same and the prices keep falling at the same rates due economics of scale, the entire worlds existing non-renewable demand will be replaced.

If we had any sense rather than building any other plants, we would start building pumped storage because that is where the bottleneck is going to be, and in some places that are early adopters are already having problems.

The 'power plant' of the past is going to be replaced by the 'storage plant' just like the automobile replaced the carriage.

We are still going to need oil, gas and the rest, so fracking will never go away, and since natural gas is basically 'free' thanks to fracking, by the time we get there, the only 'traditional' power plants left will be natural gas for the extreme latitudes, unless we are willing to build high capacity superconducting transmission lines to those areas from the lower latitudes where all power is being generated.

Coal is dead. It's not coming back. Fracking and renewables have already won the race, it just going to take a long time to upgrade all of the old infrastructure.

Re: Misleading: coal being killed by natural gas

[Luckyo]

Like I said, in many countries, the spot exchanges literally mandate this, because laws and regulations require it.

Which in turn require it because wind and solar are intermittent generators who's generation capacity cannot be predicted reliably and is controlled by environmental factors largely outside human control. So to function in anything that even remotely resembles economical fashion, they must be given priority over generators who's output is human controlled and highly predictable.

This is not a wrong approach to take per se. It's just that you should have compensation for reliable generators so you don't end up like Denmark. A sovereign state that allowed this process to bankrupt the reliable producers, and is now paying a heavy price to Norwegian and Swedish grid operators because its spinning and cold reserve is now wholly dependent on their co-operation. And last year, those two literally demanded that not only does Denmark pay much more for this service, but it also cede full control over who gets to produce power over which time on Denmark's territory to Swedish and Norwegian grid operators.

They gave the same terms to us Finns to, to which we rightfully told them to get fucked. Unlike Denmark, our grid is not dependent on foreign interconnects for immediate reserves, so we could operate completely disconnected from Sweden in Norway in case of an emergency. Notably around here, it's mandated by the law that we cannot even cede control over who gets to generate electricity at what time to foreign entity for reasons of national security.

Denmark on the other hand is fucked because of its ideologically motivated choices, and those chickens have been coming home to roost over last few years in a very painful way.

Re: Misleading: coal being killed by natural gas

[Luckyo]

Fracking doesn't exist on any meaningful scale outside North America. Renewables don't exist on a meaningful scale outside developed world.

Most of the world is not in these two categories, and cannot afford their power costs to go up further, nor do they have bureaucratic ability to enforce any meaningful environmental regulations.

Which is why you may potentially be correct for developing world, the rest of the world will keep up with consuming coal at ever increasing rates. It's just too cheap to extract, too easy to move around and store and too convenient and simple to burn in a controlled fashion.

Re: Misleading: coal being killed by natural gas

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that I checked any of your claims but what you describe sounds like it doesn't have a lot to do with renewables vs fossil but with giving control out of hand and letting the non-existent market competition decide - just bad (or corrupt) strategic planning.

Re: Misleading: coal being killed by natural gas

[omnichad]

In the short term, pumped storage could make coal more cost effective. You can dump coal generated power into the grid almost immediately with demand rather than worrying about spin up time.

Re: Misleading: coal being killed by natural gas

[Luckyo]

You're not wrong on the matter of principle, but devil is, as usual, in the details. And in the details, it's specifically intermittent renewables (in case of Denmark, mostly offshore wind with some onshore wind). Those just don't work in modern grid without spinning and cold reserve that can back them up when they go offline because there's no wind or too fast wind.

Their problem was that in their favouring wind power over their existing burners (of various fuels), they created a situation where much of time, there was so much wind power that none of the burners could sell their electricity at all. So many companies that could be competitive if they were allowed to sell electricity went bankrupt. Which resulted in the fact that there wasn't enough spinning reserve to backup all that wind power.

Luckily Denmark already had high capacity interconnects to Norway and Sweden, both of which have excess hydro in their mountainous regions. Hydro makes for really good spinning reserve. Just let the water storage fill up by closing the flow valves when you don't need power, and open them and let them spin the turbines when you need power. But Denmark like much of Central European plain is pretty flat. No real hydro potential. Unlike the mountainous Norway and northern Sweden, where there's too much hydro capacity.

