GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

Just now, Ecocharger said:

Anything that removes toxic emissions is relatively new. Those are non-existent in the older Chinese coal technology, which creates those famous photographs of toxic fog,

That tech is not new we have had it for 40 years or more. The Chinese finally began installing it.

[Ecocharger + 1,381]

1 minute ago, Jay McKinsey said:

That tech is not new we have had it for 40 years or more. The Chinese finally began installing it.

If they just began to install it, it is new. Think in world terms, Jay, not North American. I can remember toxic coal-burning plant emissions in my own lifetime, so can you.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

Just now, Ecocharger said:

If they just began to install it, it is new. Think in world terms, Jay, not North American. I can remember toxic coal-burning plant emissions in my own lifetime, so can you.

So there we have it. No new tech. You've just been out gassing from your arse.  

China was embarrassed enough after the Beijing Olympics to copy our old technology. So much for your new tech leading to a coal renaissance.

Biggest Philippine Power Generator Will Drop New Coal Projects

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/biggest-philippine-power-generator-will-drop-new-coal-projects-1.1627489

Chile speeds up plans to close coal plants, to retire half its fleet by 2025

https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/electric-power/042821-chile-speeds-up-plans-to-close-coal-plants-to-retire-half-its-fleet-by-2025

• Oh and India did update their NDC on schedule, six months ago.

[turbguy + 1,405]

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

If they just began to install it, it is new. Think in world terms, Jay, not North American. I can remember toxic coal-burning plant emissions in my own lifetime, so can you.

So, nothing new. 

Didn't think so. 

Just the rest of the world trying to catch up to the US.

 

Edited July 12, 2021 by turbguy

[Ecocharger + 1,381]

8 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

So there we have it. No new tech. You've just been out gassing from your arse.  

China was embarrassed enough after the Beijing Olympics to copy our old technology. So much for your new tech leading to a coal renaissance.

Biggest Philippine Power Generator Will Drop New Coal Projects

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/biggest-philippine-power-generator-will-drop-new-coal-projects-1.1627489

Chile speeds up plans to close coal plants, to retire half its fleet by 2025

https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/electric-power/042821-chile-speeds-up-plans-to-close-coal-plants-to-retire-half-its-fleet-by-2025

• Oh and India did update their NDC on schedule, six months ago.

Really? Here is today's story. JULY 11, 2021

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/india-wants-rich-countries-to-pay-more-for-green-energy-shift-1.1627718

India has demanded money, lots of it, to finance the green transition. The Green Dream is being held hostage.

"India’s situation is even more complex. The country is the world’s third-biggest emitter of carbon dioxide, but shifting away from fossil fuels to renewable energy will be financially challenging. This may bust the myth of cheap solar and wind power but it also highlights the difficulty in distributing the cost of the transition.

“We have our own developmental imperatives,” Gupta explained to Bloomberg. “If you want that I don’t emit carbon, then provide finance. It will be much more than $100 billion per year for developing nations.”

Because of these cost challenges, India has no plans to update its emissions reduction target, dubbed the Nationally Determined Contribution, which it released in 2015 and was expected to revise by 2020.

“This is not the final decision, but most probably we won’t file a revised NDC,” Gupta said. “Let there be a decision on climate finance first.”"

Looks like you have your dates mixed up again, Jay.

 

Edited July 13, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,381]

8 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

 

In other words, my point stands. Thank you.

Edited July 13, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,381]

Oil prices have nowhere to go but up, apparently.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/Spreads-And-Inventory-Levels-Suggest-Oil-Prices-Will-Go-Even-Higher.html

[Rob Plant + 2,635]

12 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Check out the earlier pages on CO2, we discussed this in depth.

That is an irrelevant question at this stage, the energy transition is now dead.

"“We have our own developmental imperatives,” Gupta explained to Bloomberg. “If you want that I don’t emit carbon, then provide finance. It will be much more than $100 billion per year for developing nations.”"

According to this on Oil Price India and China's new build coal plants will cost 85% more than renewables and India is now backing out of many coal projects because of the economics . This Gupta is just trying to fleece the West for cash when it isnt warranted. Also private investors are turning their backs on these new coal plant projects.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/New-Coal-Plants-Are-Popping-Up-All-Over-Asia.html

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Private-Investors-Shun-Indias-Coal-Projects.html

Edited July 13, 2021 by Rob Plant

[Rob Plant + 2,635]

It will and invariably always does come down to cost

This is a section of the link above

"So, while China is increasing its investment in renewables projects, with it expecting to add 90 GW wind and solar capacity to the grid in 2021, the importance of coal cannot be overlooked. 

