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

[SageBrush]

So that only leaves extraction as the source for the claim that coal is better. I doubt this assertion too because NG comes with oil extraction.

Read Jacobson online. He lays out the facts clearly

 

[SmartElectric]

in Canada, most, if not all, capture methane, unlike the US were there is so much methane flaring that some areas, like North Dakota, look like cities when flying over.

Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs)

The Government of Canada has committed to reducing methane emissions from the oil and gas sector by 40% to 45% from 2012 levels by 2025. New regulations limiting methane emissions from fugitive sources such as leaks and venting will apply to the oil and gas sector beginning in 2020.

^ Seems like our Canadian government doesn't agree with your claim, the reduction of methane is serious, and "most capture" is not at all a factual reporting of the situation here, our oil companies may not be "as bad", bad is bad, very bad is just worse.

 

[mspohr]

Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs)



^ Seems like our Canadian government doesn't agree with your claim, the reduction of methane is serious, and "most capture" is not at all a factual reporting of the situation here, our oil companies may not be "as bad", bad is bad, very bad is just worse.

Here is their real "commitment". What a joke. All of a 40% reduction?
Regulatory Flexibilities
The proposed regulations were designed to ensure efficient results and limit impacts on smaller facilities. Only oil and gas facilities handling significant volumes of gas (producing or receiving at least 60,000 cubic metres in a year) generally need to comply with the proposed requirements. For example, only 20% of Canada’s crude oil facilities, who are responsible for about 75% of vented emissions, will need to take action under the regulations.

Other proposed flexibilities to reduce costs for facilities, while still ensuring the emissions reduction target include:

• Facilities are not required to inspect for leaks during the winter season. In addition, if repairs are not possible without shutting down the equipment, the operator is allowed to wait more than 30 days to repair the leak – so long as the volume leaked in that period is not larger than would be released by shutting down the equipment.
• Only facilities that vent more than 40,000 m3 per year need to comply with the venting requirement. Facilities have numerous ways to comply with the venting limit – they can capture the gas and reuse it, return it underground, or sell it, or they can flare the captured gas.
• Corrective action on compressors is only required for more significant leaks – when emissions exceed 0.023 m3 per minute for reciprocating compressors, and 0.17 m3 per minute for centrifugal compressors.
• For pneumatic controllers, facilities can delay the application of requirements for a year, for technical or financial reasons. They can also apply for a permit to be exempted from the requirements for pneumatic controllers, for up to three years.

 

[eevee-fan]

 

[iPlug]

In a thread titled "Coal has fallen", this seems on topic...

Wish I could have been there to push the plunger

RubberToe beat you to it.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Electric Power Monthly!

December edition, for capacity changes and generation October 2020.

Coal rolling 12 month generation remains below that of nuclear.

October continued coal's generation decline.

Coal capacity was reduced by 1,139MW in October 2020, to 221,251.6MW. Forecast capacity reductions are unchanged at -3,646.4MW.

Coal's rolling 12 month share dropped another 0.15% to 19.27%, a drop of 4.94% from 12 months ago. Coal was 48.21% of generation in 2008. October 2020 generation was 59.8TWh compared to 66.9TWh in 2019, and rolling 12 month generation falling to 781.6TWh compared to 1,010.0TWh a year ago.

Nuclear capacity increased by 40.0MW in October 2020, to 96,559.5MW. Planned capacity reductions decreased by 20MW to -3,337.9MW.

Nuclear generation was down in October 2020 (59.4TWh v 62.0TWh), with rolling generation at 795.5TWh compared with 807.8TWh to October 2019.

Coal generation in October is a moderate month. as demand has fallen from the summer peak but is not yet fully rising for winter. October generation was lower than every month in 2019.

Rolling 12 month coal generation has fallen 228.3TWh in 12 months. Coal generation during that period was 13.9TWh less than nuclear. While we could expect an uptick in capacity factors compared to last year's mild winter, coal capacity reduced over 12GW in the past 12 months, and over 7GW year to date, with another 2GW of closures planned for November and December 2020. With nuclear reductions being much less, and none planned for the remainder of 2020, it's possible that rolling nuclear generation will remain above that of coal through the next 12 months.

The continued fall in coal generation and growth in renewable generation also means that rolling coal generation is now only 16.9TWh more than utility-scale renewable generation. (Including estimated small-scale solar, renewable generation exceeded coal in September 2020).

