Sunset for coal (solar, gas, natural, wind turbines)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
America has officially entered the “coal cost crossover” – where existing coal is increasingly more expensive than cleaner alternatives. Today, local wind and solar could replace approximately 74 percent of the U.S. coal fleet at an immediate savings to customers. By 2025, this number grows to 86 percent of the coal fleet.
This analysis complements existing research into the costs of clean energy undercutting coal costs, by focusing on which coal plants could be replaced locally (within 35 miles of the existing coal plant) at a saving.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,576 posts, read 81,167,557 times
Reputation: 57813
The city of Seattle now gets 1% of it's electricity from coal, but in the suburbs, Puget Sound Energy gets 1/3 of the electricity from a coal plant that it owns in Montana. Most days, here on the waterfront in Seattle we see a long train go by loaded with coal.
The city of Seattle now gets 1% of it's electricity from coal, but in the suburbs, Puget Sound Energy gets 1/3 of the electricity from a coal plant that it owns in Montana. Most days, here on the waterfront in Seattle we see a long train go by loaded with coal.
Save that picture for your grandchildren. It's will be nostalgic.
Coal has not so much gotten more expensive, but fracking has caused NG to become less expensive, therefore economically superior to coal as an energy source here.
Today, local wind and solar could replace approximately 74 percent of the U.S. coal fleet at an immediate savings to customers. By 2025, this number grows to 86 percent of the coal fleet.
No such thing as replacing coal, natgas, nuclear or hydro with wind and solar. They can only supplement since they are unreliable sources of power.
For real world example Germany can power their entire grid with renewables during ideal weather conditions. They pay about 35 cents per kWh. There is two big reasons for that.
A)expensive power from renewable resources. Renewable resource providers in Germany are getting about 8 cents per kWh on top of the wholesale cost of the power, the total is about equal to the average residential rate here in the US.
B)Because it's a unreliable resource they still need to maintain their coal, natural gas and nuclear fleet. That cost money whether they are producing power or not, the idle time necessarily increases the cost of power from those resources.
Coal has not so much gotten more expensive, but fracking has caused NG to become less expensive, therefore economically superior to coal as an energy source here.
BTU for BTU it's actually been about double the cost since the boom started. The newer gas plants using combined cycle are much more efficient than conventional gas and coal plants. The gas plant is also more adaptable to the demands of unreliable renewable energy, nuclear plants are in the same boat as coal where this is concerned. Crazy as it is cheap reliable power when you are constantly running near capacity is becoming a bad thing, once again this is driven by the demands of subsidized/mandated unreliable renewable energy. Last but not least the gas plant is less likely to be affected by any CO2 regulations in the future.
Cost comparisons of renewables vs conventional power production is difficult. Nobody has included the cost of fossil fuel back-up for the renewables in the calculations which would raise the price of renewables considerably.
"Wind and solar are intermittent because the wind doesn’t always blow at the right speed and the sun doesn’t always shine. According to Hall, et al. (2014), good EROI calculations for solar and wind are not available at this time. This is largely because solar and wind are highly dependent upon fossil fuel backup and are essentially “subsidized by” higher EROI fossil fuels and exactly how to account for this is not known. According to Hall, et al. (2014):
“Alternatives such as photovoltaics and wind turbines are unlikely to be nearly as cheap energetically or economically as past oil and gas when backup costs are considered. … Any transition to solar energies would require massive investments of fossil fuels. Despite many claims to the contrary—from oil and gas advocates on the one hand and solar advocates on the other—we see no easy solution to these issues when EROI is considered.” https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/...t-is-the-cost/
That article goes on to describe how a turn to renewables is driving industry out of Germany and reducing the standard of living there, and how reducing the cost of energy improves the standard of living throughout the world.
there will be no more coal miners subjected to terrible, dangerous working conditions as well as
disease etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
