-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Green New Deal
- Thread starter mspohr
- Start date
- Status
juliusa
Active Member
juliusa
Active Member
Production and consumption are two different things.
Half that coal production is because of California.
If California would simply generate as much electricity as they use (presumably not from coal), coal generation in the rest of the country would decline. They only produce it because people buy it.
Every single kW of electricity that CA stops importing will be a kW that is no longer generated by coal. Look at the last decade - as renewables have increased, coal has decreased. NO decrease in natural gas as a result of increase renewable generation. Your assertion that increase generation in California would result in reduced wind and natural gas generation is absurd.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
???
.... 2am CA imports surplus wind from the NW. Explain how importing less wind would decrease coal consumption...
.... 5pm CA ramps imports from ~5GW to ~10GW. It takes a day for a coal plant to ramp up like that so gas meets that increase in demand. Explain how importing less gas in the evening reduces coal consumption.
Physics.
juliusa
Active Member
All that goes away when California stops becoming a net importer of electricity. The ramp will be handled by battery and pump storage as part of California's build of renewable energy.
Please stop feeding the coal argument that the grid cannot operate on renewables. We need to move past generating electricity from coal.
All that coal generation is on CA. CA has plenty of natural gas to use for peaker plants.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
LOL... none of that explains what I posted...
It's 2am. Demand is low and coal plants are running the lowest a thermal plant can go without shutting down. There's ~8GW of wind available in the NW but only 6GW of demand so 2GW is curtailed and 4GW is going to CA. Explain how CA not taking that 4GW of wind saves coal.
The grid does not work the way you 'think' it does. CA reducing imports by 90TWh/yr cannot reduce coal generation by 90TWh/yr because time, physics and math. The only way to really further reduce coal generation is for the morons in Wyoming and other idiotic states to stop getting most of their electricity from the crap.....
Last edited:
juliusa
Active Member
The grid will work the same way it has worked for the past decade: As renewable energy is added, coal is eliminated. Not natural gas. Not wind. Not solar.
In your example, the coal plant is simply shuttered. Been happening for years. Works just fine.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
..... if wind generation is being curtailed because wind supply >>> demand.... how.... how on earth would using less wind (wasting free wind) save coal?????
You can't shutter the plant because its output will be needed when the morons in Wyoming wake up and turn in the block heaters in their FERD trucks....
Hoping to get this thread back on the track of "Green New Deal" from the rather obtuse discussion of CA vs. WY. coal
As Green New Deal Fight Shifts To 2020, Young Activists Are Hitting The Road | HuffPost
The Green New Dealers are taking their movement on the road.
It’s been a whirlwind two months since the youth activists of the Sunrise Movement staged protests in Democratic leaders’ offices, bringing into the mainstream calls for a Green New Deal ― a sweeping federal policy that would mandate 100 percent renewable energy and provide good-paying sustainable jobs to millions of Americans.
Now the Sunrise Movement, likely the nation’s fastest-growing climate advocacy group, is planning a 14-stop tour meant to drum up grassroots support for a Green New Deal across multiple states, HuffPost has learned. It’s the first leg of the group’s effort to make the policy the defining issue of the 2020 election.
As Green New Deal Fight Shifts To 2020, Young Activists Are Hitting The Road | HuffPost
The Green New Dealers are taking their movement on the road.
It’s been a whirlwind two months since the youth activists of the Sunrise Movement staged protests in Democratic leaders’ offices, bringing into the mainstream calls for a Green New Deal ― a sweeping federal policy that would mandate 100 percent renewable energy and provide good-paying sustainable jobs to millions of Americans.
Now the Sunrise Movement, likely the nation’s fastest-growing climate advocacy group, is planning a 14-stop tour meant to drum up grassroots support for a Green New Deal across multiple states, HuffPost has learned. It’s the first leg of the group’s effort to make the policy the defining issue of the 2020 election.
juliusa
Active Member
Wait. Are you making the case that Wyoming should not add wind generation and instead keep burning coal??
