Lloyd's of London excludes coal

[Stephen + 67]

Lloyd’s of London, the world’s oldest insurance market, has become the latest financial firm to announce that it plans to stop investing in coal companies. Lloyd’s will start to exclude coal from its investment strategy from 1 April. The definition of what is a coal company and the criteria for divestment will be set over the coming months. In other news  the Church of England has gone further, pulling out of investing in companies that make more than 10% of their revenues from thermal coal or oil from tar sands.

[Meanwhile + 49]

So they've finally realized that they will be bankrupted by climate change. took them long enough

[JohnAtronis + 78]

Helping the environment is a side-effect for most business. Now it sees  that is is killing the business. No choice but to stop.

[Joanna + 68]

An insurance company selling its stake in a coal miner doesn't reduce coal output or consumption by a single ounce.

[Stephen + 67]

Insurance companies seek low risk low return investments. Exiting coal as a market for low risk low return investment signals that the risk of not getting a full return on capital invested is real. Simple 

[Joanna + 68]

Just now, Stephen said:

Insurance companies seek low risk low return investments. Exiting coal as a market for low risk low return investment signals that the risk of not getting a full return on capital invested is real. Simple 

the investment is becoming more toxic. And so therefore worth less.

[Joanna + 68]

In US, a number of coastal places the private insurers have stepped out and so the government has stepped in. For instance, the state of Florida, which officially denies global warming, has encouraged a lot of expensive coastal development by insuring what the private sector won’t.

[Stephen + 67]

In some ways I am more sad by the knowledge that this is purely an economic calculation rather than an ethical one. Economic motives seem to be the only operative force in politics these days. Only hope for change

[Addy + 14]

2 hours ago, Stephen said:

In some ways I am more sad by the knowledge that this is purely an economic calculation rather than an ethical one. Economic motives seem to be the only operative force in politics these days. Only hope for change

So economic calculations shouldn't factor in? 

[Philbo + 6]

Lloyds are a business not a charity. They are reacting to a measurable change in the energy market; political and technological changes altering their business. They can see the gradual adoption of increasingly competative renewable technology. The future for Lloyds is not coal and it has laid down a marker.

Whether the Emerging economies can afford to drop coal at the same rate is another matter, we will probably see the development of nation-state support for insurance solutions supporting a parallel adoption of coal based technology in their markets.

 

[Guillaume Albasini + 851]

Some years ago investing in renewables was an ideological or ethical move. Now it's an economic one. This is why the shift to renewables is accelerating.

And this is not just a western trend. This is a global trend.

In India cheap solar and wind energy is killing the coal-based power plants :

https://qz.com/1272394/cheap-solar-and-wind-energy-prices-are-killing-indias-coal-power-plants/

[TomTom + 183]

Check out Peter Tertzakian's latest piece about the energy transition... coal is in decline, but not dead yet: https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Myth-Of-An-Imminent-Energy-Transition.html

[sudhir + 9]

On 1/22/2018 at 7:04 PM, Stephen said:

Lloyd’s of London, the world’s oldest insurance market, has become the latest financial firm to announce that it plans to stop investing in coal companies. Lloyd’s will start to exclude coal from its investment strategy from 1 April. The definition of what is a coal company and the criteria for divestment will be set over the coming months. In other news  the Church of England has gone further, pulling out of investing in companies that make more than 10% of their revenues from thermal coal or oil from tar sands.

I wonder how it helps worlds economy ?

[Her + 2]

That’s smart as coal miners from Tennessee are tired of digging and the future is in wind power technology as well as gas natural gas and solar energies.

[Sebastian Meana + 278]

The BP energy statistical reports says that coal consumption rise from 3706 million tons oil equivalent to the 3731.5 million tons oil equivalent, the investors overestimate their importance, well managed, Oil, Gas, and Coal companies just self finance themselves if they don't invest on them.

Coal demand will keep rising around the world because while Natural Gas is cheaper in the US than coal (Same price per ton, and 67% more energy density) to export it overseas to countries where demand is high it has to be liquified, and LNG is in average twice as expensive as Coal, plus the US doesn't really need fossil fuels, add 760GW of Hydropower, 350GW of Geothermal, 250GW of wind+pumped storage, 150GW of Tidal and why not? 500GW of nuclear power.

Even if LNG became cheaper than coal a country like japan and south Korea will still prefer to import Coal, Oil and Gas instead of choosing one because makes them less dependant on a single resource. Most countries in Africa and Southeast Asia that wan't to develop are realizing that their Geothermal and Hydro resources are likely not enough to fulfil all the energy demand, and wind and solar are simply Top-demand sources of electricity. Not every country has the geography and renewable reliable energy resources that the USA and Russia has.

Oh, talking about carbon taxes, biomass is in average 2 to 3 times more polluting than Coal given the lower energy density that wood has, and most of it cames from forest instead of wood waste.

[Sebastian Meana + 278]

On 5/15/2018 at 4:00 AM, Guillaume Albasini said:

Some years ago investing in renewables was an ideological or ethical move. Now it's an economic one. This is why the shift to renewables is accelerating.

And this is not just a western trend. This is a global trend.

In India cheap solar and wind energy is killing the coal-based power plants :

https://qz.com/1272394/cheap-solar-and-wind-energy-prices-are-killing-indias-coal-power-plants/

Correction, Oil and Gas is replacing coal

The only renewable energy sources that are actually relevant are Hydropower, Tidal, and Geothermal, plus Fast-Breeder Nuclear Fission.

[Guillaume Albasini + 851]

Sorry Sebastian but you are wrong. Look at the chart below. Since 2016, the annual capacity addition in India is mainly from solar and wind and not from gas or oil.

Annual Capacity addition in India

Annual capacity addition in MW.

Source: Bridge to India

[Sebastian Meana + 278]

Capacity is not generation, capacity is the electricity you say you can generate, and capacity factor is the electricity you actually generate

Which makes me go to the numbers, India installed capacity, India installed capacity by 2017

Coal: 196,957.5 MW,
Solar Power: 21,651.48 MW
Wind Power: 34,046 MW
Gas: 24,897.46 MW
Hydro: 49,889.23
Nuclear: 6,780 MW

But the energy generation numbers are this

Coal: 944,861 GWh.
Gas: 49,094 GWh
Wind Power: 46,011 GWh
Solar Power: 12,086 GWh
Hydro: 129,912 GWh
Nuclear: 37,916 GWh

Giving an average capacity factors like this

Coal: 55%
Solar: 6%
Wind: 15%
Gas: 23%
Hydro: 29%
Nuclear: 63%

While rising the capacity factors of Coal, Nuclear, Gas, and Hydro to the 80-100% is possible rising the capacity factors of solar is nearly impossible, remember that India is on the tropics, in fact India solar potential is lower than in the northwest territories of Canada, because despite being very hot, is also a humid place, and humidity tends to absorb light to turn into heat, solar panels and any solar power-plants need light, not heat.

But, rising the capacity factors of wind power can be possible, is hard, but possible, you just need to make the turbines veeery big and put them in windy places, and building pumped storage dam to use the electricity when you need it.