Climate Change

[free spirit]

We do not have the capacity to burn much more coal as we are closing many of our plants to meet the Large Combustion Plant Directive.
With the exception of the US, I cannot think of many places where coal has been displaced due to cost. If the price of coal drops, it may become more affordable for some economies, but there is little else driving a big expansion of coal. If the EU and China are reducing their carbon per $ GDP then there will be a big pressure from them to price carbon, making their more carbon efficient economies pay.

I am not blown away by the likely hood of China following through on this, but if they do then they will have a strong incentive to push for a stronger, more binding global treaty.

We are obviously rather late in the day but maybe its a bit of good news.

both the UK and Germany had a major switch from gas to coal n 2012&13 due entirely to price rises in gas, and price reductions in coal caused by the glut in excess coal from the US, which in turn was caused by the glut of gas from fracking without any export capacity.

Most of Europe still has a huge capacity of coal plants that are operating on limited hours til 2016 that means they have the capacity to make a significant switch from gas back to coal if the coal price drops enough.

yes that capacity is reducing, but there's still huge capacity to replace gas with coal in the EU based on pricing, and we'll still have a significant capacity of coal plants even after 2016.

On carbon pricing... it's a bollocks mechanism, completely useless in the face of a glut of coal as the price will just sink to a point where it actually is able to undercut gas regardless of the carbon pricing, unless the floor price is set so high as to make them uneconomic in the first place, in which case we may as well just legislate to gradually close them down / restrict operating hours instead.

 

[ferrelhadley]

both the UK and Germany had a major switch from gas to coal n 2012&13 due entirely to price rises in gas

The Germans are shutting down their nuclear and the UK firms are running their coal stations with the remaining allotted burning under the European large combustion plant directive.

About 6.1 gigawatts of UK coal plant capacity is expected to shut down by 2015 due to the European Union's Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD). The LCPD requires plants to reduce sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and particulate matter emissions. If plants choose not to comply, they can only operate for a further 20,000 hours - and must shut down for good by 2015.

The map below shows which UK plants have closed since 2011, and are expected to close in the next decade (click on it to go to the interactive page).

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/08/the-uk’s-power-plant-graveyards-what,-where,-and-why/

 

[free spirit]

The Germans are shutting down their nuclear and the UK firms are running their coal stations with the remaining allotted burning under the European large combustion plant directive.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/08/the-uk’s-power-plant-graveyards-what,-where,-and-why/

The UK will retain approximately 16GW of coal generation capacity beyond 2018 according to Ofgem, the LCPD gave the plant operators the option of limited hours until 2016, or retrofitting scrubbers to clean up their emissions, so approx 16GW of capacity has chosen the latter option and will remain open under current plans.

How much coal is then burned depends on the load factor of the remaining plant, which in turn is essentially government by the cost of generation relative to other fuels. at 85% load factor, which is probably around the top end of what's possible, that level of plant could produce approx 120 TWh a year of electricity, which admittedly is 20TWh lower than 2012, but is nearly 20TWh higher than the lowest coal generation figures set in 2009 and 2010, before the impact of the gas price rise and coal price reduction was felt.

re Germany - yes they shut a lot of nuclear caparity, but that's not why they had a significant increase in coal generation. They had a 1.9TWh reduction in nuclear in 2013 vs a 1.9TWh increase in renewable generation, so the 2 offset each other almost exactly. They also had a 10.5TWh reduction in gas generation, which was a direct result of gas price increase and coal price reduction that also resulted in a 7.7TWh increase in electricity from coal.

or to put it another way, a 1.9TWh reduction in nuclear can't result in a 7.7TWh increase in coal generation.

ps this is a fast moving situation, so that blog is already out of date, eg Ferrybridge closed 1GW of capacity 2 weeks ago, not in 2015 as predicted on that blog and the linked pages.

 

[teqniq]

Now That Solar Capacity Is Soaring—Koch Brothers Demand Tax on the Sun

April 28, 2014 |
U.S. Solar electric capacity has expanded explosively - 418% - from 2326 megawatts in 2010 to 12,057 MW in February 2014, an increase of 9,731 MW reports the U.S. Energy Information Agency. Solar has moved rapidly from a niche market to 1.13% of total U.S. capacity. To stop the rapid growth of solar, which is threatening to break Americans from the death grip of fossil fuels, the Koch Brothers are demanding to tax the sun....

