The Coal Industry May Never Recover From The Pandemic

[NickW + 2,714]

21 hours ago, ronwagn said:

I think that Great Britain might have been more picky than the U.S.A. in 2003. You might know. 

The turbines are 17 years old now and still going strong. Will be interesting to see what happens post 25 years. I expect the Company will apply to extend the planning permission by 3-5 years. As the site already has PP it would be relatively easy to apply to up power the site. Go from 8 x2.3MW to 6 x 4MW. There haven't been any meaningful complaints. None from the local community.  its usually from visitors / flybys - when I drive to my holiday home the visual impact offends me for the 20 seconds they are in view...........

[ralfy + 55]

On 6/25/2020 at 11:35 AM, ronwagn said:

I don't know what statistics you are estimating from but I am not saying it is inaccurate. I think that it would require high economic growth in the Third World and a lack of efficiency growth in the way we use energy. I think all that would probably require 30 years. Just my guess. Plenty of time for all sorts of developments, especially in natural gas use unless something better comes along. Or, the remaining population could be living in a dystopian nightmare.

High economic growth in the rest of the world has been going on for around a decade, which is why there is a growing global middle class. It is estimated that in ten years it will be several times higher than that of EU or the U.S.:

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470

But that requires significant amounts of energy. For basic needs alone, we will need more than double current energy consumption (for the current population size) to meet such.

 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

2 hours ago, ralfy said:

High economic growth in the rest of the world has been going on for around a decade, which is why there is a growing global middle class. It is estimated that in ten years it will be several times higher than that of EU or the U.S.:

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470

But that requires significant amounts of energy. For basic needs alone, we will need more than double current energy consumption (for the current population size) to meet such.

 

I think efficiencies in architecture, technology, and shared use of various fuel technologies will solve any problems. There is no lack of energy whatsoever. Economic growth will bring the needed pipelines, powerlines, roads, rails, etc. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

6 hours ago, NickW said:

The turbines are 17 years old now and still going strong. Will be interesting to see what happens post 25 years. I expect the Company will apply to extend the planning permission by 3-5 years. As the site already has PP it would be relatively easy to apply to up power the site. Go from 8 x2.3MW to 6 x 4MW. There haven't been any meaningful complaints. None from the local community.  its usually from visitors / flybys - when I drive to my holiday home the visual impact offends me for the 20 seconds they are in view...........

In some cases it may be a matter of getting used to seeing them, but not in the best of views IMHO. I would like to see colors that would blend in with the background or camouflage. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 6/26/2020 at 12:07 PM, Dan Clemmensen said:

In the US, the coal, oil, and NG producers are under stringent legal requirements to clean up after themselves and they must post bonds. This has been true for at least 50 years. Most companies "self-bond": i.e., the bond is carried on the companies' books and is not in the hands of a third party. The established long-standing practice is for the asset and the bond to be sold together to a different company in a corporate restructuring when things are about to go down hill. The new company then declares bankruptcy and the taxpayers or landowners are stuck with the problem. Coal mines are fairly obvious, but there are tens of thousands of oil and NG wells have been abandoned without being properly plugged. Some of them have been emitting NG, some with H2S in it, for a hundred years. I would rather have wind turbines: you can at least see those suckers.

Many coal mines have had subdivisions built upon them and with some problems.  You are not giving any references on your statement and I have never heard of complaints on unplugged natural gas wells. 

[NickW + 2,714]

7 hours ago, ronwagn said:

In some cases it may be a matter of getting used to seeing them, but not in the best of views IMHO. I would like to see colors that would blend in with the background or camouflage. 

Then why not an initial flurry of complaints. 

The World is covered in industrial structures - chimneys, high rise blocks, power lines. Why focus specifically on wind turbines?

I can see a medium size one from my house - has no impact whatsoever on the  view from the bedroom window. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

12 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Many coal mines have had subdivisions built upon them and with some problems.  You are not giving any references on your statement and I have never heard of complaints on unplugged natural gas wells. 

The fate of a decommissioned coal mine can vary from wonderful through horrible, as I think we all know. I was responding to you observation that there may be decommissioning costs and problems associated with a wind farm. Note that a wind farm is both harvester of the energy and the producer of the electricity. For a valid comparison to fossil fuels, we must consider the fossil  electric plants in addition to the mines and wells.