But that means Denmark became wholly dependent on foreign state for its energy security. And like anyone who concedes their energy security to foreign entity inevitably learns, that deal is truly a deal with the devil, even if devil looks like a nice friendly neighbour and terms and price look acceptable at the start.

Re:Misleading: coal being killed by natural gas

[XXongo]

Even that is only half of the truth. The other half is how much of Western world started treating electric generation vs consumption. On many spot markets, wind and solar get "first dibs", in that no one else gets to sell their generation until all of wind and solar are sold. This is followed by various power generation systems that are ranked in order of CO2 emissions. That means coal lands on the bottom, and is legally forbidden from selling when others are producing enough to cover the consumption.

May be true for Finland, I guess, but it's not the general case. In general, natural gas is outcompeting coal.

... That's why CCGTs are popping up. They can spin up and take load much faster, so when wind drops out of the grid, they can pick up the load and get paid premium for peaking, and they can also economically produce during longer periods of higher consumption.

Yes, you nailed it here. That fast spin-up capability makes gas turbines much more flexible, and therefore preferred.

(nb: "CCGT"=combined-cycle gas turbine)

Also, many coal generation plants are old, and less-than profitable because they're old tech.

Add to that the unique situation in North America where fracking is producing massive amounts of natgas that is essentially free as a byproduct of oil extraction, and you have a situation where in developed countries, coal is really struggling.

Yes, that too.

...

Re:Misleading: coal being killed by natural gas

[Luckyo]

The problem with natural gas persists however. Storage and transportation are very difficult and costly. Not to mention catastrophic failure modes with natgas tend to be exceedingly destructive.

Coal on the other hand, is very compact and can be stored and transported as literally a pile of solid rock-like chunks.

Which is why unfortunately natgas is primarily a developed world fuel. Coal still powers overwhelming majority of the world outside them. And quite a few things inside.

Profitable?

[Anonymous Coward]

We are conditioned to think in terms of profitability. Yet at the societal level it is "the whole" that must be profitable, rather than "the parts". If you were marooned on an island you would first make a weapon, hunt to eat, and find shelter/build a house. None of these activities can be analyzed in terms of profitability because they are a required for survival. Economic activity and its concepts come after the basics of life are in place.

Re: Profitable?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true. There is a whole field of study dedicated to exactly those calculations

Re:Profitable?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you first secure a source of clean water - either a really fresh stream or another source and fire (to boil the water). Then shelter. Then hunt. You can go a week or two without food; you can't make it more than 3-4 days without water. The profitability of a water source is the highest, because if it goes down - you're screwed beyond belief, you don't even have an opportunity to last for half a week, and find/work out an alternative.

Baloney, No. it's accounting slight of hand

[goombah99]

The assignment of costs to coal plants versus solar plants makes coal unprofitable and solar profitable. But this is just a bookkeeping slight of hand.

If you are a power company then you can't just sell solar. It doesn't shine all the time. You have to have back up power. Yet you charge one rate to your customers not different rates depending on where their power is coming from. (actually i pay a premium to get renewables but that's a different rationale. I do pay the exact same per kilowatt hour no matter what).

Thus if you don't assign the cost of keeping a coal plant boiler spooled up to to solar power then the coal plant costs are higher than the price paid for the electricity.

But that's just bookkeeping assignment not actual total costs of providing power to a customer.

On top of this, it's cute to say they are losing money but that just depends on how you are paying the mortgage. If you had expected to pay off the mortgage in ten years (say a ten year bond issue) then you are paying a high rate to pay that for ten years. If your bond was 50 years then you would be paying less every year. And then coal would be profitable. Either way after 50 years you have the land and coal plant, and a paid off bond. It's just a matter of which year you booked the costs in

Sigh.

[ledow]

When you're penalising carbon production with financial penalties, and subsidising solar and wind, what do you expect? You're forcing them out of the market.

Coal itself is profitable (even with the above 40% make a profit). It's the artificial entities around it that make it not so.

