Euclid It is true that what ultimately stops new coal plants is economics, but it is the economics of not being able to comply with objections of the anti-coal activists such as the Sierra Club’s “Beyond Coal” movement. It is not just the economics in the cost of alternative fuels like natural gas. Far from it.
It is true that what ultimately stops new coal plants is economics, but it is the economics of not being able to comply with objections of the anti-coal activists such as the Sierra Club’s “Beyond Coal” movement. It is not just the economics in the cost of alternative fuels like natural gas. Far from it.
You mean "objections" like restrictions on the amount of mercury, particulate, SOx and NOx emissions?
My takeaway from the article is that the Sierra Club's main strategy in their war on coal is to point out air quality problems at a local level, and to open eyes about what really is more economical. By the sound of it gas and/or renewables are now cheaper than "clean coal", and in some cases even coal plants without any emission controls are more expensive than the other options.
I have no problem with that strategy, and neither do many of the local people in the story by the looks of it. If we didn't have people willing to raise those points then Chicago would look like Beijing.
As the article stated of course they will go after natural gas, cars and trains (among other things) next. But I don't think widespread local-level campaigns for these will succeed unless credible, affordable alternatives exist. After all, natural gas and wind turbines were not invented yesterday, but only recently has the Sierra Club had real success pushing them as replacements for coal. After all, economics win at the end of the day (gotta keep the lights on).
If reliable, affordable electric cars and electricity storage systems become widely known and available then I can see them having success in these areas too.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Gramp And how much electricity will have to be generated to power all these vehicles and heat all these homes, and what happens to electricity prices?
And how much electricity will have to be generated to power all these vehicles and heat all these homes, and what happens to electricity prices?
Ah - the problem for the ages. People who have absolutely no idea where their power (or their food) comes from. Hint - it's not the electricity fairy...
They're anti-solar, anti-windmills, anti-dam, anti-nuclear, and anti-coal (and probably anti-natural gas, too).
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
tree68 Gramp And how much electricity will have to be generated to power all these vehicles and heat all these homes, and what happens to electricity prices? Ah - the problem for the ages. People who have absolutely no idea where their power (or their food) comes from. Hint - it's not the electricity fairy... They're anti-solar, anti-windmills, anti-dam, anti-nuclear, and anti-coal (and probably anti-natural gas, too).
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
SD70M-2Dude Euclid It is true that what ultimately stops new coal plants is economics, but it is the economics of not being able to comply with objections of the anti-coal activists such as the Sierra Club’s “Beyond Coal” movement. It is not just the economics in the cost of alternative fuels like natural gas. Far from it. You mean "objections" like restrictions on the amount of mercury, particulate, SOx and NOx emissions? My takeaway from the article is that the Sierra Club's main strategy in their war on coal is to point out air quality problems at a local level, and to open eyes about what really is more economical. By the sound of it gas and/or renewables are now cheaper than "clean coal", and in some cases even coal plants without any emission controls are more expensive than the other options. I have no problem with that strategy, and neither do many of the local people in the story by the looks of it. If we didn't have people willing to raise those points then Chicago would look like Beijing. As the article stated of course they will go after natural gas, cars and trains (among other things) next. But I don't think widespread local-level campaigns for these will succeed unless credible, affordable alternatives exist. After all, natural gas and wind turbines were not invented yesterday, but only recently has the Sierra Club had real success pushing them as replacements for coal. After all, economics win at the end of the day (gotta keep the lights on). If reliable, affordable electric cars and electricity storage systems become widely known and available then I can see them having success in these areas too.
My only point in that previous post is that what is killing coal is an activist protest directly attacking every aspect of coal usage with the intention of killing coal. This conflicts with the widespread explanation that coal is only dying because of economic competition against natural gas.
You say that this activism will not kill gas and oil unless more economical alternatives exist. Really? They are killing coal without any economical, affordable alternatives. The article mentions that the Sierra Club does not care if affordable alternatives exist. It says that their strategy is to kill fossil fuels and let the power companies figure out how to produce energy without fossil fuels. The belief that this will naturally bring about “credible, affordable alternatives” is wishful thinking.
If you believe that fossil fuels must be banned, the “economics” of that is that the alternatives need NOT be cheaper that the banned fuels. “Economics” also includes how price affects consumption. Prices will rise and cause consumption to fall.
