The Energy Generation Megathread: Heated Exchanges

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Energy Generation Megathread: Heated Exchanges

Pander: Oct 9, 2007; Fear is the glue that holds society together. It's what makes people suppress their worst impulses. Fear is power.

And at the end of fear, oblivion.

angryrobots posted:

Yeah it's big news here, with the reactors they were in the middle of installing (and already $3B over budget).

Comments on this article are interesting....The natives are getting westless.

# ? Mar 30, 2017 21:14

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 20, 2024 04:28

dxt: Mar 27, 2004; METAL DISCHARGE

As someone who used to work for Westinghouse (albeit at a small subsdiary), I'm not surprised, the whole company was poorly run from top to bottom.

# ? Mar 30, 2017 22:25

suck my woke dick: Oct 10, 2012; I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

angryrobots posted:

Yeah it's big news here, with the reactors they were in the middle of installing (and already $3B over budget).

They were Westinghoused.

# ? Mar 31, 2017 09:58

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

And now they're Westinghosed ( :canada:

)

# ? Mar 31, 2017 09:59

Blackluck: Jun 26, 2012

angryrobots posted:

Yeah it's big news here, with the reactors they were in the middle of installing (and already $3B over budget).

Comments on this article are interesting....The natives are getting restless.

Here's a winner
/s

quote:

Allan Crawfoed
Guess who is going to pay for these incredibly large cost overruns? If we'd use coal this insanity would never have happened but Obummer bought into the global warming BS and closed all our coal plants. Idiot!

# ? Mar 31, 2017 10:24

Taerkar: Dec 7, 2002; kind of into it, really

If we used coal then we would never see this happen because of the smog

# ? Mar 31, 2017 13:55

evilmiera: Dec 14, 2009; Status: Ravenously Rambunctious

dxt posted:

As someone who used to work for Westinghouse (albeit at a small subsdiary), I'm not surprised, the whole company was poorly run from top to bottom.

My old company worked with Westinghouse for a few years and man is that true. We had some contractors and subsidiaries that underperformed but they always took the cake. Over budget, hosed every single schedule to the point a project that should have taken at most a few months took several years.

# ? Apr 19, 2017 08:51

suck my woke dick: Oct 10, 2012; I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

evilmiera posted:

My old company worked with Westinghouse for a few years and man is that true. We had some contractors and subsidiaries that underperformed but they always took the cake. Over budget, hosed every single schedule to the point a project that should have taken at most a few months took several years.

Since the Frenchies don't seem to be doing any better with EPR construction (lmao 8 billion 8 years overrun now built into the actual sales pitch lmao)... not counting submarine reactors and SMR proposals that have yet to move a single shovel of dirt, that leaves GE/Hitachi and maybe the CANDU guys as the only western nuclear construction companies that aren't busy shooting themselves in the foot repeatedly?

Dehumanise yourself and face to VVER/APR1400/CPR1000.

suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 09:49 on Apr 19, 2017

# ? Apr 19, 2017 09:43

Phanatic: Mar 13, 2007; Please don't forget that I am an extremely racist idiot who also has terrible opinions about the Culture series.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-oil-tankers-insight-idUSKBN17K0CE

quote:

In the scorching heat of the Caribbean Sea, workers in scuba suits scrub crude oil by hand from the hull of the Caspian Galaxy, a tanker so filthy it can't set sail in international waters.

The vessel is among many that are constantly contaminated at two major export terminals where they load crude from Venezuela's state-run oil company, PDVSA. The water here has an oily sheen from leaks in the rusty pipelines under the surface.

That means the tankers have to be cleaned before traveling to many foreign ports, which won't admit crude-stained ships for fear of environmental damage to their harbors, port facilities or other vessels.

The laborious hand-cleaning operation is one of many causes of chronic delays for dozens of tankers that deliver Venezuela's principle export to customers worldwide, according to three executives of the state-run firm, eight employees of maritime firms that contract with PDVSA and Thomson Reuters vessel-tracking data. Other reasons include delayed repairs and impoundments by service providers that are owed money by cash-strapped PDVSA.

...