And you'll find that out when those subsidies end (which themselves only exist because they are cheaper than paying the "carbon fine"). Wind and solar are next to useless across most of the world.

Question: Given that nuclear is basically zero-carbon, and can do the always-available thing of coal, and is in the same scale of production as fossil fuels, why the hell are we shutting them down for silly child's windmills?

Economic fascism

[RogueWarrior65]

Yes, folks, it's a thing and it's happening right under your snooty nose.

Re:Economic fascism

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahaha, go eat your coal you dumb red state faggot, we're going to hang traitor Trump and there's nothing you inbred punk faggot ass can do about it. WE ARE GOING TO KILL ALL OF YOU INBRED TRAITORS

Re:Baloney, No. it's accounting slight of hand

[ShanghaiBill]

I have a smart meter and I pay different rates depending on the availability of electricity.

I also have a compressor cut off on my AC that automatically turns it off with a signal from the power company if there is a power shortage, in return for a discount on my power bill.

Nazi homosexual RAY MORRIS pushes propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12520486&cid=57184660

NAZI FAGGOT RAY MORRIS CAUGHT DEAD W/ PROPAGANDA

[Anonymous Coward]

https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12520486&cid=57184660 Nazi Homosexual RAY MORRIS pushing debunked white supremacist propaganda after directly corrected, HANG THIS FAGGOT NAZI

Nazi homosexual recruiter RAY MORRIS EXPOSED !

[Anonymous Coward]

https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12520486&cid=57184660 Nazi Homosexual RAY MORRIS pushing debunked white supremacist propaganda after directly corrected, HANG THIS FAGGOT NAZI!

Quicker to build a gigafactory than a nuke...

[Anonymous Coward]

So build some more battery factories... and look into all the other storage systems as well... Both are cheaper and more sensible than nukes
Cutting US electricity demand down to EU levels would help too. (you are very wasteful)

Re:Quicker to build a gigafactory than a nuke...

[hierofalcon]

Battery factories aren't the problem. The materials that go into them are the issue. Even battery recycling doesn't address the problems the huge battery load would require. People earlier have complained about the cost of mining for coal. Out in WY, nobody cares as the land is reclaimed nicely and the coal is better quality anyway. But the same issues of coal mining are true for mining for rare earths needed for battery production. You might not have fly ash retention ponds, but you do have waste. Much of the rare earth mining is done in countries where supply lines could be eliminated quickly for political reasons. Batteries are great. Pumped water storage is great. Buried loop water storage is great. None of these have 0 environmental or economic cost. Just building more battery plants isn't a solution.

Re:Quicker to build a gigafactory than a nuke...

[WindBourne]

and you still have to recharge batteries. There is only so many batteries that you can put in, and recharge. As such, we need at least 2/3 of our energy to be able to come from base-load power. Oddly, with nuclear SMRs along our coasts, we can use the thermal waste for desalinating the cooling water as a near free item. With these, we could require that all those living within 50-100 miles of the ocean to get their water from the ocean, and then save the aquifers and river waters for more inland areas.

Re:Quicker to build a gigafactory than a nuke...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a good thing nukes have no environmental costs...
Lucky all the Uranium just comes from Tesco...wouldn't want to have to mine any of that...

Re:Quicker to build a gigafactory than a nuke...

[Anonymous Coward]

There are only so many batteries you can put in, but that number is far higher than how many nukes you can put in.
Did you honestly think batteries made the electricity? Of course you have to charge them, that's where the intermittent nature of wind solar etc comes in. Batteries just smooth that out to make it reliable.

Are you always this dense, or only when you're shilling for big nuke?

NAZI HOMOSEXUAL RAY MORRIS CAUGHT W/ PROPAGANDA

[Anonymous Coward]

https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12520486&cid=57184660 Nazi Homosexual RAY MORRIS pushing debunked white supremacist propaganda after directly corrected, HANG THIS FAGGOT NAZI!!

