Prediction: Coal has fallen. Nuclear is next then Oil.

[TheTalkingMule]

The IEA is spreading their nonsense renewables projections again this week that the next 5 years will see 50% growth.

The solar portion of their projection is 60% of "1,200 additional GWh of renewables capacity", or +720GWh of solar. Problem with that is the current rate of solar additions, even if it stayed flat, has us adding 1,350-1,400 GWh of new capacity over the next 5 years..

So given the benefit of the doubt.....IEA is underestimating by about 100%. I wonder why they'd do that?

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Electric Power Monthly!

October edition, for capacity changes and generation August 2019.

No change in coal capacity in August 2019. Planned capacity reductions haven't changed month. Last month the 12 month net capacity change forecast was -9,366.9MW This month the forecast decreased by 100MW to -9,466.9MW.

Coal's rolling 12 month share has dropped to 24.98%. Coal was 48.21% of generation in 2008. It has almost dropped by half.

Nuclear capacity didn't change so generation was just slightly down on last year. Planned capacity changes are unchanged from -1.8213GW.

Coal:

Capacity (MW):

Period	Prior	Change	New	Change
Month	235,113	0	235,113	0.00%
YTD	242,786	-7,673	235,113	-3.16%
Rolling	245,408	-10,295	235,113	-4.20%
Plan +12mo	-9,367	-100	-9,467	.

[tr]
Generation (GWh):

Year	Month	YTD	Rolling	Month %	YTD%	Rolling
2018	115,129	772,543	1,158,052	28.06%	27.11%	27.72%
2019	94,176	665,331	1,038,751	23.25%	23.70%	24.98%
Difference	-20,953	-107,212	-119,301	-4.80%	-3.41%	-2.74%

Nuclear:

Capacity (MW):

Period	Prior	Change	New	Change
Month	98,909	0	98,909	0.00%
YTD	99,433	-524	98,909	-0.53%
Rolling	99,731	-822	98,909	-0.82%
Plan +12mo	-1,821	0	-1,821	.

[tr]

Generation (GWh):

Year	Month	YTD	Rolling	Month %	YTD%	Rolling
2018	72,282	547,351	821,761	17.61%	19.21%	19.67%
2019	71,911	544,114	803,847	17.76%	19.38%	19.33%
Difference	-371	-3,237	-17,914	0.14%	0.18%	-0.34%

[/tr][/tr]

 

[mspohr]

Interesting prediction from IEA

Offshore windfarms 'can provide more electricity than the world needs'

Offshore windfarms 'can provide more electricity than the world needs'

Erecting wind turbines on the world’s best offshore sites could provide more than enough clean energy to meet global electricity demand, according to a report.

Analysis by the International Energy Agency (IEA) revealed that if windfarms were built across all useable sites which are no further than 60km (37 miles) off the coast, and where coastal waters are no deeper than 60 metres, they could generate 36,000 terawatt hours of renewable electricity a year. This would easily meeting the current global demand for electricity of 23,000 terawatt hours

 

[SageBrush]

Interesting prediction from IEA

Offshore windfarms 'can provide more electricity than the world needs'

Offshore windfarms 'can provide more electricity than the world needs'

Erecting wind turbines on the world’s best offshore sites could provide more than enough clean energy to meet global electricity demand, according to a report.

Analysis by the International Energy Agency (IEA) revealed that if windfarms were built across all useable sites which are no further than 60km (37 miles) off the coast, and where coastal waters are no deeper than 60 metres, they could generate 36,000 terawatt hours of renewable electricity a year. This would easily meeting the current global demand for electricity of 23,000 terawatt hours

Yep -- off-shore wind is a gold mine. Not only is there tremendous capacity but the capacity factor is 45 - 60%. Even the dopey UK has realized the obvious.

 

[iPlug]

Would expect U.S. federal approvals/permitting and deployments to really take off in the next administration with the departure of political forces abusing the regulatory process.

 

[RubberToe]

American troops now in place protecting Syria's oil fields...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...yrian-oil-field-region-defense-officials-say/

Sure not going to play well with the "bring the troops home" crowd if this ends up not ending well. I can hear the echoes of "But what about Benghazi???" reverberating still to this day.

RT

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Yep -- off-shore wind is a gold mine. Not only is there tremendous capacity but the capacity factor is 45 - 60%. Even the dopey UK has realized the obvious.

