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

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Oil4AsphaultOnly, post: 4696782, member: 33548"]You don't think this trend will continue? For the "good times" to continue, we just need to see more renewables deployed + battery storage, and continued mild winters (due to anthropomorphic global warming). Battery storage especially should impact natural gas consumption directly (reduces use of natural gas peaker plants).[/QUOTE]

It's the _rate_ of decline of which I'm uncertain.

But it could be that seeing the impact of the mild winter, plus the hard hit from COVID-19 is enough to accelerate closures.

The impact of battery storage will be interesting.

I don't think knocking out peakers will do much. 2019 natural gas usage by sector:
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
Electricity was only 36% of the total.

Also note that the large majority of natural gas generation is CCGT.
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/xls/table_6_07_a.xlsx

In 2019 85.2% of generation from existing capacity was at CCGT plants.
Gas turbine (the standard peaker) was 8.51%.

Looking at 2018 heat rates (BTU/kWh) for the various natural gas generators,
SAS Output
You can see that the common non-CCGT are much less efficient, and

If we apply those heat rates to the 2019 capacity factors and assume that everything except Combined Cycle is peaker, we can back-calculate approximate peaker consumption share as 19.69% of NG use for electricity.

19.69% of 36% is 7.1%.

So, even if we replaced _all_ non-CCGT generation with batteries charged with renewables, we'd reduce overall NG use by around 7%.

But, currently the USA is replacing a lot of coal with CCGT generation, and that will outweigh the savings from replacing peakers.

If all coal generation were replaced with CCGT, that would increase CCGT generation by over 50%.
If CCGT is currently 80% of NG electricity use, then it's about 28% of overall NG use, so a 50% increase would add 14%. Current share of the coal spoils is between 2/3 and 3/4.

Given the gradual decline of nuclear as well, we'll have to sustain the current rapid addition of renewables, and have heat pump use accelerate really to begin to see a significant dent in NG use.

 

[SageBrush]

But, currently the USA is replacing a lot of coal with CCGT generation, and that will outweigh the savings from replacing peakers.

Yep.
I just hope that the NG extraction process gets cleaned up. Current methane emissions make NG not much different than coal in terms of GHGe

 

[eevee-fan]

Yep.
I just hope that the NG extraction process gets cleaned up. Current methane emissions make NG not much different than coal in terms of GHGe

Instead of dairy cows being milked for milk, we need regular cows being milked for methane.

 

[mspohr]

Coal industry will never recover after coronavirus pandemic, say experts

Coal industry will never recover after coronavirus pandemic, say experts

The global coal industry will “never recover” from the Covid-19 pandemic, industry observers predict, because the crisis has proved renewable energy is cheaper for consumers and a safer bet for investors.

A long-term shift away from dirty fossil fuels has accelerated during the lockdown, bringing forward power plant closures in several countries and providing new evidence that humanity’s coal use may finally have peaked after more than 200 years.

More importantly, in India – the world’s second-biggest coal consumer – the government has prioritised cheap solar energy rather than coal in response to a slump in electricity demand caused by Covid-19 and a weak economy. This has led to the first year-on-year fall in carbon emissions in four decades, exceptional air quality, and a growing public clamour for more renewables.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Instead of dairy cows being milked for milk, we need regular cows being milked for methane.

I don't think it'd be worth it in reality, but it could make for some good science-fiction. Call it The Mootrix.

 

[mspohr]

I don't think it'd be worth it in reality, but it could make for some good science-fiction. Call it The Mootrix.

Cows wear BACKPACKS to capture methane emissions | Daily Mail Online

 

[eevee-fan]

Cows wear BACKPACKS to capture methane emissions | Daily Mail Online

Methane truck, put cow in the truck bed, hay powered car?

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Cows wear BACKPACKS to capture methane emissions | Daily Mail Online

I think that was another Fail from the Daily Fail. Picture is from a 2008 methane emissions study and it's appeared a couple of times in false stories about actual use.

 

[mspohr]

I think that was another Fail from the Daily Fail. Picture is from a 2008 methane emissions study and it's appeared a couple of times in false stories about actual use.

I don't think anyone is seriously considering doing this (except for a few desperate farmers).

 

[mblakele]

A glut of new coal-fired power stations endangers China’s green ambitions

CHINA IS HOME to half the world’s coal-fired power stations, the most polluting type of generator. Their share of the country’s electricity market is shrinking as nuclear plants and renewables slowly elbow them off the grid. But Chinese investors and local governments are still keen on them. Last year coal-fired generating capacity expanded in China by 37GW (factoring in plant closures)—more than the amount by which it grew globally. China has been relaxing curbs on building such plants. That suggests more to come.