You might be correct about NG wells. The reports appear to be mostly about gas leaking from abandoned oil wells. I was also incorrect about the number of wells: it's millions, not tens of thousands.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-usa-drilling-abandoned-specialreport/special-report-millions-of-abandoned-oil-wells-are-leaking-methane-a-climate-menace-idUKKBN23N1NL

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

7 hours ago, NickW said:

Then why not an initial flurry of complaints. 

The World is covered in industrial structures - chimneys, high rise blocks, power lines. Why focus specifically on wind turbines?

I can see a medium size one from my house - has no impact whatsoever on the  view from the bedroom window. 

Anyone who complains about how wind turbines look has never lived in oil country.

Ugly oil crap is everywhere in Alberta.

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

With all this talk about old well emitting all this NG, one would think that we're living in a cesspool. In fact, more methane is emitted each year from methane mounds on the floor of the Gulf of Mexico and the permafrost of the Siberian Ice Circle than from all the wells in the world, multiplied by ten. 

About the first oilfield in the U.S. was Glenn Pool near Tulsa. Know how Ida Pool discovered oil? She went out to a limestone bench where she and her husband Robert had great lunches. There on their usual spot was a black oily substance--Glenn Pool seeping to the top. That was 2005. Thousands of wells were drilled. Most were plugged--I'm sure they missed a few. Care to take a guess what the ambient sulfur oxide level is in Glenpool (the little town)? Less than Aspen, that well-known center of pollution, and way below Hilo, Ha where the volcano belches out more sulfur dioxide that could possibly be emitted from the worst petrochemical company. 

And by the way there are fewer than 2 million wells in the U.S., so I find it hard to believe that millions are leaking NG. Have you ever been to a bonafide oilfield? The Texas RR Commission mandates that 10% of a population of end-of-life wells be P&G'd each year. That's a cost of about $20-30,000 per well. 

This is a free forum, but I suppose I'm old-fashioned enough to think that a man should abide by some rough rules of veracity. People actually come here and read this stuff and take it away as truth. 

No, the oilfield isn't clean. But neither is a wind farm. I have a foot in each pond. The amount of fossil fuels going into to production of those blades and towers is absolutely mind-bending. 

And by the way, the oceangoing vessels have belched out roughly 1,000 times the amount of SO2 from every other means right up until Jan. 1, 2020. Excuse me but I never heard one mention of that in the press, or on TV. 

What a crock of disinformation this forum has become!

 

[notsonice + 1,080]

18 minutes ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

With all this talk about old well emitting all this NG, one would think that we're living in a cesspool. In fact, more methane is emitted each year from methane mounds on the floor of the Gulf of Mexico and the permafrost of the Siberian Ice Circle than from all the wells in the world, multiplied by ten. 

About the first oilfield in the U.S. was Glenn Pool near Tulsa. Know how Ida Pool discovered oil? She went out to a limestone bench where she and her husband Robert had great lunches. There on their usual spot was a black oily substance--Glenn Pool seeping to the top. That was 2005. Thousands of wells were drilled. Most were plugged--I'm sure they missed a few. Care to take a guess what the ambient sulfur oxide level is in Glenpool (the little town)? Less than Aspen, that well-known center of pollution, and way below Hilo, Ha where the volcano belches out more sulfur dioxide that could possibly be emitted from the worst petrochemical company. 

And by the way there are fewer than 2 million wells in the U.S., so I find it hard to believe that millions are leaking NG. Have you ever been to a bonafide oilfield? The Texas RR Commission mandates that 10% of a population of end-of-life wells be P&G'd each year. That's a cost of about $20-30,000 per well. 

This is a free forum, but I suppose I'm old-fashioned enough to think that a man should abide by some rough rules of veracity. People actually come here and read this stuff and take it away as truth. 

No, the oilfield isn't clean. But neither is a wind farm. I have a foot in each pond. The amount of fossil fuels going into to production of those blades and towers is absolutely mind-bending. 

And by the way, the oceangoing vessels have belched out roughly 1,000 times the amount of SO2 from every other means right up until Jan. 1, 2020. Excuse me but I never heard one mention of that in the press, or on TV. 

What a crock of disinformation this forum has become!

 

No, the oilfield isn't clean. But neither is a wind farm. I have a foot in each pond. ?  Flaring does not bother you? How many wind farms flare off nat gas? how about Deepwater Horizon? many wind farms causing a disaster in the gulf? What a crock of disinformation this forum has become!????? Why are you not talking about all the real problems of oil production???? last year I went through North Dakota at night, just a disgusting sight with all the flaring.