Here's data for the UK.
UK offshore wind capacity factors

Fun!

The next generation of wind turbine will be even bigger, and the extra height is expected to increase capacity factors to over 60%.

The problem with offshore wind has been the cost, (and sometimes litigious Americans ) but the costs have fallen enough to get more consideration off the US coasts.

 

[mspohr]

The Shale Oil Revolution Actually Reflects a Nation in Decline | Peak Prosperity

As poor as the economics are for the shale drillers, which have collectively spent some $260 billion more than they have taken in from their operations, things are even worse than commonly understood. As the public is on the hook for billions of dollars worth of road and bridge damage caused by fracking trucks.

If the future is going to be mostly electrified, then there are huge energy expenditures to be made in alternative electricity production and storage, build-out of electric vehicles and mass transit systems, and a complete overhaul of the agricultural system.

If the analyses I trust are more accurate, then there’s closer to only 50% of what we thought was there. This is a big problem for a nation without any sort of a plan, especially one that has used the shale output to convince itself that oil abundance is always going to be a part of the landscape.

 

[Dr. J]

The Shale Oil Revolution Actually Reflects a Nation in Decline | Peak Prosperity

As poor as the economics are for the shale drillers, which have collectively spent some $260 billion more than they have taken in from their operations, things are even worse than commonly understood. As the public is on the hook for billions of dollars worth of road and bridge damage caused by fracking trucks.

If the future is going to be mostly electrified, then there are huge energy expenditures to be made in alternative electricity production and storage, build-out of electric vehicles and mass transit systems, and a complete overhaul of the agricultural system.

If the analyses I trust are more accurate, then there’s closer to only 50% of what we thought was there. This is a big problem for a nation without any sort of a plan, especially one that has used the shale output to convince itself that oil abundance is always going to be a part of the landscape.

I don't mean this to sound harsh, and I apologize if it comes off that way.

While I agree with the thesis (US needs a coherent energy policy), I don't think this article is very illuminating. The WSJ article is behind a paywall, so I'm conjecturing what it says.

To say that proved (or likely) shale reserves are 10% less than expected is a nothing-burger, a tiny insignificance, especially since the reserves are vast. To say that companies have invested twice what they've gotten in return is only somewhat more significant. Any resource-intensive investment is going to pay back slowly over time. That's what markets are for: to separate, and reward differently, the stupid money in bad investments from the smart money in good investments.

One big problem with the shale revolution (from my front-row perch) is what always happens with natural resource booms: they're followed by busts. It's not just predictable, it's inevitable. But people never remember that, and they count on the boom like it will last forever. That leads to stupid decisions, like undertaxing revenues, underinvesting in infrastructure, and general get-rich-quick complacency.

So, yes, we need a policy, and perhaps shale oil and gas is a bridge to a totally renewable energy economy, or maybe it's a crutch that keeps us from getting there. But we need more depth of analysis to understand the problem and the trade-offs.

 

[mspohr]

I don't mean this to sound harsh, and I apologize if it comes off that way.

While I agree with the thesis (US needs a coherent energy policy), I don't think this article is very illuminating. The WSJ article is behind a paywall, so I'm conjecturing what it says.

To say that proved (or likely) shale reserves are 10% less than expected is a nothing-burger, a tiny insignificance, especially since the reserves are vast. To say that companies have invested twice what they've gotten in return is only somewhat more significant. Any resource-intensive investment is going to pay back slowly over time. That's what markets are for: to separate, and reward differently, the stupid money in bad investments from the smart money in good investments.

One big problem with the shale revolution (from my front-row perch) is what always happens with natural resource booms: they're followed by busts. It's not just predictable, it's inevitable. But people never remember that, and they count on the boom like it will last forever. That leads to stupid decisions, like undertaxing revenues, underinvesting in infrastructure, and general get-rich-quick complacency.

So, yes, we need a policy, and perhaps shale oil and gas is a bridge to a totally renewable energy economy, or maybe it's a crutch that keeps us from getting there. But we need more depth of analysis to understand the problem and the trade-offs.

Of course I didn't write the article but posted it because I thought it was interesting.
I agree that the -10% current yield is not significant (and the author states as much). More concerning is that the lifetime output of these wells may be only half that predicted which means they will not pay back their cost.
The other point the article makes is that the first phase of oil recovery was just pumping the easy to get to pool of oil above the shale. The second phase is fracking and that this is literally scraping the bottom of the barrel. There is nothing left below this.

