-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Prediction: Coal has fallen. Nuclear is next then Oil.
- Thread starter nwdiver
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
wow, and you said my post was off-topic.
Topic: Prediction: Coal has fallen. Nuclear is next then Oil.
Please explain, with linked references from 47 international experts, how nuclear spin resonance is on the topic of coal, nuclear, and oil powered energy falling out of use.
In summary, my point was that human misperception of nuclear power is the reason for its failures. This goes back to Three Mile Island (Wikipedia), through a long glorious history of failures up to today’s incompetent nuclear construction industry (More Delays Likely for Vogtle Nuclear Plant, Georgia Regulator Says). Sorry, if you think that’s off topic.
Your discussion was in a reply to
I meant your discussion of nuclear anxiety was not on topic as a reply to my post. Or perhaps I should have said, irrelevant.
The issue is the economics of reprocessing of nuclear waste which you failed to say anything about. In fact, above you link to an article about the economic and planning problems they have had at the Vogtle plant which is a poster child for the economic failures of nuclear energy for electrical generation. So your point is not only irrelevant, you have totally failed to make it.
dgpcolorado
high altitude member
As happened recently to the huge Navajo coal power plant that I posted upthread. Helped along by increasingly strict air pollution regulations.
Gas power plants can be used as "peakers" to compensate for production drops by wind and solar; nuclear (and coal) is strictly baseload and not really comparable. Hard for me to see a use case for new nuclear going forward, with the increasing dominance of affordable renewables.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
'Black wall' of redacted pages as UK fracking report finally released
'Black wall' of redacted pages as UK fracking report finally released
The government has heavily redacted a secret report into the fracking industry after it was forced to comply with a court order for its release.
The Whitehall report on the UK shale gas sector emerged on Monday after a years-long battle to uncover the hidden documents – but with three quarters of its pages blacked out. The 48-page report, seen by the Guardian, includes 37 pages that are entirely blacked out and only one – the front cover – that was left uncensored.
'Black wall' of redacted pages as UK fracking report finally released
The government has heavily redacted a secret report into the fracking industry after it was forced to comply with a court order for its release.
The Whitehall report on the UK shale gas sector emerged on Monday after a years-long battle to uncover the hidden documents – but with three quarters of its pages blacked out. The 48-page report, seen by the Guardian, includes 37 pages that are entirely blacked out and only one – the front cover – that was left uncensored.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Forbes: Utilities Running Uneconomic Coal Plants Cost Consumers $3.5 Billion From 2015-2017.
Utilities Running Uneconomic Coal Plants Cost Consumers $3.5 Billion From 2015-2017
Coal keeps clinging to life, especially when owned and operated by monopoly utilities.
These utilities hold roughly $95 billion in coal power plant debt on their balance sheets, many of which operate within competitive wholesale electricity markets, where decisions on when to run those plants – and pay off their debt – are controlled by an independent market operator. Fast-falling clean energy costs have rendered 74% of U.S. coal plants uneconomic, meaning they recover less and less debt.
Cost of operating coal-fired power plants compared operating in competitive markets are receiving a “billion-dollar coal bailout” by exploiting competitive markets to run coal-fired power plants even when doing so is uneconomic, i.e. when cheaper power is available from competitors.
Utilities Running Uneconomic Coal Plants Cost Consumers $3.5 Billion From 2015-2017
Coal keeps clinging to life, especially when owned and operated by monopoly utilities.
These utilities hold roughly $95 billion in coal power plant debt on their balance sheets, many of which operate within competitive wholesale electricity markets, where decisions on when to run those plants – and pay off their debt – are controlled by an independent market operator. Fast-falling clean energy costs have rendered 74% of U.S. coal plants uneconomic, meaning they recover less and less debt.
Cost of operating coal-fired power plants compared operating in competitive markets are receiving a “billion-dollar coal bailout” by exploiting competitive markets to run coal-fired power plants even when doing so is uneconomic, i.e. when cheaper power is available from competitors.
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
That's all well and good, but technically we asked these people to build and finance coal plants with the understanding they'd recoup their investment.
We need to find one single adult in this country to sit down and arbitrate a fair residual compact valuation for each of these, then cut them a federal check and shut them down.
We need to find one single adult in this country to sit down and arbitrate a fair residual compact valuation for each of these, then cut them a federal check and shut them down.
You also have to have a plan for what generation will replace it and schedule the phase-out so that the grid has enough supply during the whole phase-out period.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
That's an interesting question.
