Transition to low carbon energy - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15041121
Just some ramblings on what I see as our fresh interest in moving away from energy that produce GHG at source.

US transition from coal to gas and renewables is accelerating. Now lowest in 42 years despite Trump's efforts to revive it.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/10/10/busi ... index.html

China and India the rate of new proposed coal plants has collapsed but many are still in the pipeline. These plants have a lifespan of 30-50 years so are only going to close if they become unviable.

This is exactly what is happening in Poland with neighbouring countries offering cheaper renewable energy than the cost of coal
https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1WP256


Europe is weaning itself off coal very quickly, down 22% YoY in September with Spain joining the group no longer reliant on coal.
Image
#15045387
This thread is just retarded propaganda. Coal is in decline but it is still by far the single largest source of energy. Renewables aren't anywhere close to replacing coal, most of the decline is primarily due to dirt cheap natural gas and increased energy efficiency. Renewables have displaced coal somewhat but not because they're competive, it's only because governments have imposed renewable mandates and carbon prices that drive up the cost of energy.
#15045391
it's only because governments have imposed renewable mandates


Renewable Energy Mandates Are Costly Climate Policies

Many U.S. states have renewable portfolio standards that require a certain percentage of electricity to come from renewable sources, mostly wind and solar power. These mandates are supposed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and while they do, a recent study found that they are a very costly means to do so. Researchers at the University of Chicago found, among other things, that the effective price per ton of carbon dioxide emissions reduced ranges between $130 and $460. Researchers at the University of Chicago found, among other things, that the effective price per ton of carbon dioxide emissions reduced ranges between $130 and $460, dwarfing even the harshest of carbon tax proposals. The study also showed that consumers have paid $125 billion more for electricity as a result of renewable mandates seven years after passage of the policy.

Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS)

A renewable portfolio standard is a regulation that requires the increased production of electricity from renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, biomass and geothermal. Another name for the concept is Renewable Electricity Standard. The mandate places an obligation on electricity supply companies to produce a specified fraction of their electricity from renewable energy sources. Renewable portfolio standards have been enacted by 29 states and the District of Columbia. Puerto Rico recently passed a 100 percent renewable mandate.

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch. ... -policies/


So they rig the game and then try to pretend like renewables are outcompeting coal. :knife: That's how fucking stupid this thread is.
#15045421
The problem with your argument is that LCOE of renewables is now lower than coal and the recent increase of renewables has not led to an increase in cost.

Historically your claim and the argument that over the last 7 years renewables were more expensive is true. The point of this thread is to show the recent transition.

The recent report by Lazard shows this transition clearly, even unsubsidised renewables are cheaper than coal and globally the demand for energy from coal is falling. If the price of renewables continues to fall and the increase in energy storage grows then Gas is next.

Image
#15045501
BeesKnee5 wrote: LCOE of renewables is now lower than coal


Yeah, no it's not, not when you factor in(among other things) the need for backup power. The problem with your argument is it's pure bullshit.


a November 2017 Berkeley Labs study on the “Impacts of Variable Renewable Energy (VRE) on Bulk Power System Assets, Pricing, and Costs,” says that “comparing the LCOE of different technologies that provide varying services is misleading.” For example, you can’t use the same measure to weigh the value of a small natural gas turbine to a large nuclear facility, or renewable energy – a variable resource – to more reliable coal plants. Doing so gives the perception that they are able to provide the same service. The study goes on to explain that the more renewable generation facilities you build, the more it costs the system to make up for their variability, and the less value they provide to electricity markets.

To determine the real price of renewable energy, or its ability to replace nuclear or fossil fuels, you must account for the high costs imposed by its variable nature. One example is the cost of many new transmission lines that link distant renewable generation installations to the electrical grid. You also need to include the construction of “fast ramping” natural gas plants, battery storage units or pumped hydroelectric facilities that can come online quickly to supply electricity when variable renewables suddenly cut out, as when the wind stops blowing or the sun stops shining.


https://www.mackinac.org/renewable-ener ... -after-all
#15045504
Sivad wrote:
Yeah, no it's not, not when you factor in(among other things) the need for backup power. The problem with your argument is it's pure bullshit.


a November 2017 Berkeley Labs study on the “Impacts of Variable Renewable Energy (VRE) on Bulk Power System Assets, Pricing, and Costs,” says that “comparing the LCOE of different technologies that provide varying services is misleading.” For example, you can’t use the same measure to weigh the value of a small natural gas turbine to a large nuclear facility, or renewable energy – a variable resource – to more reliable coal plants. Doing so gives the perception that they are able to provide the same service. The study goes on to explain that the more renewable generation facilities you build, the more it costs the system to make up for their variability, and the less value they provide to electricity markets.

