-
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
Away From Spreadsheet, so can't yet do my normal numbers but from this month's Electric Power Monthly (October 2019):
Coal 66,855GWh (2018: 87,264) -1337.6MW
Nuclear 62,033GWh (2018: 59,397) No capacity change.
Coal's large drop now has the rolling 12 month total likely to have dropped below 1PWh in next month's report. It was 1.847PWh in 2010 and 1.145PWh in 2018.
Coal 66,855GWh (2018: 87,264) -1337.6MW
Nuclear 62,033GWh (2018: 59,397) No capacity change.
Coal's large drop now has the rolling 12 month total likely to have dropped below 1PWh in next month's report. It was 1.847PWh in 2010 and 1.145PWh in 2018.
Brando
Active Member
LNG vs NG [Liquid Natural Gas vs Natural Gas] ?
Want to buy from USA or Russia? Which country is more reliable? Which keeps treaties and which one breaks treaties?
Which country seems at peace in the world and which one is at war with the world.?
usual internet searches will find more information on this topic
Want to buy from USA or Russia? Which country is more reliable? Which keeps treaties and which one breaks treaties?
Which country seems at peace in the world and which one is at war with the world.?
usual internet searches will find more information on this topic
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Pipeline is fixed infrastructure so have to have faith in long term partner. Russia has cut off gas to partners in the past.
LNG is more flexible. Can pick and choose and change supplier.
But piped NG is much cheaper, so it's the winner.
India would like a pipeline to Iran for that reason. It's already using it's domestic sources. There were plans to go through Pakistan, but the instability there means they're thinking about going direct.
With a direct pipeline, India would displace a bunch of industrial coal use.
The Trump administration was hoping to expand LNG exports to Europe, and the pipe to Russia is a barrier. Nothing like loss of income to get politicians to feign morality.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
This pipeline is 3000 km in Russia at a cost of $55 Billion plus another 3000 km in China at ? cost.
I think LNG terminals cost less.
I really don't like the fact that they're building infrastructure for NG (both NG and LNG are bad). I'd much rather see that money invested in renewables. The NG infrastructure will be used for many years to add CO2 and methane to the environment. Somewhat less than coal but it's not a solution to anything except funneling more money to the fossil fuel industry and countries.
It might be close, because it's so long, but 3,000km is still within a cost-effective distance, and Germany doesn't compromise its industrial costs for anything as trivial as climate change or positive foreign policy.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Germany? I thought this was about China.
Anyway, any country that has a pipeline from Russia needs to worry that they can be cut off if they don't follow Russia's foreign policy "guidance".
Dr. J
Active Member
It’s not just Trump. The US has always broken its treaties, pacts and promises
Geopolitics is always a gamble.
Ha.
Both Germany and China have deals for piping natural gas from Russia, because they can get a large supply and it's cheaper than LNG.
A number of parallels:
- both with large natural gas supply deals with Russia
- lots of domestic coal power for economic reasons
- have had large cuts in new wind power installation because they need to upgrade the distribution infrastructure to move the wind power north to south.
- like to say one thing and do another
Electric Power Monthly!
December edition, for capacity changes and generation October 2019.
Coal capacity dropped another 1.34GW October 2019. Planned capacity reductions continue. Last month the 12 month net capacity change forecast was -9,386.9 This month the forecast decreased by 1,141.6MW to -9,190.9MW.
Coal's rolling 12 month share has dropped another 0.48% to 24.23%. Coal was 48.21% of generation in 2008. It has almost dropped by half.
Coal's capacity factor for October 2019 (39.3%) was much lower than for October 2018 (48.5%), continuing the trending of falling capacity factors. October is usually the 3rd or 4th lowest month, but this year it is the 2nd lowest. The rolling 12 month average capacity factor is 49.1%, compared with 53.3% 12 months ago. While capacity factors will vary with weather, there is a clear decreasing trend, despite continuing capacity reductions, which suggests that the capacity reductions will continue.
Nuclear capacity didn't change, and planned 12 month capacity changes rose by 20MW to -998.5MW.
Nuclear generation was up compared to last year.