At oil export terminals around the world - where crude leaks like those in Venezuela are relatively rare - an oil-stained tanker would normally be taken out of the water and cleaned with industrial equipment in a dry dock.

But Venezuela has just one small dry dock and lacks the cash or the time to send its soiled tankers there for proper cleaning, according to the PDVSA executives, ship captains and two workers from tanker cleaning companies.

So workers on a small fishing boat clean the giant tanker with thousands of scrub-brush strokes. The work - which involves scouring ships above and below the water line - can take up to ten days per vessel, a worker involved in the cleaning said.

# ? Apr 19, 2017 16:55

suck my woke dick: Oct 10, 2012; I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

Phanatic posted:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-oil-tankers-insight-idUSKBN17K0CE

Venezuela status: :tif:

# ? Apr 19, 2017 19:12

Morbus: May 18, 2004

blowfish posted:

Since the Frenchies don't seem to be doing any better with EPR construction (lmao 8 billion 8 years overrun now built into the actual sales pitch lmao)... not counting submarine reactors and SMR proposals that have yet to move a single shovel of dirt, that leaves GE/Hitachi and maybe the CANDU guys as the only western nuclear construction companies that aren't busy shooting themselves in the foot repeatedly?

Dehumanise yourself and face to VVER/APR1400/CPR1000.

I can assure you that various GE/Hitachi projects are shaping up to be poo poo shows on par with their AP1000/EPR competition. And lolcandu more like candont. As far as VVERs go, Mochovce 3+4 are now like 6 years behind schedule, the budget has had to be increased I think four times, and is now roughly double what it was supposed to be. So seems to be in line with the superb industry standard.

At present, the only evidence that humankind didn't collectively forget how to build nuclear reactors some time in the last 20 years is KEPCO. But I have the utmost faith in South Korean industry to eventually astonish us with some sort of scandal or another so let's wait and see.

# ? Apr 19, 2017 22:20

Fats: Oct 14, 2006; What I cannot create, I do not understand; Fun Shoe

blowfish posted:

SMR proposals that have yet to move a single shovel of dirt

Hey, the NRC just docketed our application for review. < :mad:

>

I have no idea how the review will go, I haven't spent much time in this industry, but things are (slowly) moving forward.

# ? Apr 20, 2017 06:20

suck my woke dick: Oct 10, 2012; I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

Fats posted:

Hey, the NRC just docketed our application for review. <>

I have no idea how the review will go, I haven't spent much time in this industry, but things are (slowly) moving forward.

I wish you the best of luck and many orders, but it's still a few years before you will technically have started building anything.

# ? Apr 20, 2017 11:56

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

I didn't realize that capacity factors of renewables relative to oil and gas went through an inflection point a couple years ago. Huh.

# ? Apr 25, 2017 04:56

BattleMoose: Jun 16, 2010

BrandorKP posted:

I didn't realize that capacity factors of renewables relative to oil and gas went through an inflection point a couple years ago. Huh.

Would you care to clarify?

# ? Apr 25, 2017 06:43

Mr Interweb: Aug 25, 2004

Phanatic posted:

Westinghouse is bankrupt.

So much for your precious nucular energy, libtards. :smug:

Question: I see right-wing douchebags like Stephen Moore gloat about the solar energy industry collapsing any moment now once the subsidies are eliminated, as allegedly that's the only thing that's propping the industry up. I'm pretty sure he's full of poo poo cause hey, Stephen Moore, but I'd like some solid data backing that up.

# ? Jun 23, 2017 12:05

Bates: Jun 15, 2006

Mr Interweb posted:

So much for your precious nucular energy, libtards.

Question: I see right-wing douchebags like Stephen Moore gloat about the solar energy industry collapsing any moment now once the subsidies are eliminated, as allegedly that's the only thing that's propping the industry up. I'm pretty sure he's full of poo poo cause hey, Stephen Moore, but I'd like some solid data backing that up.

Which subsidies where? In 2015 the US congress extended federal tax credits for solar and wind until 2024

Forbes posted:

On Friday, Congress passed legislation making the solar investment tax credit (ITC) available for several years and creating a new production tax credit for wind power projects.