To determine the real price of renewable energy, or its ability to replace nuclear or fossil fuels, you must account for the high costs imposed by its variable nature. One example is the cost of many new transmission lines that link distant renewable generation installations to the electrical grid. You also need to include the construction of “fast ramping” natural gas plants, battery storage units or pumped hydroelectric facilities that can come online quickly to supply electricity when variable renewables suddenly cut out, as when the wind stops blowing or the sun stops shining.


https://www.mackinac.org/renewable-ener ... -after-all

It's not an argument, it's an observation.
I can point to many, many examples of both business and countries going cold on coal. From India auctioning for 27 new coal plants and having virtually no bidders and only 3 of the 27 getting an offer, with no guarantee of them going beyond planning. Chile swapping out all is coal for renewables, Vietnam likewise. Indonesia losing its appetite for coal, fears Japan's new coal will end up sitting mothballed due to the rate of renewable up take, Spain closing its coal stations because they are no longer used, UK using over 50% renewable and Coal almost eliminated.

I think you missed the inclusion of Gas peaker power plants from my previous post and that the key to unlocking them is storage and interconnectors. Many new renewable sources now include battery storage to smooth out supply or connect to pumped hydo to work as the means of storage.

A very good example of how storage is changing the market is the Tesla facility in Australia that has already saved millions since it started operating. The cost of these facilities is still falling today.

'Tesla’s South Australian battery project, described as the world’s largest lithium-ion storage system when it was completed, has managed to save the state a large sum of money. The Hornsdale project, completed last November in 54 days, has reduced costs associated with stabilizing the energy grid by nearly AU$40 million ($28.9 million).'

https://www.inverse.com/article/51515-t ... t-of-money
#15045507
BeesKnee5 wrote:I can point to many, many examples of both business and countries going cold on coal. From India auctioning for 27 new coal plants and having virtually no bidders and only 3 of the 27 getting an offer, with no guarantee of them going beyond planning. Chile swapping out all is coal for renewables, Vietnam likewise. Indonesia losing its appetite for coal, fears Japan's new coal will end up sitting mothballed due to the rate of renewable up take, Spain closing its coal stations because they are no longer used, UK using over 50% renewable and Coal almost eliminated.


This is mostly a grossly exaggerated confused distortion and what's not grossly exaggerated and distorted is just outright bullshit that you just made up. :knife:

I think you missed the inclusion of Gas peaker power plants from my previous post and that the key to unlocking them is storage and interconnectors. Many new renewable sources now include battery storage to smooth out supply or connect to pumped hydo to work as the means of storage.


:knife: I didn't miss it, I just directly addressed it. When you factor in backups, storage, and additional infrastructure, renewables are still much more expensive than fossil fuels.



If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?

Michael Shellenberger


Over the last year, the media have published story after story after story about the declining price of solar panels and wind turbines.

People who read these stories are understandably left with the impression that the more solar and wind energy we produce, the lower electricity prices will become.

And yet that’s not what’s happening. In fact, it’s the opposite.

Between 2009 and 2017, the price of solar panels per watt declined by 75 percent while the price of wind turbines per watt declined by 50 percent.


And yet — during the same period — the price of electricity in places that deployed significant quantities of renewables increased dramatically.

Electricity prices increased by:

51 percent in Germany during its expansion of solar and wind energy from 2006 to 2016;

24 percent in California during its solar energy build-out from 2011 to 2017;

over 100 percent in Denmark since 1995 when it began deploying renewables (mostly wind) in earnest


What gives? If solar panels and wind turbines became so much cheaper, why did the price of electricity rise instead of decline?

