One of the most important things to grasp about the new industrial revolution around renewable energy, is that, this is not just a nice thing to do, the right thing to do – it is essential for the survival of civilization.
Leslie Glustrom has been sounding the alarm about the bogus “200 year supply” of coal for some time now. Here’s an update.
The report says that the U.S. may have already passed “peak coal,” the point at which production declines rather than increases. It says production may be approaching its peak in terms of volume extracted, and peak coal has probably already passed in terms of total energy content, since modern mining focuses more on low-energy coal than in decades past.
Illinois, the fifth largest coal-producing state, actually passed its coal peak almost a century ago — in 1918, according to the report. Production in 2012 was 46 percent lower than that year.
Top coal producer Wyoming had its peak in 2008, while the rest of the top six coal states are also long past their peaks:– West Virginia (1947), Kentucky (1990), Pennsylvania (1918) and Texas (1990).
Indiana and Ohio, the number eight and 10 states, peaked in 1984 and 1970, respectively.
The Illinois basin is one of the country’s major coal-producing regions, covering 50,000 square miles over much of Illinois and parts of Indiana and western Kentucky.
Illinois is considered to have the nation’s third largest reserve of recoverable coal, behind Montana and Wyoming, according to the Energy Information Administration.
But based on USGS statistics, the report notes that only 36 percent of Illinois basin coal is technically recoverable, and only 9 percent is likely to be economical to extract. This is a lower percent than four other major reserves: two in Appalachia, the Somerset basin in Pennsylvania, and the Northern Wasatch plateau in Colorado and Utah.
The report notes that even with rising coal prices, the amount of coal in western fields considered economically recoverable has been significantly downgraded. Much of the coal is too deep to mine economically. Strip-mining, the standard method for the West, would involve moving too much dirt; and underground mining or gasification is possible but more expensive than strip mining.
Leslie Glustrom
Glustrom predicts the country’s five largest coal mines, all in Wyoming, have only 9 to 13 years of life left before they become no longer profitable. Since some of the same companies mining in the West also run major Illinois basin mines, the economic decline of western mining will have direct ripple effects on Illinois basin mining. Among other things the mining companies face higher interest rates the higher their debt rises, meaning it is harder for them to finance new or expanded mines.
Glustrom’s report notes that Peabody, the country’s largest mining company, “reported just over $1 billion in losses in the fourth quarter of 2012 and $58 million in losses for the year, driving their AdjustedEarnings Per Share down from $3.77 in2011 to $0.84 per share in 2012.”
Peabody produces 30 million tons of coal from Illinois and Indiana annually, making it the Midwest’s largest producer.
The other two largest companies, Arch Coal and Alpha Natural Resources, also have major Illinois basin operations and have taken serious economic hits in the past few years. Alpha Natural Resources reported a loss of $458 million in the third quarter of 2013, a loss almost 10 times greater than in the third quarter of 2012.
The major energy story of the 21st century has been the natural gas revolution and cheap gas prices undercutting coal-fired power. But the report notes that even independent of competition from gas, the production costs of coal are rising enough to make coal-fired power increasingly uneconomical. Production costs are rising because the coal that’s left is increasingly hard to extract, because of rising transportation costs and other world market factors.
Even in China, coal doesn’t necessarily have a robust future, even as that country is famously adding to its coal fleet. Pollution and economic concerns have driven China to invest in clean energy, and the country’s appetite for U.S. coal will likely decrease as it develops its own coal reserves and has access to nearer sources in Asia and Australia.
In September, Citi Research released a commodities report titled “The Unimaginable: Peak Coal in China,” noting that “significant shifts in China’s economic structure and power sector demand a reassessment of coal’s perpetual climb.”
That’s bad news for U.S. coal companies that have planned to offset reduced demand for coal in the U.S. with exports to China – facilitated by controversial plans to develop export terminals in the Pacific Northwest. Experts say it is unlikely Illinois coal would be exported to China, but if Powder River Basin coal were exported that could theoretically leave a bigger market available for Midwest coal in the U.S.
The Clean Energy Action report cites Great Britain as an example of how coal areas must be forward-thinking to get ready for the time when coal production will drastically shrink or cease. British experts in the 1800s had predicted the country’s coal would last for 1,100 years, but as it turned out the coal industry was virtually dead within 150 years. Privatization of mines, reliance on cheaper imports and other factors that likely could not have been foreseen in the 19th century contributed to the drastic disparity between predictions and reality.
Glustrom notes that Missouri and Oklahoma had robust coal industries in the 1970s and 1980s, but produce very little coal now. Iowa was a major coal producer in 1917, but coal mining is virtually nonexistent there today.
It must be noted here that the decline in US coal consumption is due in large part to the unprecedented supply and cheapness of natural gas at the moment. About 90% of US coal consumption is “steam coal”, mostly used in electric generation. This competes directly with natural gas.
A substantial fraction of this natural gas glut comes from unconventional sources. Some of this is “associated gas” from oil drilling; this gas would likely be produced regardless, and the supply will track the profitability of the unconventional oil resources from which it comes. The rest is “wet gas” and “dry gas”. “Wet gas” has lots of NGLs (natural gas liquids, ethane up through butanes), which are a lot more profitable than the gas itself. “Dry gas” has little in the way of liquids, and is not profitable to drill at this time. Further, “wet gas” wells dry out relatively quickly. When the price a producer can get for the stream coming from a well falls below the cost of operating that well, it will be “shut in” to wait for market prices to rise.
What does this mean? It means that the glut of natural gas is a temporary thing, and the unprofitability of coal is similarly temporary. There are huge amounts in Australia, and so much of Alaska is underlain by coal that it seems doubtful that an energy-starved world would do without it voluntarily.
If there’s a solution that leaves it in the ground, it involves energy cheaper than coal. Robert Hargraves literally wrote the book on that one.
A lot of what you are saying about the economics is correct, however I think the issue is bigger than what you outline. Yes gas is displacing a lot of coal fired electricity right now and this will likely taper off in the near future, however the premise of this report (and the youtube video I linked below) are that even if you remove the temporary price decrease caused by gas, we still are getting up against the wall with regard to available coal.
The Powder River Basin in Wyoming is now responsible for something like 40% of US coal production, but the current mines only have a few years left in them before new mines will have to be opened up. This is possible, however the new mines will be in places with much deeper overburden (the soil to be removed before getting to the coal seam) and they also have much lower stripping ratios (the ratio of tons of coal produced to tons of dirt moved to produce it). This lower stripping ratio is caused both by the coal seam being deeper underground, but also thinner.
It is these changes to the underlying economics of mining that are going to be the death knell for coal. Sure, the natural gas boom will taper off and that will lead to a small resurgence in coal demand justifying a little bit higher price, but the price can’t move upward very much at all before other options become more economical (wind, solar, etc).
Finally, more and more coal (as a percentage) is coming out of Wyoming, however very little of it is actually burned there. As the east coast mines continue to decline it will become less feasable to power the east coast on coal due to the extra cost of moving it there from Wyoming, instead of the local mines like they do now.
Once there’s enough overburden, mining will shift from opencast to underground room-and-pillar or longwall. Underground gasification is another up-and-coming technology.
If we want to get rid of coal burning, we have to have something that generates electricity cheaper than it can.
Andrew-You are wise to take a wider view. I dont think natural gas is the only thing displacing coal. Wind is making an impact in the midwest. If coal costs increase, wind will grow even more. In fact, I predict that wind and solar will increase as coal and gas decline. I do not think coal will return when gas declines. The writing is on the wall for both of them. This isnt rocket science. Renewables are declining in costs, while fossil fuel generation has ever increasing fuel costs. http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/wind-picks-up-as-coal-declines-in-midwest
Wind is making an impact in the midwest. If coal costs increase, wind will grow even more.
I’m not so sure about that. Installation of wind goes up and down with the PTC and other incentives, not so much fuel prices. Of late, the PTC has been useless due to a lack of profits for credits to offset, so wind farms have depended more on a first-year 30% tax credit with all electric sales at wholesale. THAT is going to be interesting, because those farms will no longer have any incentive to sell at below-zero prices, and will curtail output in cartel-like collusion to create the most profit. But maintaining profit also pays the fossil generators… what to do?
Iowa is one of the powerhouses of wind generation in the USA. The Duane Arnold nuclear plant still supplies about 10% of Iowa’s electricity, and the state should be glad to have it. Carbon-free power that’s there 24/7 is better than fickle power.
I predict that wind and solar will increase as coal and gas decline. I do not think coal will return when gas declines. The writing is on the wall for both of them.
Wind energy is ages old. Wind was available for electric generation from the invention of the first dynamo, but it never really caught on except where (a) there was no grid or (b) it was favored by policy. The grid needs generation to match demand within a small tolerance at all times. To make wind and solar economic to time-shift, the cost of fossil fuels has to rise to the cost of storage. The cost of time-shifting RE increases with the duration of the shift, so this isn’t a trivial problem.
Renewables are declining in costs, while fossil fuel generation has ever increasing fuel costs.
I once thought that something like direct-carbon fuel cells would allow renewable charcoal to provide that long-duration time-shifting of energy (months, if not years), but I see no sign of that happening. It ought to be decreasing in cost also. I lack the information to understand the hangup.
Wind is making an impact on coal in the Midwest today. I don’t see how the wind ptc, which is about 2c/kwhr is going to make make much difference if coal and oil become scarce in 20 years. Right now, I agree the ptc will make a difference in wind build rates. For the next 20, maybe gas has more impact on all other sources. There is evidence that the gas frolic is very short lived. As fuel costs increase, renewables become more attractive as a means of reducing fuel costs. That is winds biggest contribution now. Solar is different. It has major implications for peak daytime energy use, particularly summer. It already has dramatically affected peak rates in some seasons in Germany.
Loading...
The reason storage does not matter for wind or solar today is that the grid already has huge reserves for the daily 2 to 1 load swings and the even larger seasonal load swings. Reserves are 1.5x load generation daily in a good system. As that ratio decreases, reliability drops and outages increase. Utilities report very modest reserve needs for intermittent renewables until penetrations are much higher, exceeding 50%. The power is composed of many sources. For now and a ways into the future, utilities tend to prefer reserves over storage. That will change. There is plenty of wind and solar out there, yet comparatively little storage as yet. It’s not needed now, even in Iowa, with 25% wind. Read the report, it’s an eye opener, but longish. http://www.20percentwind.org/report/Chapter4_Transmission_and_Integration_into_the_US_Electric_System.pdf
Loading...
Ignoring the obligatory last paragraph pitch (ha ha), I agree.
I also strongly believe coal will have a resurgence in the States when NG prices rise (inevitable). The recent coal production decrease in the lower 48 could also be more from current decrease in demand due to the upsurge in NG.
The big reason why Britain once thought it had 1K years of reserves left is because it failed to account for growth – which is a common pattern we still see today.