The solar ITC, which was scheduled to expire at the end of 2016, was extended for as many as eight years as part of a $1.15 trillion spending bill. The ITC was extended for utility-scale and commercial solar projects until 2024 with a gradual phase out beginning in 2020. Meanwhile, the solar ITC for rooftop solar in the residential sector will end in 2021, three years before it expires for non-residential solar PV projects.

I believe it had broad bipartisan support and I haven't heard anything about Trump wanting to repeal it.

In any event the US is not the only market for solar. China and India both have large expanding energy sectors and both have strong economic and strategic incentives to not become dependent on energy imports. They both have coal but that has other drawbacks and it's increasingly not competitive anymore. That leaves nuclear and renewables. Nuclear power plants take a long time to build but you can crank out a solar or wind farm in 6 months. This is where the real investment in solar will come from whether the US or Europe want to come along or not.

Bates fucked around with this message at 21:04 on Jun 23, 2017

# ? Jun 23, 2017 13:34

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

BattleMoose posted:

Would you care to clarify?

The ratio of actual output to potential output. Enough renewables have been built out that adding more improves the capacity factor of renewables in the system while making worse the capacity factor of fossil fuels plants.

That's a strong reinforcing loop for renewables going foward.

# ? Jun 23, 2017 16:42

suck my woke dick: Oct 10, 2012; I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

Phanatic posted:

Westinghouse is bankrupt.

In another thread (i think the GBS nuke worker thread) a nuclear contractor basically went "lol westinghouse, shows them for being the most inefficient nucular company possible :smug:

# ? Jun 23, 2017 16:50

Smiling Demon: Jun 16, 2013

BrandorKP posted:

The ratio of actual output to potential output. Enough renewables have been built out that adding more improves the capacity factor of renewables in the system while making worse the capacity factor of fossil fuels plants.

That's a strong reinforcing loop for renewables going foward.

This is not how capacity factor works. It is roughly actual output to potential output, though technically it is the slightly more arbitrary nameplate capacity which allows generators to go beyond 100% capacity. Since this is a ratio, adding more of the same type of generator will not increase the capacity factor!

For wind capacity factor (typically in the 25% - 40% range) is determined by the local weather and the design. As good locations are taken up it is unlikely that capacity factors will increase. Better technology could allow the use of high altitude winds with higher capacity factors, but there are many complications with making this real.

Solar capacity factor (typically 11% - 25%) is determined mostly by insolation. There is very little that can be done to affect this.

Wind and solar currently enjoy the fact that the energy they generate is used by the grid. If they generate at a time when demand isn't present, curtailment occurs and the energy is wasted. Thus as they increase in capacity, they will likely drop in capacity factor without some form of energy storage.

# ? Jun 23, 2017 20:24

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Smiling Demon posted:

This is not how capacity factor works. It is roughly actual output to potential output, though technically it is the slightly more arbitrary nameplate capacity which allows generators to go beyond 100% capacity. Since this is a ratio, adding more of the same type of generator will not increase the capacity factor!

For wind capacity factor (typically in the 25% - 40% range) is determined by the local weather and the design. As good locations are taken up it is unlikely that capacity factors will increase. Better technology could allow the use of high altitude winds with higher capacity factors, but there are many complications with making this real.

Solar capacity factor (typically 11% - 25%) is determined mostly by insolation. There is very little that can be done to affect this.

Wind and solar currently enjoy the fact that the energy they generate is used by the grid. If they generate at a time when demand isn't present, curtailment occurs and the energy is wasted. Thus as they increase in capacity, they will likely drop in capacity factor without some form of energy storage.

For the whole power system buddy, not individual plants. The more renewables you have the more you can use those renewables and the less the generating capacity of the existing conventional plants gets used.

You thinking about parts, think about the whole drat thing.

# ? Jun 23, 2017 20:54

Smiling Demon: Jun 16, 2013

BrandorKP posted:

For the whole power system buddy, not individual plants. The more renewables you have the more you can use those renewables and the less the generating capacity of the existing conventional plants gets used.