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
No. I'm saying they should build wind and use gas to fill in the gaps like rational states are doing. At some point storage will make sense.
juliusa
Active Member
They should start in CA.
They know that we need to ADD wind and solar and ELIMINATE coal. None of this nonsense that we need to keep coal around for when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining. They are looking beyond the idiots stuck in the past and don't understand the future without fossil fuels.
They know the way to replace fossil fuel is...wait for it...ADD RENEWABLES.
juliusa
Active Member
Finally we agree. I'm just skipping the gas step - why invest all the capital in carbon emissions that will simple be shuttered? The way to getting away from "fool's fuel" is renewables. I will not support a green deal that includes expansion of natural gas.
I think that's the point:They should start in CA.
They know that we need to ADD wind and solar and ELIMINATE coal. None of this nonsense that we need to keep coal around for when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining. They are looking beyond the idiots stuck in the past and don't understand the future without fossil fuels.
They know the way to replace fossil fuel is...wait for it...ADD RENEWABLES.
"In March and April, the Sunrise Movement will host events in Florida, California, Pennsylvania, New York, Kentucky, Michigan and elsewhere. The tour builds off an intensive new online training program, where volunteers are coached via webinars on how to confront politicians and frame an issue as overwhelming as global warming in terms of clear, effective action. Each event will include in-person training sessions, and conclude with organizing meetings for new converts."
juliusa
Active Member
Yes. I read that. And I agree.
There should be no new fossil fuel plants built in this country. The only point I'm willing to concede is plants that are already operating can continue until the operator finds it is no longer economic to operate or it reaches the end of its lifespan. But no new ones.
To me, it is quite simply. Policy (taxes, credits, regulations) that tip the scales to accelerate the transition to renewables.
Last edited:
The "economic" argument is a big loophole. Fossil fuel plants benefit from a lot of subsidies which make otherwise uneconomic plants profitable to operate. These include direct subsidies to fossil fuel production as well as not having to pay for "externalities". If these subsidies are removed, it makes a lot of fossil fuel uneconomic. The uncosted externality of climate change damage is the greatest threat to our existence and should have a very high cost paid by users of fossil fuels.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Completely agree, although fossils are not created equally. Add local pollution and damage to the coal bill; add military adventurism to the oil bill.
juliusa
Active Member
Completely agree too. That is why policy should change that. They should be replaced as fast as renewables can be added.
Adding renewables is the challenge. Hydro is not going to change significantly - water is pretty constant. Wind is something like 7% of electricity generation and solar less than 2%. So we need to grow wind and solar about 10x just to replace coal and natural gas electricity generation. Then there is the non-electricity uses - mostly transportation and heating - which is about equal to electricity. So need to grow it 20x to replace that.
That is a long way of saying I think the limiting factor will be the growth of solar and wind generation, and the modernization of the grid for storage needed in a renewables-dominated generation mix. I don't think the coal and natural gas hanger-ons over the next couple of decades will be a problem.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
No expansion of natural gas that's why you add wind. GENERATION from wind. CAPACITY from gas.
100TWh/yr => 70TWh/yr natural gas is still a reduction even if capacity goes from 10GW => 15GW.
They won't be 'shuttered'. They will be used less and less and less. The primary purpose of the gas turbines is CAPACITY not GENERATION. The average CF of a gas turbine peaking plant is ~15%. When demand spikes to 50GW on an unusually hot day from an average of ~30GW most people would prefer to pay a little more on their monthly electric bill to have a gas turbine standing by that's only used ~3 or 4 times a year than go without power... Unlike coal a gas turbine can sit cold for months and go to full power in a few minutes.
juliusa
Active Member
Won't happen. There will NOT be a reduction in natural gas generation as long as there is coal still burning.
Econ 101.
- Status
Similar threads