 

[ferrelhadley]

New Research: East Antarctic at Risk of Unstoppable Melt

Part of the East Antarctic ice sheet may be less stable than anyone had realised, researchers based in Germany have found.

Writing in Nature Climate Change, two scientists from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) say the melting of quite a small volume of ice on the East Antarctic shore could ultimately trigger a discharge of ice into the ocean which would result in unstoppable sea-level rise for thousands of years ahead.http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2226.html

Their findings, which they say amount to the discovery of a hitherto overlooked source of sea level rise, appear unlikely to happen any time soon. They are based on computer simulations of the Antarctic ice flow using improved data of the ground profile beneath the ice sheet.

“East Antarctica’s Wilkes Basin is like a bottle on a slant,” said Matthias Mengel, the lead author of the study. “Once uncorked, it empties out.” The basin is the largest region of marine ice on rocky ground in East Antarctica.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Now That Solar Capacity Is Soaring—Koch Brothers Demand Tax on the Sun

They're in for a world of hurt in the future and they know it. You don't have to legislate against your competition, if you've got the clearly better option.

Coal, one of their major products, is projected to increase in cost in the coming years. Solar has continued to decline in cost (pro-rated over its lifetime) and reached parity with power generation with coal on both the east and west coasts last year. The biggest obstacle for solar now is the initial cost of the install. Solar is quickly becoming the clearly better option.

 

[Quartz]

They're in for a world of hurt in the future and they know it.

Really? Coal will still be needed for baseline load, and can be converted into oil for plastics.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Really? Coal will still be needed for baseline load, and can be converted into oil for plastics.

Coal isn't needed for a baseline load. There's plenty of other options for that. My utility has some coal-fired plants, but they've basically shut them down in favor of other options. All of the new generation capacity they have planned is in renewables.

In any case, the new regulations coming out regarding coal-fired plants will further boost the cost of using coal for power generation. They're either going to have to do expensive retrofits or scrap them.

 

[Quartz]

Coal isn't needed for a baseline load. There's plenty of other options for that.

Unless you're willing to use nuclear power, which many are not, there are no alternatives in the medium term and longer. Gas and oil will become uneconomic within 50 years. IIRC there's coal for a few hundred years.

And then there's still plastics.

 

[gentlegreen]

Coal isn't needed for a baseline load. There's plenty of other options for that. My utility has some coal-fired plants, but they've basically shut them down in favor of other options. All of the new generation capacity they have planned is in renewables.

In any case, the new regulations coming out regarding coal-fired plants will further boost the cost of using coal for power generation. They're either going to have to do expensive retrofits or scrap them.

Or the right wing takes over everywhere and targets are scrapped for economic reasons.
Australia has a dodgy PM at the moment and they're sitting on huge coal reserves.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Unless you're willing to use nuclear power, which many are not, there are no alternatives in the medium term and longer. Gas and oil will become uneconomic within 50 years. IIRC there's coal for a few hundred years.

And then there's still plastics.

You're certainly wedded to notion of using coal. With the advances in battery technology coming online, its unlikely we'll have to rely on coal for a baseline in 50 years time. We won't need a conventional baseline at all. I've already seen studies for our local electric utility suggesting that it can be done now.

As for nukes, If I have to choose between coal and nuke, I'll take nuke. Most people don't realize that coal produces radioactive materials too. They're just more diffuse and released directly into the environment. Its entirely possible that coal puts more radiation into the environment on the long-term, even factoring in accidents.

Not certain why you keep brining up plastics. You can make plastic out of a lot of materials (corn and soy among them). TBH, I'm not a fan of plastic. We should limit its use to important industries that require it (medical and tech, etc.), rather than using it in everything. We should start by limiting its use in food packaging and infant items. It off-gases endocrine disrupters and shouldn't be in use for things put directly in the mouth. (Not even BPA free. In many cases it just off-gases different endocrine disrupters, sometimes in larger amounts.)

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Major US climate change report out today:

The National Climate Assessment, an 840-page report, is the result of three years' work by more than 300 climate scientists and others. Information was gathered during meetings across the country, including in Nebraska.

The report acknowledges that a warming world has had benefits — some winter heating bills have been lessened, and farm yields have risen significantly. In the long term, though, according to the assessment, climate change's harm will outweigh the benefits.

http://www.omaha.com/article/201405...t-details-how-our-weather-is-already-changing

 

[Quartz]

You're certainly wedded to notion of using coal.

Actually no: I'd prefer to use nuclear power.