You thinking about parts, think about the whole drat thing.

You can reduce the capacity factor of conventional plants, yes. This does not increase the capacity factor of wind and solar.

edit: have more renewables does not let you use existing renewables more frequently

Smiling Demon fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Jun 23, 2017

# ? Jun 23, 2017 20:57

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-06/solar-wind-reach-a-big-renewables-turning-point-bnef

Link where I took that from. Won't do you much good though, unless you can use a Bloomburg terminal. I posted that first comment in april and the article I was basing it on has since been archieved.

# ? Jun 23, 2017 21:02

Smiling Demon: Jun 16, 2013

BrandorKP posted:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-06/solar-wind-reach-a-big-renewables-turning-point-bnef

Link where I took that from. Won't do you much good though, unless you can use a Bloomburg terminal. I posted that first comment in april and the article I was basing it on has since been archieved.

Yep, renewables disrupt conventional power sources by displacing them. It has nothing to do with the capacity factor of renewables. It is all about the capacity factor of the conventional sources decreasing.

Smiling Demon fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Jun 23, 2017

# ? Jun 23, 2017 21:07

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Smiling Demon posted:

edit: have more renewables does not let you use existing renewables more frequently

No it does that. Found something that was based on the bloomburg article and quotes it (edit, nearly not everything on a second reading) entirely.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...NtZu1xo030Q1gjQ

Here's the tldr

https://imgur.com/3l5ujuC

Edit: the important part

As Bloomberg explains: "It’s a self-reinforcing cycle. As more renewables are installed, coal and natural gas plants are used less. As coal and gas are used less, the cost of using them to generate electricity goes up. As the cost of coal and gas power rises, more renewables will be installed."

The table above shows how the capacity factors of coal and natural gas are starting to be affected, while wind and solar are starting to do better because bigger and taller wind turbines catch more wind and more solar is being installed in the U.S. Southwest where sunny days are more frequent.

It's kind of like a flywheel, and the more solar panels we install, the more wind turbines are built, the faster it spins. At some point, doesn't make any sense to run fossil fuels on sunny or windy days, and overall capacity factors go down enough that prices are simply not competitive with storage, and rather than build new natural gas plants, utilities will simply buy more renewables combined with storage.

Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Jun 23, 2017

# ? Jun 23, 2017 21:07

Smiling Demon: Jun 16, 2013

BrandorKP posted:

https://imgur.com/3l5ujuC

"The table above shows how the capacity factors of coal and natural gas are starting to be affected, while wind and solar are starting to do better because bigger and taller wind turbines catch more wind and more solar is being installed in the U.S. Southwest where sunny days are more frequent."

The text you quoted explicitly states that the improvement has to do with the location of newly built generators and improved turbines.

BrandorKP posted:

It's kind of like a flywheel, and the more solar panels we install, the more wind turbines are built, the faster it spins. At some point, doesn't make any sense to run fossil fuels on sunny or windy days, and overall capacity factors go down enough that prices are simply not competitive with storage, and rather than build new natural gas plants, utilities will simply buy more renewables combined with storage.

I really can't make any sense of the flywheel analogy. Storage is still far beyond prohibitive in cost. Peaker plants already have abysmal capacity factors yet do fine. I really don't view things nearly so optimistically.

Then again, I'm a filthy nuclear power supporter.

# ? Jun 23, 2017 21:35

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Smiling Demon posted:

Then again, I'm a filthy nuclear power supporter.

I am too. Even have a nuke minor.

# ? Jun 23, 2017 21:39

Number Ten Cocks: Feb 25, 2016; by zen death robot

BrandorKP posted:

No it does that. Found something that was based on the bloomburg article and quotes it (edit, nearly not everything on a second reading) entirely.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...NtZu1xo030Q1gjQ

Here's the tldr

https://imgur.com/3l5ujuC

Edit: the important part

As Bloomberg explains: "It’s a self-reinforcing cycle. As more renewables are installed, coal and natural gas plants are used less. As coal and gas are used less, the cost of using them to generate electricity goes up. As the cost of coal and gas power rises, more renewables will be installed."