Work on many of the new coal-fired stations began after the central government gave local officials greater freedom to approve construction at the end of 2014. The aim was to cut red tape, not to ramp up the burning of coal. But it resulted in a blizzard of new permits. Within about a year provinces had approved enough new plants to expand China’s coal-powered generating capacity by a quarter.

China does not need a lot more power. Its economy is growing less energy-intensive as it relies less on manufacturing and construction. Lately coal-power plants have been able to sell less than half the electricity they are able to produce, down from 60% a decade ago. But local governments see any big construction project as a potential boost to growth. Some also have coal-mining industries to protect.

In 2016, recognising its mistake, the central government began clawing back the authority it had devolved to the provinces. But it worried that halting projects would threaten local economies, so it allowed many of those under way to proceed. Soon it began to relax curbs on the approval of new stations. In January China had 135GW of coal-power capacity either permitted or under construction, says Global Energy Monitor, an NGO in San Francisco. That is equal to about half the total coal-power capacity in America.

The new power stations will not be put to full use. They will face fierce competition from renewable energy. China’s capacity for producing this is also growing fast. Plants using coal risk limits on their output imposed by governments to improve air quality. Instead of increasing the total amount of electricity China gets from coal, new stations may simply pinch operating hours from existing ones.

[...]


[...]

By building so many new coal-fired plants, China has wasted money that could have been spent more greenly, and given vested interests more reason to try to delay its energy transition. The big state-owned firms that operate coal-burning generators are also being relied upon by the government to produce much of China’s renewable energy, notes Lauri Myllyvirta of the Helsinki-based Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air. But they would rather not hasten the closure of carbon-spewing power stations that they had intended to keep working for a good three decades.​

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

A glut of new coal-fired power stations endangers China’s green ambitions

CHINA IS HOME to half the world’s coal-fired power stations, the most polluting type of generator. Their share of the country’s electricity market is shrinking as nuclear plants and renewables slowly elbow them off the grid. But Chinese investors and local governments are still keen on them. Last year coal-fired generating capacity expanded in China by 37GW (factoring in plant closures)—more than the amount by which it grew globally. China has been relaxing curbs on building such plants. That suggests more to come.

Work on many of the new coal-fired stations began after the central government gave local officials greater freedom to approve construction at the end of 2014. The aim was to cut red tape, not to ramp up the burning of coal. But it resulted in a blizzard of new permits. Within about a year provinces had approved enough new plants to expand China’s coal-powered generating capacity by a quarter.

China does not need a lot more power. Its economy is growing less energy-intensive as it relies less on manufacturing and construction. Lately coal-power plants have been able to sell less than half the electricity they are able to produce, down from 60% a decade ago. But local governments see any big construction project as a potential boost to growth. Some also have coal-mining industries to protect.

In 2016, recognising its mistake, the central government began clawing back the authority it had devolved to the provinces. But it worried that halting projects would threaten local economies, so it allowed many of those under way to proceed. Soon it began to relax curbs on the approval of new stations. In January China had 135GW of coal-power capacity either permitted or under construction, says Global Energy Monitor, an NGO in San Francisco. That is equal to about half the total coal-power capacity in America.

The new power stations will not be put to full use. They will face fierce competition from renewable energy. China’s capacity for producing this is also growing fast. Plants using coal risk limits on their output imposed by governments to improve air quality. Instead of increasing the total amount of electricity China gets from coal, new stations may simply pinch operating hours from existing ones.

[...]


[...]

By building so many new coal-fired plants, China has wasted money that could have been spent more greenly, and given vested interests more reason to try to delay its energy transition. The big state-owned firms that operate coal-burning generators are also being relied upon by the government to produce much of China’s renewable energy, notes Lauri Myllyvirta of the Helsinki-based Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air. But they would rather not hasten the closure of carbon-spewing power stations that they had intended to keep working for a good three decades.​

Am I reading this wrong? The title doesn't appear to match the content. Although the graph shows the number of generating capacity has increased, the actual usage of those plants have gone down - to the point of "Instead of increasing the total amount of electricity China gets from coal, new stations may simply pinch operating hours from existing ones".

We know that the number of plants doesn't equal the amount of electricity generated by coal. I don't have the IEA data with me, but IIRC since 2014, the amount of electricity generated by coal had been dropping? The rest of the capacity was for producing steel and other industrial uses.