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

With all this talk about old well emitting all this NG, one would think that we're living in a cesspool. In fact, more methane is emitted each year from methane mounds on the floor of the Gulf of Mexico and the permafrost of the Siberian Ice Circle than from all the wells in the world, multiplied by ten. 

About the first oilfield in the U.S. was Glenn Pool near Tulsa. Know how Ida Pool discovered oil? She went out to a limestone bench where she and her husband Robert had great lunches. There on their usual spot was a black oily substance--Glenn Pool seeping to the top. That was 2005. Thousands of wells were drilled. Most were plugged--I'm sure they missed a few. Care to take a guess what the ambient sulfur oxide level is in Glenpool (the little town)? Less than Aspen, that well-known center of pollution, and way below Hilo, Ha where the volcano belches out more sulfur dioxide that could possibly be emitted from the worst petrochemical company. 

And by the way there are fewer than 2 million wells in the U.S., so I find it hard to believe that millions are leaking NG. Have you ever been to a bonafide oilfield? The Texas RR Commission mandates that 10% of a population of end-of-life wells be P&G'd each year. That's a cost of about $20-30,000 per well. 

This is a free forum, but I suppose I'm old-fashioned enough to think that a man should abide by some rough rules of veracity. People actually come here and read this stuff and take it away as truth. 

No, the oilfield isn't clean. But neither is a wind farm. I have a foot in each pond. The amount of fossil fuels going into to production of those blades and towers is absolutely mind-bending. 

And by the way, the oceangoing vessels have belched out roughly 1,000 times the amount of SO2 from every other means right up until Jan. 1, 2020. Excuse me but I never heard one mention of that in the press, or on TV. 

What a crock of disinformation this forum has become!

 

Any figures on that?

My understanding is that the energy input into manufacturing and installing a wind turbine is less than what it produces in 12 months.

 

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

1 hour ago, notsonice said:

last year I went through North Dakota at night, just a disgusting sight with all the flaring.

Did you drive or walk?

If you drove, you're a hypocrite. 

Oh, I get it, you went through North Dakota at night in an EV. Shoot, not too many charging stations in N. Dakota.

Grow the hell up!

Edited June 28, 2020 by Gerry Maddoux

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

33 minutes ago, NickW said:

Any figures on that?

Look it up, Bubba. You have access to the same internet I do. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

21 minutes ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

Did you drive or walk?

If you drove, you're a hypocrite. 

Oh, I get it, you went through North Dakota at night in an EV. Shoot, not too many charging stations in N. Dakota.

Grow the hell up!

You can make gasoline without excessive flaring.

[NickW + 2,714]

11 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

Look it up, Bubba. You have access to the same internet I do. 

You made the statement to support your position. Its therefore incumbent upon you to provide evidence to support it if you want that statement to stand in the face of scrutiny. 

The study quoted in the publication below estimates wind with an EROEI of 20 however this was written in 2009 using data from earlier years. Turbines have got a lot bigger since then and benefitted from economy of scale and improvements int he efficiency of manufacture and operation. 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S096014810900055X

 

Edited June 29, 2020 by NickW

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 6/20/2020 at 10:44 AM, Adam Varga said:

According to analysts predictions, global coal industry will never recover from the COVID-19 pandemic as the pandemic crisis proves that renewable energy is cheaper for consumers and a safer asset for investors.

The transition from highly polluting fossil fuels to cleaner energy sources is accelerating even during the blockade, which has led to the closure of power plants in several countries and provided new evidence that coal use may finally peak after more for 200 years on stage.

http://www.economicodaily.com/the-coal-industry-may-never-recover-from-the-pandemic/ 

Coal use is as healthy as ever. Asia is using it as their first choice fuel. American coal is welcome in the Asian market if it is price competitive with transport costs. The West has an advantage in being closer to the ports but the Demoncrats may totally shut exports down by making operations illegal. Natural gas is a far better choice, economically, than renewables and is practically free. 