The table above shows how the capacity factors of coal and natural gas are starting to be affected, while wind and solar are starting to do better because bigger and taller wind turbines catch more wind and more solar is being installed in the U.S. Southwest where sunny days are more frequent.

It's kind of like a flywheel, and the more solar panels we install, the more wind turbines are built, the faster it spins. At some point, doesn't make any sense to run fossil fuels on sunny or windy days, and overall capacity factors go down enough that prices are simply not competitive with storage, and rather than build new natural gas plants, utilities will simply buy more renewables combined with storage.

I live in the sunny southwest, and I don't think increasing solar is having any impact at all on fossil capacity. You have to have max load capacity for cloudy days and for the peak that happens after the sun is down, so the fact that solar could theoretically supply any particular percentage of base load during the day is irrelevant for the number of nuclear/coal/gas MWs you need. (You can partially offset this by importing energy from anything west of you that's surplus to local requirements and has sufficient transmission availability, but only partially.)

That's why rooftop solar is so controversial, it's purely cost shifting that doesn't actually lower capacity requirements and just marginally lowers fuel expenditures during the day. Fuel is charged at cost AFAIK and isn't labor intensive, unlike the flat costs to run everything and the capital costs of the installed capacity for meeting peak load.

Theoretically renewables and (especially) storage could get cheap enough that you could actually start retiring carbon plants necessary to meet peak load, but that's going to have to happen independently until it hits some inflection point, there's no virtuous cycle at the margin. What you actually get is some environmental benefits during the day (less fuel used), but at much higher overall cost, because you've got to expend a lot of extra capital for that solar but can't actually retire the capital invested in peaking and (night-time) baseload.

Renewables and PURPA are wrecking the costs of states that don't do their best to shut them down (Idaho Power has something like 1100 MW base, 1600 MW peak, and 1000 MW of renewables it's forced to buy because of some really bad guaranteed costs the Idaho commission used to have). Texas has a much more restrictive policy (and the 5th Circuit gutted PURPA there in Exelon Wind, so you don't get massive uneconomic builds.

Number Ten Cocks fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Jun 23, 2017

# ? Jun 23, 2017 21:42

suck my woke dick: Oct 10, 2012; I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

Smiling Demon posted:

The text you quoted explicitly states that the improvement has to do with the location of newly built generators and improved turbines.

I really can't make any sense of the flywheel analogy. Storage is still far beyond prohibitive in cost. Peaker plants already have abysmal capacity factors yet do fine. I really don't view things nearly so optimistically.

Then again, I'm a filthy nuclear power supporter.

In Germany, utilities have been fighting the regulators to be allowed to shut down their peaker plants because they turned out to be less profitable than plain old regular fossil fuels (gotta outsource that fluctuation to our neighbour countries, who loving love us). Arguably, this discussion is evidence that we really need more storage to make more effective use of large amounts of renewables other than hydro/biomass.

# ? Jun 23, 2017 21:51

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Bloomberg says that's what's going on. Ignore if they are correct or not for a moment. Think about the repercussions of that it is Bloomburg saying it.

# ? Jun 23, 2017 21:56

spf3million: Sep 27, 2007; hit 'em with the rhythm

I work at an industrial facility with a natural gas fired cogeneration power plant. We sell some of our excess capacity to the grid at the market spot price. Renewable electricity has disrupted the hourly price so much in our area that we frequently turn down the firing at the cogen for more than half the day due to low market price (we actually run at a loss sometimes since we can only turn down so much and the spot price is less than the cost of the gas not to mention the fixed O&M costs). The spot price has even gone negative a few times this year, typically on cool, sunny weekend days during years with heavy rains (more hydro). We make a profit on power sold between 6-10 pm though so we ramp back up and sell excess generation during those times.

# ? Jun 23, 2017 23:50

Mr Interweb: Aug 25, 2004

Bates posted:

Which subsidies where? In 2015 the US congress extended federal tax credits for solar and wind until 2024

I believe it had broad bipartisan support and I haven't heard anything about Trump wanting to repeal it.