There are also large coal reserves around in the Antarctica and I can see it being exploited there after the ban on mineral resource exploitation runs out in 2048, certainly some countries are beginning to eye it up, unless something huge changes various world government’s attitudes to the IPCC Assessment Report warnings. Nearby NZ is strongly encouraging exploration for oil in it’s waters. http://nz.finance.yahoo.com/news/norwegian-oil-giant-statoil-takes-220700280.html
Jimbills-nice post. It’s hard to predict what will happen. A lot depends on the growth of electricity demand and renewables. For the near term demand contraction and renewable growth are contributing to coals demise. Fossil fuels are continuing cost escalation as they dwindle. In transportation, dominated by the closed US market and oil monopolies, the only alternative is the resultant lower miles traveled and lower auto ownership. That may change as hybrids and EVs make inroads. In electricity, utilities have always relied on a mix, no energy source monopolies dominate. Thus coal, oil, nuclear, and gas have traditionally battles it out. Now solar and wind have made inroads. Only rooftop solar challenges the existing monopolistic infrastructure and that is the mist resistance. Utilities will use whatever is cheapest, but coal will never be cheap again. Once gas runs out, fuel costs will start to soar and the economics will drive renewables even faster. Ironically, cheap natural gas is not really a bridge to anything, unless governments get proactive and do something meaningful in the interim. Solar stands to benefit the most, because it still has room to lower costs over time. There may be some resurgence in coal as gas runs out, but the biggest resurgence will be conservation and renewables. A lot depends on the third world and China. China’s economy is slowing as coal pollution puts a drag on it. As coal becomes scarcer, prices rise, and that also slows China’s growth. China’s growth has been unsustainable for a long time. Their coal reserves are already dwindling and they will eat up Australian coal quickly. Alaskan or Siberian sources are going to be wickedly difficult and more expensive. At some point, as alternatives mature, it will be cheaper to leave fossil fuels buried and stop digging up our own graves.
For those interested, here is a really interesting talk on youtube by Leslie, it is about 20 minutes long and I think probably covers much of the same material as this report (although I am just starting into the report myself so I don’t know for sure.
It sure is a good thing we changed the name of global warming to climate change (disruption) because now we can continue to confidently blame the deaths resulting from this national cold snap on AGW (without that uncomfortable dissonance).
Err…ya know, AGW needs to go to ACC or ACD I would submit.
Uh, k-dube? Who is the “we” that changed the name of global warning to climate change?
Climate change has always been with us, and it’s the anthropogenic WARMING now occurring that we are most worried about. It’s foremost among the many “disruptions” that man has brought to the planet, and there doesn’t seem to be a need to change horses (or names) in midstream.
And by “the national cold snap”, do you mean the one that recently killed uncounted numbers of cattle out west? Just another one of those extreme events (like the Boulder floods) that we can expect to see more frequently as AGW progresses. What’s “dissonant” about that?
Who is “we”? The IPClimateChange or Frank Luntz, Republican rightwingnut spin doctor?
Prior to a little memo he wrote, George W Bush used global warming most frequently.
After Luntz’ “words that word” advice, it was climate change, all the time but for decades before that the 2 terms were used interchangeably.
Love the closing statement but I think you need to beef up the dramatic voice somewhat and I was really hoping you’d throw “dastardly” in there somewhere.
Kingdube – what say you to this?
Will you continue to deny that the claim of a switcheroo of terms by AGW proponents was a contrarian hoax?
Most of the alarmist and their war on coal should consider that maybe they are trying to cripple the wrong country with their stance on carbon based energy and maybe should move to China to wage their war?
China is going coal crazy: imports jump 56%
Frik Els | February 8, 2013
Chinese customs data out on Friday show imports of coal amounted to 30.5 million tonnes in January, up 56.3% compared to 2012, already a record year. http://www.mining.com/china-is-going-coal-crazy-imports-jump-56-75637/
CHART: China is burning coal at an insane rate
Frik Els | January 29, 2013
[…]
“Growth in coal consumption in China has been even more spectacular than its output growth – growing for 12 years in a row – according to newly released international data from the US Energy Information Administration (EIA):
China’s coal use grew by 325 million tons in 2011, accounting for 87% of the 374 million ton global increase in coal use. Of the 2.9 billion tons of global coal demand growth since 2000, China accounted for 2.3 billion tons (82%). China now accounts for 47% of global coal consumption—almost as much as the entire rest of the world combined.” http://www.mining.com/chinese-coal-imports-could-jump-to-500m-tonnes-in-3-years-89246/
Since we’re talking about coal and Canada, I’d like to point out that Ontario has been running on relatively little coal in recent years – down from 25% ten years ago to being completely phased out in another year.
Neighboring Quebec has no coal plants ( and probably never has ) and only 2 operating thermal stations.
On the other side of the continent, British Columbia exports coal for steelmaking but burns none of it locally.
So, without looking at any other region, it’s clear that ~80% of Canada’s people have coal-free power.
To give an idea of how much disparity there is in Canadian per-capita emissions, Ontario, Quebec & British Columbia with 80% of the total population are in the 10-13 tonnes per cap range.
But Alberta & Saskatchewan, with a combined population of just 5 million are in the 65-70 tonnes range, which I find utterly ridiculous.
The remaining 2 million in the other provinces range from 15-25 tonnes CO2 per capita, still quite high.
I assume they, the anthropogenic global warming alarmist, would rather see the coal burn up in the ground as has happened in the past if one observes the scoria hills that are caused from coal burning underground at some time in the past.
“Coal fires continue to be a problem throughout the Powder River Basin, said Ed Heffern, a geologist with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. He has studied coal fires in the Powder River Basin extensively.
“I know of about 80 active or historic coal fires in the Powder River Basin, both in Wyoming and Montana,” Heffern said.
Underground coal fires have been burning in the Powder River Basin for more than 4 million years, Heffern said. The burning coal melts the layers just above it into hard rock called “scoria” or “clinker.” The BLM can estimate the amount of coal that has burned from the amount of clinker around.
The BLM has mapped about 1,500 square miles of clinker in the Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming. That works out to about 47 billion tons of Powder River Basin coal burned in prehistoric times.
I don’t think that there is are any scrubbers or any thing to clean up the air from these fires and they must have produced CO2 when the 47 billion tons of coal burned in the Powder Basin.
good point about underground fires. one more reason not to mine coal, as mining activities start these fires, and have caused, in some cases, towns to be abandoned. might be a good, cost effective(?) place to work on reducing emissions.
Given that coal fires have burned in the Powder River basin since long before humans made it to the Americas, it’s silly to ascribe everything to mining. All it takes is one outcrop to be struck by lightning, or ignited by a forest fire.
Like drilling to define the extent of the active fire, and mining around it like digging a firebreak?
Loading...
Greenman3610: Could your inability to not understand that these coal fires have been burning for millions of years: “Underground coal fires have been burning in the Powder River Basin for more than 4 million years, Heffern said.” demonstrate an attitude about coal that I well imagine caused you to use the photo “Smoke and no Mirror” that was more than likely taken in China or India; countries that are not mentioned when the IPCC comes up with their list of targets to cut back on CO2 emissions because they know what the answer will be from these two nations? I have been to China four times and one can see such views as your photo; but, I have never seen any thing like that in the U.S. even though many times photos of cooling towers are presented on cold days to try to erroneously make ignorant people into believing the steam is coal smoke.
if they have been burning for millions of years, then they have been part of the background, like volcanoes. I’ve not studied the history of these particular fires, some of which I understand are natural, others man-made.
In any case, don’t presume that the next 20 years in China will be like the last. With literally millions dying prematurely from pollution, coal burning has become a real source of social unrest – and the Chinese leadership does not have to be reminded what happens when unrest continues for long in China.
Take a look at the historical CO2.record before the industrial revolution. That’s right. Practically nothing before 1800. If natural coal fires dominated emissions you would see it. No evidence. The CO2 record proves the dominant CO2 is man burning coal, not nature.
Here are some FACTS about coal and if you can see where these are not facts, then point them out:
‘Earth Hour?!’ Celebrate Coal not Candles: ‘It was coal that produced clean electric power which cleared the smog produced by dirty combustion & open fires in big cities like London and Pittsburgh’
‘It was coal that saved the forests being felled to fuel the first steam engines and produce charcoal for the first iron smelters. It was coal that powered the light bulbs and saved the whales being slaughtered for whale oil lamps. Without coal, we would be back in the dark days of candles, wood stoves, chip heaters, open fires, smoky cities, hills bare of trees and streets knee deep in horse manure’ http://jennifermarohasy.com/2012/03/time-to-celebrate-coal-not-candles-viv-forbes/
I have been to many countries that if they have electricity it is intermittent and unreliable. I believe the answer in the US is for the coal fired power plants to just say “to hell with it” and shut down and then see how long it takes for certain people to come begging when the wind that only supplies 1% of the world’s electrical needs quits blowing .
“How much back-up power is needed for wind power?
According to Eon Netz, one of the four grid managers in Germany, with 7,050 MW of wind power capacity installed in its area at the end of 2004, the amount of back-up required was over 80%, which was the maximum output observed from all of their wind power facilities together. That is, for every 10 MW of wind power added to the system in this case, at least 8 MW of back-up power must also be dedicated.
In other words, wind needs 100% back-up of its maximum output.” http://www.wind-watch.org/faq-output.php>
“I have been to many countries that if they have electricity it is intermittent and unreliable. I believe the answer in the US is for the coal fired power plants to just say “to hell with it” and shut down and then see how long it takes for certain people to come begging when the wind that only supplies 1% of the world’s electrical needs quits blowing .”
Er, many countries? How many and what are their names?
And none of them is using coal for power generation?
Since coal is so wonderful & lifesaving, then rather than shut down all the coal plants, let shut down everything else.
So off go the hydro stations, all the nuclear plants ( sorry, Engineer-Poet ), pull shades over all the solar panels and chop the blades from the wind turbines and plug up the geothermal plants and all We Merry Old Souls will join hands and sing the praises of Old King Coal.
So, any way Moss, how many countries have you been to? I have been to 54, I think it is- not going to count them for you. I have been to several of them numerous times and again not going to count those for you.
Two that come to mind is Tanzania where I was in 2011 and have only been there once. In the three weeks that I was there I did go up Kilimanjaro and did see that there are glaciers left on the highest mountain in Africa and did see that the reason the climate on the mountain is changing is because of the old growth forest having been cut and replaced with non native trees.
I have been to Nepal on three separate occasions to do the Everest Base Camp trek, The Annapurna Circuit and the Poon Hill Hike. Actual some of the villages in the mountains have a more steady supply of electricity than what Kathmandu has because they have their own hydro plants. There was no hydro produced electricity in Manang when I was there for 2 nights because a belt on the Italian generator was broken and they were waiting weeks for a replacement while using gas power generator sets burning fuel packed in on someone’s back or by horse. I did not see any coal fired power house in either Tanzania or Nepal but if they would have supplied a steady and reliable supply of electricity, I well imagine they would have been very happy to have had them.
Where I am now uses hydro, natural gas and coal that was mostly mined in country but now most of the coal is imported. The point is, they have a steady supply of electricity and that is in Thailand.
“For the domestic coal business, although the Company’s own indigenous coal resources have become exhausted but the domestic coal consumption continues to rise particularly from the cement and electricity industries and other small to medium industrial operators. With limited coal resources in the Country, coals need to be imported for the domestic consumption. The Company imports coal from its joint-venture coal mining projects in Indonesia and also procures from other sources to meet the demand by either direct shipment to the customers or by storing and processing at the Company’s Ayutthaya Coal Center before delivery. The Company sold close to a million tons of imported coal in 2006.
The Company has an aggressive plan and is in the process of acquiring additional good quality coal reserves overseas to strengthen its core business for both domestic and international markets, as well as looking for other related investment opportunities. With its long term goal to become one of the leading energy providers in the region, Lanna Resources is actively pursuing energy production, distribution, trading and diversification, in the coal and other alternative energy or resource businesses.” http://www.lannar.com/idxcp.htm
Another point is Moss, no one is listening to you and your take on coal if they want cheap and steady power supplies.
When I read the article there were some things that I noticed that follows. What did your note from your reading?
“Part of the problem is access; more than 300 million people in India still have no electricity.”
