Feeds

back to article The fast-growing energy source set to replace oil: Yes, it's COAL

The emergence of renewable power has had essentially no effect on the amount of carbon emissions involved in energy generation, according to a new report. The new analysis is from the International Energy Agency. According to the IEA: The Energy Sector Carbon Intensity Index (ESCII) shows how much carbon dioxide is emitted, on …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Anonymous Coward

Renewable Energy

I'll admit I'm a green person, in the local elections I vote green why? Because I agree with a lot of their policies (and they're backed by one of the non-extreme greenists)

But the greenfreaks don't seem to understand what they're doing. A lot of them hear "Lower CO2" and assume it's the way to go.

It's like a company hearing "New processor architecture which COULD potentially surpass x86 in a few years, but for now costs twice the amount" and then replacing every PC in their office knowing a more power efficient, faster and cheaper model is due in 10 years.

The UK is one of the few countries that could POTENTIALLY become self sufficient on energy, not purely on renewable sources but in certain areas. The sad part is it would cost a lot to do, and rather than laying out a large cost to get a big benefit, we're paying out a large cost for a smaller benefit because the greenies are shooting themselves in the foot.

Tidal and Hydro are the two which could generate most power, and they're in a fairly 'complete' state.

Wind farms are unreliable and expensive, we'd be better off putting them out to sea (possibly in the same places as the tidal power could be generated, which could be further improved with artificial reefs)

Solar panels have potential, but right now they're highly inefficient. When we have a few more years and they become more efficient (and hopefully cheaper) it'd be nice to see them on all new builds, but right now solar is fairly pointless in comparison.

The only remaining thing is giving a small discount on energy efficient goods. You want to buy that plamsa? That's nice, it's a good TV, cheap, but it draws power like a drain. Why not get this nice LED screen instead? Uses only a quarter of the power.

On that note I decided a while ago when I finally get my own place (only a matter of time going by my savings account0 I'd be buying things based on energy efficiency. An extra £50 here and there on the initial purchase sure, but that's pay for itself over the years in energy bills. Especially at current rates.

3
2
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: Renewable Energy

...An extra £50 here and there on the initial purchase sure, but that's pay for itself over the years in energy bills. Especially at current rates....

You should note that you are in a circular argument here. Energy prices are high purely because of taxes. They are not expensive because of any market shortage. The 'Peak Oil' assertion has now been shown to be a lie, and nuclear energy is practically unlimited, and could be provided for free if we so wished. The prices are being kept artificially high to justify expensive energy-saving technology.

Green activists like to make energy prices high because they view minimal energy use as good in itself. But it is not. We already use far more energy per head than our parents, and our children will use even more - and that is not a bad thing. It is part of the way human societies better themselves. Read Julian Simon.

The Greens have now been defeated in this latest fight. But they will come back again over some other technology. They are anxious to achieve zero growth and stop all human development. Being on their side is not something I would be proud of...

18
12
Silver badge

Re: Renewable Energy

@Dodgy Geezer: While your points have some grounding, I do have some issues.

"We already use far more energy per head than our parents, and our children will use even more - and that is not a bad thing. It is part of the way human societies better themselves."

Not exactly. DOING more is how we better ourselves. This normally uses more energy. However, it does not always have to. More efficient technologies come along allowing us to do more with the same energy or less. So with no increase in energy use we can still have advancement.

"The Greens have now been defeated in this latest fight. But they will come back again over some other technology. They are anxious to achieve zero growth and stop all human development. Being on their side is not something I would be proud of..."

This is the hard-line, extremist green view. I consider myself a moderate green. I want the world to move forward, but that does not mean we have to "destroy the planet" in the process. We can generate electricity from clean sources. The current generation of renewables is not up to the job (specifically wind and solar), but we can use cleaner gas-fired stations and, in particular, nuclear as a stop gap, as well as the more advanced renewables like hydro. We can use more efficient appliances to reduce our energy needs without lowering our quality of life. We can continue to research additional clean energy sources. All of these would be for the ultimate advancement of mankind, while also being green.

10
3
Gold badge
Meh

Re: Renewable Energy

Because I agree with a lot of their policies...

Hmm, every time I've looked at their policies I've found them to be conventional rabid Marxism with some anti-nuclear and CO2 bothering rhetoric tacked on the front.

17
4
HMB

Re: Renewable Energy

Dodgy Geezer...