With the advances in battery technology coming online, its unlikely we'll have to rely on coal for a baseline in 50 years time. We won't need a conventional baseline at all. I've already seen studies for our local electric utility suggesting that it can be done now.

Links, please? Remember that solar and wind and wave are not reliable.

As for nukes, If I have to choose between coal and nuke, I'll take nuke. Most people don't realize that coal produces radioactive materials too. They're just more diffuse and released directly into the environment. Its entirely possible that coal puts more radiation into the environment on the long-term, even factoring in accidents.

I agree entirely.

TBH, I'm not a fan of plastic.

Neither am I but it's necessary for many manufactured goods.

 

[gentlegreen]

Are there any figures available for total energy used by transporting food in plastic containers versus glass ?
Or rather Tetrapaks - I'm thinking back to the days when fruit juice was orange or pineal and it was in glass jars.

 

[Dr Jon]

USDA issues Dust Bowl Warning

US Department of Agriculture officials issued a warning Tuesday that conditions in the US Heartland were rapidly deteriorating along lines last seen during the infamous 1930s Dust Bowl as expectations for the US domestic winter wheat crop again fell after the USDA’s most recent agricultural tour

Not looking good. Grain prices up 22% so far this year.

 

[free spirit]

Actually no: I'd prefer to use nuclear power.



Links, please? Remember that solar and wind and wave are not reliable.

load of bollocks that.

very little in life is as reliable as the sun rising in the morning, wind blowing, rain falling, tides turning etc. when averaged over a period of time. You'll never see half the wind, solar, tidal, wave infrastructure being taken offline at the same time for emergency repairs as happened with the nuclear fleet a few years ago, robbing us of several GW of nuclear generating capacity for a significant period of time.

What you're probably referring to is that it's not dispatchable upon demand (or not very dispatchable anyway), but then again neither is nuclear, which suffers from the opposite problem of not being able to reduce output enough at night. Each is subject to periods of significantly reduced outputs as well, but these are relatively predictable, and allow for dispatchable but limited sources such as biomass, biogas, hydro, pump storage, and imports, and dynamic demand to be used as back up to cover these periods, plus coal and natural gas while these alternative sources are being built up.

What a lot of people are missing in this situation is that for the next 30 years or so at least, wind, solar, tidal etc etc have no need to power everything by themselves, the back up infrastructure is already in place, and over that period and for the long term renewables will become significantly cheaper than gas or nuclear generation, and will actually restrain the cost increases for both and prolongue the time period over which they remain relatively economically viable energy sources into the future.

Long term only unabated coal has the capacity to provide sufficient power at a cheaper rate than renewables, but it would come at a terrible price in terms of the lives lost and made worse through the health impacts of such a policy from the air pollution it would mean. See China for an example of how bad that line of thinking can get.

 

[Dr Jon]

Nobody seems to think about the massive investment required to connect intermittent renewables to the grid.
It's like building a whole new grid and still having to have backup for when renewables can't meet demand.

It would be much more sensible to spend limited resources plugging dependable Thorium generation into the existing grid and leave renewables for small-scale & local generation, which is what they're good at.

 

[Quartz]

load of bollocks that.

Not bollocks.

very little in life is as reliable as the sun rising in the morning, wind blowing, rain falling, tides turning etc. when averaged over a period of time..

Ah yes, when averaged. Pity about solar power not working at night and not so well when it's cloudy or raining or both. And wind power not working when there's no wind or having to be shut down when the wind is too high. And wave power not working when the sea is calm or frozen and where there is no sea. Until renewables solve the problem of baseline load for everywhere then we need something else, and nuclear and coal are it. Think of cities like Murmansk and Tromso.

You're right about China, though: the UK went through the same issue last century.

 

[free spirit]

Not bollocks.



Ah yes, when averaged. Pity about solar power not working at night and not so well when it's cloudy or raining or both. And wind power not working when there's no wind or having to be shut down when the wind is too high. And wave power not working when the sea is calm or frozen and where there is no sea. Until renewables solve the problem of baseline load for everywhere then we need something else, and nuclear and coal are it. Think of cities like Murmansk and Tromso.

You're right about China, though: the UK went through the same issue last century.

nuclear's fucking useless in combination with renewables, and also incapable of supplying the worlds requirements without renewables, therefore it's part of the problem, not the solution.

and coal either kills people in significant numbers in direct proportion to the amount that's burned, and condemns us to runaway climate change, or it costs more than renewables.