[…]
“But India’s power generation capacity also has not kept pace with growth. Demand outpaced supply by 10.2 percent in March, government statistics show.” (and some believe that windmills will get them up to speed?)
[…]
“In recent years, India’s government has set ambitious goals for expanding power generation capacity, and while new plants have come online, many more have faced delays, whether because of bureaucratic entanglements, environmental concerns or other problems.” ( Does this sound familiar and look at how much good the government did when they injected themselves into this problem? At least the Indians are smart enough to not say ”
“India depends on coal for more than half of its power generation, but production has barely increased, with some power plants idled for lack of coal.” (Now we have a war on coal production in the US. How smart is that??
“When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal…under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket…..” Obama) http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/02/obama-ill-make-energy-prices-skyrocket/
[…]
“India’s public distribution utilities are now in deep debt, which makes it harder to encourage investment in the power sector. Tuesday’s blackout struck some analysts as evidence of a system in distress. (This is how government intervention in the private sector pays off)
[…]
“In Lucknow, capital of India’s most populous state, Uttar Pradesh, Dr. Sachendra Raj said his private hospital was using two large rented generators to power air-conditioners and dialysis machines.”
“It’s a very common problem,” he said of power failures. “It’s part and parcel of our daily life.” (It will also become the norm in US under the current approach to electricity and how it is produced) http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/world/asia/power-outages-hit-600-million-in-india.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0>
Greenman3610: Here’s a tip. Readers that can think and understand what they read are leaders.
what you are describing is a centralized grid that does not and can not work – exactly the reason that citizens in the third world will not wait for a grid to be built to first world standards, any more than they waited for telephone lines to be built out. They are already beginning to leapfrog to renewables, which make even more sense in the areas not currently served.
sorry, reality and progress happen.
Crock. You have no idea how an electric power system works. Iowa, Denmark, Spain, Germany, are all greater than 20% wind today, and the list goes on. Do a little research from unbiased sources to get up to speed. Ever hear of NREL? IEEE? Western Wind and Solar Integration Study? While we are at it, ponder how much backup is required for a large thermal power plant. Yes, a lot. Probably never saw a daily demand curve, try looking at caiso. Notice that reserve capacity is always 50% higher than load. The problem is the false assumption that conventional plants don’t have backup. Germany, where renewables are used, has the highest reliability. It is a net exporter and the strongest economy. I don’t think a windbaggers internet campaign is going to slow the German economy or reduce its use of renewables. We should all be grateful for coal,eh? What about wood? And water power?
Christopher Arcus Says: “Iowa, Denmark, Spain, Germany, are all greater than 20% wind today, and the list goes on.” but did not mention this fact:
“Climate mania impoverishes electricity customers worldwide
Global-warming-related catastrophes are increasingly hitting vulnerable populations around the world, with one species in particular danger: the electricity ratepayer. In Canada, in the U.K., in Spain, in Denmark, in Germany and elsewhere the danger to ratepayers is especially great, but ratepayers in one country — the U.S. — seem to have weathered the worst of the disaster.
America’s secret? Unlike leaders in other countries, which to their countries’ ruin adopted policies as if global warming mattered, U.S. leaders more paid lip service to it. While citizens in other countries are now seeing soaring power rates, American householders can look forward to declining rates.” http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/05/11/lawrence-solomon-green-power-failure/
“How much back-up power is needed for wind power?
According to Eon Netz, one of the four grid managers in Germany, with 7,050 MW of wind power capacity installed in its area at the end of 2004, the amount of back-up required was over 80%, which was the maximum output observed from all of their wind power facilities together. That is, for every 10 MW of wind power added to the system in this case, at least 8 MW of back-up power must also be dedicated.
In other words, wind needs 100% back-up of its maximum output.” http://www.wind-watch.org/faq-output.php
“German households pay the second highest power costs in Europe. Only the Danes pay more, and both countries pay roughly 300% more for residential electricity than we Americans do.”
[…]
“To illustrate this, a 2009 study reported by CEPOS, a Danish think tank, found that while wind provided 19% of the country’s electricity generation, it only met an average 9.7% of the demand over a five year period, and a mere 5% during 2006.”
[…]
“According to 2012 EIA figures, slightly more than 42 % of U.S. electrical power came from coal, 25 % from natural gas, 19 % from nuclear, about 3.4 % from wind, and about 0.11 % from solar. Since 2009 American taxpayers have shelled out $14 billion in cash payments to solar, wind and other renewable energy project developers. This includes $9.2 billion to 748 small and large wind projects, and $2.7 billion to more than 44,000 solar projects, which will add just 48 terawatt- hours of electricity.” http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/08/13/german-green-energy-bluster-running-out-of-wind/2/
But look at all of the Jobs that are produced.
“Once again, the $2.6 billion Cape Wind construction is illustrative of how the overlaps can give the developer more in taxpayer-funded benefits than the project’s actual cost. Federal incentives, including a $780 million energy investment credit, a DOE loan guarantee, and accelerated depreciation could be more than $1.3 billion—or more than 50% of the project’s cost. But, this just represents the federal package. Add in state incentives and the combined total could be $4.3 billion—exceeding the projected cost by 167%. Cape Wind claims to create only 50 permanent jobs—which would equal a staggering $86 million per job.” http://www.cfact.org/2013/07/17/green-energy-often-a-very-bad-investment/#stha
Dumboldguy, help me out here.
Mr. Swallow, you are a Gish Gallop of endless mindless drivel. More is not better. Less and more accurate, with a little less breathless, emotional innuendo.
I guess you got excited after several of your canards went down in flames.
Like coal fires burning for millions of years.
Coal is wonderful. Are you a paid lobbyist for the coal industry or what? I mean you dont seem to be pushing natural gas, oil, or nuclear.
You asked, how much backup is needed for wind? Lets try to answer the questions one at a time, not create confusion by changing the subject as soon as we have been caught in a mistake.
Lets try to add enlightenment, not just an axed to grind, shall we?
“How much back-up power is needed for wind power? http://www.20percentwind.org/report/Chapter4_Transmission_and_Integration_into_the_US_Electric_System.pdf
“Although 12,000 MW of wind capacity have been installed in the United States, little or no backup capacity for wind energy has been added to date.”
Here is a compendium of sources all explaining why there is little or no backup required for wind energy at least until wind energy penetration is over 50%. But if you really want to know why the DOE and many other sources are saying that, just read. You have to have some understanding of the power system and it may require some degree of further study to comprehend it. http://www.awea.org/Issues/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=5454
But you did not answer my question about wood. What about wood? Should we all be grateful for wood? Explain your reasoning. Don,t just keep changing topic.
“3 Montana counties get failing grades for air quality http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/montana-counties-get-failing-grades-for-air-quality/article_0c9ef33b-580f-5ac8-a3d7-afd0277fe2fe.html
“HELENA — The American Lung Association is ranking three Montana counties as having some of the worst air quality in the nation with regards to particulates on a 24-hour basis.
Particulates would include the contents of wood smoke, both that produced by wildfires and also from homeowners who use wood as a source of heating during the winter months.
Receiving a failing grade from the American Lung Association State of the Air 2013 report are Lewis and Clark, Ravalli, and Butte-Silver Bow counties. Lewis and Clark County ranked 23rd worst in the nation for short-term particulate pollution, while Butte-Silver Bow County came in at 25th, according to the association’s report.”
Loading...
Christopher Arcus Says: “We should all be grateful for coal,eh? What about wood? And water power?” What about geothermal?
“Geothermal Energy: More Exciting than Media Thinks
Geothermal energy is hands down THE best renewable energy avenue out there: The Earth is always generating heat, and there won’t be any “peak heat”, nor could we ever extract this energy at the same pace with which the Earth generates it.
The idea of geothermal power has been around for ages: Italy built the world’s first power plant that generated electricity from the Earth’s heat over a hundred years ago. In 1957, New Zealand was next to latch onto the idea with its own geothermal power plant, followed two years later by the US, which today boasts the largest geothermal power capacity in the world.” http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Geothermal-Energy/Geothermal-Energy-More-Exciting-than-Media-Thinks.html>
I have been to New Zealand on three separate occasions and each time I saw the geothermal plant near Rotorua that is one of the first commercial plants ever built. The Navy has a similar plant at its China Lake base in California that supplies all of the bases power needs plus an excess that is sold to the grid.
“The Navy’s Geothermal Program Office, located at the China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station in California, manages and develops geothermal resources for the military. Currently, two geothermal power plants at China Lake are the only ones on military lands. A private company, which built, owns, and operates the power plants at China Lake, sells the electricity to a utility company and pays the Navy royalties on these sales as well as other types of compensation. GAO was asked to provide information on (1) the Navy’s annual revenues from the geothermal facility at China Lake, (2) how the Navy uses the revenues it collects from the geothermal facility, (3) the budget oversight the Navy provides programs funded from geothermal revenues, and (4) how the Navy’s geothermal program differs from BLM’s program.
The Navy received three types of payments from the geothermal power plant operator at China Lake that totaled, on average, $14.7 million annually between 1987 and 2003. During these years, the average annual royalty payment on the sale of electricity was about $11.5 million, payments toward the base’s electricity bill were about $2.7 million annually, and bonus payments to the base for using less electricity than it had projected averaged about $500,000 annually.” http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-513
Christopher Arcus: It appears that the government’s problem with the geothermal power plants at China Lake must be that they are making money and not costing the tax payer.
Geothermal energy is hands down THE best renewable energy avenue out there: The Earth is always generating heat, and there won’t be any “peak heat”, nor could we ever extract this energy at the same pace with which the Earth generates it.
Sorry, but you’re wrong there. The Earth’s heat flux is estimated at 47 TW. Total human energy consumption is about 400 quadrillion BTU/yr, or about 13 TW. Anything which brings the world’s poor close to Western standards of living will easily bring total human energy consumption above the total geothermal flux.
There’s also the little detail that 47 TW is just 92 mW/m^2. Compared to geothermal flows, sunlight is a massive torrent of energy averaging tens or hundreds of watts per square meter. The bulk of geothermal heat appears to flow out of oceanic spreading zones and volcanic hot spots, so most parts of the earth get far less. They may have hot rock now, but on the scale of human civilizations thsoe rocks are a non-renewable resource; if you extract the heat from them, that’s it for a few hundred generations.
Maybe that’s good enough for your purposes, but it’s not good to make promises you can’t keep.
Engineer-Poet: Show me how I AM wrong> How long have volcanoes been interrupting on earth? When you give me that answer, then come on back for a reality check
“National Grid can ask large buildings like hospitals or government offices to switch on their small diesel generators – which they keep just in case there’s a power cut – under a scheme called the Short Term Operating Reserve (STOR). The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) tells us that last year, approximately 496 megawatts of diesel generation were available through STOR.”
and
“STOR is mainly in place in case LARGE FOSSIL FUEL POWER (emphasis mine) plants fail, however, not to back up wind and solar power. National Grid’s head of energy, Richard Smith, tells us it’s actually fairly easy to predict when renewable generators won’t be able to provide power. And when they can’t, National Grid calls on conventional, cheap forms of generation – such as gas plants – to back up renewables – not STOR.
National Grid tells us STOR is instead used as short-term cover for when large power plants – often coal, gas or nuclear – unexpectedly stop working.”
Morin Moss: Just what is your point, or do you have one?
“The company that owns the UK’s supply network, National Grid, has to make sure electricity can get wherever it’s needed, whenever it’s wanted. This means it has to keep some power generation in reserve in case renewable sources can’t generate, or if large fossil fuel power plants unexpectedly fail.