The battle starts with killing coal, but in the end, it goes all the way to slowing consumption of everything in the name of “sustainability.” The solution goes right past renewable energy and lands squarely on CONSERVATION. It arrives there effortlessly precisely because renewable energy is not “affordable.” If it was affordable, we would adopt it voluntarily without the regulatory mandates.
So, yes, they will kill coal alright; and then oil/gas. But the truth comes home when peoples’ electric bills rise. As they rise, conservation will be the only affordable alternative. And in this new non-expanding, sustainable economy, we will live a much different, more authentic lifestyle.
EuclidThey are killing coal without any economical, affordable alternatives. The article mentions that the Sierra Club does not care if affordable alternatives exist.
If I understood the article correctly the Sierra Club shows the approving authorities more cost effective alternatives to keep consumer prices down.
In one case the SC proposed changing to gas for $70 Mio. instead of refurbishing the coal power plant to comply with emission standards for $700 Mio.
That is just one of the mentioned examples.Regards, Volker
VOLKER LANDWEHR Euclid They are killing coal without any economical, affordable alternatives. The article mentions that the Sierra Club does not care if affordable alternatives exist. If I understood the article correctly the Sierra Club shows the approving authorities more cost effective alternatives to keep consumer prices down. In one case the SC proposed changing to gas for $70 Mio. instead of refurbishing the coal power plant to comply with emission standards for $700 Mio. That is just one of the mentioned examples.Regards, Volker
Euclid They are killing coal without any economical, affordable alternatives. The article mentions that the Sierra Club does not care if affordable alternatives exist.
Exactly. From the article:
"Beyond Coal isn’t the stereotypical Sierra Club campaign, tree-huggers shouting save-the-Earth slogans. Yes, it sometimes deploys its 2.4 million-member, grass-roots army to shutter plants with traditional not-in-my-back-yard organizing and right-to-breathe agitating. But it usually wins by arguing that ditching coal will save ratepayers money. "
Sounds like those alternatives are economical and affordable.
As the Sierra Club fights coal in the public hearings, they use every tactic at their disposal including proposing less costly rates in the short term by not building a particular coal plant. But at the same time, they use other tactics such as scaring investors with the prospect of new regulations and further resistance to coal. So in the course of their strategy, they might lower costs temporality, but ultimately switching to renewables will add cost. They are adding costs right now.
In the big picture, the Sierra Club is not about reducing the cost of energy. They are about killing off fossil fuels. The two objectives are mutually exclusive. Either you have renewable energy or you have the lowest cost energy. You can’t have both.
As part of the pitch, most people have been led to believe that you actually can have both. They think solar and wind will save money because wind and sunshine are free. In Minnesota, the people who created the renewable energy mandates promised a veritable cornucopia. They told us it would dramatically lower energy costs, boost the economy, and create all the new jobs we could want. Nothing could be further from the truth.
This will all become clear as time goes on. The rate payers will soon find out whether or not renewable energy is a gold mine or a money pit. But I am guessing that if it were a gold mine, we would not need mandates to make it happen.
US Politics - Figures that lie and liars that figure and use the lying figures to support further lies that they figure will snow the public. Throw them into each and every matter of public policy and you have a mess of almost Biblical proportions.
[quote user="Euclid"]
This will all become clear as time goes on. The rate payers will soon find out whether or not renewable energy is a gold mine or a money pit. But I am guessing that if it were a gold mine, we would not need mandates to make it happen. /quote]
I am going to side with Euclid on this and don't give a damn what the liberals want to shove down our throats. The latter have an agenda that will lead us into a system of government those of us with independent minds will not accept as reality. Sure, the academics will pan those who disagree with the concept of AGW and disparage us for our opinions. Does that make our opinions wrong? Until scientific evidence does there is room for doubt, but that will not be accepted by those who claim it is "settled science". Science is an investigative process that will never be settled until proven otherwise. Those who pan us "deniers" for expressing our opinions are either delusional or are following the agenda of those who wish to rule the world.
The failure of academia to educate students and their mission to indoctrinate them should be a warning sign. Our entire eductional system, K/12 through a masters degree has been corrupted.
Some may disagree with me, and they have the right to do so, but when they are "indoctrinating" rather than educating they have betrayed the trust the public placed in them. I know two PHD's who never tout their credentials and would never express their opinions on AGW. Whether it is real or not remains to be seen. In the mean those who profess to have 'inside information' would be best advised to shut up.
Norm
Norm48327
Boy, that escalated quickly. Just when I thought we we were finally having a back-and-forth discussion on this forum about a controversial topic without throwing insults. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.