Coal generation capacity factors fell to 37.3%, down from 39.3% in October 2020, and much lower than 48.5% in 2018.

Coal and Nuclear

Coal:

Capacity (MW):

Period	Prior	Change	New	Change
Month	222,390.6	-1,139.0	221,251.6	-0.51%
YTD	228,657.4	-7,405.8	221,251.6	-3.24%
Rolling	233,086.4	-11,834.8	221,251.6	-5.08%
Plan +12mo	-4,785.4	0.0	-3,646.4	-1.65%

Capacity Factor (MW):

Value	Prior	Change	New	Change
Month Capacity	233,675.1	-12,423.5	221,251.6	-5.32%
Month Factor	39.3%	-2.0%	37.3%	-5.09%
Rolling 12mo Factor	49.1%	-8.9%	40.2%	-18.10%

Generation (GWh):

Year	Month	YTD	Rolling	Month %	YTD%	Rolling
2019	66,855	816,827	1,009,964	20.59%	23.31%	24.21%
2020	59,840	633,487	781,617	18.83%	18.64%	19.27%
Difference	-7,015	-183,340	-228,347	-1.76%	-4.67%	-4.94%

Nuclear:

Capacity (MW):

Period	Prior	Change	New	Change
Month	96,519.5	40.0	96,559.5	0.04%
YTD	98,119.0	-1,559.5	96,559.5	-1.59%
Rolling	98,119.0	-1,559.5	96,559.5	-1.59%
Plan +12mo	-3,317.9	20.0	-3,337.9	-3.46%

Capacity Factor (MW):

Value	Prior	Change	New	Change
Month Capacity	98,106.1	-1,546.6	96,559.5	-1.58%
Month Factor	85.0%	-2.4%	82.6%	-2.82%
Rolling 12mo Factor	93.0%	-0.1%	92.9%	-0.13%

Generation (GWh):

Year	Month	YTD	Rolling	Month %	YTD%	Rolling
2019	62,033	672,210	807,822	19.10%	19.19%	19.36%
2020	59,362	658,288	795,487	18.68%	19.37%	19.61%
Difference	-2,671	-13,922	-12,335	-0.42%	0.19%	0.25%

 

[mspohr]

Asian Banks Dump Coal, Dashing Trump's Dreams

Japanese and Korean financial organizations are pulling back on fresh investments in coal plants. China, Japan and South Korea have announced aggressive targets to go carbon neutral. All of this is threatening the future of American coal, which relies on the Asian market.

industry isn’t giving up on its dreams. Montana and Wyoming are approaching the Supreme Court, alleging that coastal states are discriminating and limiting their access to global markets. But if somehow, coal companies are able to overcome grassroots and environmental concerns, they may find that the market they thought was there has largely disappeared. “They’ve been pouring millions of dollars to fight for something that looks increasingly like it won’t be used,” says Boyles.

 

[mspohr]

Sale of Arctic Drilling Leases Draws an Unusual Taker. It May Be the Only One. Sale of Arctic Drilling Leases Draws an Unusual Taker. It May Be the Only One.

After a three-year push by the Trump administration to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil drilling — an effort that culminated in a rush to sell leases before the White House changes hands — in the end the only taker may be the state of Alaska itself. With a Thursday deadline for submitting bids for 10-year leases on tracts covering more than one million acres of the refuge, there is little indication that oil companies are interested in buying the rights to drill under difficult conditions, to extract more costly fossil fuels for a world that increasingly is seeking to wean itself off them.

 

[SageBrush]

Sale of Arctic Drilling Leases Draws an Unusual Taker. It May Be the Only One. Sale of Arctic Drilling Leases Draws an Unusual Taker. It May Be the Only One.

After a three-year push by the Trump administration to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil drilling — an effort that culminated in a rush to sell leases before the White House changes hands — in the end the only taker may be the state of Alaska itself. With a Thursday deadline for submitting bids for 10-year leases on tracts covering more than one million acres of the refuge, there is little indication that oil companies are interested in buying the rights to drill under difficult conditions, to extract more costly fossil fuels for a world that increasingly is seeking to wean itself off them.

That sounds like a terrible outcome if it lets AK set the environmental conditions for drilling. The article got the reasons for non-participation wrong -- it is because they expect that the Biden admin would block drilling. The Ranchers in the Western states (AKA, squatters on Fed lands) have been going through this dance for years, demanding that Federal lands be deeded to them (or to their proxies in State Gov.)