Did we ask them to build these or did they take advantage of rules to overbuild polluting obsolete technology? Were the regulators complicit? Did we guarantee them a return on investment? Did they make a bad business decision by investing long term in coal?
When you look at the nuclear boondoggles in Georgia and South Carolina, you can see the utilities manipulating the regulatory process to gain subsidies then grossly mismanaging construction. Do we need to bail them out?
Look at PG&E in California which is bankrupt because of gross mismanagement and is looking for the state and ratepayers to bail them out.
Private corporations and the free market are touted as the answer to everything. However, when they screw up they come running to the socialist government for subsidy. Maybe we should let the free market take it's toll for bad decisions.
adiggs
Well-Known Member
I'm totally on board with letting the free market takes it's toll on companies for their bad decisions!
There's going to be some pain (there's going to be a lot of pain) in the coming years. Big economic shifts also bring pain, along with their opportunity. I tend to think (but don't have sources or proof for this point of view) that the more resistance to the change, the more total pain experienced.
So I disagree with the idea that we need a plan for what generation will take it's place, or make a schedule for the phase out of the existing generation assets. That's the whole point of a market based solution that internalizes the external costs associated with burning fossil fuels as our primary energy source.
With the market based approach, instead of needing a master plan of the projects that will enter the market and when, along with the existing assets that will exit the market and when, the prices for energy will fluctuate naturally with supply and demand, and the costs to produce the energy. The extra cost, not previously recognized, to produce energy using fossil fuels will reduce their desirability in the market.
If the market is badly undersupplied, then the market will pay up for the higher priced energy because we'll still need the energy. And we'll simultaneously generate a big market signal that we need more renewable energy. As that renewable energy becomes available, the fraction of time (capacity factor I believe it's called) for the fossil fuel burners will go down - we'll use less and less of their output and they will each individually become non-economic.
Heck - this is how we built the original fossil fuel distribution network and continue to evolve it to this day (at least mostly).
The biggest problem I see with a plan covering entering and exiting energy generation assets isn't the difficulty of ever building such a plan in the first place (though I think that's pretty much impossible) - it's the history of everything that says that centrally planned economies (or fractions of economies) fail pretty spectacularly.
They key to real free markets is to avoid crony capitalism (regulatory capture primarily), and using government to force the real total costs of a business to be born by the business. We don't have that today, and that's constraining how rapidly we transition away from fossil fuels. And yeah - easier said than done.
That's why I like the Climate Leadership Council plan specifically, who is advancing it, and how they are framing the problem and solution. Internalize the costs, minimize the opportunity to game the system, while also creating an opportunity to eliminate lots of other opportunities to game the system. Then let the game (economy) play.
There's going to be some pain (there's going to be a lot of pain) in the coming years. Big economic shifts also bring pain, along with their opportunity. I tend to think (but don't have sources or proof for this point of view) that the more resistance to the change, the more total pain experienced.
So I disagree with the idea that we need a plan for what generation will take it's place, or make a schedule for the phase out of the existing generation assets. That's the whole point of a market based solution that internalizes the external costs associated with burning fossil fuels as our primary energy source.
With the market based approach, instead of needing a master plan of the projects that will enter the market and when, along with the existing assets that will exit the market and when, the prices for energy will fluctuate naturally with supply and demand, and the costs to produce the energy. The extra cost, not previously recognized, to produce energy using fossil fuels will reduce their desirability in the market.
If the market is badly undersupplied, then the market will pay up for the higher priced energy because we'll still need the energy. And we'll simultaneously generate a big market signal that we need more renewable energy. As that renewable energy becomes available, the fraction of time (capacity factor I believe it's called) for the fossil fuel burners will go down - we'll use less and less of their output and they will each individually become non-economic.
Heck - this is how we built the original fossil fuel distribution network and continue to evolve it to this day (at least mostly).
The biggest problem I see with a plan covering entering and exiting energy generation assets isn't the difficulty of ever building such a plan in the first place (though I think that's pretty much impossible) - it's the history of everything that says that centrally planned economies (or fractions of economies) fail pretty spectacularly.
They key to real free markets is to avoid crony capitalism (regulatory capture primarily), and using government to force the real total costs of a business to be born by the business. We don't have that today, and that's constraining how rapidly we transition away from fossil fuels. And yeah - easier said than done.