Gas plants are the most common form of backup generation, and this has typically been what renewable energy critics have focused on – saying it’s a waste of money to keep gas plants online just for when renewable energy supply is low, when they could be generating all the time. But recently they’ve turned their attention to another backup source: diesel generation.” (MorinMoss: Show me how many “large fossil fuel power plants unexpectedly fail[ed]” It is a fact that gas plants are powered by fossil fuels; therefore, what is the big difference between diesel and gas other than needing to look at the number of diesel generators that must be kept to make up the deficient)
[…]
“At the moment, National Grid can ask large buildings like hospitals or government offices to switch on their small diesel generators – which they keep just in case there’s a power cut – under a scheme called the Short Term Operating Reserve (STOR).”
[…]
“STOR participants, Flexitricity and Kiwi Power, both say that while about 40 per cent of their portfolios include diesel generation, it’s rarely used.” (but it is still there)
“STOR is mainly in place in case LARGE FOSSIL FUEL POWER (emphasis mine) plants fail, however, not to back up wind and solar power. (As I asked previously, name when these LARGE FOSSIL FUEL POWER plants have failed.) National Grid’s head of energy, Richard Smith, tells us it’s actually fairly easy to predict when renewable generators won’t be able to provide power.(Is this so easy to predict?
“The figure on the right displays the total output for German wind turbines over the week of 10/2/08-10/9/08. While there is a peak on 10/05 of around 17,000 MW, the following day shows almost no output.”) http://www.umt.edu/ethics/Debating%20Science%20Program/ODC/climatechange/climatealternatives/windpowerforcoalpower.aspx
And when they can’t, National Grid calls on conventional, cheap forms of generation – such as gas plants – to back up renewables – not STOR.
National Grid tells us STOR is instead used as short-term cover for when large power plants – often coal, gas or nuclear – unexpectedly stop working.”
We all know that no moss grows on a rolling stone; but, how about a wind turbine blade that is not turning?
It appears that no wind or too much wind is not the only problem these things experience.
“FREDERICTON — A $200-million wind farm in northern New Brunswick is frozen solid, cutting off a potential supply of renewable energy for NB Power.
The 25-kilometre stretch of wind turbines, located 70 kilometres northwest of Bathurst, N.B. has been completely shutdown for several weeks due to heavy ice covering the blades.” http://www.nationalpost.com/Northern+Brunswick+wind+turbines+frozen+solid/4287063/story.html
Swallow, you posted a URL which in the link itself, the article heading on the web page AND the 1st paragraph all stated that dirty diesel is being used in secret to back up unreliable wind – which was flatly rebutted by a director of National Grid.
Your umt.edu link isn’t working, probably because of a redirect loop.
Regardless, Germany has been using wind power forecasting for over a decade and was claiming 90% accuracy as far back as 2005.
Moss, if you have problems with the source that I provided, then take it up with them. I’m sure that they will be happy that you have pointed out their supposed inaccuracies to them.
I had to do some research to get to the source of the information that I gave you the link for and I will expand some on it now:
“Description: Replace 700 GW of baseload coal-generated electricity with 2000 GWp of wind-generated electricity.2
This requires the construction of “2 million 1-MW-peak windmills (50 times the current capacity) “occupying” 30 million hectares, on land or offshore”. The difference in energy generation (addition of 2000 GWp wind vs. reduction of 700 GW of coal) arises from an accounting for the intermittent nature of wind power.”
[…]”Robustness/Appropriateness: Clearly, one of the major issues with wind power is the natural variability of wind. The figure on the right displays the total output for German wind turbines over the week of 10/2/08-10/9/08. While there is a peak on 10/05 of around 17,000 MW, the following day shows almost no output. This type of vacillation would fail to meet peak demand and could seriously damage a traditional power grid (Power Grid Limits). Replacing baseload coal power requires consistent production of energy. Without a robust supplementary storage system, it will be difficult to directly replace baseload production.” http://umt.edu/ethics/debating%20science%20program/odc/climatechange/climatealternatives/windpowerforcoalpower.php
Moss; You say: “Regardless, Germany has been using wind power forecasting for over a decade and was claiming 90% accuracy as far back as 2005.” It appears that “90% accuracy” made them rethink this project below.
“Bad green investments are already beginning to break
November 29, 2013
The German energy giant RWE Npower just pulled the plug on one of the world’s largest wind parks, the £4 billion Atlantic Array in the Bristol Channel. RWE did so for the stark reason that “the economics do not stack up”. It’s a mantra that well reflects the entire chaotic, incoherent and frankly competing elements at the heart of Europe’s energy policies
Moss; This pretty much sums it up: […] “And, on the other, the free market’s ability to generate all the power we need via cheaper and economically viable ‘dirty’ hydrocarbon resources. Put another way, idealism v realism. More specifically, how a democratic electorate views its key priorities when it comes to this tension.” http://www.trendingcentral.com/bad-green-investments-already-beginning-break/
Your comments are hard to swallow. You do research to find tiny tidbits that support your generally uninformed point of view, post them, see them go down in flames, and go back for more. Let me ask you this. What do you think you are accomplishing? Do you think you have impressed the half a dozen readers who commented on your falsehoods and discovered they were phony? Your ideas are nebulous and shifting. Try to stick to a clear point and research it fully from many resources. Otherwise, the readers of this blog may think you are not a reliable source of information, and your thinking is muddled, if that matters to you. Since it is you that have been caught in a falsehood, and not the other commenters, it would be helpful if your comments did not begin with derogatory tone,
“Could your inability to not understand..” I can state fairly categorically, that a lot of your persuasive reasoning is wrong. Why? Its based on a fallacy that one instance equals a general result. Whether its one source, or one instance. Take for example the reference to the Atlantic Array in the Bristol Channel. All kinds of projects for all kinds of energy sources have been proposed and cancelled. Citing one instance without comparison is of limited value. And yet we read,
“It’s a mantra that well reflects the entire chaotic, incoherent and frankly competing elements at the heart of Europe’s energy policies” After this breathtaking inferential leap, we are lead to “idealism vs. realism”.
How’s this for realism? “As of the third quarter of 2013 the capacity is now 60,078 MW.” Are we to believe that all that wind power is generated at a loss by utilities across the whole country who are idealists not interested in making money? Don’t answer that, its rhetorical. Your assertion fails.
“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_States”
I dont mind if you disagree or have a different point of view. I like to research and learn more. If I can, I like to enlighten and inform and share with others. Try to write as if someone else might read tomorrow or a decade from now. And if you are in blog conversation with someone, try to stick to one topic and cover it fully before you move on to another one. Otherwise, it just dwindles into a mass of confusing rhetoric with no value. By the way, this all started with coal dwindling. Do you have any comments on that?
“You do research to find tiny tidbits that support your generally uninformed point of view, post them, see them go down in flames, and go back for more. Let me ask you this. What do you think you are accomplishing? ”
Christopher Arcus : Please elucidate on that comment you made; what has gone down in flames?
“Your ideas are nebulous and shifting.” And that is your opinion, which at this point is worth next to nothing.
“Otherwise, the readers of this blog may think you are not a reliable source of information, and your thinking is muddled, if that matters to you. Since it is you that have been caught in a falsehood, and not the other commenters, it would be helpful if your comments did not begin with derogatory tone”: Christopher Arcus; Please point out, with references, “Since it is you that have been caught in a falsehood” I ask again, what falsehood?
“Take for example the reference to the Atlantic Array in the Bristol Channel.” If you do not like the reference, then take it up with the source, even you, Christopher Arcus, should be bright enough to figure that out.
“Do you have any comments on that?” Yes I do and I expect NO answer from you or any of the other participants on this thread that do not think I have a right to express my views, other than Peter Sinclair and, as always, I thank him for his open minded approach to this issue.
Christopher Arcus , it is time to cut out the conjecture and cut to the chase. All you need to do is show me a source that answers my challenge that I now submit to you or any other anthropogenic global warming zealot who thinks they have the proof of the experiment that “proves” your hypotheses. As soon as I see that then I to will become an “alarmist”.
I have a challenge for you: I ask you to provide me with the experiment that shows that CO2 does what you maintain as far as being the driver of the earth’s climate. I do not need to be reminded of Tyndall’s 1859 lab experiments that do not prove that humanity’s CO2 emissions are warming the planet. In the real world, other factors can influence and outweigh those lab findings and that is why these experiment must deal with the real world and not computer models that do not have the ability to factor in all of the variables that effect the earth’s climate. If you can not provide a verifiable experiment regarding the present amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and how it effects the climate and creates your anthropogenic global warming, then believing that it does so is akin to believing that Santa Clause is real and you need to be good to get something left under the tree.
(If you were going to bring up Svante Arrhenius , then you need to look into what this Swede said, and note that he did no experiments regarding CO2 and how it can change the earth’s climate.
“Linking the calculations of his abstract model to natural processes, Arrhenius estimated the effect of the burning of fossil fuels as a source of atmospheric CO2. He predicted that a doubling of CO2 due to fossil fuel burning alone would take 500 years and lead to temperature increases of 3 to 4 °C (about 5 to 7 °F). This is probably what has earned Arrhenius his present reputation as the first to have provided a model for the effect of industrial activity on global warming.”) http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/36084/Svante-August-Arrhenius
It is a fact that real scientist, and that you are not, devise experiments to either prove or disprove their hypotheses and welcome people to try to disprove them so that they can move on. They sure do not say that the science is settled and the argument is over because there are REAL scientist out there doing REAL scientific work that are not blinded by some agenda that they support so that they can get more “research” money or money to fund a boondoggle renewable energy scheme that will never work.
Albert Einstein addressed the theory of quantum entanglement. In Dec. of 2011 this experiment was carried out:
Quantum Entanglement Links 2 Diamonds
Usually a finicky phenomenon limited to tiny, ultracold objects, entanglement has now been achieved for macroscopic diamonds at room temperature http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=room-temperature-entanglement
Speaking of Albert Einstein, he had an answer for you continually trying to claim that there is a consensus for your flawed, unproven hypothesis regarding anthropogenic global warming, climate change or what ever you charlatans now call it: “Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of the truth” Albert Einstein
“New Data Boosts Case for Higgs Boson Find
The Higgs boson is the only particle theorized by the standard model of physics that hasn’t been conclusively observed in an experiment. The model describes how matter is built and how particles interact.” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324077704578359850108689618.html
It seems to me that if the experiments above could be devised and carried out, that one showing how carbon dioxide can cause the earth’s climate to act as you seem to want people to believe it does should have been carried out long ago. Since you can not produce such an experiment makes all of your obnoxious blustering and disrespectful manner all that much harder to stomach. You are a dishonest and delusional person but a fair representative for your cause that is sadly generally populated by dishonest people such as Al Gore, Michael Mann and James Hansen.
Don’t even try to answer that with more of your mindless lies because if you cant answer the challenge, you are a fraud of the worst kind and I must empathize, I do jot believe in what people think that are followers of a faith based religion, and that describes you unless you answer my challenge.
Loading...
appreciate your appreciation, but in the future, to foster better communication/conversation, keep posts shorter.
Loading...
What went down in flames was natural coal fires producing meaningful amounts of CO2. The contribution is minuscule. Our present rates of consumption are many times higher than the natural burn rate. See the graphs of co2 before mans industrial revolution coal use. Respond to that.
That’s one. Respond briefly. It should not be difficult.
It goes without saying that you did not answer my challenge about CO2. You instead come up with this bunch of garbage: “The contribution is minuscule. Our present rates of consumption are many times higher than the natural burn rate. See the graphs……” What graphs? Here are some graphs for you to look at.