However, the report predicts that renewable energy will overtake coal production in India and Indonesia by 2024. And it will become less economically viable than renewables in Japan and Vietnam by 2022. 

Meanwhile, other Asian countries are following in the footsteps of Europe and abandoning coal production. For example, Thailand’s largest coal producer, Banpu, has said it will not pursue any new coal projects in a shift towards greener energy.

Coal isnt going away anytime soon, I agree on that just like oil isnt. However to say that the energy switch to renewables is dead in the water is plainly just wrong as its already more economically viable than most new build coal plants which are as @turbguysays are very inefficient besides being very pollutive.

Any private sector investment in new coal plants is a bad investment

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

There is an inverse S-curve developing in the U.S. coal generation sector, with announced plant retirements expanding rapidly as utilities and independent power producers adjust to the influx of cleaner and cheaper wind, solar and battery storage resources disrupting the electric system.

IEEFA data shows that just since March, the generating capacity of coal plants slated to retire or convert to gas from 2021-2030 has risen by 10 gigawatts (GW), to a total of 80.9GW—a 116% increase from a year ago in March 2020, when utilities had only 37.4GW of coal capacity scheduled to close through 2030.

The change is equally pronounced for retirements from 2031-40. IEEFA data shows 35.3GW of coal capacity slated to retire this decade, up sharply from the scheduled 19.4GW of retirements in March 2021 and almost triple the 13.7GW tracked in March 2020.

https://ieefa.org/ieefa-u-s-surge-of-coal-fired-generation-retirements-looking-like-a-reverse-s-curve/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=ieefa-u-s-surge-of-coal-fired-generation-retirements-looking-like-a-reverse-s-curve

Edited July 13, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,381]

11 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

It will and invariably always does come down to cost

This is a section of the link above

"So, while China is increasing its investment in renewables projects, with it expecting to add 90 GW wind and solar capacity to the grid in 2021, the importance of coal cannot be overlooked. 

However, the report predicts that renewable energy will overtake coal production in India and Indonesia by 2024. And it will become less economically viable than renewables in Japan and Vietnam by 2022. 

Meanwhile, other Asian countries are following in the footsteps of Europe and abandoning coal production. For example, Thailand’s largest coal producer, Banpu, has said it will not pursue any new coal projects in a shift towards greener energy.

Coal isnt going away anytime soon, I agree on that just like oil isnt. However to say that the energy switch to renewables is dead in the water is plainly just wrong as its already more economically viable than most new build coal plants which are as @turbguysays are very inefficient besides being very pollutive.

Any private sector investment in new coal plants is a bad investment

We will see going forward, but right now China is ramping up its coal production in spades.

The U.S. is increasing coal production this year by 15%.

Up and down are opposite directions.

[Ecocharger + 1,381]

29 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

There is an inverse S-curve developing in the U.S. coal generation sector, with announced plant retirements expanding rapidly as utilities and independent power producers adjust to the influx of cleaner and cheaper wind, solar and battery storage resources disrupting the electric system.

IEEFA data shows that just since March, the generating capacity of coal plants slated to retire or convert to gas from 2021-2030 has risen by 10 gigawatts (GW), to a total of 80.9GW—a 116% increase from a year ago in March 2020, when utilities had only 37.4GW of coal capacity scheduled to close through 2030.

The change is equally pronounced for retirements from 2031-40. IEEFA data shows 35.3GW of coal capacity slated to retire this decade, up sharply from the scheduled 19.4GW of retirements in March 2021 and almost triple the 13.7GW tracked in March 2020.

https://ieefa.org/ieefa-u-s-surge-of-coal-fired-generation-retirements-looking-like-a-reverse-s-curve/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=ieefa-u-s-surge-of-coal-fired-generation-retirements-looking-like-a-reverse-s-curve

Any projections further out than five years are highly burdened with guesswork.

So many other variables can and do change beyond that time frame.

Edited July 13, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,381]

Oil is on a golden run right now.

"Not only is fossil fuel demand expected to rebound to pre-pandemic levels, but it is set to increase."

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/A-Zero-Cost-Solution-For-The-Oil-Industrys-Methane-Problem.html

Edited July 13, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,381]

11 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

According to this on Oil Price India and China's new build coal plants will cost 85% more than renewables and India is now backing out of many coal projects because of the economics . This Gupta is just trying to fleece the West for cash when it isnt warranted. Also private investors are turning their backs on these new coal plant projects.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/New-Coal-Plants-Are-Popping-Up-All-Over-Asia.html

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Private-Investors-Shun-Indias-Coal-Projects.html

Many investors are not looking at economics for those decisions, but public relations, they don't want to look like "badguys" in the liberal press. Rational investment rules are ignored.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

Majority of New Renewables Undercut Cheapest Fossil Fuel on Cost 

22 June 2021| Press Release

---

Countries urged to power past coal as new report confirms renewables would bring cost savings of USD 156 billion to emerging economies.

Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, June 22, 2021 – The share of renewable energy that achieved lower costs than the most competitive fossil fuel option doubled in 2020, a new report by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) shows. 162 gigawatts (GW) or 62 per cent of total renewable power generation added last year had lower costs than the cheapest new fossil fuel option.

Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2020 shows that costs for renewable technologies continued to fall significantly year-on-year. Concentrating solar power (CSP) fell by 16 per cent, onshore wind by 13 per cent, offshore wind by 9 per cent and solar PV by 7 per cent. With costs at low levels, renewables increasingly undercut existing coal’s operational costs too. Low-cost renewables give developed and developing countries a strong business case to power past coal in pursuit of a net zero economy. Just 2020’s new renewable project additions will save emerging economies up to USD 156 billion over their lifespan.

https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2021/Jun/Majority-of-New-Renewables-Undercut-Cheapest-Fossil-Fuel-on-Cost

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

Any projections further out than five years are highly burdened with guesswork.

So many other variables can and do change beyond that time frame.

Expensive coal is driving the closures sooner and sooner.

"The broad acceleration of utilities’ plans for coal retirements is exemplified by the new Clean Energy Plan announced recently by Michigan’s Consumers Energy, in which it now proposes to be coal-free by 2025. That’s 15 years sooner than what the company proposed just three years ago in its 2018 integrated resource plan. In that plan, Consumers said it would close Dan Karn Units 1 and 2 in 2023, Units 1 and 2 at the Campbell plant in 2031, and its final coal generating unit, Campbell 3, in 2040. Consumers would have still relied on coal-fired generation for almost 30% of its electric output through 2030 and more than 15% through 2040.

That all changed in June, when Consumers filed its 2021 IRP, which now calls for the closure of all three coal units at the 1,462MW Campbell plant in 2025. Importantly, the new, faster phaseout is also cheaper. According to Consumers’ filing, retiring its coal units in 2025 and ramping up its renewable capacity will save consumers $650 million through 2040, compared to the earlier plan."

Edited July 13, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[turbguy + 1,405]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Majority of New Renewables Undercut Cheapest Fossil Fuel on Cost 

22 June 2021| Press Release

---

 

Countries urged to power past coal as new report confirms renewables would bring cos savings of USD 156 billion to emerging economies.

Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, June 22, 2021 – The share of renewable energy that achieved lower costs than the most competitive fossil fuel option doubled in 2020, a new report by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) shows. 162 gigawatts (GW) or 62 per cent of total renewable power generation added last year had lower costs than the cheapest new fossil fuel option.

Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2020 shows that costs for renewable technologies continued to fall significantly year-on-year. Concentrating solar power (CSP) fell by 16 per cent, onshore wind by 13 per cent, offshore wind by 9 per cent and solar PV by 7 per cent. With costs at low levels, renewables increasingly undercut existing coal’s operational costs too. Low-cost renewables give developed and developing countries a strong business case to power past coal in pursuit of a net zero economy. Just 2020’s new renewable project additions will save emerging economies up to USD 156 billion over their lifespan.

https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2021/Jun/Majority-of-New-Renewables-Undercut-Cheapest-Fossil-Fuel-on-Cost

I still cannot comprehend why many on this forum refuse to recognize energy sources that have ZERO operational wastes, require ZERO water, and consume ZERO fuel have a distinct advantage over conventional sources.

Are they still buying buggy whips?

That being said, fossil fueled energy still has a future.

Just not a good one.

Edited July 13, 2021 by turbguy

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,542]

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

I still cannot comprehend why many on this forum refuse to recognize energy sources that have ZERO operational wastes, require ZERO water, and consume ZERO fuel have a distinct advantage over conventional sources.

Are they still buying buggy whips?

That being said, fossil fueled energy still has a future.

Just not a good one.

That would be a point one could articulate on with quite a bit of clarity

1. Nuclear plant capable of powering a city of 5 million. Cost

2. Wind/battery plant capable of powering a city of 5 million. Battery field needs to be able to run 24 hours without wind generation. Cost

3 LNG plant, same criteria. I'm not quite sure if a gas plant can scale to that demand. Cost

Cost vs yield, anything short of that simply does not qualify.