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Fossil-Fuels-Make-Up-84-Percent-Of-The-Global-Energy-Market.html

Edited June 29, 2020 by ronwagn
reference

[ronwagn + 6,290]

Russians to start new coal mine in the arctic. They have no renewables and no plans for them either. https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/06/26/investor-breathes-new-life-into-major-arctic-coal-project-a70711

[Eric Gagen + 713]

On 6/20/2020 at 5:08 PM, Gerry Maddoux said:

Oh, there's a supply shock coming, Dan, no doubt about it. There has been NO exploration since 2014. The only major find has been Guyana, and it is almost too gassy to produce (the money-starved government of Guyana just throttled Exxon because of venting 9T BTU of pure methane). By the end of August, unless something happens to the contrary, U.S. oil production will be down to 6-7M bod. Russia is struggling. There is one rig running in all of Venezuela. At these prices we'll be down to 150 rigs in the entire U.S. 

Under those conditions, there is no conceivable way to avoid a supply shock, save a major resurgence of Covid-19, with associate high mortality rates. We're hearing of a drastic increase in numbers of cases, but very slow increase in deaths. Has it already picked off the most vulnerable or has it mutated to less of a killing machine? Anyway, an oil shock is coming. It will be a strong catalyst to the renewables industry. 

Maybe this has all been hashed over, but there hasn't been any significant exploration for oil in the last 5 years or so because there hasn't been a need for it.  As user strangelovesurfing pointed out, there are absolutely enormous already identified supplies of oil available.  Existing shale producing basins, not to mention Western Canadian heavy oil are capable of increasing production in amounts vastly in excess of what the market requires.  For a time period running continuously from roughly 1945, until 2015, the ability of the oil industry to generate increased production lagged behind the desire of the market to provide product, but that's not the circumstances we are in right now.  Today, just as it was in the 1930's we are in a situation where the ability of the oil industry to provide product is in excess of market demand.  You may say that there are large numbers of people in the world who are energy poor, and that's true, but they are effectively unable to purchase more because at the current price they don't want/need more at the current price.  The only way to increase sales of oil right now would be to reduce price to stimulate demand (which is effectively what is happening at the moment) In the longer run, say the next 5-10 years, supply will be limited by demand.  Production will be quickly ramped up or down from new rapidly drilled and quickly produced wells using already known of resources of oil.  In this sense it will be  no different than the coal industry has been for the last 30 years or so - it's not looking for reserves either, because known locations of coal are more than sufficient to meet any reasonably predictable demand for the foreseeable future. 

[Eric Gagen + 713]

On 6/26/2020 at 5:35 AM, NickW said:

Id agree with you on that point. Th progression of the industry to very large turbines makes open flatlands a more viable option than hill crests.

Most of the turbine is recycled (the metals). The concrete is left in the ground. The blades can be reused however demand is limited so they can be buried in specific landfill cells - this means they can be dug up later and reused once a reccyling industry is developed. In any case they are inert so they aren't going to pollute the ground. 

As for the UK - most future build will be offshore and out of site of land. I am not fundamentally opposed  to fracking but you need to consider how densely populated the UK is compared to the USA. 

In theory the blades can be reused.  In practice this isn't happening, and for good reason.  Older turbines which are approaching the end of their revenue generating lives are the ones getting scrapped, and they all were set up with much shorter blades than any modern efficient turbines use.  You would have to pay (a lot) to get people to take them, because they aren't worth having.  Indeed, the primary reason they are getting scrapped isn't some form of 'wearing out' but the simple fact that they are poor designs compared to modern turbines and aren't cost effective generators of electricity.  

[NickW + 2,714]

28 minutes ago, Eric Gagen said:

In theory the blades can be reused.  In practice this isn't happening, and for good reason.  Older turbines which are approaching the end of their revenue generating lives are the ones getting scrapped, and they all were set up with much shorter blades than any modern efficient turbines use.  You would have to pay (a lot) to get people to take them, because they aren't worth having.  Indeed, the primary reason they are getting scrapped isn't some form of 'wearing out' but the simple fact that they are poor designs compared to modern turbines and aren't cost effective generators of electricity.  

The practical end of life options are recycling but you need a big enough supply to build the processes (similar story for Lithium batteries) or use as a fuel. In Europe blades are often ground up and used in cement / brick works. 

[nsdp + 449]

On 6/20/2020 at 10:44 AM, Adam Varga said:

According to analysts predictions, global coal industry will never recover from the COVID-19 pandemic as the pandemic crisis proves that renewable energy is cheaper for consumers and a safer asset for investors.

