Perpetual Innovation

Category: clean coal

  • Power Struggle: How the Energy Market Could Shift in 2016 – Bloomberg Business

    Power Struggle: How the Energy Market Could Shift in 2016 – Bloomberg Business:

    Wow. Absolutely perfect assessment of the energy world, past and future.

    With pretty graphics to go along with the trends in energy.

    So what will be the energy source(s) of the future.

    The one thing for sure, is that it won’t be coal. As the rest of the world gets out of coal, so will the 2.3B people in China and India. They simply can’t afford the pollution and health costs that come free with cheap coal.

    The assessment seems puts energy into perspective, and indicates how a clear transition from one form to another (wood to coal, and coal to oil) might not be what we can expect to look forward to in the future.

    Don’t want to ruin the ending, you will have to watch all 3 minutes of the video to find out what to expect in the energy world.

    ‘via Blog this’

  • Solar and wind just passed another big turning point, Cheaper n Better

    Solar and wind just passed another big turning point:

    So solar and wind power generation is reaching a threshold where renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuel-based power in Germany and UK. That is before counting the subsidies for renewables, and ignoring the massive externality costs of our historically favorite dirty black fuel.

    Note the discussion of the virtuous cycle of renewable fuels. As base load power moves up from 5% renewables the costs of traditional power plants becomes more expensive, essentially they become more peak-power generators and less base-load power.

    Solar has the added advantage of offing more distributed power generation, usually at the point of use. So solar starts to really cut down on the massive loss of power over distribution channels.

    In the US, really cheap NatGas is a no-brainer decision for converting coal plants. It is so much cleaner in all respects. But new fossil fuel power plants will be harder and harder to justify to shareholders and to the PSC.

    In the meanwhile, nuclear sits on the sidelines, leaving fission and fusion as a non option in the foreseeable future.

    If momentum builds for homeowners and businesses to move to at-source power generation (say Solar City), the building momentum could be a real game-changer.

    ‘via Blog this’

  • Obama to Unveil Tougher Environmental Plan With His Legacy in Mind – The New York Times

    Obama to Unveil Tougher Environmental Plan With His Legacy in Mind – The New York Times:

    There’s some good and some bad about this.

    We really should have an energy policy in the country, but we don’t. And the congress should be doing that planning and guiding of long-term energy and economic development. But no.

    The video says saving on energy. That’s not true, it will cost more for energy, the massive savings will come from improved health. Coal causes huge health and environmental impacts.

    “The Clean Power Plan will ultimately save about $45 billion a year, the EPA says, by both shrinking Americans’ energy use and reducing health costs for asthma, lung cancer and other illnesses caused by air pollution. The EPA estimates the rule will also cut about $85 a year from the average American’s utility bill.”  via USA News.

    Expect that the costs at the meter will be more, especially since it is so easy for the power utilities to pass them on, given a good (or bad) excuses. However, the health savings are each and every year forever. These are massive savings. Probably far greater than the $45B or so estimated.

    The switch from coal is happening already without any such effort by the EPA. Clean(er) NatGas has been over-abundant and been the main gainer over the last 8 years. Also, we flair about half of the NatGas in the USA from fracking, why not figure out how to flair it into an electric generator and wire the energy back home?

    Two secrets of coal is that about 10,000 people die each year in mining accidents, mostly coal. That’s more than die in many years from natural disasters. The really dirty little secret of coal is coal ash. It has very high levels of heavy metals and such. It appears that we have no plan as to what to do with the ash, so it sits around in every state just waiting for disaster. Much like we have not plan for Nuclear waste.

    NatGas is far better than coal, but it is still not sustainable. Since power plant planning is 50 to 100 years forward thinking, it seems that we should be doing likewise. Wind only works when the wind blows. Solar only works with the sun signs.

    It seems that if we had a plan to be sustainable eventually, we would be better able to make decisions on the actions that a rational man (or woman) would make today.

    Sadly, the coal miners and coal economies are stuck in the middle of this ugly downturn to their livelihood way of life.

    Just saying…

    ‘via Blog this’

  • Wind And Solar Will Soon Become The ‘Least-Cost Option’ – Yahoo Finance

    Wind And Solar Will Soon Become The ‘Least-Cost Option’ – Yahoo Finance:

    It is interesting how quickly the prices of wind and solar have been dropping and are expected to continue.

    Obviously, these must be only a part of the solution, unless batteries get to be a whole lot better, a whole lot faster. (Maybe?). The wind doesn’t always blow, and the sun doesn’t always shine.

    One savings for solar, is that it doesn’t need to be done remotely. The transport/distribution costs can be much lower. Both sun & wind do not require the massive volumes of water that conventional fossil and nuke need. (Except for the manatees, there is no real reason to heat up rivers and lakes.)

    Those folks in the coal industries, even in China, are soon going to find that they are missing the boat. Coal is not sustainable. Once people start to think harder and longer about the externalities costs of coal, it is going to continue the downward spiral from favor.

    ‘via Blog this’

  • EPA loss in supreme court.

    High Court Strikes Down EPA Limits on Mercury Emissions http://www.wsj.com/articles/high-court-strikes-down-epa-limits-on-mercury-emissions-1435590069
    The EPA must consider the cost of compliance when coming up with rules. That’s what the Supreme Court ruled.
    Of course it is hard to estimate the cost of the pollutants, that have been going on for a couple centuries now.
    With natural gas being so cheap, and most of the conversions already complete, the whole issue is rather mute point.
    But it does set back EPA action on CO2 emissions, where is the coal lobby would like to consider the cost of externalities nonexistent.
    Still in the absence of Congress and its inability to do anything, you have the problem of the Fed and the EPA trying to do the heavy lifting.