Electricity prices increased by 51 percent in Germany during its expansion of solar and wind energy.


One hypothesis might be that while electricity from solar and wind became cheaper, other energy sources like coal, nuclear, and natural gas became more expensive, eliminating any savings, and raising the overall price of electricity.

But, again, that’s not what happened.

The price of natural gas declined by 72 percent in the U.S. between 2009 and 2016 due to the fracking revolution. In Europe, natural gas prices dropped by a little less than half over the same period.

The price of nuclear and coal in those place during the same period was mostly flat.


Another hypothesis might be that the closure of nuclear plants resulted in higher energy prices.

Evidence for this hypothesis comes from the fact that nuclear energy leaders Illinois, France, Sweden and South Korea enjoy some of the cheapest electricity in the world.

Since 2010, California closed one nuclear plant (2,140 MW installed capacity) while Germany closed 5 nuclear plants and 4 other reactors at currently-operating plants (10,980 MW in total).

Electricity in Illinois is 42 percent cheaper than electricity in California while electricity in France is 45 percent cheaper than electricity in Germany.

But this hypothesis is undermined by the fact that the price of the main replacement fuels, natural gas and coal, remained low, despite increased demand for those two fuels in California and Germany.

That leaves us with solar and wind as the key suspects behind higher electricity prices. But why would cheaper solar panels and wind turbines make electricity more expensive?

The main reason appears to have been predicted by a young German economist in 2013.

In a paper for Energy Policy, Leon Hirth estimated that the economic value of wind and solar would decline significantly as they become a larger part of electricity supply.

The reason? Their fundamentally unreliable nature. Both solar and wind produce too much energy when societies don’t need it, and not enough when they do.

Solar and wind thus require that natural gas plants, hydro-electric dams, batteries or some other form of reliable power be ready at a moment’s notice to start churning out electricity when the wind stops blowing and the sun stops shining.

And unreliability requires solar- and/or wind-heavy places like Germany, California and Denmark to pay neighboring nations or states to take their solar and wind energy when they are producing too much of it.

Hirth predicted that the economic value of wind on the European grid would decline 40 percent once it becomes 30 percent of electricity while the value of solar would drop by 50 percent when it got to just 15 percent.

In 2017, the share of electricity coming from wind and solar was 53 percent in Denmark, 26 percent in Germany, and 23 percent in California. Denmark and Germany have the first and second most expensive electricity in Europe.

By reporting on the declining costs of solar panels and wind turbines but not on how they increase electricity prices, journalists are — intentionally or unintentionally — misleading policymakers and the public about those two technologies.

The Los Angeles Times last year reported that California’s electricity prices were rising, but failed to connect the price rise to renewables, provoking a sharp rebuttal from UC Berkeley economist James Bushnell.

“The story of how California’s electric system got to its current state is a long and gory one,” Bushnell wrote, but “the dominant policy driver in the electricity sector has unquestionably been a focus on developing renewable sources of electricity generation.”

Part of the problem is that many reporters don’t understand electricity. They think of electricity as a commodity when it is, in fact, a service — like eating at a restaurant.

The price we pay for the luxury of eating out isn’t just the cost of the ingredients most of which which, like solar panels and wind turbines, have declined for decades.

Rather, the price of services like eating out and electricity reflect the cost not only of a few ingredients but also their preparation and delivery.

This is a problem of bias, not just energy illiteracy. Normally skeptical journalists routinely give renewables a pass. The reason isn’t because they don’t know how to report critically on energy — they do regularly when it comes to non-renewable energy sources — but rather because they don’t want to.

That could — and should — change. Reporters have an obligation to report accurately and fairly on all issues they cover, especially ones as important as energy and the environment.

A good start would be for them to investigate why, if solar and wind are so cheap, they are making electricity so expensive.
Last edited by Sivad on 30 Oct 2019 16:49, edited 1 time in total.
#15045510
Sivad wrote:This is mostly a grossly exaggerated confused distortion and what's not grossly exaggerated and distorted is just outright bullshit that you just made up. :knife:


Choose one and I'll give you more details


The second half of your response, misses the mark.
There is no doubt that Germany was wrong to scrap nuclear so fast or that some countries have always had more expensive energy costs. This isn't to do with renewables today, it's how the market in those countries operate and the price they paid when renewables were not cheaper.