Thursday, August 29, 2013 Temperature drops but CO2 goes up.
Hadley Centre Central England Temperature (HadCET) dataset
The CET dataset is the longest instrumental record of temperature in the world. The mean, minimum and maximum datasets are updated monthly, with data for a month usually available by the 3rd of the next month. A provisional CET value for the current month is calculated on a daily basis. The mean daily data series begins in 1772 and the mean monthly data in 1659. Mean maximum and minimum daily and monthly data are also available, beginning in 1878. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
Not that you can do this, think, but don’t you realize that all of the CO2 that is now in coal, and fossil fuels was at one time in the atmosphere. If not, then where was it and it seems that the earth survived all of that 800+ppm CO2 in its atmosphere then; so, why would 400ppm now be a problem?
It must be noted here that the decline in US coal consumption is due in large part to the unprecedented supply and cheapness of natural gas at the moment. About 90% of US coal consumption is “steam coal”, mostly used in electric generation. This competes directly with natural gas.
A substantial fraction of this natural gas glut comes from unconventional sources. Some of this is “associated gas” from oil drilling; this gas would likely be produced regardless, and the supply will track the profitability of the unconventional oil resources from which it comes. The rest is “wet gas” and “dry gas”. “Wet gas” has lots of NGLs (natural gas liquids, ethane up through butanes), which are a lot more profitable than the gas itself. “Dry gas” has little in the way of liquids, and is not profitable to drill at this time. Further, “wet gas” wells dry out relatively quickly. When the price a producer can get for the stream coming from a well falls below the cost of operating that well, it will be “shut in” to wait for market prices to rise.
What does this mean? It means that the glut of natural gas is a temporary thing, and the unprofitability of coal is similarly temporary. There are huge amounts in Australia, and so much of Alaska is underlain by coal that it seems doubtful that an energy-starved world would do without it voluntarily.
If there’s a solution that leaves it in the ground, it involves energy cheaper than coal. Robert Hargraves literally wrote the book on that one.
A lot of what you are saying about the economics is correct, however I think the issue is bigger than what you outline. Yes gas is displacing a lot of coal fired electricity right now and this will likely taper off in the near future, however the premise of this report (and the youtube video I linked below) are that even if you remove the temporary price decrease caused by gas, we still are getting up against the wall with regard to available coal.
The Powder River Basin in Wyoming is now responsible for something like 40% of US coal production, but the current mines only have a few years left in them before new mines will have to be opened up. This is possible, however the new mines will be in places with much deeper overburden (the soil to be removed before getting to the coal seam) and they also have much lower stripping ratios (the ratio of tons of coal produced to tons of dirt moved to produce it). This lower stripping ratio is caused both by the coal seam being deeper underground, but also thinner.
It is these changes to the underlying economics of mining that are going to be the death knell for coal. Sure, the natural gas boom will taper off and that will lead to a small resurgence in coal demand justifying a little bit higher price, but the price can’t move upward very much at all before other options become more economical (wind, solar, etc).
Finally, more and more coal (as a percentage) is coming out of Wyoming, however very little of it is actually burned there. As the east coast mines continue to decline it will become less feasable to power the east coast on coal due to the extra cost of moving it there from Wyoming, instead of the local mines like they do now.
-AndrewBuck
Once there’s enough overburden, mining will shift from opencast to underground room-and-pillar or longwall. Underground gasification is another up-and-coming technology.
If we want to get rid of coal burning, we have to have something that generates electricity cheaper than it can.
Andrew-You are wise to take a wider view. I dont think natural gas is the only thing displacing coal. Wind is making an impact in the midwest. If coal costs increase, wind will grow even more. In fact, I predict that wind and solar will increase as coal and gas decline. I do not think coal will return when gas declines. The writing is on the wall for both of them. This isnt rocket science. Renewables are declining in costs, while fossil fuel generation has ever increasing fuel costs.
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/wind-picks-up-as-coal-declines-in-midwest
I’m not so sure about that. Installation of wind goes up and down with the PTC and other incentives, not so much fuel prices. Of late, the PTC has been useless due to a lack of profits for credits to offset, so wind farms have depended more on a first-year 30% tax credit with all electric sales at wholesale. THAT is going to be interesting, because those farms will no longer have any incentive to sell at below-zero prices, and will curtail output in cartel-like collusion to create the most profit. But maintaining profit also pays the fossil generators… what to do?
Iowa is one of the powerhouses of wind generation in the USA. The Duane Arnold nuclear plant still supplies about 10% of Iowa’s electricity, and the state should be glad to have it. Carbon-free power that’s there 24/7 is better than fickle power.
Wind energy is ages old. Wind was available for electric generation from the invention of the first dynamo, but it never really caught on except where (a) there was no grid or (b) it was favored by policy. The grid needs generation to match demand within a small tolerance at all times. To make wind and solar economic to time-shift, the cost of fossil fuels has to rise to the cost of storage. The cost of time-shifting RE increases with the duration of the shift, so this isn’t a trivial problem.
I once thought that something like direct-carbon fuel cells would allow renewable charcoal to provide that long-duration time-shifting of energy (months, if not years), but I see no sign of that happening. It ought to be decreasing in cost also. I lack the information to understand the hangup.
Wind is making an impact on coal in the Midwest today. I don’t see how the wind ptc, which is about 2c/kwhr is going to make make much difference if coal and oil become scarce in 20 years. Right now, I agree the ptc will make a difference in wind build rates. For the next 20, maybe gas has more impact on all other sources. There is evidence that the gas frolic is very short lived. As fuel costs increase, renewables become more attractive as a means of reducing fuel costs. That is winds biggest contribution now. Solar is different. It has major implications for peak daytime energy use, particularly summer. It already has dramatically affected peak rates in some seasons in Germany.
The reason storage does not matter for wind or solar today is that the grid already has huge reserves for the daily 2 to 1 load swings and the even larger seasonal load swings. Reserves are 1.5x load generation daily in a good system. As that ratio decreases, reliability drops and outages increase. Utilities report very modest reserve needs for intermittent renewables until penetrations are much higher, exceeding 50%. The power is composed of many sources. For now and a ways into the future, utilities tend to prefer reserves over storage. That will change. There is plenty of wind and solar out there, yet comparatively little storage as yet. It’s not needed now, even in Iowa, with 25% wind. Read the report, it’s an eye opener, but longish.
http://www.20percentwind.org/report/Chapter4_Transmission_and_Integration_into_the_US_Electric_System.pdf
Ignoring the obligatory last paragraph pitch (ha ha), I agree.
Glustrom may be right (or close to right) about the lower 48, but there’s still a lot of coal left:
http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/10/28/when-will-australia%E2%80%99s-coal-run-out/
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/massive-energy-source-alaska-coal-still-largely-undeveloped
I also strongly believe coal will have a resurgence in the States when NG prices rise (inevitable). The recent coal production decrease in the lower 48 could also be more from current decrease in demand due to the upsurge in NG.
The big reason why Britain once thought it had 1K years of reserves left is because it failed to account for growth – which is a common pattern we still see today.
There are also large coal reserves around in the Antarctica and I can see it being exploited there after the ban on mineral resource exploitation runs out in 2048, certainly some countries are beginning to eye it up, unless something huge changes various world government’s attitudes to the IPCC Assessment Report warnings. Nearby NZ is strongly encouraging exploration for oil in it’s waters. http://nz.finance.yahoo.com/news/norwegian-oil-giant-statoil-takes-220700280.html
Jimbills-nice post. It’s hard to predict what will happen. A lot depends on the growth of electricity demand and renewables. For the near term demand contraction and renewable growth are contributing to coals demise. Fossil fuels are continuing cost escalation as they dwindle. In transportation, dominated by the closed US market and oil monopolies, the only alternative is the resultant lower miles traveled and lower auto ownership. That may change as hybrids and EVs make inroads. In electricity, utilities have always relied on a mix, no energy source monopolies dominate. Thus coal, oil, nuclear, and gas have traditionally battles it out. Now solar and wind have made inroads. Only rooftop solar challenges the existing monopolistic infrastructure and that is the mist resistance. Utilities will use whatever is cheapest, but coal will never be cheap again. Once gas runs out, fuel costs will start to soar and the economics will drive renewables even faster. Ironically, cheap natural gas is not really a bridge to anything, unless governments get proactive and do something meaningful in the interim. Solar stands to benefit the most, because it still has room to lower costs over time. There may be some resurgence in coal as gas runs out, but the biggest resurgence will be conservation and renewables. A lot depends on the third world and China. China’s economy is slowing as coal pollution puts a drag on it. As coal becomes scarcer, prices rise, and that also slows China’s growth. China’s growth has been unsustainable for a long time. Their coal reserves are already dwindling and they will eat up Australian coal quickly. Alaskan or Siberian sources are going to be wickedly difficult and more expensive. At some point, as alternatives mature, it will be cheaper to leave fossil fuels buried and stop digging up our own graves.
For those interested, here is a really interesting talk on youtube by Leslie, it is about 20 minutes long and I think probably covers much of the same material as this report (although I am just starting into the report myself so I don’t know for sure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0y3KPmM22g
I definitely recommend watching this as it is well presented and she does a very good job backing up her position with data.
-AndrewBuck
Leslie makes a powerful case, and seems to be increasingly supported by developments on the ground
It sure is a good thing we changed the name of global warming to climate change (disruption) because now we can continue to confidently blame the deaths resulting from this national cold snap on AGW (without that uncomfortable dissonance).
Err…ya know, AGW needs to go to ACC or ACD I would submit.
Uh, k-dube? Who is the “we” that changed the name of global warning to climate change?
Climate change has always been with us, and it’s the anthropogenic WARMING now occurring that we are most worried about. It’s foremost among the many “disruptions” that man has brought to the planet, and there doesn’t seem to be a need to change horses (or names) in midstream.
And by “the national cold snap”, do you mean the one that recently killed uncounted numbers of cattle out west? Just another one of those extreme events (like the Boulder floods) that we can expect to see more frequently as AGW progresses. What’s “dissonant” about that?
The name of the IPCC hasn’t changed since its founding in 1988. And guess what the “CC” stands for.
http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_history.shtml
Who is “we”? The IPClimateChange or Frank Luntz, Republican rightwingnut spin doctor?
Prior to a little memo he wrote, George W Bush used global warming most frequently.
After Luntz’ “words that word” advice, it was climate change, all the time but for decades before that the 2 terms were used interchangeably.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqMunulJU7w
as always, best to watch all the vids before embarrassing yourself with ignorance like this
Love the closing statement but I think you need to beef up the dramatic voice somewhat and I was really hoping you’d throw “dastardly” in there somewhere.
Kingdube – what say you to this?
Will you continue to deny that the claim of a switcheroo of terms by AGW proponents was a contrarian hoax?
Most of the alarmist and their war on coal should consider that maybe they are trying to cripple the wrong country with their stance on carbon based energy and maybe should move to China to wage their war?
China is going coal crazy: imports jump 56%
Frik Els | February 8, 2013
Chinese customs data out on Friday show imports of coal amounted to 30.5 million tonnes in January, up 56.3% compared to 2012, already a record year.
http://www.mining.com/china-is-going-coal-crazy-imports-jump-56-75637/
CHART: China is burning coal at an insane rate
Frik Els | January 29, 2013
[…]
“Growth in coal consumption in China has been even more spectacular than its output growth – growing for 12 years in a row – according to newly released international data from the US Energy Information Administration (EIA):
China’s coal use grew by 325 million tons in 2011, accounting for 87% of the 374 million ton global increase in coal use. Of the 2.9 billion tons of global coal demand growth since 2000, China accounted for 2.3 billion tons (82%). China now accounts for 47% of global coal consumption—almost as much as the entire rest of the world combined.”
http://www.mining.com/chinese-coal-imports-could-jump-to-500m-tonnes-in-3-years-89246/
It doesn’t appear that the Canadians are paying much heed to your gnashing of teeth either.