Unlike coal, nuclear capacity factors are stable, with the rolling capacity factors being unchanged.
Coal:
Capacity (MW):
Capacity Factor (MW):
Generation (GWh):
Nuclear:
Capacity (MW):
Capacity Factor (MW):
Generation (GWh):
December edition, for capacity changes and generation October 2019.
Coal capacity dropped another 1.34GW October 2019. Planned capacity reductions continue. Last month the 12 month net capacity change forecast was -9,386.9 This month the forecast decreased by 1,141.6MW to -9,190.9MW.
Coal's rolling 12 month share has dropped another 0.48% to 24.23%. Coal was 48.21% of generation in 2008. It has almost dropped by half.
Coal's capacity factor for October 2019 (39.3%) was much lower than for October 2018 (48.5%), continuing the trending of falling capacity factors. October is usually the 3rd or 4th lowest month, but this year it is the 2nd lowest. The rolling 12 month average capacity factor is 49.1%, compared with 53.3% 12 months ago. While capacity factors will vary with weather, there is a clear decreasing trend, despite continuing capacity reductions, which suggests that the capacity reductions will continue.
Nuclear capacity didn't change, and planned 12 month capacity changes rose by 20MW to -998.5MW.
Nuclear generation was up compared to last year.
Unlike coal, nuclear capacity factors are stable, with the rolling capacity factors being unchanged.
Coal:
Capacity (MW):
| Period | Prior | Change | New | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Month | 235,012.7 | -1,337.6 | 233,675.1 | -0.57% |
| YTD | 242,785.6 | -9,110.5 | 233,675.1 | -3.75% |
| Rolling | 244,837.5 | -11,162.4 | 233,675.1 | -4.56% |
| Plan +12mo | -9,386.9 | -1,141.6 | -9,190.9 | . |
Capacity Factor (MW):
| Value | Prior | Change | New | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Month Capacity | 244,837.5 | -11,162.4 | 233,675.1 | -4.56% |
| Month Factor | 48.5% | -9.2% | 39.3% | -18.97% |
| Rolling 12mo Factor | 53.3% | -4.1% | 49.1% | -7.75% |
Generation (GWh):
| Year | Month | YTD | Rolling | Month % | YTD% | Rolling |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | 87,264 | 956,350 | 1,153,882 | 26.66% | 27.02% | 27.43% |
| 2019 | 66,855 | 818,105 | 1,007,717 | 20.59% | 23.41% | 24.23% |
| Difference | -20,409 | -138,245 | -146,165 | -6.08% | -3.61% | -3.20% |
Nuclear:
Capacity (MW):
| Period | Prior | Change | New | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Month | 98,106.1 | 0.0 | 98,106.1 | 0.00% |
| YTD | 99,432.9 | -1,326.8 | 98,106.1 | -1.33% |
| Rolling | 99,277.9 | -1,171.8 | 98,106.1 | -1.18% |
| Plan +12mo | -1,018.5 | 20.0 | -998.5 | . |
Capacity Factor (MW):
| Value | Prior | Change | New | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Month Capacity | 99,277.9 | -1,171.8 | 98,106.1 | -1.18% |
| Month Factor | 80.4% | 4.6% | 85.0% | 5.72% |
| Rolling 12mo Factor | 93.0% | 0.0% | 93.0% | 0.03% |
Generation (GWh):
| Year | Month | YTD | Rolling | Month % | YTD% | Rolling |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | 59,397 | 671,473 | 811,790 | 18.15% | 18.97% | 19.30% |
| 2019 | 62,033 | 672,039 | 807,651 | 19.10% | 19.23% | 19.42% |
| Difference | 2,636 | 566 | -4,139 | 0.95% | 0.26% | 0.12% |
Drops to coal usage is mostly taken up by natural gas use, no? Why didn't you post that as well?
Because this thread is devoted to the demise of Coal, Nuclear and Oil? Plenty of great stuff on how we're using less natural gas in the Wind news and Solar news threads
Because this is a thread about coal, nuclear and oil. Oil-based generation is very low and very gradually declining so I don't post it.
I don't post numbers for either natural gas (70%) or renewables (30%) here.