[turbguy + 1,405]

41 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

That would be a point one could articulate on with quite a bit of clarity

1. Nuclear plant capable of powering a city of 5 million. Cost

2. Wind/battery plant capable of powering a city of 5 million. Battery field needs to be able to run 24 hours without wind generation. Cost

3 LNG plant, same criteria. I'm not quite sure if a gas plant can scale to that demand. Cost

Cost vs yield, anything short of that simply does not qualify.

First cost, life cost, or operating cost/KWH?

Nat gas can scale.

BTW, a "city of 5 million" will not require full output of a nuc or nat gas all of the time. 

Edited July 14, 2021 by turbguy

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,542]

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

First cost, life cost, or operating cost/KWH?

Nat gas can scale.

BTW, a "city of 5 million" will not require full output of a nuc or nat gas all of the time. 

Make it simple just cost of the facility. City of 5 million is the benchmark low demand high demand are meaning less. High demand would be the criteria. 

To do what I want to do is what people pay for, additional headroom is a fringe benefit. 

My son is a environmental engineer, often he used to get caught in cost benefit analysis, the projects always suffered using costs/benefits. Today it's purely design, and corporate always signs off on any and all design modifications. 

 

 

Edited July 14, 2021 by Eyes Wide Open

[turbguy + 1,405]

1 hour ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Make it simple just cost of the facility. City of 5 million is the benchmark low demand high demand are meaning less. High demand would be the criteria. 

To do what I want to do is what people pay for, additional headroom is a fringe benefit. 

My son is a environmental engineer, often he used to get caught in cost benefit analysis, the projects always suffered using costs/benefits. Today it's purely design, and corporate always signs off not any and all design modifications. 

 

 

Capital costs (including financing): All +/-, and of course, subject to debate...

Nuclear, about $6000/KW (goes up with time).

Wind, about $1500/KW (goes down with time, slowly).

Battery, about $2200/KW  (REALLY goes down quickly with time).

Total wind and battery, about $3700/KW .  Somewhat equal to a supercritical steam plant, much lower than ultra-supercritical steam.

CC Nat gas and recips are cheapest.  About $1300/KW.

You choose...

Edited July 14, 2021 by turbguy

[Ecocharger + 1,381]

5 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Expensive coal is driving the closures sooner and sooner.

"The broad acceleration of utilities’ plans for coal retirements is exemplified by the new Clean Energy Plan announced recently by Michigan’s Consumers Energy, in which it now proposes to be coal-free by 2025. That’s 15 years sooner than what the company proposed just three years ago in its 2018 integrated resource plan. In that plan, Consumers said it would close Dan Karn Units 1 and 2 in 2023, Units 1 and 2 at the Campbell plant in 2031, and its final coal generating unit, Campbell 3, in 2040. Consumers would have still relied on coal-fired generation for almost 30% of its electric output through 2030 and more than 15% through 2040.

That all changed in June, when Consumers filed its 2021 IRP, which now calls for the closure of all three coal units at the 1,462MW Campbell plant in 2025. Importantly, the new, faster phaseout is also cheaper. According to Consumers’ filing, retiring its coal units in 2025 and ramping up its renewable capacity will save consumers $650 million through 2040, compared to the earlier plan."

Well, what would you expect from that Michigan committee of revolutionaries? 

Meantime, U.S. coal production is going up 15% this year, probably more next year.

[Ecocharger + 1,381]

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

Capital costs (including financing): All +/-, and of course, subject to debate...

Nuclear, about $6000/KW (goes up with time).

Wind, about $1500/KW (goes down with time, slowly).

Battery, about $2200/KW  (REALLY goes down quickly with time).

Total wind and battery, about $3700/KW .  Somewhat equal to a supercritical steam plant, much lower than ultra-supercritical steam.

CC Nat gas and recips are cheapest.  About $1300/KW.

You choose...

Actually, renewable input costs are rapidly rising, putting into question the cost savings presumed to exist.

[Ecocharger + 1,381]

Oil is going gangbusters, will be the dominant force going forward as transport goes forward...fast.

"Crude has become the hottest commodity for traders in the past few weeks as surging demand has topped all expectations, sparking a run on oil futures. According to a recent Wall Street Journal report, in mid-June, the ratio of bullish to bearish bets on oil in New York stood at a staggering 23 to 1. This compares with a ratio of 6 to 1 at the beginning of the year."

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Oil-Has-Become-The-Hottest-Commodity-On-Wall-Street.html

Edited July 14, 2021 by Ecocharger

[turbguy + 1,405]

54 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Actually, renewable input costs are rapidly rising, putting into question the cost savings presumed to exist.

Then that would also effect fossil and nuc.

You think fossil doesn't use similar materials/services??

Edited July 14, 2021 by turbguy