In any event the US is not the only market for solar. China and India both have large expanding energy sectors and both have strong economic and strategic incentives to not become dependent on energy imports. They both have coal but that has other drawbacks and it's increasingly not competitive anymore. That leaves nuclear and renewables. Nuclear power plants take a long time to build but you can crank out a solar or wind farm in 6 months. This is where the real investment in solar will come from whether the US or Europe want to come along or not.

I probably wasn't clear. I didn't mean he was arguing that solar/wind/etc. subsidies WERE gonna be eliminated, but that if they were, then the industry would collapse.

# ? Jun 24, 2017 02:49

NPR Journalizard: Feb 14, 2008

Mr Interweb posted:

I probably wasn't clear. I didn't mean he was arguing that solar/wind/etc. subsidies WERE gonna be eliminated, but that if they were, then the industry would collapse.

Yeah, but that's the situation a lot of industries are in.

# ? Jun 24, 2017 03:01

Nebakenezzer: Sep 13, 2005; The Mote in God's Eye

angryrobots posted:

Yeah it's big news here, with the reactors they were in the middle of installing (and already $3B over budget).

Comments on this article are interesting....The natives are getting restless.

I came across this debacle not so long ago. Westinghouse was only part of the problem; because construction of civilian nuclear reactors stopped in the USA after the Three Mile Island incident. This was hilariously aided and abetted by a Louisana businessman buying the company that traditionally was a big subcontractor on atomic plants (now a hollow shell of itself) and used that name to win lots of contracts with Toshiba/Westinghouse.

OK, so over in the Cold War thread, we somehow got on the topic of China building coal plants outside of china, and onto climate change generally. I've a question for this thread: diplomatically speaking, what would it take to convince the Indians and the Chinese to give up burning coal? Or would this happen naturally if nations like Canada and the USA signed on to spending 3-5% of GDP to retire all power plants that burn fossil fuels?

# ? Jul 15, 2017 00:07

suck my woke dick: Oct 10, 2012; I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

Nebakenezzer posted:

I came across this debacle not so long ago. Westinghouse was only part of the problem; because construction of civilian nuclear reactors stopped in the USA after the Three Mile Island incident. This was hilariously aided and abetted by a Louisana businessman buying the company that traditionally was a big subcontractor on atomic plants (now a hollow shell of itself) and used that name to win lots of contracts with Toshiba/Westinghouse.

OK, so over in the Cold War thread, we somehow got on the topic of China building coal plants outside of china, and onto climate change generally. I've a question for this thread: diplomatically speaking, what would it take to convince the Indians and the Chinese to give up burning coal? Or would this happen naturally if nations like Canada and the USA signed on to spending 3-5% of GDP to retire all power plants that burn fossil fuels?

Notwithstanding CO2 emission statistics with Chinese characteristics, China has actually started to clamp down on coal, presumably after finally convincing its leadership that China is indeed located on Earth and will therefore suffer from climate change. India seems to largely realise this as well, but I get the impression that electrifying all of India is a higher priority for them, so the War on Coal ( :trumppop:

) there might take another decade or two to get going. Both are investing into nuclear and renewables, China massively so, by the way.

# ? Jul 15, 2017 00:14

fishmech: Jul 16, 2006; by VideoGames; Salad Prong

Nebakenezzer posted:

I've a question for this thread: diplomatically speaking, what would it take to convince the Indians and the Chinese to give up burning coal?

Well they're already slowing if not halting new coal power in their own countries. If you really want coal to crater in them, find some way for them to have masses of cheap natural gas to burn instead. That's the reason America's gone from like 2/3 power from coal 30 years ago to under 1/3 now, after all, and it usually allows for fairly cheap conversion of the existing coal stations, making it cheap to do versus building more nuclear/renewables (as they're already doing).

# ? Jul 15, 2017 00:30

Nebakenezzer: Sep 13, 2005; The Mote in God's Eye

Well, you say that, and it is true...but it is not the whole story.

glynnenstein posted:

This NYT article from the weekend addresses this issue.

Basically, Chinese companies have diversified by shifting to green energy inside China where that is a concern, but moving into new foreign markets to build plants where they had limited/no previous coal use.