That's why I like the Climate Leadership Council plan specifically, who is advancing it, and how they are framing the problem and solution. Internalize the costs, minimize the opportunity to game the system, while also creating an opportunity to eliminate lots of other opportunities to game the system. Then let the game (economy) play.
adiggs
Well-Known Member
I disagree with this particular point. It's the whole point of a market based approach. If new supply isn't arriving fast enough, then there will be demand that increases the price for energy that keeps the phasing out resources around longer to provide that supply. And that higher price will draw the cheaper providers in the market fast (whether it's big utility scale projects, or it's households covering their roof in panels).
Mostly, I see an argument in favor of a master plan to schedule what's leaving, when, and what's arriving, when, as an argument in favor of doing nothing. Since we're having trouble agreeing that water is wet these days, a plan to decides who stops first, second, etc.., and which new producers arrive maybe sounds good in theory, but in practice it'll be tied up in court until we're all under 200' of water from melting ice.
Ensure that the market has complete price information (carbon tax, fully rebated to citizens), and the providers will each make their own decisions that optimize their outcomes. We won't go short on energy production ever, or if we do it won't be for long - individuals will buy panels for their own roofs (and Powerwalls to provide some off-grid ability); utilities will build utility scale wind / solar (mostly - they're short time from financing to done building, and they're cheap). The shortfall will be quickly rectified, should it ever materialize.
In order for things to work out the way we want (ie. reducing carbon emissions) we have to first align all the regulations so that they don't get in the way of decarbonization. The electricity market is not a free market with unrestricted supply and demand. It is burdened with regulations, contracts and entities working at counter-purposes. Look at the California electricity market. Way back when CA deregulated the generation sector and the Investor Owned Utilities sold off almost all their generating assets, the new operators of those assets gamed the market to drive electricity prices crazy. In response, the State intervened and had PG&E set up long term contracts to buy power. This stabilized prices. However, it also enshrined fossil fueled generators to the extent that they have carte blanche license to run without any consideration of demand and renewable curtailment.
The thing that makes me the most mad about the PG&E bankruptcy is the talk of canceling renewable purchase agreements. If we're going to cancel any power purchase agreements, cancel all of them, including fossil fueled contracts, so everyone who wants to sell power has to compete on today's playing field. I think we all know that's not going to happen...
The point of my earlier post was that the market is not going do what is required all on its own. Some entity, probably bureaucracies in State governments, will have to take this on.
adiggs
Well-Known Member
Absolutely true. Markets don't solve problems on their own. Individuals and entities maximize their own outcomes. They key is to use this reality to create the desired outcome.
Some government involvement is always necessary - to ensure that amongst the outcome maximization that we're all involved in, we're using the full cost inputs in our outcome maximization.
This is the double edged sword that is government (at least the way I see it). There are external costs / tragedy of the commons type problems that only government can solve. But the way it's solved is important - the wrong solution can be captured or taken over by people / companies, and make the problem worse. When they're available (and they aren't always), a solution that internalizes the external costs enables an otherwise functioning market to function well.
Health care is my best example of a market that doesn't function well (in almost every case) - because the price signals don't exist. I don't price out care at ER1 vs ER2 while I'm delirious in the ambulance. And even if it's not an emergency it's somewhere between nearly impossible and actually impossible to get meaningful price comparisons for routine medical work (speaking for the US health care system). I don't see a small government / leave it to the market to solve the problem, because without price signals, there's no market to solve the problem.
So the solution I like to see is as simple and involving as little government oversight and enforcement as possible, while relying on market forces (real, inclusive price signals primarily). That's what I like about what I see in this carbon tax plan - it generates a price signal, it's projectable far into the future so businesses and investors will start using it immediately to make investment decisions, and there is a relatively limited opportunity for the system to be gamed (the border adjustments are the primary source for entities to game the system to their advantage - that'll have to be watched closely).
A big part of the limitation on gaming the system for this carbon tax comes from the fact that the money raised doesn't go into a government budget for politicians to distribute as they like, or spend on favored anythings - it gets paid back out to the consumers that are the ultimate payers of the carbon taxes (not the original payers though). Cost of everything with fossil fuels as an input will ultimately increase by approximately the cost of the carbon tax. So it's in theory revenue neutral to government, and revenue neutral at the level of society.
At the level of individuals though, wealthy people (tendency) and anybody living a high carbon lifestyle will be paying out more for the carbon tax for the stuff that they use, while receiving less back in the rebate. That's an incentive for them, right there in their own pocketbook, to search for a way to lower their personal carbon footprint - it'll have a $ impact directly to them (keep more of the rebate).
Poor people (tendency) and anybody living a low carbon lifestyle will receive more in the rebate than they pay out in incremental expenses. They'll have more money to spend than before the carbon tax / rebate. That's an incentive to keep doing it, and maybe lower their carbon footprint even more (keep more of the rebate money).
