The war on coal

[Power Raid]

My question on that California scenario is what is the marginal cost per kW for the two production plants? I don’t know the answer but I would expect the renewable plant to have a lower cost.

We are at the stage where we can’t simply choose the least capital cost option.

If we strip back to pure cost of producing power to meet demand coal would still be the cheapest based on all in costs (capital amortisation and operating costs).

However we have decided globally that we want to lower CO2 so a straight cost methodology has been thrown out the window.

To enable renewables to compete we have moved to a product dumping model and subsidies, where product is dumped onto the market on a supply driven basis rather than demand.

The outcome is an increase in the cost of production to meet demand as more capital is amortised over a smaller base and increased our fixed costs. The unreliable nature also means the price paid by the market is the level based on the highest marginal rate for the last unit supplied.

We have done this without making a dent in reducing CO2 anywhere near the benchmark levels.

We then have the lobby groups and politicians distorting facts such as who or what is responsible for the increased costs and the CO2.


We need a full cost system on price and CO2 based on reliability to meet demand. Otherwise we will have this debate and failed outcomes for another decade and the decade after that.

Once we are honest on price and effectiveness on reducing CO2, heading in the right direction is easy.

FYI batteries are around $0.42 per kWh

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

What I'm hearing you say is that the battery bank is a required expense of the renewable generation. That means you need to factor the cost of it into the price of delivering the power.

This is super basic economics. I understand that you feel threatened by it, and it doesn't invalidate the use of renewable power, but it's important to tell the whole story.

No, again, you are simply bluffing your way through this to try and support rediculous assumptions.

The most unreliable form of generation has been failing coal reactors.

The choice to shift to gas, not a product of renewable energy, but of the low cost and fast response times of gas generators, has also caused issues, with unscrupulous businesses able to manipulate spot pricing. All of these factors including the modularity of supply from rooftop solar and malinvestment in the grid, where companies opted for gold plating, not bread and butter infrastructure where it mattered, mean that a grid capable of preventing spot price fluctuations with a reserve and able to maintain constant supply if say a coal plant in another state supplying via the interconnecter loses a generator due to extreme heat, doesn't effect grid stability (and prices).

mUH sImpLE eConoMICs

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

...according to the Australia Institute, which is basically a lobby group for the Greens.

Have you got a link to the national energy emissions audit as mentioned in the article, that shows SA has the cheapest wholesale power prices?

The Australia Energy Regulator, ie a regulated body not a lobby group, shows that South Australia consistently has the highest power prices with massive swings in price. It reflects that renewables are fundamentally unreliable.


View attachment 801277

The Australian Institute is not a lobby group for the Greens?

This is a rather lazy and pathetic attempt at ad hominem.

 

[Taylor]

No, again, you are simply bluffing your way through this to try and support rediculous assumptions.

... solar isn't reliable power 24/7 without the battery bank so it has to be factored into the cost of delivering the power.

Avoiding that is disingenuous.

 

[Hawk Dork]

... solar isn't reliable power 24/7 without the battery bank so it has to be factored into the cost of delivering the power.

Avoiding that is disingenuous.

What side of the ledger do you factor the cost of The Snowy Mountain Scheme to coal or wind and solar ?

 

[Taylor]

What side of the ledger do you factor the cost of The Snowy Mountain Scheme to coal or wind and solar ?

The building infrastructure side.

I don't have any issue spending lots of money to have something cheaper later on, especially if it's fuel is free and burning away in the sky, that's a good deal, but there is a cost to shifting and that can't be overlooked.

 

[Hawk Dork]

The building infrastructure side.

I don't have any issue spending lots of money to have something cheaper later on, especially if it's fuel is free and burning away in the sky, that's a good deal, but there is a cost to shifting and that can't be overlooked.

there was a coast to build the power plants too and theres a cost to not find an alternative

 

[Taylor]

there was a coast to build the power plants too and theres a cost to not find an alternative

The way I see it the formula is that we are already where we are, movement and change enacts a new cost so the cost benefit analysis doesn't need to include the cost of getting us to where we are now, we don't get that money back if we change plans and we don't have to spend it again to stay here.