SD70M-2Dude Norm48327 Boy, that escalated quickly. Just when I thought we we were finally having a back-and-forth discussion on this forum about a controversial topic without throwing insults. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.
Discussions here only mirror the current US political situation.
When better mud slingers are manufactured - they are gobbled up by all the combatents and rushed into high volume service. Fire before you are ready, Gridly!
Euclid The article linked above by Bruce Kelly should be an eye-opener for those who believe that the price of natural gas is killing coal. The near universal, thumbnail explanation for the death of coal is that it is purely due to economics in the falling price of natural gas making coal unable to compete. With this explanation, it is not regulations that are killing coal, and nobody is waging a war against coal. Coal is simply dying because the market says it is obsolete. It is true that what ultimately stops new coal plants is economics, but it is the economics of not being able to comply with objections of the anti-coal activists such as the Sierra Club’s “Beyond Coal” movement. It is not just the economics in the cost of alternative fuels like natural gas. Far from it. ...
The article linked above by Bruce Kelly should be an eye-opener for those who believe that the price of natural gas is killing coal.
The near universal, thumbnail explanation for the death of coal is that it is purely due to economics in the falling price of natural gas making coal unable to compete. With this explanation, it is not regulations that are killing coal, and nobody is waging a war against coal. Coal is simply dying because the market says it is obsolete.
...
You seem to ignore the fact that the Sierra Club's legal tactic in their war, is to point out the economics of the higher costs of coal vs going to gas or renewables. The Public Service Agencies' duty is to the ratepayers, and that is why the power companies were losing the cases. I does not matter who, whether the power companies changed to gas on their own, or were forced by legal arguements, but the "why" in either case was economics.
Edit: I answered the above post on page 9 of this thread before I realized there was a page 10. I see some of the other posters have already made the same point. But in question to one of your later posts, you talk about the price of alternatives going up, while the actual price of renewables are going down. Can you furnish a link to some reputable article that shows coal is going to become less costly than gas/alternatives.
I believe you can have renewable energy and you can work towards making it the lowest cost energy. Especially when you deal with the true cost—including health and environmental impacts.
Why is "lowest cost at any cost" such an obsession? WE CAN BE BETTER AND SMARTER THAN THAT.
MidlandMike Euclid The article linked above by Bruce Kelly should be an eye-opener for those who believe that the price of natural gas is killing coal. The near universal, thumbnail explanation for the death of coal is that it is purely due to economics in the falling price of natural gas making coal unable to compete. With this explanation, it is not regulations that are killing coal, and nobody is waging a war against coal. Coal is simply dying because the market says it is obsolete. It is true that what ultimately stops new coal plants is economics, but it is the economics of not being able to comply with objections of the anti-coal activists such as the Sierra Club’s “Beyond Coal” movement. It is not just the economics in the cost of alternative fuels like natural gas. Far from it. ... You seem to ignore the fact that the Sierra Club's legal tactic in their war, is to point out the economics of the higher costs of coal vs going to gas or renewables. The Public Service Agencies' duty is to the ratepayers, and that is why the power companies were losing the cases. I does not matter who, whether the power companies changed to gas on their own, or were forced by legal arguements, but the "why" in either case was economics.
Why would we need the Sierra Club to point out the economics of the cheapest source of power? The market is perfectly capable of finding the lowest cost. The Sierra Club uses certain cost arguments in the public interest for the purose of stopping coal plants. But they are not bargaining for the lowest possible cost as their ultimate goal. Their goal is to kill coal plants. Why would producers want to run coal plants if there were a less costly alternative?
After the new coal plant gets shot down by the Sierra Club on the pretext of protecting the ratepayers' interest, the replacement is likely to cost the ratepayers more.
If that is not true, why would the producers and consumers both want the lowest possible cost and know exactly what it would take to achieve that?
Now Georgia power has announced another cost increase for its 2 new Nuclear power reactors. This is due to Westinghouse's bankruptcy and pull out from the construction contract. If work continues another rate increase for all of us even if we are on non profit EMCs.
jcburns I believe you can have renewable energy and you can work towards making it the lowest cost energy. Especially when you deal with the true cost—including health and environmental impacts.
Hydroelectric has often been the lowest cost source of electricity once the dam and plant has been paid for. Problem is that precipitation can vary over time (droughts). One of the things that hurt the Pacific Electric in the early 1920's was a severe drought that curtailed power deliveries and the PE had to cut back on their service.