I don't post natural gas because that's the base disruption. I just focus on the rate of coal and nuclear generation decline, plus the less certain, but more interesting long-term disruption of all generation by solar, wind and storage (including EV batteries). I post the renewable numbers in different threads.
Because this thread is devoted to the demise of Coal, Nuclear and Oil? Plenty of great stuff on how we're using less natural gas in the Wind news and Solar news threads
Dropping coal only to use gas is two steps forward and one step back. Not so much of a gain. I don't see where it has made much of a net impact on CO2. While coal use has dropped 35% in the last 10 years natural gas use has grown by 50%. While solar has increases dramatically as a percentage, the actual amount is still a tiny fraction of total generation in the US.
Nothing to see here folks, move along, move along.
Really? Read that first sentence again. Write out the numbers if you have to.
Reduce CO2 by (2) increase CO2 by (1) = ?
How do you think progress is made? Do you think all of a sudden 'poof' it's done?
You'll note that nwdiver wrote "Wind news and Solar news". At this point I'd say that it's more than a tiny fraction.
While solar is still only 2.5% of total generation (-12mo 2.2%), wind is now 7.1% (-12mo 6.5%), and has overtaken hydroelectricity as the 4th largest source of generation in the USA. (That's not because of hydroelectricity's gradual decline. From 2008 to now only 2011 had higher hydroelectric generation.)
While currently around 9.6%, during 2020 solar and wind together should exceed 10% of US generation for the first time.
Over 20GW of new utility-scale renewable capacity will be added between November 2019 and October 2020, growing wind by 11GW/~11% and utility-scale solar 9GW/~26%. In comparison CCGT additions are expected to be 6.7GW over the same period, with a total 7.6GW net addition in natural gas, while coal capacity will drop 9GW, meaning that net fossil capacity additions will be negative.
I'd also note that coal generation has actually dropped almost 50% since 2008. Your 35% figure is 2009 to 2018. 2009 is a bad starting point because it saw a large drop due to the recession. 2019 has seen another large drop. 2008 coal generation was 2PWh, while the the rolling 12 months total is now 1PWh, so a drop of almost 1PWh.
Over that period, total utility generation has essentially been flat.
From 2008 to now, annual natural gas generation has grown 0.7PWh, 75% growth.
The other 0.3PWh has come from the growth in renewables.
It's more 3 steps forward, 1 step back, but with signs that we might be able to start moving faster.
In California in September 2019, here is the electric production:
Solar Photovoltaic: 12.75%
Wind: 7.52%
Renewables: 27.56%
I guess it comes down to ones definition of "tiny fraction". I wouldn't call 12.75% a tiny fraction. And it is going to keep growing over time.
RT
Coal as a percentage of total generation in the UK went from >30% to <2% in ~10 years
The only thing stopping us from eliminating the use of coal to generate electricity by 2030 is ignorance.
The only thing stopping us from eliminating the use of coal to generate electricity by 2030 is ignorance.
OFGEM (Office of Gas and Electricity Markets) has a chart with quarterly mix in the UK.
Electricity generation mix by quarter and fuel source (GB)
Note that UK generation and coal use peaks in winter, because of heating demand. The moderate summer temperatures mean that AC use is low. (Hot days are usually relatively humid and unpleasant, very hot days tend to be drier).
Because demand is highest in winter, wind power matches up well.
Coal will be phased out in the UK by 2025. There are 6 coal plants remaining.
It's clear from the chart where the aggressive phase out of coal began, as natural gas use expanded. The UK government did want to pursue fracking, but the earthquakes caused by tests have led to an de facto ban.
But, you can also see in the chart the continued increase in wind power is eating away at coal.
Right now, the UK government's policy is very supportive of offshore wind but has made addition of (cheaper) onshore wind much more difficult.
The government is supportive of nuclear, but the attempts to build new EPR reactors at Hinkley Point C as part of replacing existing nuclear generation, have become a financial disaster, to the point that by the time they are built, next generation offshore wind is expected to be available that will be much cheaper. (GE's Haliade-X turbines are targeted for release by 2021). The next generation turbines will be taller, more powerful and have higher capacity factors.
Similar threads