We are comparing the possible environmental cost to the new costs of changing over to a equally reliable system.

Globally it's an easy discussion, if all power were generated by renewable sources or nuclear and all deployed use was via battery charged by those same sources it cuts out about 80% of the emissions. Locally, I don't think we can put the same reward against our dollar and think we are spending good money on a solution that doesn't actually achieve what it was set out to do.

It would have to be a global change and the only way I see that happening is with new technology that is vastly superior to burning while also being cheaper.

 

[Power Raid]

No, again, you are simply bluffing your way through this to try and support rediculous assumptions.

The most unreliable form of generation has been failing coal reactors.

The choice to shift to gas, not a product of renewable energy, but of the low cost and fast response times of gas generators, has also caused issues, with unscrupulous businesses able to manipulate spot pricing. All of these factors including the modularity of supply from rooftop solar and malinvestment in the grid, where companies opted for gold plating, not bread and butter infrastructure where it mattered, mean that a grid capable of preventing spot price fluctuations with a reserve and able to maintain constant supply if say a coal plant in another state supplying via the interconnecter loses a generator due to extreme heat, doesn't effect grid stability (and prices).

mUH sImpLE eConoMICs

I smile that you posted that with a straight face. Coal runs at a capacity factor of 80-87% where unreliable solar is in the 20s and wind in the 30s. To make such a satement, suggests you aren't being honest with yourself or engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct.

as you highlight gas has a fast response time and is the biggest winner from the roll out of renewables, as it is the logical choice to support an unreliable energy generation system. The issue is though, is gas is dirty and limits the effectiveness of reducing CO2 by a factor or 8 to 9 times that of the benchmark CO2 per kwh. Gas is also

Batteries would be a better solution if they were cost effective but the cost is prohibitive for storage purpose.

The gold plating issue is often raised but at the same time, those arm waving about this issue are often silent about the need to expand our grid by a factor of 3 to improve reliability of renewables. Perhaps the gold plating, would not have happened but for renewables.......just like SF6.

When we price the full cost of supplying energy vs producing energy, we won't have a clear understanding of the issue...........which is exactly what those who engage in misleading and deceptive conduct would prefer.

 

[DidakDelight]

The title of this thread is the “war” on coal.

What are peoples feelings on lives actually being lost and people being killed in the name of “climate change”?

 

[Kwality]

there was a coast to build the power plants too and theres a cost to not find an alternative

Of course there is a cost to what we have, its happened, we are going forward & there is a cost, its that the costings we are offered are problematic at best.
Have a look at the renewables assets locked out of the grid* ... who is expected to fund expenditure on the grid to get these ready to go assets operational. It appears to me no one has factored that cost in, how common is it in this energy circus that is east coast power.

*https://reneweconomy.com.au/investo...hat-could-stop-wind-and-solar-projects-62541/

I would not expect the power stations in the Latrobe Valley to be receiving long term maintenance, more like band aid the problems, given their reliance on brown coal (see Germanys actions on brown coal overnight **).

** https://www.ft.com/content/0e26b798-3848-11ea-a6d3-9a26f8c3cba4

All parties are playing a game methinks.

 

[medusala]

I highlighted several areas where scientific progress has resulted in significant improvements in what the earth can sustain for humans.

This argument has been going on for a very long time. Malthus banged on about it. He was clearly wrong.

As for coal OP needs to clarify. Thermal is rather different to coking coal. Its not inconceivable that the former will disappear for a variety of reasons but replacing the latter is a very different story.

 

[Taylor]

Step one: genetically engineer a large tree that grows super, super fast.

Step two: plant these saplings in the millions

Step three: harvest the mature trees and burn them into charcoal

Step four: store charcoal anywhere, its stable

Step five: repeat until enough carbon is removed from atmosphere

 

[Dry Rot]

Green giant BlackRock, the planet’s biggest fund manager, says it wants to do more for the climate

BlackRock says it wants to do more for the climate

The proof will be in its investment and shareholder-voting strategies

www.economist.com

Finally, it has pledged to change how it runs its actively managed portfolios, which account for 27% of its total assets. It will dispose of public securities issued by any firm that makes over a quarter of its revenue from thermal coal—the type used to generate electricity.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Step one: genetically engineer a large tree that grows super, super fast.