 

[mblakele]

Am I reading this wrong? The title doesn't appear to match the content. Although the graph shows the number of generating capacity has increased, the actual usage of those plants have gone down - to the point of "Instead of increasing the total amount of electricity China gets from coal, new stations may simply pinch operating hours from existing ones".

We know that the number of plants doesn't equal the amount of electricity generated by coal. I don't have the IEA data with me, but IIRC since 2014, the amount of electricity generated by coal had been dropping? The rest of the capacity was for producing steel and other industrial uses.

Headlines are often written by a different person, so sometimes they don't match up with the article. But in this case I don't see a problem. The headline says "A glut of new coal-fired power stations endangers China’s green ambitions". That's power stations, not power, so "new stations may simply pinch operating hours from existing ones" makes sense. It might be a little confusing, but it isn't a contradiction.

The second part of the headline "...endangers China’s green ambitions" is because "[by] building so many new coal-fired plants, China has wasted money that could have been spent more greenly, and given vested interests more reason to try to delay its energy transition."

Does that help? Or what am I missing?

 

[SageBrush]

Headlines are often written by a different person, so sometimes they don't match up with the article. But in this case I don't see a problem. The headline says "A glut of new coal-fired power stations endangers China’s green ambitions". That's power stations, not power, so "new stations may simply pinch operating hours from existing ones" makes sense. It might be a little confusing, but it isn't a contradiction.

The second part of the headline "...endangers China’s green ambitions" is because "[by] building so many new coal-fired plants, China has wasted money that could have been spent more greenly, and given vested interests more reason to try to delay its energy transition."

Does that help? Or what am I missing?

We care about fossil combustion, not capacity.
Second, these thermal power plants can be converted to burn other things besides coal, like renewable liquid fuels.

So the sky is not falling, but it is something to watch

The writer of the headline is grinning right now

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

Headlines are often written by a different person, so sometimes they don't match up with the article. But in this case I don't see a problem. The headline says "A glut of new coal-fired power stations endangers China’s green ambitions". That's power stations, not power, so "new stations may simply pinch operating hours from existing ones" makes sense. It might be a little confusing, but it isn't a contradiction.

The second part of the headline "...endangers China’s green ambitions" is because "[by] building so many new coal-fired plants, China has wasted money that could have been spent more greenly, and given vested interests more reason to try to delay its energy transition."

Does that help? Or what am I missing?

When you separate it out like that, i can see the logic.

Anyway, the power plants are now sunk costs. The "threat" to renewable energy investments is a fallacy of sunk costs. throwing additional money into better utilizing those plants would simply be throwing good money after bad. Eventually they'll see the light.

 

[mspohr]

When you separate it out like that, i can see the logic.

Anyway, the power plants are now sunk costs. The "threat" to renewable energy investments is a fallacy of sunk costs. throwing additional money into better utilizing those plants would simply be throwing good money after bad. Eventually they'll see the light.

The cost to operate most coal plants is greater than renewables so you need free coal to avoid losing money... and no, you can't make it up on volume.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

When you separate it out like that, i can see the logic.

Anyway, the power plants are now sunk costs. The "threat" to renewable energy investments is a fallacy of sunk costs. throwing additional money into better utilizing those plants would simply be throwing good money after bad. Eventually they'll see the light.

Sunk cost is not a fallacy, it's a basic principle of accounting. It's why the Trump administration is rolling back rules added by the Obama administration.

The rules forced existing coal plants to invest in new equipment, which forces closure because it adds capital investment that can't be recovered.

However, in the USA, cheap natural gas is killing coal anyway, aided by ever-cheaper renewables with additional subsidies that drop the price below the LCOA.

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

Sunk cost is not a fallacy, it's a basic principle of accounting. It's why the Trump administration is rolling back rules added by the Obama administration.

The rules forced existing coal plants to invest in new equipment, which forces closure because it adds capital investment that can't be recovered.

However, in the USA, cheap natural gas is killing coal anyway, aided by ever-cheaper renewables with additional subsidies that drop the price below the LCOA.

Maybe I didn't write that out clearly enough. Many businesses continue to use worthless new equipment, because of all the money that they'd already invested in it. Throwing them away "sounds" like a waste of money, when in reality it doesn't matter. That's the fallacy of the sunk cost, that it had any value left because of the "investments" made into it and that it _should_ affect future investments.