 

[RubberToe]

Been tracking California's total refined gasoline for a while now. Exciting stuff ! Refinery output is down substantially in 2020 due to the pandemic, but was also down in 2019 over 2018. The year 2017 may have been the peak, as seen here:

I was wondering if EV sales were a factor in this decline, so went back and checked the California EV sales since 2011. Came up with a number that was ~500,000. Then making some basic assumptions I came up with:

1,000 miles per month if using gas at 30MPG is 33.33 gallons per month
500,000 EVs * 33.33 gallons = 16,650,000 monthly gallons avoided
16,650,000 / 31.5 = 529,047 monthly barrels avoided
529,047 / 30 = 17,634 daily barrels avoided
17,634 * 7 = 123,444 weekly barrels avoided

The same site providing the weekly California refinery output shows the week of 12-25-20 having produced 5,761,000 total refined barrels.

123,444 / 5,761,000 = 2.14%

If the 500,000 EVs were gas cars, they would have used an additional 2.14% of refined gasoline this last week.

Confucius say: Even the steepest ramp start with small initial slope...

RT

Website:
California Petroleum Statistics and Data

 

[RubberToe]

That sounds like a terrible outcome if it lets AK set the environmental conditions for drilling. The article got the reasons for non-participation wrong -- it is because they expect that the Biden admin would block drilling. The Ranchers in the Western states (AKA, squatters on Fed lands) have been going through this dance for years, demanding that Federal lands be deeded to them (or to their proxies in State Gov.)

I was worried about the drilling leases when I first heard about this. I still remain confident that there will never be oil drilling in the ANWR. At some point soon, oversupply of solar PV during the early afternoon will result in free electricity. EVs will be used to soak it up. Once "solar gas" is free during certain periods of the day, gasoline is going to be a tough sell. Gasoline cars even more so. Gonna be fun to watch this play out.

RT

 

[juliusa]

I was wondering if EV sales were a factor in this decline,

I don't think so. Seem gasoline consumption has been rising 2013 through 2018.
https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/MVF-10-Year-Report.pdf

I think a lot of refined product flows across state lines, so CA refinery gasoline output is probably not a good way to measure CA gasoline consumption.

I do believe that in CA EVs reduce gasoline consumption, and increase natural gas consumption - with a net decrease in emissions. AFAIK, incremental electricity usage (more EVs) is provided by NG plants in CA.

Improving fuel economy of ICE vehicles also helps reduce gasoline consumption.

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

I don't think so. Seem gasoline consumption has been rising 2013 through 2018.
https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/MVF-10-Year-Report.pdf

I think a lot of refined product flows across state lines, so CA refinery gasoline output is probably not a good way to measure CA gasoline consumption.

I do believe that in CA EVs reduce gasoline consumption, and increase natural gas consumption - with a net decrease in emissions. AFAIK, incremental electricity usage (more EVs) is provided by NG plants in CA.

Improving fuel economy of ICE vehicles also helps reduce gasoline consumption.

How so? CA has their own blend of gasoline, meant to reduce emissions during hot summer months (peak driving season). That blend costs more than refined gasoline from other states, so no one other than CA (maybe Oregon and WA) would want to pay more for that special blend. That's why CA gas prices are amongst the highest in the nation.

 

[juliusa]

How so? CA has their own blend of gasoline, meant to reduce emissions during hot summer months (peak driving season). That blend costs more than refined gasoline from other states, so no one other than CA (maybe Oregon and WA) would want to pay more for that special blend. That's why CA gas prices are amongst the highest in the nation.

While I think that is generally true, CA does import gasoline products. Refineries outside CA are capable of producing the CA blend, and I see no reason why CA refineries cannot produce blends for export.
California gasoline imports set to rise, experts say
California’s gasoline imports increase 10-fold after major refinery outage - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

CA gas prices are the highest in the nation for many reasons - the blend, highest taxes, cap and trade costs, supply and demand, and other regulations. 50% higher than the national average at the time of this article last year.
Why Are California Gas Prices So High These Days? Thank Sacramento. - Pacific Research Institute

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

I don't think so. Seem gasoline consumption has been rising 2013 through 2018.
https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/MVF-10-Year-Report.pdf

I think a lot of refined product flows across state lines, so CA refinery gasoline output is probably not a good way to measure CA gasoline consumption.

California refineries have been increasing their production and increasing exports, so no, that's not a good measure.

EV fleet is still a low proportion, and if a significant proportion of owners were driving a relatively efficient vehicle, it's not a big change.