They're also still planning 560 new coal plants inside China over the next decade.

quote:

By HIROKO TABUCHI
JULY 1, 2017
When China halted plans for more than 100 new coal-fired power plants this year, even as President Trump vowed to �bring back coal� in America, the contrast seemed to confirm Beijing�s new role as a leader in the fight against climate change.

But new data on the world�s biggest developers of coal-fired power plants paints a very different picture: China�s energy companies will make up nearly half of the new coal generation expected to go online in the next decade.

These Chinese corporations are building or planning to build more than 700 new coal plants at home and around the world, some in countries that today burn little or no coal, according to tallies compiled by Urgewald, an environmental group based in Berlin. Many of the plants are in China, but by capacity, roughly a fifth of these new coal power stations are in other countries.

Over all, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries, according to Urgewald�s tally, which uses data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal. The new plants would expand the world�s coal-fired power capacity by 43 percent.

The fleet of new coal plants would make it virtually impossible to meet the goals set in the Paris climate accord, which aims to keep the increase in global temperatures from preindustrial levels below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.

Electricity generated from fossil fuels like coal is the biggest single contributor globally to the rise in carbon emissions, which scientists agree is causing the Earth�s temperatures to rise.

�Even today, new countries are being brought into the cycle of coal dependency,� said Heffa Sch�cking, the director of Urgewald.

The United States may also be back in the game. On Thursday, Mr. Trump said he wanted to lift Obama-era restrictions on American financing for overseas coal projects as part of an energy policy focused on exports.

�We have nearly 100 years� worth of natural gas and more than 250 years� worth of clean, beautiful coal,� he said. �We will be dominant. We will export American energy all over the world, all around the globe.�

The frenzied addition of coal plants underscores how the world is set to remain dependent on coal for decades, despite fast growth in renewable energy sources, like wind and solar power.

In China, concerns over smog and climate change have prompted a move toward renewables, as have slowing economic growth and a gradual shift in the Chinese economy away from heavy manufacturing and toward consumer industries. The addition of domestic capacity, though large on paper, does not mean there will be growth in coal consumption. The current coal plants are operating far below capacity because demand for coal-generated power has slowed considerably.

But overseas, the Chinese are playing a different game.

Shanghai Electric Group, one of the country�s largest electrical equipment makers, has announced plans to build coal power plants in Egypt, Pakistan and Iran with a total capacity of 6,285 megawatts � almost 10 times the 660 megawatts of coal power it has planned in China.

The China Energy Engineering Corporation, which has no public plans to develop coal power in China, is building 2,200 megawatts� worth of coal-fired power capacity in Vietnam and Malawi. Neither company responded to requests for comment.

Of the world�s 20 biggest coal plant developers, 11 are Chinese, according to a database published by Urgewald.

Over all, Chinese companies are behind 340,000 to 386,000 megawatts of planned coal power expansion worldwide, Urgewald estimated. A typical coal plant has a capacity of about 500 megawatts and burns 1.4 million tons of coal each year, enough to power almost 300,000 homes.

Kevin P. Gallagher, a professor of global development policy at Boston University and an expert in Chinese energy investment overseas, said a strong infrastructure demand in developing countries and a sharp fall in coal financing by the World Bank and Asian Development Bank had opened up the field for Chinese involvement.

�In China, you have lots of very competitive and politically influential companies � but all of a sudden there�s no demand,� Professor Gallagher said, referring to China�s slowing economic growth. �So China is helping these companies go overseas to help make the adjustment at home less painful.�

Much of China�s overseas push has come under a state initiative called �One Belt, One Road,� announced in 2013, which calls for up to $900 billion in infrastructure investments overseas, including high-speed railroads, ports, gas pipelines and power plants.

China�s two global policy banks, the China Development Bank and the Export-Import Bank of China, have already provided more than $43 billion in overseas coal financing since 2000, according to a separate database of Chinese energy investments published this year by Boston University.

Some of the countries targeted for coal-power expansion, like Egypt or Pakistan, currently burn almost no coal, and the new coal plants could set the course of their national energy policies for decades, environmentalists warn.