Canadian mining and oil companies set to expand staff numbers
Marc Howe | February 6, 2013
http://www.mining.com/canadian-mining-and-oil-companies-plan-to-expand-headcounts-50586/
http://climatecrocks.com/2013/09/17/chinas-coming-war-on-coal/
Since we’re talking about coal and Canada, I’d like to point out that Ontario has been running on relatively little coal in recent years – down from 25% ten years ago to being completely phased out in another year.
Neighboring Quebec has no coal plants ( and probably never has ) and only 2 operating thermal stations.
On the other side of the continent, British Columbia exports coal for steelmaking but burns none of it locally.
So, without looking at any other region, it’s clear that ~80% of Canada’s people have coal-free power.
And yet Canada has the second highest per capita CO2 emissions, and is eighth worldwide. Probably has a lot to do with tar sands.
To give an idea of how much disparity there is in Canadian per-capita emissions, Ontario, Quebec & British Columbia with 80% of the total population are in the 10-13 tonnes per cap range.
But Alberta & Saskatchewan, with a combined population of just 5 million are in the 65-70 tonnes range, which I find utterly ridiculous.
The remaining 2 million in the other provinces range from 15-25 tonnes CO2 per capita, still quite high.
I assume they, the anthropogenic global warming alarmist, would rather see the coal burn up in the ground as has happened in the past if one observes the scoria hills that are caused from coal burning underground at some time in the past.
“Coal fires continue to be a problem throughout the Powder River Basin, said Ed Heffern, a geologist with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. He has studied coal fires in the Powder River Basin extensively.
“I know of about 80 active or historic coal fires in the Powder River Basin, both in Wyoming and Montana,” Heffern said.
Underground coal fires have been burning in the Powder River Basin for more than 4 million years, Heffern said. The burning coal melts the layers just above it into hard rock called “scoria” or “clinker.” The BLM can estimate the amount of coal that has burned from the amount of clinker around.
The BLM has mapped about 1,500 square miles of clinker in the Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming. That works out to about 47 billion tons of Powder River Basin coal burned in prehistoric times.
The line of coal mines in southern Campbell County is built on the far eastern edge of the mine-able coal. All of the coal east of the mines already has burned, creating the scoria-rich Rochelle Hills.”
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/article_a6388b30-495e-11df-a060-001cc4c002e0.html
I don’t think that there is are any scrubbers or any thing to clean up the air from these fires and they must have produced CO2 when the 47 billion tons of coal burned in the Powder Basin.
good point about underground fires. one more reason not to mine coal, as mining activities start these fires, and have caused, in some cases, towns to be abandoned. might be a good, cost effective(?) place to work on reducing emissions.
Given that coal fires have burned in the Powder River basin since long before humans made it to the Americas, it’s silly to ascribe everything to mining. All it takes is one outcrop to be struck by lightning, or ignited by a forest fire.
those background level fires are not the source of the problem, but might be still good places to start on solutions.
Like drilling to define the extent of the active fire, and mining around it like digging a firebreak?
Greenman3610: Could your inability to not understand that these coal fires have been burning for millions of years: “Underground coal fires have been burning in the Powder River Basin for more than 4 million years, Heffern said.” demonstrate an attitude about coal that I well imagine caused you to use the photo “Smoke and no Mirror” that was more than likely taken in China or India; countries that are not mentioned when the IPCC comes up with their list of targets to cut back on CO2 emissions because they know what the answer will be from these two nations? I have been to China four times and one can see such views as your photo; but, I have never seen any thing like that in the U.S. even though many times photos of cooling towers are presented on cold days to try to erroneously make ignorant people into believing the steam is coal smoke.
if they have been burning for millions of years, then they have been part of the background, like volcanoes. I’ve not studied the history of these particular fires, some of which I understand are natural, others man-made.
In any case, don’t presume that the next 20 years in China will be like the last. With literally millions dying prematurely from pollution, coal burning has become a real source of social unrest – and the Chinese leadership does not have to be reminded what happens when unrest continues for long in China.
Take a look at the historical CO2.record before the industrial revolution. That’s right. Practically nothing before 1800. If natural coal fires dominated emissions you would see it. No evidence. The CO2 record proves the dominant CO2 is man burning coal, not nature.
Here are some FACTS about coal and if you can see where these are not facts, then point them out:
‘Earth Hour?!’ Celebrate Coal not Candles: ‘It was coal that produced clean electric power which cleared the smog produced by dirty combustion & open fires in big cities like London and Pittsburgh’
‘It was coal that saved the forests being felled to fuel the first steam engines and produce charcoal for the first iron smelters. It was coal that powered the light bulbs and saved the whales being slaughtered for whale oil lamps. Without coal, we would be back in the dark days of candles, wood stoves, chip heaters, open fires, smoky cities, hills bare of trees and streets knee deep in horse manure’
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2012/03/time-to-celebrate-coal-not-candles-viv-forbes/
I have been to many countries that if they have electricity it is intermittent and unreliable. I believe the answer in the US is for the coal fired power plants to just say “to hell with it” and shut down and then see how long it takes for certain people to come begging when the wind that only supplies 1% of the world’s electrical needs quits blowing .
“How much back-up power is needed for wind power?
According to Eon Netz, one of the four grid managers in Germany, with 7,050 MW of wind power capacity installed in its area at the end of 2004, the amount of back-up required was over 80%, which was the maximum output observed from all of their wind power facilities together. That is, for every 10 MW of wind power added to the system in this case, at least 8 MW of back-up power must also be dedicated.
In other words, wind needs 100% back-up of its maximum output.”
http://www.wind-watch.org/faq-output.php>
This is the back up in the UK:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2362762/The-dirty-secret-Britains-power-madness-Polluting-diesel-generators-built-secret-foreign-companies-kick-theres-wind-turbines–insane-true-eco-scandals.html#ixzz2ZgqLdgdK
“I have been to many countries that if they have electricity it is intermittent and unreliable. I believe the answer in the US is for the coal fired power plants to just say “to hell with it” and shut down and then see how long it takes for certain people to come begging when the wind that only supplies 1% of the world’s electrical needs quits blowing .”
Er, many countries? How many and what are their names?
And none of them is using coal for power generation?
Since coal is so wonderful & lifesaving, then rather than shut down all the coal plants, let shut down everything else.
So off go the hydro stations, all the nuclear plants ( sorry, Engineer-Poet ), pull shades over all the solar panels and chop the blades from the wind turbines and plug up the geothermal plants and all We Merry Old Souls will join hands and sing the praises of Old King Coal.
So, any way Moss, how many countries have you been to? I have been to 54, I think it is- not going to count them for you. I have been to several of them numerous times and again not going to count those for you.
Two that come to mind is Tanzania where I was in 2011 and have only been there once. In the three weeks that I was there I did go up Kilimanjaro and did see that there are glaciers left on the highest mountain in Africa and did see that the reason the climate on the mountain is changing is because of the old growth forest having been cut and replaced with non native trees.
“Tanzania faces new round of power-rationing”
Tanzania’s state-run power company announced on Wednesday daily 16-hour power cuts for a
week starting from Thursday due to an expected shortfall of up
to 350 megawatts (MW) on the national grid.”
http://archive.abndigital.com/page/news/sens/512618-Tanzania-faces-new-round-of-power-rationing
I have been to Nepal on three separate occasions to do the Everest Base Camp trek, The Annapurna Circuit and the Poon Hill Hike. Actual some of the villages in the mountains have a more steady supply of electricity than what Kathmandu has because they have their own hydro plants. There was no hydro produced electricity in Manang when I was there for 2 nights because a belt on the Italian generator was broken and they were waiting weeks for a replacement while using gas power generator sets burning fuel packed in on someone’s back or by horse. I did not see any coal fired power house in either Tanzania or Nepal but if they would have supplied a steady and reliable supply of electricity, I well imagine they would have been very happy to have had them.
Where I am now uses hydro, natural gas and coal that was mostly mined in country but now most of the coal is imported. The point is, they have a steady supply of electricity and that is in Thailand.
“For the domestic coal business, although the Company’s own indigenous coal resources have become exhausted but the domestic coal consumption continues to rise particularly from the cement and electricity industries and other small to medium industrial operators. With limited coal resources in the Country, coals need to be imported for the domestic consumption. The Company imports coal from its joint-venture coal mining projects in Indonesia and also procures from other sources to meet the demand by either direct shipment to the customers or by storing and processing at the Company’s Ayutthaya Coal Center before delivery. The Company sold close to a million tons of imported coal in 2006.
The Company has an aggressive plan and is in the process of acquiring additional good quality coal reserves overseas to strengthen its core business for both domestic and international markets, as well as looking for other related investment opportunities. With its long term goal to become one of the leading energy providers in the region, Lanna Resources is actively pursuing energy production, distribution, trading and diversification, in the coal and other alternative energy or resource businesses.”
http://www.lannar.com/idxcp.htm
Another point is Moss, no one is listening to you and your take on coal if they want cheap and steady power supplies.
a couple years ago, 600 million people lost power when the grid blacked out in coal-heavy India.
This would be far less likely in a world with distributed renewable energy, where populations would be much more secure against natural, or terrorist caused blackouts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/world/asia/power-outages-hit-600-million-in-india.html?_r=0
Mr Swallow, here’s a tip. Readers are leaders.
greenman3610: I had read this report right after it was published; therefore, what is the meaning of the “Mr Swallow, here’s a tip. Readers are leaders.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/world/asia/power-outages-hit-600-million-in-india.html?pagewanted=all
When I read the article there were some things that I noticed that follows. What did your note from your reading?
“Part of the problem is access; more than 300 million people in India still have no electricity.”
[…]
“But India’s power generation capacity also has not kept pace with growth. Demand outpaced supply by 10.2 percent in March, government statistics show.” (and some believe that windmills will get them up to speed?)
[…]
“In recent years, India’s government has set ambitious goals for expanding power generation capacity, and while new plants have come online, many more have faced delays, whether because of bureaucratic entanglements, environmental concerns or other problems.” ( Does this sound familiar and look at how much good the government did when they injected themselves into this problem? At least the Indians are smart enough to not say ”
“India depends on coal for more than half of its power generation, but production has barely increased, with some power plants idled for lack of coal.” (Now we have a war on coal production in the US. How smart is that??
“When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal…under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket…..” Obama)
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/02/obama-ill-make-energy-prices-skyrocket/
[…]
“India’s public distribution utilities are now in deep debt, which makes it harder to encourage investment in the power sector. Tuesday’s blackout struck some analysts as evidence of a system in distress. (This is how government intervention in the private sector pays off)
[…]
“In Lucknow, capital of India’s most populous state, Uttar Pradesh, Dr. Sachendra Raj said his private hospital was using two large rented generators to power air-conditioners and dialysis machines.”
“It’s a very common problem,” he said of power failures. “It’s part and parcel of our daily life.” (It will also become the norm in US under the current approach to electricity and how it is produced)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/world/asia/power-outages-hit-600-million-in-india.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0>
Greenman3610: Here’s a tip. Readers that can think and understand what they read are leaders.
what you are describing is a centralized grid that does not and can not work – exactly the reason that citizens in the third world will not wait for a grid to be built to first world standards, any more than they waited for telephone lines to be built out. They are already beginning to leapfrog to renewables, which make even more sense in the areas not currently served.
sorry, reality and progress happen.