Look at UK and Spain, have their energy costs increased by ditching Coal? No. They have interconnectors to smooth out the supply/demand side.

Look at countries highly reliant on Coal with low energy costs like Poland, their energy suppliers are opting to buy in energy from elsewhere when possible because it's cheaper.
#15045524
BeesKnee5 wrote:
The second half of your response, misses the mark.


Look at UK and Spain, have their energy costs increased by ditching Coal? No.



:knife: UK energy prices have more than doubled since 2005 and electricity prices in Spain are among the highest in Europe. You just don't know what you're talking about and you're making shit up.
#15045525
Another US story

For the first time, Pacific Northwest and Rocky Mountain utility PacifiCorp is planning to rely on massive amounts of solar PV and batteries, as well as wind power, for a large share of its long-term energy needs. The company also wants to shut down economically struggling coal plants years earlier than scheduled

For PacifiCorp’s current fleet of 24 coal units, they plan retiring 16 of them by 2030 and 20 of them by 2038. 

These will be replaced with.

3,000 megawatts of new solar in Utah paired with 635 megawatts of battery storage, phased in between 2020 and 2037

1,415 megawatts of new solar in Wyoming paired with 354 megawatts of battery storage, phased in between 2024 and 2038

1,075 megawatts of new solar in Oregon paired with 244 megawatts of battery storage, phased in between 2020 and 2033

814 megawatts of new solar in Washington paired with 204 megawatts of battery storage, phased in between 2024 and 2036. 
#15045526
Sivad wrote:
:knife: UK energy prices have more than doubled since 2005 and electricity prices in Spain are among the highest in Europe. You just don't know what you're talking about and you're making shit up.


I think it's you who appears to be missing the point here. Why are you comparing to 2005 when the coal phase out has really only been genuine for the last 5 years.

Image
#15045566
A new report from the Global Warming Policy Foundation finds that consumers are paying far too much for the emissions reductions delivered by renewable energy. The report, linked here, by Dr Capell Aris, is the result of extensive energy system modelling, and reports the costs, greenhouse gas emissions and grid security delivered by the current grid and by a series of counterfactual energy systems. As Dr Aris explains:

“The dash for gas of the 1990s delivered lower carbon dioxide emissions and lower costs. If we had simply continued, we could now be enjoying electricity prices 30-40% lower than today, with similar carbon dioxide emissions, and vastly better grid security. Consumers are grossly overpaying for a very unreliable system.”

This counterintuitive result arises because of the effect of intermittent renewables on the grid. Renewables have forced gas-fired power stations to ramp their output up and down in order to balance the grid and prevent blackouts. In addition, nobody is investing in the most efficient modern gas-fired plant while renewables are subsidised. The result is that the gas-fired fleet is much less efficient than it should be.

And the situation is going to get worse. Dr Aris has examined National Grid’s plans for the future generation mix and says we should expect steep price rises to continue every year for the foreseeable future. However, he also finds that with a system based on gas and nuclear power, emissions reductions could continue out to 2030 while maintaining consumer power prices at their current level. This result holds even if the very high prices of the planned Hinkley C power station apply in practice.
As Dr Aris puts it:

The systems National Grid are looking at putting in place will deliver significant carbon emissions but will double electricity prices. A system based on gas and nuclear would deliver similar emissions cuts at around half the price. This shouldn’t, therefore, be a difficult decision.

https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads ... System.pdf
#15045588
Sivad wrote:A new report from the Global Warming Policy Foundation finds that consumers are paying far too much for the emissions reductions delivered by renewable energy. The report, linked here, by Dr Capell Aris, is the result of extensive energy system modelling, and reports the costs, greenhouse gas emissions and grid security delivered by the current grid and by a series of counterfactual energy systems. As Dr Aris explains:

“The dash for gas of the 1990s delivered lower carbon dioxide emissions and lower costs. If we had simply continued, we could now be enjoying electricity prices 30-40% lower than today, with similar carbon dioxide emissions, and vastly better grid security. Consumers are grossly overpaying for a very unreliable system.”