The transition from highly polluting fossil fuels to cleaner energy sources is accelerating even during the blockade, which has led to the closure of power plants in several countries and provided new evidence that coal use may finally peak after more for 200 years on stage.

http://www.economicodaily.com/the-coal-industry-may-never-recover-from-the-pandemic/ 

Dan you have never sat at the dispatchers desks and sent operating instructions to generators. Right now it is 2333 hours on 1 Jul and on ERCOT the highest Locational Market Price is $13.01/mwh at TH Wharton.  If your plan for fuel cost alone you are losing money. If your CCGT is elsewhere you pay the transmission fees which increases your loss.. The low is $1.01 at Kendall Substation.   CCGT's are running at 62% of name plate and that plays hell with heat rates. They will continue to operate at a loss for the next 8 hours.   It is night time wind that is selling for $11.01/mwh that is killing coal and natural gas.   NG that meets the market at night to stay on line is losing $2/mwh just to cover fuel costs. Then add transmission fees.

[Yoshiro Kamamura + 274]

On 6/20/2020 at 7:19 PM, Gerry Maddoux said:

Two points:

1) It's not the CO2 emissions from coal, it's sulfur--the stuff of acid rain. Sulfur is 100% removed by LNG trains. CO2 isn't hurting anything.

2) Shale oil is not going to decline, once this is all over. Why not? Because to not have it would immediately subject the United States of America--California included--to the volatile whims of the Kingdom of the Place That Spawned the Prince who had Mr. Khashoggi cut up into Tiny Pieces. 

CO2 is an important greenhouse gas that contributes to the climate change. Please feel free to educate yourself - before you start saying that all people and animals produce it, so it does not matter (the "usually stupid" argument). 

[Walter Faber + 48]

I am of course sorry for the coal workers losing their Jobs, but for society as a whole, coal can't be phased out soon enough. It's hard to imagine a more dirty way of generating electricity. Okay, maybe burning tead is worse. It is unfortunate that the replacement often is natural gas and not nuclear or renewables. Hopefully the gas fad will end in a decade or two to begin the era of renewables combined with storage technology or advanced nuclear. 

Edited July 5, 2020 by Walter Faber

[D Coyne + 305]

On 6/21/2020 at 12:25 AM, Physics Prof. said:

I come here to learn about the energy business but i know way more about one thing that anyone else commenting.  I'm an astrophysics prof and i understand planetary atmospheres:  radiative equilibrium, radiation transfer, infrared trapping.  Venus absorbs LESS solar energy ( diameter is the same) that Earth because the albedo more than compensates for the closeness.   Yet the surface is 900 deg F.   The reason is all the CO2 in the atmosphere.  If you're dismissive of global warming you're just engaging in magical thinking.   Time to grow up.

 

Most of these guys don't believe scientists, you are right of course, but the flat Earth crowd think climate change is a Marxist conspiracy. 

[D Coyne + 305]

On 6/23/2020 at 1:06 AM, Dan Clemmensen said:

That's good to hear in terms of keeping a cap on the oil price. As long as there is some way to make a modest profit from US production at a reasonable price, the cartel cannot screw us over. The basic equation for shale: put money in, get oil out quickly. This means any cartel price rise will cause an immediate return to completions, refracks, and drilling. This will also keep the NG price down, which will continue the deadly pressure on the coal industry.

Meanwhile, solar and wind just keep getting cheaper, and EVs keep getting better. If NG ever rises above the current giveaway prices, or if the real or perceived threat of climate change forces it, then we will move away from fossil fuels.

Keep in mind that the tight oil industry as a whole has racked up over 300 billion in cumulative debt so far (this is a very conservative estimate, the actual total is likely 50% higher), so it is not a profitable venture to date.  At $65/bo it might be able to be profitable, but is unclear there will be adequate World demand to sustain that price.  Bottom line  the total tight oil resource extracted in the US will be on the order of 50 to 90 Gb total (about 17 Gb of cumulative tight oil output to date), with about 30 Gb to 70 Gb remaining, if oil prices rise to $65/bo or higher and remain at that level until 2040.  Note that the US input to refineries each year is about 6 Gb per year, so 60 Gb would last for 10 years if it was the only input to US refineries (which in fact can only handle about 1.8 Gb per year, at that rate the tight oil resource might last for 33 years (assuming constant rate of use at 1.8 Gb per year) if none of the tight oil was exported.  Currently we export tight oil at the rate of about 1 Gb per year.