Crock. You have no idea how an electric power system works. Iowa, Denmark, Spain, Germany, are all greater than 20% wind today, and the list goes on. Do a little research from unbiased sources to get up to speed. Ever hear of NREL? IEEE? Western Wind and Solar Integration Study? While we are at it, ponder how much backup is required for a large thermal power plant. Yes, a lot. Probably never saw a daily demand curve, try looking at caiso. Notice that reserve capacity is always 50% higher than load. The problem is the false assumption that conventional plants don’t have backup. Germany, where renewables are used, has the highest reliability. It is a net exporter and the strongest economy. I don’t think a windbaggers internet campaign is going to slow the German economy or reduce its use of renewables. We should all be grateful for coal,eh? What about wood? And water power?
Christopher Arcus Says: “Iowa, Denmark, Spain, Germany, are all greater than 20% wind today, and the list goes on.” but did not mention this fact:
“Climate mania impoverishes electricity customers worldwide
Global-warming-related catastrophes are increasingly hitting vulnerable populations around the world, with one species in particular danger: the electricity ratepayer. In Canada, in the U.K., in Spain, in Denmark, in Germany and elsewhere the danger to ratepayers is especially great, but ratepayers in one country — the U.S. — seem to have weathered the worst of the disaster.
America’s secret? Unlike leaders in other countries, which to their countries’ ruin adopted policies as if global warming mattered, U.S. leaders more paid lip service to it. While citizens in other countries are now seeing soaring power rates, American householders can look forward to declining rates.”
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/05/11/lawrence-solomon-green-power-failure/
“How much back-up power is needed for wind power?
According to Eon Netz, one of the four grid managers in Germany, with 7,050 MW of wind power capacity installed in its area at the end of 2004, the amount of back-up required was over 80%, which was the maximum output observed from all of their wind power facilities together. That is, for every 10 MW of wind power added to the system in this case, at least 8 MW of back-up power must also be dedicated.
In other words, wind needs 100% back-up of its maximum output.”
http://www.wind-watch.org/faq-output.php
“German households pay the second highest power costs in Europe. Only the Danes pay more, and both countries pay roughly 300% more for residential electricity than we Americans do.”
[…]
“To illustrate this, a 2009 study reported by CEPOS, a Danish think tank, found that while wind provided 19% of the country’s electricity generation, it only met an average 9.7% of the demand over a five year period, and a mere 5% during 2006.”
[…]
“According to 2012 EIA figures, slightly more than 42 % of U.S. electrical power came from coal, 25 % from natural gas, 19 % from nuclear, about 3.4 % from wind, and about 0.11 % from solar. Since 2009 American taxpayers have shelled out $14 billion in cash payments to solar, wind and other renewable energy project developers. This includes $9.2 billion to 748 small and large wind projects, and $2.7 billion to more than 44,000 solar projects, which will add just 48 terawatt- hours of electricity.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/08/13/german-green-energy-bluster-running-out-of-wind/2/
But look at all of the Jobs that are produced.
“Once again, the $2.6 billion Cape Wind construction is illustrative of how the overlaps can give the developer more in taxpayer-funded benefits than the project’s actual cost. Federal incentives, including a $780 million energy investment credit, a DOE loan guarantee, and accelerated depreciation could be more than $1.3 billion—or more than 50% of the project’s cost. But, this just represents the federal package. Add in state incentives and the combined total could be $4.3 billion—exceeding the projected cost by 167%. Cape Wind claims to create only 50 permanent jobs—which would equal a staggering $86 million per job.”
http://www.cfact.org/2013/07/17/green-energy-often-a-very-bad-investment/#stha
Dumboldguy, help me out here.
Mr. Swallow, you are a Gish Gallop of endless mindless drivel. More is not better. Less and more accurate, with a little less breathless, emotional innuendo.
I guess you got excited after several of your canards went down in flames.
Like coal fires burning for millions of years.
Coal is wonderful. Are you a paid lobbyist for the coal industry or what? I mean you dont seem to be pushing natural gas, oil, or nuclear.
You asked, how much backup is needed for wind? Lets try to answer the questions one at a time, not create confusion by changing the subject as soon as we have been caught in a mistake.
Lets try to add enlightenment, not just an axed to grind, shall we?
“How much back-up power is needed for wind power?
http://www.20percentwind.org/report/Chapter4_Transmission_and_Integration_into_the_US_Electric_System.pdf
“Although 12,000 MW of wind capacity have been installed in the United States, little or no backup capacity for wind energy has been added to date.”
Here is a compendium of sources all explaining why there is little or no backup required for wind energy at least until wind energy penetration is over 50%. But if you really want to know why the DOE and many other sources are saying that, just read. You have to have some understanding of the power system and it may require some degree of further study to comprehend it.
http://www.awea.org/Issues/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=5454
But you did not answer my question about wood. What about wood? Should we all be grateful for wood? Explain your reasoning. Don,t just keep changing topic.
So, Christopher Arcus, reply to this, you dud!
“3 Montana counties get failing grades for air quality
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/montana-counties-get-failing-grades-for-air-quality/article_0c9ef33b-580f-5ac8-a3d7-afd0277fe2fe.html
“HELENA — The American Lung Association is ranking three Montana counties as having some of the worst air quality in the nation with regards to particulates on a 24-hour basis.
Particulates would include the contents of wood smoke, both that produced by wildfires and also from homeowners who use wood as a source of heating during the winter months.
Receiving a failing grade from the American Lung Association State of the Air 2013 report are Lewis and Clark, Ravalli, and Butte-Silver Bow counties. Lewis and Clark County ranked 23rd worst in the nation for short-term particulate pollution, while Butte-Silver Bow County came in at 25th, according to the association’s report.”
Christopher Arcus Says: “We should all be grateful for coal,eh? What about wood? And water power?” What about geothermal?
“Geothermal Energy: More Exciting than Media Thinks
Geothermal energy is hands down THE best renewable energy avenue out there: The Earth is always generating heat, and there won’t be any “peak heat”, nor could we ever extract this energy at the same pace with which the Earth generates it.
The idea of geothermal power has been around for ages: Italy built the world’s first power plant that generated electricity from the Earth’s heat over a hundred years ago. In 1957, New Zealand was next to latch onto the idea with its own geothermal power plant, followed two years later by the US, which today boasts the largest geothermal power capacity in the world.”
http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Geothermal-Energy/Geothermal-Energy-More-Exciting-than-Media-Thinks.html>
I have been to New Zealand on three separate occasions and each time I saw the geothermal plant near Rotorua that is one of the first commercial plants ever built. The Navy has a similar plant at its China Lake base in California that supplies all of the bases power needs plus an excess that is sold to the grid.
“The Navy’s Geothermal Program Office, located at the China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station in California, manages and develops geothermal resources for the military. Currently, two geothermal power plants at China Lake are the only ones on military lands. A private company, which built, owns, and operates the power plants at China Lake, sells the electricity to a utility company and pays the Navy royalties on these sales as well as other types of compensation. GAO was asked to provide information on (1) the Navy’s annual revenues from the geothermal facility at China Lake, (2) how the Navy uses the revenues it collects from the geothermal facility, (3) the budget oversight the Navy provides programs funded from geothermal revenues, and (4) how the Navy’s geothermal program differs from BLM’s program.
The Navy received three types of payments from the geothermal power plant operator at China Lake that totaled, on average, $14.7 million annually between 1987 and 2003. During these years, the average annual royalty payment on the sale of electricity was about $11.5 million, payments toward the base’s electricity bill were about $2.7 million annually, and bonus payments to the base for using less electricity than it had projected averaged about $500,000 annually.”
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-513
Christopher Arcus: It appears that the government’s problem with the geothermal power plants at China Lake must be that they are making money and not costing the tax payer.
Here is what one of the “Greens” hated energy companies has been doing and note that there is little to no tax payer money involved in their developing this additional oil from an old field.
“Chevron Uses Solar-Thermal Steam to Extract Oil in California”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-03/chevron-using-solar-thermal-steam-at-enhanced-oil-recovery-plant.html
Sorry, but you’re wrong there. The Earth’s heat flux is estimated at 47 TW. Total human energy consumption is about 400 quadrillion BTU/yr, or about 13 TW. Anything which brings the world’s poor close to Western standards of living will easily bring total human energy consumption above the total geothermal flux.
There’s also the little detail that 47 TW is just 92 mW/m^2. Compared to geothermal flows, sunlight is a massive torrent of energy averaging tens or hundreds of watts per square meter. The bulk of geothermal heat appears to flow out of oceanic spreading zones and volcanic hot spots, so most parts of the earth get far less. They may have hot rock now, but on the scale of human civilizations thsoe rocks are a non-renewable resource; if you extract the heat from them, that’s it for a few hundred generations.
Maybe that’s good enough for your purposes, but it’s not good to make promises you can’t keep.
Engineer-Poet: Show me how I AM wrong> How long have volcanoes been interrupting on earth? When you give me that answer, then come on back for a reality check
John Douglas swallow this – http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/08/diesel-generation-won%E2%80%99t-be-used-as-renewables-backup,-despite-critics%E2%80%99-claims
Here’s a couple excerpts:
“National Grid can ask large buildings like hospitals or government offices to switch on their small diesel generators – which they keep just in case there’s a power cut – under a scheme called the Short Term Operating Reserve (STOR). The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) tells us that last year, approximately 496 megawatts of diesel generation were available through STOR.”
and
“STOR is mainly in place in case LARGE FOSSIL FUEL POWER (emphasis mine) plants fail, however, not to back up wind and solar power. National Grid’s head of energy, Richard Smith, tells us it’s actually fairly easy to predict when renewable generators won’t be able to provide power. And when they can’t, National Grid calls on conventional, cheap forms of generation – such as gas plants – to back up renewables – not STOR.
National Grid tells us STOR is instead used as short-term cover for when large power plants – often coal, gas or nuclear – unexpectedly stop working.”
Morin Moss: Just what is your point, or do you have one?
“The company that owns the UK’s supply network, National Grid, has to make sure electricity can get wherever it’s needed, whenever it’s wanted. This means it has to keep some power generation in reserve in case renewable sources can’t generate, or if large fossil fuel power plants unexpectedly fail.
Gas plants are the most common form of backup generation, and this has typically been what renewable energy critics have focused on – saying it’s a waste of money to keep gas plants online just for when renewable energy supply is low, when they could be generating all the time. But recently they’ve turned their attention to another backup source: diesel generation.” (MorinMoss: Show me how many “large fossil fuel power plants unexpectedly fail[ed]” It is a fact that gas plants are powered by fossil fuels; therefore, what is the big difference between diesel and gas other than needing to look at the number of diesel generators that must be kept to make up the deficient)
[…]
“At the moment, National Grid can ask large buildings like hospitals or government offices to switch on their small diesel generators – which they keep just in case there’s a power cut – under a scheme called the Short Term Operating Reserve (STOR).”
[…]
“STOR participants, Flexitricity and Kiwi Power, both say that while about 40 per cent of their portfolios include diesel generation, it’s rarely used.” (but it is still there)
“STOR is mainly in place in case LARGE FOSSIL FUEL POWER (emphasis mine) plants fail, however, not to back up wind and solar power. (As I asked previously, name when these LARGE FOSSIL FUEL POWER plants have failed.) National Grid’s head of energy, Richard Smith, tells us it’s actually fairly easy to predict when renewable generators won’t be able to provide power.(Is this so easy to predict?