EV ownership is only about 2% of the California light vehicle fleet, so its impact will be dwarfed by other trends. Even 2025's "22.5%" ZEV target translates into less than 6% of new vehicle sales needing to be long-range BEV, and even as the new vehicle market share increases, it'll take years before it feeds into the used market and through the fleet.

In a market like Norway, the effect is obvious, but California's nowhere near that.

I do believe that in CA EVs reduce gasoline consumption, and increase natural gas consumption - with a net decrease in emissions. AFAIK, incremental electricity usage (more EVs) is provided by NG plants in CA.

Improving fuel economy of ICE vehicles also helps reduce gasoline consumption.

The fuel use impact for EVs is a bit tricky.

There's a strong link between EV ownership and residential solar. California's tiered pricing gives a strong incentive for people who charge at home to add solar to lower their net demand.

Also, as a rule, DCFC use tends to be higher during daytime, which matches well with solar generation.

PEV ownership isn't large enough to have high impact, but anyway here's some In-state generation data for >=1MW, which of course excludes residential PV and imports:
Electric Generation Capacity and Energy

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

While I think that is generally true, CA does import gasoline products. Refineries outside CA are capable of producing the CA blend, and I see no reason why CA refineries cannot produce blends for export.
California gasoline imports set to rise, experts say
California’s gasoline imports increase 10-fold after major refinery outage - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

CA gas prices are the highest in the nation for many reasons - the blend, highest taxes, cap and trade costs, supply and demand, and other regulations. 50% higher than the national average at the time of this article last year.
Why Are California Gas Prices So High These Days? Thank Sacramento. - Pacific Research Institute

That's only saying something is possible for the sake of saying it's possible. Yes, other states "could" use the more expensive gasoline coming out of CA refineries, but what kind of business deliberately buys more expensive gas to sell to their customers when it's not required to? Outside of OR or WA, all the nearby states of CA (e.g. NV, AZ, UT, WY, TX, etc) would buy the cheaper gas refined from their local refineries instead of importing from CA.

And just to hedge off this other "possibility", yes the CA refineries could produce the cheaper gasoline for export, but with labor and taxes being higher here, that would be a huge waste of refinery capacity (using it to produce $2 NV gasoline instead of the $3 CA gasoline).

Now, you could argue that the CA refinery production output is NOT a good indication of consumption, because refined product could still be imported from out-of-state refineries. I have no objection with that claim, except that's a very expensive way to deliver refined fuel (the highest consumption areas of the Bay Area and Los Angeles county, which are both pretty far from state borders). Tanker trucks burn quite a bit of fuel, and the longer the driving distance, the higher the COGS of the product. So there's a limit to how much is in the "hidden" gasoline consumption.

All this to say that the model of using CA refinery output as a proxy for CA gasoline consumption is a very good one.

 

[mspohr]

The CA report says non California gasoline production is about 6% of the total. I think a lot of this goes to Reno through a pipeline over Donner summit.. No refinery in N. Nv

 

[juliusa]

That's only saying something is possible for the sake of saying it's possible. Yes, other states "could" use the more expensive gasoline coming out of CA refineries,

That is not what I said. I said the CA refineries are probably capable of producing blends for export. They would not be the CA blend.

The CA report says non California gasoline production is about 6% of the total. I think a lot of this goes to Reno through a pipeline over Donner summit.. No refinery in N. Nv

So it seems they do export gasoline. And we know they import gasoline.

Which was the simple point I was making - the amount of gasoline produced in CA refineries cannot be used to determine the amount of gasoline consumed in CA. Same with electricity - the amount of electricity generated in CA cannot be used to determine the amount of electricity consumed in CA.

 

[DrGene]

Its very hard to get off fossil fuels even with nuclear in the mix and next to impossible without some nuclear because of the large storage requirements and lack of power lines to power a renewables only plan. I have some models on my web page showing this if you want to get in to modeling up to your eyeballs. Invariably the grid will have major outages without any fossil or nuclear power. see Transmission Adequacy Consulting

 

[mspohr]

Its very hard to get off fossil fuels even with nuclear in the mix and next to impossible without some nuclear because of the large storage requirements and lack of power lines to power a renewables only plan. I have some models on my web page showing this if you want to get in to modeling up to your eyeballs. Invariably the grid will have major outages without any fossil or nuclear power. see Transmission Adequacy Consulting

Others have models that disagree