I like a lot of what you said, but despite myself being a huge fan of nuclear power and believing it to be something that could still change our world enormously for the better, bringing people out of poverty, it could by no means be free.

Nuclear fuel isn't a significant cost in nuclear power. Complex highly regulated buildings and designs, millions of man hours of professional work and planning followed by millions more man hours running reactor designs that are small evolutionary changes over reactor technology that has been around for decades, that makes current gen nuclear expensive, not as expensive as wind perhaps (unless they really do crack mass energy storage), but certainly more so than a normal coal plant.

Nuclear is the one energy source that can solve our problems for thousands of years and it's also the one we're least excited about benefiting from.

13
1
Silver badge

Re: Renewable Energy

"The 'Peak Oil' assertion has now been shown to be a lie"

Has it? Don't believe you. Oil is finite and proven reserves are dwindling. It's more than likely we'll reach a maximum extraction rate - the peak - soon.

9
11
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Renewable Energy

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Examination of energy density and renewable intermittency shows why there is no hope whatsoever of the UK ever becoming 100% renewable and why in the end its a chimaera.

http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/Renewable%20Energy%20Limitations.pdf

7
2
h3
Bronze badge

Re: Renewable Energy

Depends how you want to do it you could make it free to the user. Whichever country has the Aswan Dam does / did that.

Nothing is world class in this country now.

(The new train line isn't even a bullet train).

If we built astronomically large amounts of nuclear we could sell the energy really cheap (Or datacentres) to enable manufacturing to be profitable here. (If wanted we could make residential paid for by commercial users.)

Once it was up and running it would set us up for a long time.

Subsidising the private sector is never a good idea.

Look at America's problems with brownouts we don't have that because it was done with public money properly. (Probably it cost more initially but it was done right.)

Cannot see how paying BT £500 million all the time is better than it would have been just not selling off BT.

8
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Renewable Energy

@Nom

"Has it? Don't believe you. Oil is finite and proven reserves are dwindling. It's more than likely we'll reach a maximum extraction rate - the peak - soon."

This is an awesome broken record. It it going to happen at some point but that point has yet to be found. Every time we reach the end, more is found. Obviously this isnt going to go on forever but as a problem it is slow to occur. Once it happens we will find solutions around the problem (as always).

Soon means little without a rough time scale to work from. So far soon has proven to be a long time. Relative to life spans.

6
6
Anonymous Coward

Re: Renewable Energy

@TeeCee as noted, the local green party is headed by one of the non-extreme greens. One of the few who actually campaigned for nuclear energy as a cleaner source.

The arguement was along the lines of nuclear isn't completely clean, but it's feasable, and cheap when compared to wind and solar which are expensive, take up excess land, and are far from efficient.

The guy was strangely well grounded.

2
0
Silver badge

Re: Renewable Energy

"This is an awesome broken record. It it going to happen at some point but that point has yet to be found. Every time we reach the end, more is found."

There's currently only about 40 years of proven reserves left at the current rate of use and there have been insufficient major discoveries to stop the figure falling. The peak will occur long before proven reserves run out, because the peak is the point where extraction rate peaks. To make matters worse with what little oil is left, there is a huge surge in demand, all those people who want cars in China and India. The global peak may have already been reached already given that the expected effect of it will be a steady and unstoppable rise in the price of oil.

6
6

Re: Renewable Energy

If we aren't already past peak oil, we certainly will be soon. Even shale oil will be a short fad, as each well only lasts a few years. But the real issue people always ignore is the cost of extraction, which is rising fast. Just because we've got large reserves of dirty tar sands in Canada for example doesn't mean it doesn't take huge amounts of gas and electricity to actually extract it (and refine it if you want low-sulfur petrol). So not only does it take a lot more effort to extract it, but in the process of extracting it, we actually waste a significant proportion of it as well. The end result is we get an ever smaller amount of actual useful oil for every barrel of oil extracted. That's typically not shown in the production figures...

8
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Renewable Energy

@Nom

"There's currently only about 40 years of proven reserves left at the current rate of use and there have been insufficient major discoveries to stop the figure falling."

So? Thats 40 years minimum (conservative figures) proven. Added to by continued exploration.

"The global peak may have already been reached already given that the expected effect of it will be a steady and unstoppable rise in the price of oil."