“The figure on the right displays the total output for German wind turbines over the week of 10/2/08-10/9/08. While there is a peak on 10/05 of around 17,000 MW, the following day shows almost no output.”)
http://www.umt.edu/ethics/Debating%20Science%20Program/ODC/climatechange/climatealternatives/windpowerforcoalpower.aspx
And when they can’t, National Grid calls on conventional, cheap forms of generation – such as gas plants – to back up renewables – not STOR.
National Grid tells us STOR is instead used as short-term cover for when large power plants – often coal, gas or nuclear – unexpectedly stop working.”
We all know that no moss grows on a rolling stone; but, how about a wind turbine blade that is not turning?
It appears that no wind or too much wind is not the only problem these things experience.
“FREDERICTON — A $200-million wind farm in northern New Brunswick is frozen solid, cutting off a potential supply of renewable energy for NB Power.
The 25-kilometre stretch of wind turbines, located 70 kilometres northwest of Bathurst, N.B. has been completely shutdown for several weeks due to heavy ice covering the blades.”
http://www.nationalpost.com/Northern+Brunswick+wind+turbines+frozen+solid/4287063/story.html
Swallow, you posted a URL which in the link itself, the article heading on the web page AND the 1st paragraph all stated that dirty diesel is being used in secret to back up unreliable wind – which was flatly rebutted by a director of National Grid.
Your umt.edu link isn’t working, probably because of a redirect loop.
Regardless, Germany has been using wind power forecasting for over a decade and was claiming 90% accuracy as far back as 2005.
Moss, if you have problems with the source that I provided, then take it up with them. I’m sure that they will be happy that you have pointed out their supposed inaccuracies to them.
I had to do some research to get to the source of the information that I gave you the link for and I will expand some on it now:
“Description: Replace 700 GW of baseload coal-generated electricity with 2000 GWp of wind-generated electricity.2
This requires the construction of “2 million 1-MW-peak windmills (50 times the current capacity) “occupying” 30 million hectares, on land or offshore”. The difference in energy generation (addition of 2000 GWp wind vs. reduction of 700 GW of coal) arises from an accounting for the intermittent nature of wind power.”
[…]”Robustness/Appropriateness: Clearly, one of the major issues with wind power is the natural variability of wind. The figure on the right displays the total output for German wind turbines over the week of 10/2/08-10/9/08. While there is a peak on 10/05 of around 17,000 MW, the following day shows almost no output. This type of vacillation would fail to meet peak demand and could seriously damage a traditional power grid (Power Grid Limits). Replacing baseload coal power requires consistent production of energy. Without a robust supplementary storage system, it will be difficult to directly replace baseload production.”
http://umt.edu/ethics/debating%20science%20program/odc/climatechange/climatealternatives/windpowerforcoalpower.php
Moss; You say: “Regardless, Germany has been using wind power forecasting for over a decade and was claiming 90% accuracy as far back as 2005.” It appears that “90% accuracy” made them rethink this project below.
“Bad green investments are already beginning to break
November 29, 2013
The German energy giant RWE Npower just pulled the plug on one of the world’s largest wind parks, the £4 billion Atlantic Array in the Bristol Channel. RWE did so for the stark reason that “the economics do not stack up”. It’s a mantra that well reflects the entire chaotic, incoherent and frankly competing elements at the heart of Europe’s energy policies
Moss; This pretty much sums it up: […] “And, on the other, the free market’s ability to generate all the power we need via cheaper and economically viable ‘dirty’ hydrocarbon resources. Put another way, idealism v realism. More specifically, how a democratic electorate views its key priorities when it comes to this tension.”
http://www.trendingcentral.com/bad-green-investments-already-beginning-break/
Your comments are hard to swallow. You do research to find tiny tidbits that support your generally uninformed point of view, post them, see them go down in flames, and go back for more. Let me ask you this. What do you think you are accomplishing? Do you think you have impressed the half a dozen readers who commented on your falsehoods and discovered they were phony? Your ideas are nebulous and shifting. Try to stick to a clear point and research it fully from many resources. Otherwise, the readers of this blog may think you are not a reliable source of information, and your thinking is muddled, if that matters to you. Since it is you that have been caught in a falsehood, and not the other commenters, it would be helpful if your comments did not begin with derogatory tone,
“Could your inability to not understand..” I can state fairly categorically, that a lot of your persuasive reasoning is wrong. Why? Its based on a fallacy that one instance equals a general result. Whether its one source, or one instance. Take for example the reference to the Atlantic Array in the Bristol Channel. All kinds of projects for all kinds of energy sources have been proposed and cancelled. Citing one instance without comparison is of limited value. And yet we read,
“It’s a mantra that well reflects the entire chaotic, incoherent and frankly competing elements at the heart of Europe’s energy policies” After this breathtaking inferential leap, we are lead to “idealism vs. realism”.
How’s this for realism? “As of the third quarter of 2013 the capacity is now 60,078 MW.” Are we to believe that all that wind power is generated at a loss by utilities across the whole country who are idealists not interested in making money? Don’t answer that, its rhetorical. Your assertion fails.
“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_States”
I dont mind if you disagree or have a different point of view. I like to research and learn more. If I can, I like to enlighten and inform and share with others. Try to write as if someone else might read tomorrow or a decade from now. And if you are in blog conversation with someone, try to stick to one topic and cover it fully before you move on to another one. Otherwise, it just dwindles into a mass of confusing rhetoric with no value. By the way, this all started with coal dwindling. Do you have any comments on that?
“You do research to find tiny tidbits that support your generally uninformed point of view, post them, see them go down in flames, and go back for more. Let me ask you this. What do you think you are accomplishing? ”
Christopher Arcus : Please elucidate on that comment you made; what has gone down in flames?
“Your ideas are nebulous and shifting.” And that is your opinion, which at this point is worth next to nothing.
“Otherwise, the readers of this blog may think you are not a reliable source of information, and your thinking is muddled, if that matters to you. Since it is you that have been caught in a falsehood, and not the other commenters, it would be helpful if your comments did not begin with derogatory tone”: Christopher Arcus; Please point out, with references, “Since it is you that have been caught in a falsehood” I ask again, what falsehood?
“Take for example the reference to the Atlantic Array in the Bristol Channel.” If you do not like the reference, then take it up with the source, even you, Christopher Arcus, should be bright enough to figure that out.
“Do you have any comments on that?” Yes I do and I expect NO answer from you or any of the other participants on this thread that do not think I have a right to express my views, other than Peter Sinclair and, as always, I thank him for his open minded approach to this issue.
Christopher Arcus , it is time to cut out the conjecture and cut to the chase. All you need to do is show me a source that answers my challenge that I now submit to you or any other anthropogenic global warming zealot who thinks they have the proof of the experiment that “proves” your hypotheses. As soon as I see that then I to will become an “alarmist”.
I have a challenge for you: I ask you to provide me with the experiment that shows that CO2 does what you maintain as far as being the driver of the earth’s climate. I do not need to be reminded of Tyndall’s 1859 lab experiments that do not prove that humanity’s CO2 emissions are warming the planet. In the real world, other factors can influence and outweigh those lab findings and that is why these experiment must deal with the real world and not computer models that do not have the ability to factor in all of the variables that effect the earth’s climate. If you can not provide a verifiable experiment regarding the present amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and how it effects the climate and creates your anthropogenic global warming, then believing that it does so is akin to believing that Santa Clause is real and you need to be good to get something left under the tree.
(If you were going to bring up Svante Arrhenius , then you need to look into what this Swede said, and note that he did no experiments regarding CO2 and how it can change the earth’s climate.
“Linking the calculations of his abstract model to natural processes, Arrhenius estimated the effect of the burning of fossil fuels as a source of atmospheric CO2. He predicted that a doubling of CO2 due to fossil fuel burning alone would take 500 years and lead to temperature increases of 3 to 4 °C (about 5 to 7 °F). This is probably what has earned Arrhenius his present reputation as the first to have provided a model for the effect of industrial activity on global warming.”)
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/36084/Svante-August-Arrhenius
It is a fact that real scientist, and that you are not, devise experiments to either prove or disprove their hypotheses and welcome people to try to disprove them so that they can move on. They sure do not say that the science is settled and the argument is over because there are REAL scientist out there doing REAL scientific work that are not blinded by some agenda that they support so that they can get more “research” money or money to fund a boondoggle renewable energy scheme that will never work.
Albert Einstein addressed the theory of quantum entanglement. In Dec. of 2011 this experiment was carried out:
Quantum Entanglement Links 2 Diamonds
Usually a finicky phenomenon limited to tiny, ultracold objects, entanglement has now been achieved for macroscopic diamonds at room temperature
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=room-temperature-entanglement
Speaking of Albert Einstein, he had an answer for you continually trying to claim that there is a consensus for your flawed, unproven hypothesis regarding anthropogenic global warming, climate change or what ever you charlatans now call it: “Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of the truth” Albert Einstein
Einstein was right, neutrino researchers admit
http://phys.org/news/2012-06-einstein-neutrino.html#jCp
Jasper Kirkby photographed inside the CLOUD chamber.
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/journal/CERNBulletin/2009/47/News%20Articles/1221077?ln=de
“Svensmark: Evidence continues to build that the Sun drives climate, not CO2″
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxstzCXSMH0&feature=player_embedded
“New Data Boosts Case for Higgs Boson Find
The Higgs boson is the only particle theorized by the standard model of physics that hasn’t been conclusively observed in an experiment. The model describes how matter is built and how particles interact.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324077704578359850108689618.html
It seems to me that if the experiments above could be devised and carried out, that one showing how carbon dioxide can cause the earth’s climate to act as you seem to want people to believe it does should have been carried out long ago. Since you can not produce such an experiment makes all of your obnoxious blustering and disrespectful manner all that much harder to stomach. You are a dishonest and delusional person but a fair representative for your cause that is sadly generally populated by dishonest people such as Al Gore, Michael Mann and James Hansen.
Don’t even try to answer that with more of your mindless lies because if you cant answer the challenge, you are a fraud of the worst kind and I must empathize, I do jot believe in what people think that are followers of a faith based religion, and that describes you unless you answer my challenge.
appreciate your appreciation, but in the future, to foster better communication/conversation, keep posts shorter.
What went down in flames was natural coal fires producing meaningful amounts of CO2. The contribution is minuscule. Our present rates of consumption are many times higher than the natural burn rate. See the graphs of co2 before mans industrial revolution coal use. Respond to that.
That’s one. Respond briefly. It should not be difficult.
It goes without saying that you did not answer my challenge about CO2. You instead come up with this bunch of garbage: “The contribution is minuscule. Our present rates of consumption are many times higher than the natural burn rate. See the graphs……” What graphs? Here are some graphs for you to look at.
Thursday, August 29, 2013 Temperature drops but CO2 goes up.
Hadley Centre Central England Temperature (HadCET) dataset
The CET dataset is the longest instrumental record of temperature in the world. The mean, minimum and maximum datasets are updated monthly, with data for a month usually available by the 3rd of the next month. A provisional CET value for the current month is calculated on a daily basis. The mean daily data series begins in 1772 and the mean monthly data in 1659. Mean maximum and minimum daily and monthly data are also available, beginning in 1878.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
Full Mauna Loa CO2 record
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo_full
Not that you can do this, think, but don’t you realize that all of the CO2 that is now in coal, and fossil fuels was at one time in the atmosphere. If not, then where was it and it seems that the earth survived all of that 800+ppm CO2 in its atmosphere then; so, why would 400ppm now be a problem?