NAZI FAGGOT RAY MORRIS CAUGHT W/ PROPAGANDA

[Anonymous Coward]

https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12520486&cid=57184660 Nazi Homosexual RAY MORRIS pushing debunked white supremacist propaganda after directly corrected, HANG THIS FAGGOT NAZI !!

Don't worry!

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Don't worry- Donald's new Space Force will use rocket ships powered exclusively by clean coal.

NAZI FAGGOT RAY MORRIS CAUGHT PUSHING PROPAGANDA

[Anonymous Coward]

https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12520486&cid=57184660 Nazi Homosexual RAY MORRIS pushing debunked white supremacist propaganda after directly corrected, HANG THIS FAGGOT NAZI DEAD

Isn't that just a reverse argument from Authority?

[rsilvergun]

Not saying it doesn't mean their findings shouldn't be looked at more closely since they clearly have an agenda. But it's in line with the coal plant closings we're seeing. Can you site a study where coal plants _are_ profitable in aggregate?

Put another way, here's the left wing bastion of Forbes discussion the same thing.

Posting this particular study on /. is just an excuse to talk about a trend that seems pretty obvious. If Coal wasn't losing ground Trump wouldn't have been able to capitalize on out of work miners. The market would have those folks well employed.

Re: Baloney, No. it's accounting slight of hand

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, you have lowered your standard of living to accept less cooling on a schedule convenient for renewable power suppliers, and you have accepted variable rates on your costs. I think you just demonstrated two key disadvantages for energy produced by solar.

NAZI FAGGOT RAY MORRIS CAUGHT DEAD W/ PROPAGANDA

[Anonymous Coward]

https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12520486&cid=57184660 Nazi Homosexual RAY MORRIS pushing debunked white supremacist propaganda after directly corrected, HANG THIS FAGGOT NAZI !!!

Fake News

[Anonymous Coward]

Good Clean Coal and Oil is the Future.
regards,
  TheRealDonaldTrump

Maybe they just need to switch to different fuel

[Rick Schumann]

Just a thought, but they might be profitable if they switched from internal combustion engine-driven vehicles and tools to plug-in electrics recharged from renewable sources and nuclear power.. oh, wait..

Re:Source "environmental think-tank Carbon Tracker

[Rick Schumann]

Well, see, fossil fuels are clearly and objectively shitty, though, and everyone should understand that by now. ;-)

Thorium Fuel is cheaper and it its breedable

[Anonymous Coward]

Thorium plants will cost less to build than Coal, and has none of the problems of Light Water Reactors.
The cost of coal, gas, and oil does not include climate change. Once the cost of fucking up the planet is include in Hydrocarbon fuels anything is lower cost.
Thorium Liquid Salt reactor has no parallel to Light water reactors. Any argument put forth discussing Thorium Liquid salt is null and void. Inapplicable.
(heavy water reactors are not much different than LWR in safety)

No melt downs, no hydrogen explosions, no proliferation, no waste, much smaller size, lower cost pre-fabricated off site in factories, no water needed for cooling waste heat, (yes typical steam turbines use 30% of available heat, the rest warms up bodies of water, applies to all power plants.), air works fine due to higher process temps. Carbon dioxide can be used for driving turbines with massive size reduction and efficiency gain (+50%).
Thorium cycle breeds new fuel, and waste products are reprocessed in line. By contrast typical solid fuel rods are very expensive to reprocess and store, and remains "hot" for 10,000 years. The solid fuel waste disposal problem have not been solved, the can is just kicked down the road. Only 0.7% of the fuel in those rods are used as the contaminants are toxic to the power generation process, i.e. eats neutrons.

Why has not Thorium been used so far? Political decisions in the Nixon era by propellerheads who wanted to explore Sodium Breeder Reactors, which failed, killed the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment run by Alvin Weinberg, the inventor of both the the MSR and the LWR. A political decision.
The current regulatory environment is not yet adapted to Liquid Thorium Salt Reactors, there are very few parallels in the safety aspects, mainly because MSR are made to be intrinsically safe, it has no 2,000 psi water pressure, 10" thick reactor humongous forged steel vessels, etc. As was seen in Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl, loss of cooling is a disaster for Water cooled reactors. (Chernobyl did not even have a containment building.)