So applying that to the coal power plants, whatever amount that was "invested" into those chinese coal power plants has no bearing on how much China will be investing into solar and wind energy in the future. So China _might_ try to recoup some value out of their new coal power plants, or they might just ignore the sunk cost and spend less for clean energy.

 

[eevee-fan]

Sunk cost is not a fallacy, it's a basic principle of accounting. It's why the Trump administration is rolling back rules added by the Obama administration.

The rules forced existing coal plants to invest in new equipment, which forces closure because it adds capital investment that can't be recovered.

However, in the USA, cheap natural gas is killing coal anyway, aided by ever-cheaper renewables with additional subsidies that drop the price below the LCOA.

My understanding of the coal plant situated right next to the coal mine in AZ is that new solar beat even just the cost of coal alone.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Electric Power Monthly!

May edition, for capacity changes and generation March 2020. In Electric Power Monthly time, the Wuhan virus is now beginning to hit the USA.

Coal capacity dropped 1,396.4MW in March 2020 to end at 225,799.1MW. Forecast capacity reductions continue. Last month, the 12 month net capacity change forecast was -7,002.2MW. , This month the forecast decreased by 710.6MW to -6,316.4MW.

Coal's rolling 12 month share dropped another 0.59% to 21.31%, a drop of 5.51% from 12 months ago. Coal was 48.21% of generation in 2008. February 2020 generation was 56.1TWh compared to 80.1TWh in 2019, down and rolling 12 month generation falling to 906.3TWh compared to compared to 1,129.3TWh a year ago.

Nuclear capacity didn't change in March 2020.

Nuclear generation was slightly down in March 2020 (64.0TWh v 65.1TWh), with rolling generation down to 804.1TWh compared with 810.1TWh to March 2019.

Coal generation is normally moderate in March, but it was historically low, at 50.6TWh.

Rolling 12 month coal generation has fallen 248.8TWh in 12 months. The difference between coal and nuclear 12 month rolling generation is now only 68.3TWh. Coal generation is increasingly likely to be lower than nuclear generation before the end of 2020.

Average coal capacity factors were again extremely low. March capacity factors have normally been in the 43% to 46% range, but were 30.9% in March 2020. It may have been affected by the virus, but nuclear and (87.7% v 88.0%) and natural gas (CCGT 52.1% v 50.0%) capacity factors were not affected the same way.

Coal:

Capacity (MW):

Period	Prior	Change	New	Change
Month	227,195.5	-1,396.4	225,799.1	-0.61%
YTD	229,241.4	-3,442.3	225,799.1	-1.50%
Rolling	238,326.9	-12,527.8	225,799.1	-5.26%
Plan +12mo	-7,002.2	-710.6	-6,316.4	.

Capacity Factor (MW):

Value	Prior	Change	New	Change
Month Capacity	238,318.6	-12,519.5	225,799.1	-5.25%
Month Factor	45.0%	-14.1%	30.9%	-31.33%
Rolling 12mo Factor	53.2%	-9.5%	43.7%	-17.92%

Generation (GWh):

Year	Month	YTD	Rolling	Month %	YTD%	Rolling
2019	78,516	259,629	1,127,156	24.04%	25.91%	26.82%
2020	50,586	171,828	878,347	16.36%	17.71%	21.31%
Difference	-27,930	-87,801	-248,809	-7.67%	-8.20%	-5.51%

Nuclear:

Capacity (MW):

Period	Prior	Change	New	Change
Month	98,119.0	0.0	98,119.0	0.00%
YTD	98,070.2	48.8	98,119.0	0.05%
Rolling	99,391.6	-1,272.6	98,119.0	-1.28%
Plan +12mo	-1,597.5	0.0	-1,597.5	.

Capacity Factor (MW):

Value	Prior	Change	New	Change
Month Capacity	99,431.1	-1,312.1	98,119.0	-1.32%
Month Factor	88.0%	-0.3%	87.7%	-0.34%
Rolling 12mo Factor	92.2%	1.3%	93.5%	1.42%

Generation (GWh):

Year	Month	YTD	Rolling	Month %	YTD%	Rolling
2019	65,080	203,495	804,108	19.92%	20.31%	19.14%
2020	63,997	204,152	810,065	20.70%	21.04%	19.66%
Difference	-1,083	657	5,957	0.78%	0.73%	0.52%

 

[TheTalkingMule]

Gas demand across Europe this spring....

Russian gas exports to Europe drop as Nord Stream 2 nears completion