You appear not to be getting it. Renewables do not have to cover the entire electricity supply at all times, we already have sufficient combined thermal, hydro, pumped storage etc to provide full back up for renewables as required, and will continue to be able to operate most of it for the next 30-40 years at least. Arguing against renewables is akin to saying you willfully want to pay for your energy in order to cause huge levels of unnecessary damage to the planet by just burning coal and gas (and maybe a bit of nuclear).

The choice is

1 - High level mix of variable renewables, wind, solar, tidal, tidal stream, wave, backed up by biomass, biogas, hydro, pump storage, HVDC links to norway and iceland hydro and geothermal, and if needed gas and coal.

Drax as a 4GW biomass plant would have the capacity to set the grid frequency for the rest of the plants to follow, other large thermal plant would be needed to be kept in reserve to black start the grid if needed, plus for back up.

Renewables costs are falling rapidly, will continue to fall rapidly, and will mostly be cheaper than nuclear, and gas generation before 2020.

2 - Nuclear plus a low level of renewables, all backed up by coal, gas and pump storage for morning and evening peaks that the nuclear can't cope with.

Nuclear is a far higher cost option than the industry had been making out, as was made clear by the rate promised to EDF to build a new plant, which is twice the current rate, and higher than the rates requested by the solar industry trade body by 2018, higher than the support for onshore wind etc. Uranium reserves at current concentrations are expected to be run down in the next decade or so, with the next most concentrated reserves being around 10% of the concentration, therefore requiring 10 x more energy to extract, and pretty much guaranteeing that the price of uranium will increase ten fold over the life of any new generation of nuclear plants without even accounting for the likely influence of speculators who could well force that price up significantly further.


So both options require high levels of thermal back up generation capacity (at current consumption patterns). One of them has seen projected costs increase dramatically over the last 10 years, and is likely to see running costs increase rapidly during it's lifetime, and is using up a finite resource that's likely to be unavailable in particularly useful concentrations by the end of any new plants life, so we'd simply be moving the problem forward a generation as well as leaving them with vast waste disposal costs to cover.

the other has seen continuous dramatic cost reductions for the last 4 decades, and is projected to see continued cost reductions as the industry expands and matures, will almost certainly be cheaper per kWh by the time first new nuclear plant starts generating, and uses an essentially infinite source of power, with components built to be recyclable at the end of their lifespan.

Both options are capable of providing a reliable electricity supply for the country for the next generation, Only one is likely to be able to sustain that beyond this generation of plant. Essentially we either switch to a mainly renewables based power supply now, or we do it in 30-40 years time when the nuclear plant close down.

so please do explain why you think nuclear is a sensible option to be considering?

 

[free spirit]

Nobody seems to think about the massive investment required to connect intermittent renewables to the grid.
It's like building a whole new grid and still having to have backup for when renewables can't meet demand.

we built dynorwig, probably the biggest engineering project ever to be undertaken in the UK in order to help absorb the expected nighttime over generation from the level of nuclear generation planned for in the 70s.

We've built massive gas pipeline across the country to connect up the LNG terminals at the deep sea ports necessary to bring LNG gas ashore to replace the north sea gas, which itself had a vast network of pipelines built across the country only a generation ago to bring it ashore to provide us with energy for a measly 30-40 years before most of it ran out.

What sort of madness would it be now to decide not to build the infrastructure needed to harness essentially unlimited sources of energy that can continue to provide power to the country down those lines for as long as the lines are standing (albeit with replacement generating plant needed every few decades)?

It would be much more sensible to spend limited resources plugging dependable Thorium generation into the existing grid and leave renewables for small-scale & local generation, which is what they're good at.

Thorium isn't going to be a reliable option for mass power generation on that scale until at least 2025-2030 even if some serious funding started going into it. It may have the potential to ramp up to being a significant player by the time that this new generation of plant is set to close down, but it can't possibly be built in time to plug the gap in the next 15-20 years.

And that's straight from the mouth of one of the only people in the UK to have ever actually worked on a working thorium plant, so I'll take his prognosis over yours.

 

[Dr Jon]

Getting from Point A to Point B …..Quickly!!!!!

 

[free spirit]

Let’s also assume that in 20 years (in 2034) solar technology will be able to produce electricity as cheaply as wind.

erm try 2018, or likely earlier. small solar is already cheaper than small wind.

