Big drop from 2019 to 2020 (60 to 40) due to huge reduction in energy demand, so looks like a possible slight recovery in 2021 (to 48) but really still on overall decrease... very possible if we have a working vaccine starting to be administered in the Sprint/Summer and economy opens up.
-
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
Big drop from 2019 to 2020 (60 to 40) due to huge reduction in energy demand, so looks like a possible slight recovery in 2021 (to 48) but really still on overall decrease... very possible if we have a working vaccine starting to be administered in the Sprint/Summer and economy opens up.
Coal is dying, it's not dead yet.
That's only half the story.
EIA said:
(100% - 26% ) x ( 100% + 20% ) = 88.8%.
In other words, they're saying that over the 2 year period 2020-2021 there will be an 11.2% reduction in US coal consumption. The particularly large drop we've seen over the past 12 months has been due to a combination of a mild winter suppressing natural gas prices, followed by the overall reduction in demand due to the impact of COVID.
juliusa
Active Member
Yes, still declining but a forecasted increase in coal in 2021 because of high natural gas prices.
Last edited:
Good; Hopefully that will motivate more people to electrify their homes. They're pretty much giving away nat gas here. For ~$15/mo you can burn as much as you want. It's ~$0.001/kWh. Gas is so cheap you would save money by plumbing a generator into the gas lines and using that to power your house.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
NG will keep going up in cost, if not from the end of Covid-19 then winter.
In any case, as we discussed before a fair amount of the NG charges are utility fees for transmission and whatever.
Last edited:
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Wow! Volatile prices. Hard to make a decision to invest in a NG plant when you have no idea what the price of fuel is going to be.
(Also, good luck in getting anywhere near 29 kWh of electricity out a a therm of NG)
When your O&M costs are ~$25/MWh there really isn't much of a difference between $1/MWh and $0.1/MWh; They're both pretty much a rounding error compared to everything else.
Combined cycle isn't too bad. Their thermal efficiency is ~60%. I've thought about how 'cool' it would be to heat your home with a fuel cell. Get heat and electricity. Basically be ~100% efficient.
That was announced in 2016.
For the USA, EIA says capacity-weighted capital cost for wind farms entering service in 2025 is $23.51/MWh and for 2022 $26.86/MWh. That takes financing into account.
Actually:
EIA said:
It will be higher (not high) compared with 2020 (which has had very low prices due to a mild winter and COVID).
mspohr
Well-Known Member
SMR in context
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calg...erloop-train-small-modular-reactors-1.5717438
Unlike outright climate denial, "climate delay" acknowledges the reality of a changing climate and the role of carbon emissions from human activity in climate change. But instead of actively working to deal with the issue, it seeks to create a debate about what should be done, who is responsible, and how we should allocate costs and benefits.
The end goal is to significantly delay action to reduce emissions.
There are four primary types of climate delay, all of which can be found in the Canadian debate.
Redirect responsibility — The focus is put on the importance of individual action, while excusing collective action. An example is the idea that it's consumption, rather than production, that matters. Another variety argues that small contributions from a given country or industry on the global scale are immaterial.
Emphasize the downside — This pushes the fallacy that the cost of action is higher than the downside risk of climate change. In many cases this argument includes an appeal to social justice, such as emphasizing the costs of action borne by disadvantaged groups, when in fact the downside risks of inaction faced by these groups are typically highest, while the costs can be mitigated through policy design.
Surrender — This is a form of climate doomerism, claiming falsely that we can't possibly make changes to reduce the impacts of climate change, therefore the only thing to do is focus on adaptation.
Focus on non-transformative solutions — This involves taking actions and making investments in technology that won't result in transformative change, including technologies far from market, focusing on carrots rather than sticks. It also relies heavily on technological optimism to solve problems within a narrow solutions space
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calg...erloop-train-small-modular-reactors-1.5717438
Unlike outright climate denial, "climate delay" acknowledges the reality of a changing climate and the role of carbon emissions from human activity in climate change. But instead of actively working to deal with the issue, it seeks to create a debate about what should be done, who is responsible, and how we should allocate costs and benefits.
The end goal is to significantly delay action to reduce emissions.
There are four primary types of climate delay, all of which can be found in the Canadian debate.
Redirect responsibility — The focus is put on the importance of individual action, while excusing collective action. An example is the idea that it's consumption, rather than production, that matters. Another variety argues that small contributions from a given country or industry on the global scale are immaterial.
Emphasize the downside — This pushes the fallacy that the cost of action is higher than the downside risk of climate change. In many cases this argument includes an appeal to social justice, such as emphasizing the costs of action borne by disadvantaged groups, when in fact the downside risks of inaction faced by these groups are typically highest, while the costs can be mitigated through policy design.
Surrender — This is a form of climate doomerism, claiming falsely that we can't possibly make changes to reduce the impacts of climate change, therefore the only thing to do is focus on adaptation.
Focus on non-transformative solutions — This involves taking actions and making investments in technology that won't result in transformative change, including technologies far from market, focusing on carrots rather than sticks. It also relies heavily on technological optimism to solve problems within a narrow solutions space
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
mspohr
Well-Known Member
dgpcolorado
high altitude member
Not a surprise to denizens of this thread but interesting nonetheless:
A Secret Recording Reveals Oil Executives’ Private Views on Climate Change
A Secret Recording Reveals Oil Executives’ Private Views on Climate Change
Case Study: Hydrogen Fuel Cells Add Excessive Complex Technology & Cost
... though, if it comes to either deactivating solar and wind farms (0%) or being able to store the energy(25%0, it is not bad. Added benefit is storing the summer heat (solar energy) and releasing it in the winter. I know we would appreciate this in the SW.
... though, if it comes to either deactivating solar and wind farms (0%) or being able to store the energy(25%0, it is not bad. Added benefit is storing the summer heat (solar energy) and releasing it in the winter. I know we would appreciate this in the SW.
dgpcolorado
high altitude member
Similar threads