Most forms of renewable energy are intermittent and the true cost would include the cost of storage and/or backup storage.
All forms of energy production have some sort of environmental issues in terms of land use, effects on wildlife and waste disposal. Rooftop solar has probably the smalest impact on land use and wildlife but still has the waste disposal issues from production and end of life for the panels.
blue streak 1Now Georgia power has announced another cost increase for its 2 new Nuclear power reactors. This is due to Westinghouse's bankruptcy and pull out from the construction contract. If work continues another rate increase for all of us even if we are on non profit EMCs.
We have deregulation in Texas plus our own independent electrical grid. I think I pay 8-9 cents per Kwh. For the worst month of running the AC all day I think I pay $89 for a 2100 sq foot home. I have made some improvements since building the home though:
* Upgraded to 19 SEER AC System from the builder grade 13 SEER.
* Added insulation in the attic on top of what the builder had.
* Replaced the windows on sides of the house where the sun shines in generating heat with new Andersen replacements that absorb the heat without allowing it to pass through the glass.
* With the exception of a few instances of decorative lighting (exterior porch light, coach lights on the garage and entry foyer lights), All lights are LED now. LED lights do not generate heat like the flourescent and incandescent do.
The house is uniformly cool in the Summer, no hot and no cold spots and my electrical bill is probably the cheapest on my block. All without flipping to renewable energy.......it would be really amazing if the United States passed some decent builder codes for constructing energy efficient homes. I am happier in a energy efficient house, the windows work better, the AC works better, I save probably $100 to $150 a month in electric bills in the summer. Winter I use Natural Gas for the fireplace and Furnace........also very cheap.
Next year I will replace the refrigerator with a more energy efficient model. On the water conservation front, replaced my toilets with the much more water efficient TOTO brand (Japanese). I can control how much water is used with each flush via the time I hold down the flush handle. So #1 only takes half the water to flush vs #2. Replaced the dishwasher with a more water efficient model that uses steam, in the next two years will have a new clothes washer that cuts water usage. Have rain and freeze sensors on my lawn sprinkler system. My water bill likewise never exceeds $100 in the Summer peak months.
EuclidWhy would we need the Sierra Club to point out the economics of the cheapest source of power? The market is perfectly capable of finding the lowest cost. The Sierra Club uses certain cost arguments in the public interest for the purose of stopping coal plants. But they are not bargaining for the lowest possible cost as their ultimate goal. Their goal is to kill coal plants. Why would producers want to run coal plants if there were a less costly alternative?
Is it a free market? As I understood the producers can refinance their investment cost for upgrades through higher rates. Where is the incentive then to save cost?
How easy is it to change the power provider?That would the market the consumer has.
Here in Germany it is quite easy but we still don't have functioning market.Regards, Volker
VOLKER LANDWEHRIs it a free market? As I understood the producers can refinance their investment cost for upgrades through higher rates. Where is the incentive then to save cost
Well wouldn't the upgrades be necessary to keep the cost as low as possible? Why would they spend money on upgrades that were not needed? What other need could there be except to lower hold down costs that rise as equipment becomes obsolete. Upgrades may cause higher rates, but not as high as they would rise without the upgrade.
The incentive to save costs is either to avoid upgrading that is not necessary or to upgrade to a more cost-efficient production.
I do expect that the anti-fossil fuel movement will prevail. That is, unless there is some big surprise ahead that will suddenly reverse the trend.
There is one emerging signal in this debate that is somewhat curious. Demand for electricity in the U.S. is falling.
There are a lot of experts trying to explain why this is happening. The prevailing explanation is that it is because consumers are becoming more energy efficient. That includes changing to more efficient electric devices, but also a conscientious effort to use less. Electricity may be a necessity, but a lot of us could do with much less of it.
Another explanation is that the energy producers are being forced by regulation and laws to provide a portion of their production by more costly renewable energy.
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/the-escalating-cost-of-electricity/
So we have rising prices causing falling demand as promised in classic Economics 101. As much as the advocacy of the Sierra Club likes renewable energy, conservation and less consumption is their greatest preference of all. I expect a tsunami of falling demand as consumers do everything possible to fight the rising cost of electricity. I expect this falling demand will close more power plants than the anti-coal activists ever could. Interestingly, it may also cause further upward pressure on price as the producing infrastructure cannot scale back its cost of production to match the falling demand.
EuclidWhy would we need the Sierra Club to point out the economics of the cheapest source of power? The market is perfectly capable of finding the lowest cost.