Arguing for thorium by arguing against renewables is fucking stupid. Thorium MSR is able to ramp up and down, it therefore can co-exist happily with renewables, so yes I agree that thorium could and should be a significant part of the energy mix by 2050, but what do you want to be happening in the meantime?

1GWp of solar PV was installed in the UK in just the first 3 months of this year vs no thorium, no uranium.

In spain Wind power is now the biggest single source of electricity generation.

renewables are delivering increasingly cheap low carbon renewable electricity now, not in 10 years time as for nuclear, or 20-30 years time as for Thorium. Climate change can't wait for either nuclear or thorium, only renewables can deliver on tackling the problem at any significant level now.

 

[Quartz]

You appear not to be getting it. Renewables do not have to cover the entire electricity supply at all times,

Actually it's you that does not get it. The comment to which I was responding said that we have the technology to switch now - no nuclear, no fossil fuel. That is, using renewables 24/7. So I was pointing out that renewables cannot cope.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Links, please? Remember that solar and wind and wave are not reliable.

You're just bound and determined to make me work. Here are a few studies showing that 100% renewables is possible.

US: http://sourceable.net/100-per-cent-renewable-energy-viable-study/

According to Jacobson, even if the United States only makes recourse to renewable energy methods which are available at present, it would still be “technically and economically feasible” for the nation to meet all of its power needs by 2050. - See more at: http://sourceable.net/100-per-cent-renewable-energy-viable-study/#sthash.zRBh1TnW.dpuf

Denmark: http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/07/denmark-will-be-100-renewable-mid-century/

Canary Islands: http://www.triplepundit.com/2014/05/spanish-island-powered-100-percent-renewable-energy/

The possibilities of renewable energy are on display as El Hierro, the smallest of Spain’s Canary Islands, is set to become the world’s first land mass to be fully energy self-sufficient, when an 11.5 megawatt wind farm goes online late next month.

El Hierro, with a population of a little over 10,000, already has a water turbine that generates electricity, so it will be the first island to secure a steady supply of electricity by combining wind and water power, according to an article in the U.K.’s Daily Mail. The island has no connection to any outside electricity network.

The turbines will generate enough power to meet residential demand, as well as power the island’s water desalination plants. ...

Small place, but you have to start somewhere.

 

[Dr Jon]

 

[Quartz]

Canary Islands: http://www.triplepundit.com/2014/05/spanish-island-powered-100-percent-renewable-energy/

This one looks interesting. The others are just speculative puff.

 

[free spirit]

Actually it's you that does not get it. The comment to which I was responding said that we have the technology to switch now - no nuclear, no fossil fuel. That is, using renewables 24/7. So I was pointing out that renewables cannot cope.

and the comment to which I was responding was this

Until renewables solve the problem of baseline load for everywhere then we need something else, and nuclear and coal are it.

as I said, you don't get it, the problem is already solved, we have already built and are operating the back up plant required at least for the next 30-40 years or so, we just have to adjust the way we use it.

But if you had stuck to specifically questioning the statement about batteries providing all the back up capacity needed, then you would have had a point. I'd not agree with that specific element of Yuwipi women's post, although the batteries from electric vehicles do have the potential to provide a significant pool of short term back up capacity if the policy framework allows for it - ie to reduce the requirement for spinning reserve and allow for more reserve capacity to be kept as cold start reserve with eg 90 minute start up times. They also potentially have some use in assisting with balancing requirements at a transformer level to allow for greater levels of embeded generation / peaks in consumption... peak lopping in both directions essentially.

 

[Quartz]

as I said, you don't get it, the problem is already solved,

I'm sorry, but I don't believe you. AIUI renewables cannot currently reliably supply sufficient energy 24/7 everywhere. Are you seriously suggesting that renewables can reliably power somewhere like Murmansk? You know, with the sea frozen so no wave power, and it being dark 24 hours a day in winter being inside the Arctic Circle? Or how about Edinburgh for a couple of cloudy winter days? Sure solar's a great choice for Australia or Texas, but everywhere?

 

[Dr Jon]

I think we need a separate "Energy Alternatives" thread for this

 

[Dr Jon]

We've built massive gas pipeline across the country to connect up the LNG terminals at the deep sea ports necessary to bring LNG gas ashore to replace the north sea gas, which itself had a vast network of pipelines built across the country only a generation ago to bring it ashore to provide us with energy for a measly 30-40 years before after Thatcher sold most of it ran out.

Corrected for you.