Discussion:
U.S. likely to end 2018 with record decline in coal-fired capacity
Add Reply
Unum
2018-11-01 19:11:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
http://ieefa.org/ieefa-report-u-s-likely-to-end-2018-with-record-decline-in-coal-fired-capacity/

The report — “Record Drop in U.S. Coal-Fired Capacity Likely in 2018:
Utilities Are Accelerating Shutdown Dates as Plants Grow Increasingly
Uneconomic”— details how announced capacity retirements for 2018 will likely
total 15.4 gigawatts by the end of the year. It details retirement of 44 units
at 22 plants in more than a dozen states.

“The competitive environment for coal-fired power in the generation
marketplace is becoming ever more challenging as the price of renewables
continues to fall and as natural gas prices are expected to remain low for the
foreseeable future,” said Seth Feaster, and IEEFA data analyst and author of
the report, which sees an additional 21.4GW of coal-fired capacity closing
over the next six years.
JTEM is right
2018-11-01 19:14:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Coal isn't going anywhere. The youngest coal
is still tens of millions of years old and
there's way more energy in coal than there
ever was in oil. Coal is either today or our
future.






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/179610089073
George
2018-11-01 19:20:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 12:14:11 -0700 (PDT)
Post by JTEM is right
Coal isn't going anywhere. The youngest coal
is still tens of millions of years old and
there's way more energy in coal than there
ever was in oil. Coal is either today or our
future.
After all this BS is over and people are starving in the cold then the
powers that be will put an end to the crap science and restart
civilisation with coal technology.
Fortunately we wont see it but it'll happen


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Byker
2018-11-01 22:19:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JTEM is right
Coal isn't going anywhere. The youngest coal
is still tens of millions of years old and
there's way more energy in coal than there
ever was in oil. Coal is either today or our
future.
Chinese pollution solutions:


War on pollution casualties:


China's doomsday smog:


Beijing's most dangerous pastime -- breathing: https://tinyurl.com/ychwtyq6
Unum
2018-11-01 22:47:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JTEM is right
Coal isn't going anywhere. The youngest coal
is still tens of millions of years old and
there's way more energy in coal than there
ever was in oil. Coal is either today or our
future.
Most of that 'old coal' is going to stay in the ground, fruitcake.

"Utilities Are Accelerating Shutdown Dates as Plants
Grow Increasingly Uneconomic"
JTEM is right
2018-11-03 05:31:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Most of that 'old coal' is going to
All the coal is eventually going to get burned.
My guess, which I have aired often enough, is
via coal-to-liquids as it removes most of the
nasty stuff, and allows internal combustion
engines to keep working for another 300 years
or so.

...maybe by then Tesla will show a profit.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/179676355353
Unum
2018-11-03 19:16:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JTEM is right
Post by Unum
Most of that 'old coal' is going to
All the coal is eventually going to get burned.
My guess, which I have aired often enough, is
via coal-to-liquids as it removes most of the
nasty stuff, and allows internal combustion
engines to keep working for another 300 years
or so.
Absolutely no sign that's ever going to happen. Coal
is never going to be competitive, except in the dreams
of some fruitcake on the internet.
Post by JTEM is right
...maybe by then Tesla will show a profit.
Still denying they so obviously already showed a profit?
JTEM is right
2018-11-05 17:58:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by JTEM is right
All the coal is eventually going to get burned.
My guess, which I have aired often enough, is
via coal-to-liquids as it removes most of the
nasty stuff, and allows internal combustion
engines to keep working for another 300 years
or so.
Absolutely no sign that's ever going to happen.
There's the rapidly growing coal-to-liquids industry,
the fact that it has been happening in places like
South Africa, and continues to happen right now as
well as the fact that it was commercially viable even
before WWII... all unlike wind & solar which just
don't work. Nope. They require an entire re-invention
of the grid, and STILL leave things to "Future
breakthroughs" in order to power our economy.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/179773460673
Unum
2018-11-08 16:50:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JTEM is right
Post by Unum
Post by JTEM is right
All the coal is eventually going to get burned.
My guess, which I have aired often enough, is
via coal-to-liquids as it removes most of the
nasty stuff, and allows internal combustion
engines to keep working for another 300 years
or so.
Absolutely no sign that's ever going to happen.
There's the rapidly growing coal-to-liquids industry,
There's no "industry", just a few expensive research projects.

https://www.taxpayer.net/energy-natural-resources/coal-to-liquids-a-costly-gamble/

Replacing just 10 percent of America’s oil consumption with coal-derived fuels
would cost $70 billion in construction costs. And these estimates don’t
include the high costs of the additional mining that would be required to
provide the necessary coal.

According to liquid coal proponents, a plant can cost as much as $6.5 billion
with a lead time of up to seven years for construction. For comparison, a
similarly-sized crude oil refinery (producing 80,000 barrels per day) costs
only $1.2 billion. Plants can have operating costs of up to $350 million a
year for a facility producing 100,000 barrels per day.

Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), which liquid coal plants need to
contain the large amounts of carbon they emit, is an unproven and costly
technology. For a large liquid coal plant, CCS could mean an additional $240
million in capital costs, and $123 million more in operation costs per year.
JTEM is right
2018-11-12 01:33:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
There's no "industry", just a few expensive research projects.
South Africa was already pumping out 300,000 barrels
a, 10 years ago.

But the context was the future, nimrod. So you got
that wrong too.








-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/179940163328
Unum
2018-11-12 04:28:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JTEM is right
Post by Unum
There's no "industry", just a few expensive research projects.
South Africa was already pumping out 300,000 barrels
a, 10 years ago.
So where's the 'industry', fruitcake?
Post by JTEM is right
But the context was the future, nimrod. So you got
that wrong too
Something that isn't ever going to happen is the future!

https://www.taxpayer.net/energy-natural-resources/coal-to-liquids-a-costly-gamble/

Replacing just 10 percent of America’s oil consumption with coal-derived fuels
would cost $70 billion in construction costs. And these estimates don’t
include the high costs of the additional mining that would be required to
provide the necessary coal.

According to liquid coal proponents, a plant can cost as much as $6.5 billion
with a lead time of up to seven years for construction. For comparison, a
similarly-sized crude oil refinery (producing 80,000 barrels per day) costs
only $1.2 billion. Plants can have operating costs of up to $350 million a
year for a facility producing 100,000 barrels per day.

Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), which liquid coal plants need to
contain the large amounts of carbon they emit, is an unproven and costly
technology. For a large liquid coal plant, CCS could mean an additional $240
million in capital costs, and $123 million more in operation costs per year.
JTEM is right
2018-11-12 04:49:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
So where's the 'industry',
Well, sex offender, as of last year South Africa
was supplying 35% of it's fuel needs with coal
to liquids, and another 5% with gas to liquids:

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=b69e2b9b-74c8-4d13-b4af-fae577b075f2

Of course I already raised the example of South
Africa but, hey, what is reading comprehension
to the likes of you?







-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/179892365301
Unum
2018-11-16 00:07:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JTEM is right
Post by Unum
So where's the 'industry',
Well, sex offender, as of last year South Africa
was supplying 35% of it's fuel needs with coal
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=b69e2b9b-74c8-4d13-b4af-fae577b075f2
Obviously about to disappear.

https://www.ft.com/content/8c2f17fc-a137-11e7-9e4f-7f5e6a7c98a2

Sasol of South Africa, one of the world leaders in technology for converting
natural gas and coal to liquid fuels, has said new investments in the process
are unattractive on economic and environmental grounds.

It shows how far the technology has fallen out of favour compared with five to
10 years ago when there was a wave of investments in gas-to-liquids plants
with oil prices averaging above $80 per barrel.

Sasol’s joint chief executives say new plants for converting gas to liquids
were now unlikely to be economically viable in unstable commodity markets,
while converting coal to liquids had low returns and unacceptably high carbon
dioxide emissions.

Wally W.
2018-11-12 04:41:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
http://ieefa.org/ieefa-report-u-s-likely-to-end-2018-with-record-decline-in-coal-fired-capacity/
Utilities Are Accelerating Shutdown Dates as Plants Grow Increasingly
Uneconomic”— details how announced capacity retirements for 2018 will likely
total 15.4 gigawatts by the end of the year. It details retirement of 44 units
at 22 plants in more than a dozen states.
“The competitive environment for coal-fired power in the generation
marketplace is becoming ever more challenging as the price of renewables
continues to fall and as natural gas prices are expected to remain low for the
foreseeable future,” said Seth Feaster, and IEEFA data analyst and author of
the report, which sees an additional 21.4GW of coal-fired capacity closing
over the next six years.
Did you celebrate the demise of railroads due to the rise of long-haul
trucking?

How do they compare in energy efficiency, vehicle accidents per
ton-mile of freight, etc.?

The costs of returning to (as opposed to maintaining) the
infrastructure for railroads or coal-fired power plants would be too
staggering to contemplate.

Greenies are trying to close the door on essential and proven
technology.

Their agenda is stupid (and/or evil) in the extreme.
JTEM is right
2018-11-12 04:52:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Wally W.
Greenies are trying to close the door on essential and proven
technology.
It's not greenies. Conservatives control all three branches
of the government, they're not dictating a goddamn thing
to NASA or NOAA or anyone else. And the greenies aren't
benefiting at all. Nope. It's the richest of the rich, the
same conservative types who own & control the media and
the government -- THAT'S who benefits from all of this.

"Follow the money."

"Greenies" may be stupid but they are not powerful.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/179892365301
Loading...