Should Australia replace its Eucalypts with trees that grow faster and don't explode when set on fire?

Step five: repeat until enough carbon is removed from atmosphere

What is the ideal level of CO2 in the atmosphere?

 

[Hawk Dork]

Step one: genetically engineer a large tree that grows super, super fast.

Step two: plant these saplings in the millions

Step three: harvest the mature trees and burn them into charcoal

Step four: store charcoal anywhere, its stable

Step five: repeat until enough carbon is removed from atmosphere

Bamboo makes more sense for biochar

Compared to timber forests in the same growing conditions, bamboo can yield up to 25 times the amount of timber because it is ready to harvest so quickly.
Some studies have found that bamboo can sequester four times more carbon than timber forests alone and at the same time releases 35% more oxygen than the timber forests, so there are many ecological benefits to bamboo growth (Brenner, 2008).

Bamboo for biochar production

Compared to timber forests in the same growing conditions, bamboo can yield up to 25 times the amount of timber because it is ready to...

doctor-biochar.blogspot.com

Biochar Bamboo Workshop Maleny

Photographed during a weekend workshop on BioChar and the construction of TLUDs in Maleny Queensland Australia, March 2012. All photos in this set taken with the ‘Canon EOS 5D Mark II’ were taken by Steve Swayne

www.flickr.com

 

[kranky al]

Bamboo makes more sense for biochar

Compared to timber forests in the same growing conditions, bamboo can yield up to 25 times the amount of timber because it is ready to harvest so quickly.
Some studies have found that bamboo can sequester four times more carbon than timber forests alone and at the same time releases 35% more oxygen than the timber forests, so there are many ecological benefits to bamboo growth (Brenner, 2008).

Bamboo for biochar production

Compared to timber forests in the same growing conditions, bamboo can yield up to 25 times the amount of timber because it is ready to...

doctor-biochar.blogspot.com

Biochar Bamboo Workshop Maleny

Photographed during a weekend workshop on BioChar and the construction of TLUDs in Maleny Queensland Australia, March 2012. All photos in this set taken with the ‘Canon EOS 5D Mark II’ were taken by Steve Swayne

www.flickr.com

Makes a beautiful flooring solution

got so many uses - between it and hemp you can just about build a house

 

[Hawk Dork]

Makes a beautiful flooring solution

got so many uses - between it and hemp you can just about build a house

Ive just went to Japan they seem to grow it wild on the edge of forests some forests seem to be bamboo too
They just use it for lots of things agricultural culinary tools construction

Love this (think its in Thailand or Bali?)

 

[kranky al]

Should Australia replace its Eucalypts with trees that grow faster and don't explode when set on fire?



What is the ideal level of CO2 in the atmosphere?

One that keeps geraldton at a balmy 29° year round.

 

[Donakebab]

Step one: genetically engineer a large tree that grows super, super fast.

Step two: plant these saplings in the millions

Step three: harvest the mature trees and burn them into charcoal

Step four: store charcoal anywhere, its stable

Step five: repeat until enough carbon is removed from atmosphere

Forget large trees, if this is the avenue to go down then seaweed is the ideal plant for carbon capture.

 

[Kwality]

One that keeps geraldton at a balmy 29° year round.

Moved into the bright lights?

 

[Kwality]

Forget large trees, if this is the avenue to go down then seaweed is the ideal plant for carbon capture.

Source it from the ocean ?

 

[Donakebab]

Source it from the ocean ?

Yes, seaweed grows in the ocean.

 

[Kwality]

Yes, seaweed grows in the ocean.

So we take it, any consequences?

 

[Hawk Dork]

So we take it, any consequences?

Everything has consequences
Its just that we dont value some as highly as we should if its inconvenient to do so