The historically short era of the industrial revolution is built on availability of massive amounts of cheap energy, without it we could regress into the 18th century lifestyle in a heartbeat.
Any discussion of fear against nuclear power serves only to help the Hydrocarbon industry and will fuck up the planet.
Solar power without storage is a non-starter. Wind power without storage is also stupid. Do the math, add the cost of requisite energy storage to the calculation. (Repairing wind generator is neither fun nor easy.) https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=burning+wind+generator
The weather is not always favorable to these either. Wind generators are not environmentally friendly either.
Liquid Salt Thorium reactor can be deployed in current power stations, with existing distribution network, will be much cheaper, safer, and have gobs of power, and are scalable.
Are you really going to power a steel or cement plant with wind or solar?

"We're going to put a lot of coal miners out of w"

[raymorris]

Trump's opponent said "we're going to put a lot of coal miners out of work". OF COURSE he capitalized on that when speaking in coal country.

  Things don't have to already be really bad for you to dislike a politician who says she's going to try to make you unemployed.

If a politician said "I'm going to put a lot of security experts out of work", and was actually trying to do exactly that, Bruce and I are going to vote for their opponent - even though we both have good jobs at the moment.

Re:Isn't that just a reverse argument from Authori

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't criticizing Trump just a reverse argument from Authority?

Can you cite a study that proves coal power plants aren't being treated unequally by regulators, laws, and markets?

The slashdot crowd becomes less educated and more out of touch with reality every day.

The same "Luckyo" denialist faggot that says...

[Anonymous Coward]

That microplastic in human cells is inherently safe and "cannot cause health effects because it's inert" and claims to have a science background promoting this bullshit, aren't you that same Luckyo moron? Lol dipshit.

Go eat more plastic you trashmind liar lol.. prove you're right. We're going to shove so much plastic up your ass you'll be walking like Trump Jr.

Re: Baloney, No. it's accounting slight of hand

[Anonymous Coward]

This.

True, but it's clean air and water

[rsilvergun]

That was putting them out of work. Coal plants would be profitable if they could run like they did before the EPA and mine safety. But on that other hand we'd miners dying left and right and cancer villages.

Hillary's problem wasn't the message, it was how she said it and more importantly her complete lack of leadership when it came to finding real solutions for out of work coal miners.

Bernie has the solution, which is a federal jobs guarantee. Put those coal miners to work but building solar panels. Time will tell if he gets a chance to do it.

Re:True, but it's clean air and water

[currently_awake]

Hillary's problem is she's a right wing politician pushing a Republican agenda. If you must choose between 2 essentially identical political parties, you choose the one that is most effective in delivering their agenda. Not being able (willing) to pass Healthcare for All when they had a supermajority proves the Democrats incompetent.

Re:True, but it's clean air and water

[Anonymous Coward]

Not being able (willing) to pass Healthcare for All when they had a supermajority proves the Democrats incompetent.

Except the Democrats never had a super-majority. They were one short plus Joe Liberman. I was a Connecticut voter during the 2006 election and we tried to oust him but failed.

Re:True, but it's clean air and water

[Uberbah]

Except the Democrats never had a super-majority.

Yeah. They did. For three months, Lieberman included. Which was a red herring anyway, as Obomneycare had to be passed via reconciliation anyway, which bypasses the 60 vote canard.

Re: 40% of coal plants are unprofitable

[presidenteloco]

Well, that's a good start.

We need to be off them altogether, right around, oh, let's see, now.

Re: Baloney, No. it's accounting slight of hand

[ShanghaiBill]

In other words, you have lowered your standard of living

Not at all. PG&E pays me to conserve peak power, and I then have that money to spend on more important things, thus RAISING my standard of living.

Did they calculate the cost of peanut butter

[mark_reh]

sandwiches? Because that all Americans need to fuel the miners who are returning to the mines in droves to aid our exalted leader's plan to Make America Great Again.

40% ? ! That's 40% more profitable than

[mark_reh]

Trump casinos!