I don't know where I'll personally fall on the continuum. By income, I'm well into the 30% that'll be over the average which suggests I'll be spending more than I'll get back from the carbon rebate. By lifestyle - I generate about 60% of my annual household electric consumption via solar, drive electric cars - I might represent a relatively wealthy household that has a lower than average carbon lifestyle, and thus keeps more of their rebate than they spend (yay for me). Individual outcomes matter very little - but individual outcomes, aggregated, matter a great deal. We're all aligned around a good outcome - lower carbon lifestyles. That'll get reflected in how the businesses we interact with conduct themselves. That'll lower our society's carbon output.
With a carbon tax / rebate, we'll all have economic incentive to switch away from products with high fossil fuel / carbon inputs, to products with low fossil fuel / carbon inputs. That'll incentivize businesses to get their energy from low carbon sources where possible instead of high carbon sources. Also, businesses that use fossil fuels for transportation will have additional incentive to switch away from fossil fuels as that energy source as soon as they can find an otherwise economic option. The increased cost for those fossil fuels will bring alternatives into financial reach sooner, and make the delta bigger when they get cheaper.
And on and on.
Pillar 4 of the Climate Leadership Council carbon tax plan, border carbon adjustment, sounds like a good start for getting other countries to play:
Carbon-intensive exports to countries without comparable carbon pricing systems will receive rebates for carbon fees paid, while carbon-intensive imports from such countries will face fees on the carbon content of their products. A well-designed system of border carbon adjustments will enhance the competitiveness of American-based firms that are more energy-efficient than their foreign competitors, while preventing carbon leakage and free-riding by other nations. This will put America in the driver’s seat of global climate policy and encourage other large emitters – such as China and India – to follow America’s lead and adopt carbon pricing of their own.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
The IOU utilities submitted IRPs to their monopoly regulators. Once approved, the utilities carried out the instructions of their overlords.
At least, that is how the utilities see it. It is very much a matter of perspective
What??? Electrical generation and transmission was deregulated many years ago in the US. That means "free market" - letting anyone charge as much as they want making all the profits they can. So now that technology is providing better ways to generate power we should help bail out the people who made bad choices in which technology they invested in???
Let them lose money making dirty power until they convert their factories to shopping malls. There's the residual value in coal generating plants. Oh, yeah, before we let them continue much longer, make sure there is a fund created by them to pay for cleaning up the sites. Companies like this have a habit of siphoning off the value in a company, leaving the shell behind to go bankrupt when the bills start rolling in.
I think people believe it would be a terrible thing to have a public utility fail. It would be no different from any other company going through bankruptcy. The assets would be sold off and someone else would take over operations. We had that happen to a cable company some years ago. I don't think anyone even noticed the change unless they couldn't watch a favorite show anymore.
Same with utilities. It seems we regulate them to allow a profit based on the capital investment, in other words, ROI. But this incentivises them to invest more and more, all at the rate payer's expense. Dominion (formerly Va Power) spent over half a billion dollars on getting a new reactor approved and now has a license to build and operate it. But they have no plans to build it. They lobbied the VA state legislature to allow them to bill the rate payers for these sunk costs even though they may never receive one kWh of electricity from it.
At this point I'm glad electric is deregulated. Third parties are building solar here and I expect to see offshore wind before too long. I'd also like to see large megolithic utilities broken up to limit their influence. We may have the power we need in the coming years or we may have problems generating clean power. But one thing I know is the utility won't lose any money or sleep over it.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Mader Levap
Member
In theory, that sounds good.
In practice, people (managers, CEOs, other parasites) actually responsible for those bad decisions will almost never suffer consequences. Golden parachute is a thing. When company goes down, normal employees - that have no say in decisions of company - are ones getting shaft.
My point is that there is no incentive for companies to not make decisions that are bad in long term, but get a lot of money in short term. Those responsible won't suffer any consequences worth mentioning, after all. Welcome to capitalism.
UK renewables is the largest source of power in 3rd quarter for the first time...
Fossil fuels fall to record low proportion of UK energy mix
Last paragraph mentions that EV owners are paid to recharge their cars at night using surplus wind power. Going to be a lot more of that, and a good incentive to buy EVs.
Fossil fuels fall to record low proportion of UK energy mix
Last paragraph mentions that EV owners are paid to recharge their cars at night using surplus wind power. Going to be a lot more of that, and a good incentive to buy EVs.
Last edited:
Similar threads