Again so? We have plenty of time to work out alternatives which due to market forces will become more relevant as the price of oil surpasses them. What is the worry?

5
7
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: Renewable Energy

@Dodgy Geezer

"Energy prices are high purely because of taxes" - wrong, energy prices are high partly because it's becoming more expensive to extract and partly because there's more demand.

"The 'Peak Oil' assertion has now been shown to be a lie" - I have no idea what you're talking about. Cheap oil has certainly long peaked and is in decline. For other more expensive oil, there's still more in the ground to dig up, so the peak gets pushed back into the future as prices rise and it's more viable. But in general we are using more gas and coal because there is less oil available (at a competitive price).

And, irrespective of whether we already passed the peak, are passing it now, or if it is 20 or 50 years in the future, their clearly and obviously will be a peak, then a decline, then finally "That's All, folks", only without a goofy carrot-chewing rabbit.

"Green activists like to make energy prices high because they view minimal energy use as good in itself. But it is not. We already use far more energy per head than our parents, and our children will use even more - and that is not a bad thing."

I think what's important isn't the gross use but how much useful work we can get done from it, i.e. efficiency. The 50s and 60s generations vastly improved lifestyle by vastly improving consumption, and when oil was cheap, they could 'afford' to be wasteful. Our children will learn how to have a better lifestyle than ours while using less energy, becaus energy WILL be more expensive (due to natural less-supply-more-deman, nothng to do with green taxes).

5
2
Silver badge

Re: Renewable Energy

"So? Thats 40 years minimum (conservative figures) proven. Added to by continued exploration."

No that's 40 years at current use levels. But demand is rising. Plus continued exploration just isn't finding enough to replace what is being used, let alone to satisfy the rising demand.

"We have plenty of time to work out alternatives"

Don't think so.

8
3
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: Renewable Energy

"What is the worry?"

The worry is that

1) "40 years of proven reserves" does not mean that we are sorted for the next 40 years. It means that if we burn it all at current and future expected rates, it would last 40 years BUT since it becomes more and more difficult to extract as it reaches the bottom, it's unlikely that we can extract it all within the next 40 years. It's not like it will be uiness as usual for 40 years and then suddenly we go from full production to zero *. More likly what will happen is that starting in the next 20 years we will need to get a larger and larger percentage of energy from non-oil sources

2) To have energy solutions that will start picking up the shortfall of oil in 20 (or 30, or 40) years' time, we need to start now. Wind and solar will never fill the gap, but even if we want to utilise them to the maximum potential we need a 50% increase every year f0r 20 years to make a real dent. And, more importantly, we need nuclear for baseload, and those plants take a LONG time to design, test, approve, build, regulate etc etc (not to mention that in 10-20 years time the current nuclear plants will start to be deactivated). So, again, we need to start planning and building these things now.

* this is actually a good thing

3
1
Silver badge

Re: America's problems with brownouts

America didn't have problems with brownouts from private electric companies until after the greens but the kabosh on building coal fired electric plants and stopped all nuclear plant construction.

5
4
Silver badge

Re: only about 40 years of proven reserves left at the current rate of use

We've had "only about 40 years of proven reserves left at the current rate of use" since 1970. It isn't a function of how much is out there that can be harvested, it's a function of companies barely plan beyond 10 years so 40 years proven reserves = infinite for their purposes.

2
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Renewable Energy

@Nom

"No that's 40 years at current use levels. But demand is rising. Plus continued exploration just isn't finding enough to replace what is being used, let alone to satisfy the rising demand."

Again I dont see anything to worry about. We use oil because its cheaper than the alternatives. When that changes we change our usage. Its not a problem.

You may not think we have time to work out alternatives but that is your opinion based on your worries. We already have alternatives to some of the oil uses but they are more expensive than oil is right now. Oil is cheaper and easier for the moment.

1
1
Silver badge

Re: Renewable Energy

@h3 If we built astronomically large amounts of nuclear we could sell the energy really cheap

This is the second post here that makes the mistake of assuming nuclear energy is cheap because the direct unit cost is low. Nuclear power is capital-intensive. Most of the unit cost of output is a share of the cost of building and decommissioning the power station.

2
0
Bronze badge

Re: Renewable Energy

Grrr.

"There's currently only about 40 years of proven reserves left"

A useful definition of proven reserves is the stuff that we've prepared to use in the next few decades. That we're going to use in the next few decades what we're prepared for our use in the next few decades isn't really all that exciting a notion.