Think tanks

[Anonymous Coward]

As much as this news pleases me, I simply can't trust anything coming from a think tank. Their sole purpose of existence is to circumvent peer-review and declaring conflicts of interest. I believe it when I read it in a reputable scientific journal.

Re:Isn't that just a reverse argument from Authori

[Anonymous Coward]

most coal plants that are closing are closing due to age/end of life, As a power plant ages the maintenance costs go way up to the point where they become unprofitable to run, however that has nothing to do with the financial viability of coal.

Nothing New

[quenda]

Long before fracking and renewables, huge numbers of coal mines were operating at a loss for political reasons.
The same reason that motor vehicle factories and agriculture in so many countries (including US and EU) are surviving only with government subsidies.

The question is not "why are they losing money?" - all mines have a limited lifetime before becoming unviable.

The question should be "Why are they still operating?"

Base load is a myth

[Anonymous Coward]

Once you have the batteries it doesn't matter how you charge them "base load nonsense" is already false and will become even more imaginary with storage solutions.

You got pwnd

[Anonymous Coward]

To not refute, but make fun of an opposing and disliked viewpoint, is the common bromide of a loser. Your response is what was to be your response AFTER you argued "what if there's no wind or sun for a whole month?". Joce just cut you the fuck off and got to the nitty gritty.

Haters, indeed, gonna hate and you're hatin' hard. Git gud n00b.

Re: Baloney, No. it's accounting slight of hand

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, you have lowered your standard of living

Not at all. PG&E pays me to conserve peak power, and I then have that money to spend on more important things, thus RAISING my standard of living.

No, you have traded a higher standard of living in exchange for a small discount on your expenses. I consider allowing others to remotely disable my air conditioning at arbitrary times to be seriously lowering my standard of living. I would easily trade a few dollars for the luxury of being adequately cool during peak load times.

When the option of staying cool on my terms is no longer available due to the elimination of adequate power delivery capacity, you may be happy, but there are a lot of us that will not be.

Nuclear is stupid

[Brannon]

All of your arguments are wrong. Your facts are outdated. This is getting old.

Re:Nuclear is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

All of your arguments are wrong. Your facts are outdated. This is getting old.

From the link in GPP.

According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) and the University of Texas, from 2010 through 2013, federal renewable energy subsidies increased by 54%, from $8.6 billion to $13.2 billion, despite the fact that total federal energy subsidies declined by 23%, from $38 billion to $29 billion.

Renewable energy got $13.2 billion compared to the total of $29 billion, that's nearly half. If coal is heavily subsidized then solar is heavily subsidized, assuming we ignore the per kWh numbers. That's not outdated, it's from 2017.

You are right on one thing, this is getting old. If wind is cheaper than coal, and solar with batteries can provide 24/7 power, then it should be driving coal and nuclear power out of the market. Mission accomplished, right? That's not what we are seeing though. Natural gas dominates because it's a cheap and reliable backup for when wind and solar fails us.

Re:Nuclear is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Coal is subsidized at like $100bil-1tril/year once you include the huge amount of externalized costs from healthcare. If renewables got that kind of support, we'd be 100% renewable already.

Re: Baloney, No. it's accounting slight of hand

[Anonymous Coward]

And one day, you might even learn that heat and cold are very easy to store, thus completely eliminating your tiny problem!

Re: Baloney, No. it's accounting slight of hand

[Anonymous Coward]

And one day, you might even learn that heat and cold are very easy to store, thus completely eliminating your tiny problem!

And one day you may learn that this was one example of a problem not limited to climate control. Every generation has their religious zealots that want nothing more than to exert control over their peers. These days there are many factions fighting for that privilege, everyone from the clean energy priests to the perpetually outraged culture warrior religious orders to the #MeToo grand inquisitors. And their efforts are always for our benefit but we are always too feeble minded to recognize it. Only a blasphemer heretic would oppose their benevolent help and as such should be called out and publicly shamed and punished.

And nobody saw that comming

[Anonymous Coward]

We're in the third wave of industrialization, and now more wealth is created from nothing than real things.

Profit?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not supposed to be PROFITABLE. They're supposed to make electricity.