 

[SageBrush]

One big problem with the shale revolution (from my front-row perch) is what always happens with natural resource booms: they're followed by busts. It's not just predictable, it's inevitable. But people never remember that, and they count on the boom like it will last forever. That leads to stupid decisions, like undertaxing revenues, underinvesting in infrastructure, and general get-rich-quick complacency.

I always think of the damages to the community during the boom that are ignored, and then left behind for the community to pay for when the boom collapses.

These fossil booms are the sorriest examples of externalized costs around.

 

[mspohr]

I always think of the damages to the community during the boom that are ignored, and then left behind for the community to pay for when the boom collapses.

These fossil booms are the sorriest examples of externalized costs around.

Our kleptocratic capitalist economy privatizes the profits and socializes the losses. (Of course, any time the government attempts any kind of social benefit, the Republicans shout "socialism"! )

 

[TheTalkingMule]

To say that companies have invested twice what they've gotten in return is only somewhat more significant. Any resource-intensive investment is going to pay back slowly over time.

Traditional drilling perhaps, but with fracking the lifespan seems to be almost nothing. Then you're moving on down the line and starting over. That's not a scenario conducive to reaping profits on the back end. There is no back end.

We could look at the Permian today and say the majors are "swooping in". In reality perhaps investors are simply unwilling to fund these smaller guys that have paid out nothing?

 

[mspohr]

Huge Battery Investments Drop Energy-Storage Costs Faster Than Expected, Threatening Natural Gas

The global energy transition is happening faster than the models predicted, according to a report released today by the Rocky Mountain Institute, thanks to massive investments in the advanced-battery technology ecosystem.

New natural-gas plants risk becoming stranded assets (unable to compete with renewables+storage before they’ve paid off their capital cost), while existing natural-gas plants cease to be competitive as soon as 2021, RMI predicts.

 

[mspohr]

Biggest Private Coal Miner Goes Bust as Trump Rescue Fails

The company’s collapse underscores how deeply cheap natural gas and renewable energy resources have cut into coal’s share of the U.S. power market. Cloud Peak Energy Inc., Cambrian Coal Co., Blackjewel LLC and Blackhawk Mining LLC have all filed for bankruptcy this year. Their downfall mirrors waning demand for fuel that as recently as 2003 accounted for more than half of all U.S. power generation.

 

[ladysbff]

Biggest Private Coal Miner Goes Bust as Trump Rescue Fails

The company’s collapse underscores how deeply cheap natural gas and renewable energy resources have cut into coal’s share of the U.S. power market. Cloud Peak Energy Inc., Cambrian Coal Co., Blackjewel LLC and Blackhawk Mining LLC have all filed for bankruptcy this year. Their downfall mirrors waning demand for fuel that as recently as 2003 accounted for more than half of all U.S. power generation.

holy cats

 

[ladysbff]

Biggest Private Coal Miner Goes Bust as Trump Rescue Fails

The company’s collapse underscores how deeply cheap natural gas and renewable energy resources have cut into coal’s share of the U.S. power market. Cloud Peak Energy Inc., Cambrian Coal Co., Blackjewel LLC and Blackhawk Mining LLC have all filed for bankruptcy this year. Their downfall mirrors waning demand for fuel that as recently as 2003 accounted for more than half of all U.S. power generation.

Coal-mining CEO: 'Tesla is a fraud'

“Just as the government is supporting through the people’s taxes windmills and solar panels, they need to support the clean coal technology. … We need a level playing field,” he said.

“You could close every coal-fired plant in the United States today and you would not affect the temperature of the Earth at all,” Murray also said.

 

[RubberToe]

“You could close every coal-fired plant in the United States today..."

Well, let's not rush the process too much, but yes, that's the goal.

RT

 

[ladysbff]

http://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2019/10/one-more-reason-to-switch-to-renewable-energy-saving-water

 

[iPlug]

http://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2019/10/one-more-reason-to-switch-to-renewable-energy-saving-water

Nice takeaway:

A previous study estimated that solar energy uses about 0.02 cubic meters of water per megawatt hour of electricity generated, and wind energy just 0.001 cubic meters. That’s only 1 or 2 percent of the water required for coal and natural gas electricity generation.​