This also explains why reserves have been 40 years worth for a century. Because every year some people take some of the *resources* and convert the into *reserves* by preparing them for our use.

Please note that the conversion of resources into reserves does not require finding new lakes of the stuff. Finding new lakes is an increase in resources.

3
1
Silver badge

Re: Renewable Energy

Every time I think "eh, greens can't be so bad, probably better than the others"..

Then I'm reminded they don't like Nuclear power. I would not be able to vote for a party that is against Nuclear power.

If we stopped all this scaremongering, we could have had newly built nukes, with a good design by now, and cut our air pollution by a huge amount.

1
0
Boffin

Re: Renewable Energy

It's not just the anti-nuclear parties or the NIMBY's, EDF wants twice the market rate for electricity for 40 years for the new nuclear power station Hinkley C. That's a price where even the current government is saying that's a pretty huge subsidy to a private company (especially given wind subsidies last for just 15 years).

3
1

Re: Renewable Energy

* Ahem *

Why, so often, do us "greens" avoid talking about modern nuclear technologies, or if we do, immediately start demonizing them without understanding the technology?

Please take a look at the Waste-Annihilating Molten Salt Reactor (WAMSR) as just one example of an energy source that us greens should be embracing, without delay:

http://transatomicpower.com/company.php

0
0

Re: Renewable Energy

It doesn't matter if oil does run out. The Germans proved it was possible to make oil, rubber and petrol without having oil. Indeed recently petrol has been made in America without oil (the last one I saw was in the desert and used solar power to make the petrol - from air and water - leading to it being carbon neutral - the carbon produced during the burning being the carbon absorbed during the making).

We already know how to make gas from coal - thats what we used to use before 'natural gas' came around in the '70's.

Frankly it has been shown beyond any intelligent doubt that 'green' and 'global warming' along with 'climate change' and 'peak oil' is a fiction leaped on by various western governments so they can hike taxes to pay for the unaffordable welfare and pension costs. It is also the one reason why we are ALL falling behind China and set to become 5th world countries - companies can no longer afford to manufacture here in the UK (land prices, capital costs and energy being the reasons - not as politicians bullshit the cost of man power), Worse is that offices will follow manufacturing - it is inevitable. The more tax denudes the country of work the more tax is needed to cover the cost, the reduction in welfare though small at the moment is going to have to also play a part.

0
3

Re: Renewable Energy

>They are not expensive because of any market shortage. The 'Peak Oil' assertion has now been shown to be a lie,

More than a little disingenuous - the main point at the moment is not whether peak oil has been reached, but the extraction cost which in many new developments is higher than historical fields (as we have extracted many of the "easy wins").

>and nuclear energy is practically unlimited, and could be provided for free if we so wished.

In the same way that anything else could be provided for "free" if someone else is prepared to subsidise it! Strangely enough building a nuclear plant ain't cheap and how much do you need for decommissioning and waste management?

I'm a supporter of nuclear, but it does no one any favours to trivialise the costs/difficulties of nuclear.

>The prices are being kept artificially high to justify expensive energy-saving technology.

No they aren't. They are taxed as a useful source of revenue for Govts and the likes of OPEC tries to keep prices high for fairly obvious reasons.

>They are anxious to achieve zero growth and stop all human development

Sweeping generalisation alert! Not all greens think like that...though easier perhaps to pigeonhole people.

4
0

Re: Renewable Energy

>Strangely enough building a nuclear plant ain't cheap and how much do you need for decommissioning and waste management?

Look at my post above. Nuclear doesn't not need to be expensive and waste generating. If half the amount invested in solar and wind was invested in developing MSRs or any of the other "new" nuclear technologies, we would be in a much better place right now.

Just because our current LWRs are wasteful and expensive, doesn't mean all nuclear is. Nuclear is a very large field.

0
0
Facepalm

Re: Renewable Energy

"Proven reserves are dwindling"

You don't actually know what proven means in respect of oil exploration do you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves#Proven_reserves

I know it's wiki but it looks fairly correct.

Unproven reserves can become proven if economic conditions change - such as the oil price rises.

0
0
Bronze badge
Holmes

@ Dr Mouse - Re: Renewable Energy

Wrote :- "Not exactly. DOING more is how we better ourselves. This normally uses more energy."