In Egypt, coal projects by Shanghai Electric and other global developers are set to bring the country�s coal-fired capacity to 17,000 megawatts, from near zero, according to the Urgewald database.

Pakistan�s coal capacity is set to grow to 15,300 megawatts from 190. In Malawi, planned coal projects would bring its coal-fired capacity to 3,500 megawatts from zero.

Chinese companies are not the only drivers of the global coal expansion.

The world�s single largest coal-plant developer is India�s National Thermal Power Corporation, which plans to build more than 38,000 megawatts of new coal capacity in India and Bangladesh. The corporation did not respond to an email query.

The AES Corporation, based in Arlington, Va., is building coal plants in India and the Philippines with a combined capacity of 1,700 megawatts. Amy Ackerman, a spokeswoman for the company, said it was shifting its focus to renewables and natural gas, and had no plans to build coal plants after its India and Philippines projects.

Japan�s Marubeni Corporation is involved in joint ventures for a combined 5,500 megawatts of new coal generation in Myanmar, Vietnam, Philippines and Indonesia, according to the database. Japan is also adding to its coal-fired capacity at home, to make up for an energy shortfall in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster. A Marubeni spokesman confirmed projects in the four countries.

Western investors also continue to play a role in financing new coal plants overseas. Bonds and shares of the world�s biggest coal developers, like India�s National Thermal Power and Marubeni, are frequently found in the portfolios of large institutional investors and banks.

To be sure, countries like China and Japan are also big players in renewables. China is a major exporter of solar panels and wind turbines, and is leading the construction of the Quaid-e-Azam solar park in Pakistan, one of the world�s largest.

Chinese wind and solar companies are �among the leading renewables companies around the world and play a key role in the dramatic fall of wind and solar power prices,� said Alvin Lin, a Beijing-based climate and energy expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council. And President Xi Jinping of China and other top leaders there have been resolute in setting climate policy.

But China�s climate concerns have so far been driven by narrow concerns over local pollution, said Eric G. Gimon, a senior fellow at Energy Innovation, a research firm based in San Francisco.

�For now, those concerns seem not to extend elsewhere,� Mr. Gimon said.

# ? Jul 15, 2017 19:15

BattleMoose: Jun 16, 2010

South Australia went nuts with wind installations and because of how the economics work a private company shut down one of their peaking plants because it couldn't compete with the lower electricity prices. Recently a number of factors came together and electricity demand could not be met with supply. Turns out they needed that peaking plant but the economics of the state make it unprofitable to keep it on standby. Whoops. Turns out making fossil fuel power plants unprofitable can have nasty consequences for meeting demand. Honestly, no surprises here.

# ? Jul 17, 2017 03:03

Pander: Oct 9, 2007; Fear is the glue that holds society together. It's what makes people suppress their worst impulses. Fear is power.

And at the end of fear, oblivion.

Cheap efficient energy storage is just a few years down the road, just like fusion.

I mean it's a well known issue. The options are nationalization or wait for R&D magic, cause economics and environmentalism are at odds there.

# ? Jul 17, 2017 03:08

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 20, 2024 04:28

fishmech: Jul 16, 2006; by VideoGames; Salad Prong

BattleMoose posted:

South Australia went nuts with wind installations and because of how the economics work a private company shut down one of their peaking plants because it couldn't compete with the lower electricity prices. Recently a number of factors came together and electricity demand could not be met with supply. Turns out they needed that peaking plant but the economics of the state make it unprofitable to keep it on standby. Whoops. Turns out making fossil fuel power plants unprofitable can have nasty consequences for meeting demand. Honestly, no surprises here.

After the last discussion on that topic, didn't it turn out that it was a particularly inefficient design to actually run as a peaking plant, and probably should have been replaced long ago? But also, due to how heavily invested Australia's always been on traditional coal plants, nobody wanted to build a more efficient peaking design of gas plant (I do believe the existing but mothballed plant was a natural gas design) in the same general area as well.

# ? Jul 17, 2017 03:12

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Energy Generation Megathread: Heated Exchanges

«‹›349 »