While I agree that there is a war on coal, which is justified to a point, the providers are only interested in the lowest cost to them. They will charge the consumer as much as the market will bear.
The lowest cost power is provided by the small producers that don't have an investor base looking for huge paybacks. Several villages around here have their own power source (hydro). Their power is cheap.
EuclidWell wouldn't the upgrades be necessary to keep the cost as low as possible? Why would they spend money on upgrades that were not needed? What other need could there be except to lower hold down costs that rise as equipment becomes obsolete. Upgrades may cause higher rates, but not as high as they would rise without the upgrade. The incentive to save costs is either to avoid upgrading that is not necessary or to upgrade to a more cost-efficient production.
1) You haven't answered my questions
2) The discussed upgrades would be necessary to comply with clean air regulations to comply emission standards. And the Sierra Club shows the approving authorities that there are more economic alternatives to upgrading a coal power plant.
3)Exchange of worn out equipment might fall in the second category if you have to rebuild the complete plant, otherwise exchange of single machinery we call maintenance not upgrade. But that might be different in the USA.Regards, Volker
Euclid I do expect that the anti-fossil fuel movement will prevail. That is, unless there is some big surprise ahead that will suddenly reverse the trend. There is one emerging signal in this debate that is somewhat curious. Demand for electricity in the U.S. is falling. There are a lot of experts trying to explain why this is happening. The prevailing explanation is that it is because consumers are becoming more energy efficient. That includes changing to more efficient electric devices, but also a conscientious effort to use less. Electricity may be a necessity, but a lot of us could do with much less of it. Another explanation is that the energy producers are being forced by regulation and laws to provide a portion of their production by more costly renewable energy. http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/the-escalating-cost-of-electricity/ So we have rising prices causing falling demand as promised in classic Economics 101. As much as the advocacy of the Sierra Club likes renewable energy, conservation and less consumption is their greatest preference of all. I expect a tsunami of falling demand as consumers do everything possible to fight the rising cost of electricity. I expect this falling demand will close more power plants than the anti-coal activists ever could. Interestingly, it may also cause further upward pressure on price as the producing infrastructure cannot scale back its cost of production to match the falling demand.
EuclidI do expect that the anti-fossil fuel movement will prevail.
I have my doubts. Could today's society survive long without electric energy? What happens when theit iPhones go dark and they can't talk with friends? Relegated to the "dark ages" would not set well with those used to the conveniences of life we have today.
blue streak 1 Now Georgia power has announced another cost increase for its 2 new Nuclear power reactors. This is due to Westinghouse's bankruptcy and pull out from the construction contract. If work continues another rate increase for all of us even if we are on non profit EMCs.
http://wyomingpublicmedia.org/post/bring-heat-says-coal-industry
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/04/upshot/the-all-conquering-air-conditioner.html
rdamon ...............I also worry about the natural gas pipeline capacity not keeping up with the new demand from plant conversions.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
JPS1The decline in coal fired generation will continue for a variety of reasons, but coal will still be a major fuel source for electric generation for several decades to come, which means there will be plenty of time to build new gas pipelines for any new gas fired generation.
Like pipeline building is so easy to pull off!
Norm, the other factor is that vast numbers of these modern conveniences—computers, tablets, phones, TVs, LED lights—run in fact on VERY low voltages and wattages of DC power (and this is wastefully transformed from 110 AC in those darn power bricks attached to everything.)
If we had the will, and if we cared (and an increasing number do), an average home's electric usage could be reconfigured to run on tiny wind/solar units on the roof or in the backyard.
By the way, this is happening a lot in rural Africa, where they didn't have power from the grid to begin with.
We're NOT going to say "screw it, back to coal, let's extract every last ounce of the stuff."
The world has changed at least that much.
BaltACD JPS1 The decline in coal fired generation will continue for a variety of reasons, but coal will still be a major fuel source for electric generation for several decades to come, which means there will be plenty of time to build new gas pipelines for any new gas fired generation.
JPS1 The decline in coal fired generation will continue for a variety of reasons, but coal will still be a major fuel source for electric generation for several decades to come, which means there will be plenty of time to build new gas pipelines for any new gas fired generation.
JPS1 BaltACD JPS1 The decline in coal fired generation will continue for a variety of reasons, but coal will still be a major fuel source for electric generation for several decades to come, which means there will be plenty of time to build new gas pipelines for any new gas fired generation.
http://bbc.in/2wn2b60
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.