This counterintuitive result arises because of the effect of intermittent renewables on the grid. Renewables have forced gas-fired power stations to ramp their output up and down in order to balance the grid and prevent blackouts. In addition, nobody is investing in the most efficient modern gas-fired plant while renewables are subsidised. The result is that the gas-fired fleet is much less efficient than it should be.

And the situation is going to get worse. Dr Aris has examined National Grid’s plans for the future generation mix and says we should expect steep price rises to continue every year for the foreseeable future. However, he also finds that with a system based on gas and nuclear power, emissions reductions could continue out to 2030 while maintaining consumer power prices at their current level. This result holds even if the very high prices of the planned Hinkley C power station apply in practice.
As Dr Aris puts it:

The systems National Grid are looking at putting in place will deliver significant carbon emissions but will double electricity prices. A system based on gas and nuclear would deliver similar emissions cuts at around half the price. This shouldn’t, therefore, be a difficult decision.

https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads ... System.pdf
GWPF are a Tufton Street street think tank funded by the oil industry.

You will need to improve your sources if I am to take you seriously
#15045634
The absolute most hilarious part of this retarded farce is how the UK and EU traded coal for wood pellets:

Europe’s renewable energy policy is built on burning American trees

In the lowland forests of the American southeast, loblolly pines and cypress trees are grabbing carbon dioxide from the air right now. Using power from the sun, they release the oxygen and bind the carbon, building trunks, barks, and leaves.

But much of that carbon won’t stay there. As it turns out, millions of tons of wood from these forests each year are being shipped across the Atlantic, and burned in power plants in countries like the UK and the Netherlands, in the name of slowing climate change.

As they steadily wean themselves off coal, European Union nations are banking on wood energy, or “biomass,” to meet their obligations under the Paris climate agreement.

That’s because in 2009, the EU committed itself to 20 percent renewable energy by 2020, and put biomass on the renewables list. Several countries, like the United Kingdom, subsidized the biomass industry, creating a sudden market for wood not good enough for the timber industry. In the United States, Canada, and Eastern Europe, crooked trees, bark, treetops, and sawdust have been pulped, pressed into pellets, and heat-dried in kilns. By 2014, biomass accounted for 40 percent of the EU’s renewable energy, by far the largest source. By 2020, it’s projected to make up 60 percent, and the US plans to follow suit.

Fueling this boom is a simple, intuitive idea: that biomass is both renewable and “carbon neutral,” and a way to keep an economy built on burning fossil fuels humming along.

But a cadre of scientists and policy activists are now pushing back, saying that biomass energy rests on deceptive accounting. Rather than being carbon neutral, biomass is liquidating millions of tons of irreplaceable carbon stocks in the midst of a climate crisis already out of control.

There are few bigger players in the biomass industry than Drax Group, whose flagship power plant in the north of England sucks up nearly a quarter of global wood pellet production, about two-thirds of it from the US. The UK has bought big into biomass, and Drax powers 10 percent of the British electric grid, in large part thanks to massive government subsidies: about $1.2 billion a year.

Drax is burning wood in its former coal plants :lol:

Image

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/ ... ts-biomass




They started burning a fuckton of wood to make up for the coal phase out. :lol: :knife:
#15045636
Another good one is how the Brits are getting killed on wholesale energy prices because the coal phase out created enormous demand for natural gas and drove the price right through the fucking roof.

It's just all retarded all the time with the net zero clowns.
#15045660
New York’s Plan to Kill Coal Is Already Boosting Power Prices

But there probably will be an effect, said Ignacia Mercadal, assistant professor at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs.

“As the coal generators would shut down, prices are expected to increase because demand will need to be covered by new sources of electricity, which are typically more expensive,’’ Mercadal said in an email.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... wer-prices
The Irishman...

I don't think DeNiro's politics played into it, at[…]

Man, imagine if I'd never done hallucinogens. I c[…]

Bunk. As chair of an impeachment inquiry, Schiff […]

Julian Assange arrested in London

Tories will most def extradite Assange, they've n[…]