Not exactly. I use more energy than my father in that he drove 5 miles to work and I drive 30 miles. I do not see that I am "better off" than my father in this respect.

Such differences are quite common. He considered it a long way to go to work at the time, but today I work with guys who travel 50-60 miles, thanks to ever-changing company ownerships and locations (and thanks for that in turn to Mrs T. Norman Tebbitt's dad's bike just would not cut the mustard for these journeys).

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: America's problems with brownouts

Oh, Enron and unregulated energy markets had nothing to do with brownouts to maximise profits at all costs then ?

1
0
Stop

Re: Renewable Energy

Mostly agree.

They take my money and spend it on glossy advertising programmes telling me to use less energy.

Get lost, I now use all the energy I want to pay for without being overtly wasteful.

It's up to the privatised energy industry to spend my money on getting more energy but not at the cost of future generations.

They shouldn't be allowed to take more money because they backed the wrong horse.

They should all be going out of business and being replaced by younger, hungrier companies that know how to undercut the opposition by using fancy new tech.

What I don't get it why we aren't all building solar concentrating towers in north africa and piping it all back here for pennies.

0
0

This post has been deleted by its author

Silver badge

How much of this 'trend' is due to China building coal stations? Wouldn't it be more accurate to state that any reduction that renewables bring is negated by some countries building coal stations with no attempt to mitigate co2 emissions?

Irrespective of my thoughts on renewables, this stinks of bias.

4
0
Silver badge
Joke

@Rampant Spaniel

"How much of this 'trend' is due to China building coal stations?"

A big part, But Europe is doing its bit. Germany's phasing out nuclear (along with Belgium, Italy & Switzerland), and as their green lobby will block fracking, and the alternative is Russian gas, the Germans propose to build new lignite (brown coal) plants. Lignite is a rubbish fuel source, amounting to coal dust mixed with earth, so the thermal efficiency is rotten. Whilst I don't buy the CO2 bogeyman, the Germans do, so its a pity that lignite is just about the worst fuel in the world for carbon intensity. Hugely expensive, not good for the Germany economy or environment, and supporting the German mining industry, itself state subsidy supported in exactly the way that the EU tell us we can't subsidies things.

Meanwhile the UK's plans to shut down 12 GW of coal plant under LCPD mean that the operators are caning the existing plant to get the maximum permitted run time before closure, so our coal use is much higher than in previous years. UK coal use wil go down in future years, and the ccretins at DECC will undoubtedly claim this as proof their nonsense renewables policy is working, when in fact it will simply make us dependant upon imported power from France.

Icon because collectively and singly, energy "policy" across Europe is a joke.

17
0
Gold badge
Happy

Re: @Rampant Spaniel

... make us dependant upon imported power from France.

Which achieves the desired result. Most of that's from nuclear capacity, so we get the low-carbon nuclear goodness without having to sell the concept of building nuke plants to the NIMBY luddite proles.

3
2
Silver badge

Re: @Rampant Spaniel

Hollande also wants to close Frances nuclear industry.

France and Switzerland are the two 'cleanest' electricity generators in western Europe, both massively nuclear.

Ego they must be stopped and moved onto renewables and gas at a huge increase in emissions. Why?

the only explanation that makes sense is that someone who has the ear of Brussels is making a lot of money out of renewables.

The day a continent is run on covert commercial interest and plausible deniability instead of actual fact based policy is the day it starts to collapse economically..

6
0
Silver badge
Holmes

"Wouldn't it be more accurate to state that any reduction that renewables bring is negated by some countries building coal stations with no attempt to mitigate co2 emissions?

erm, that's what teh article DOES say:

"Acting against these mitigating factors has been the massive world upsurge in coal burning, particularly in China - though lately, Europe has also turned to coal in a bid to wean itself off insecure and pricey Russian gas. Coal is a very carbon-intensive way to generate energy, so all this has effectively wiped out the carbon reductions achieved by gas, hydro and nuclear (and the tiny additional ones from wind, solar etc)."

0
0
Silver badge

Re: @Rampant Spaniel

Hollande is an idiot!

In the case of Switzerland, a LOT less dependent on nuclear than France, most Swiss clean energy comes from hydro. Of course because of the Swiss geography that's a unique situation, so your point about Europe generally still holds.

1
0
Silver badge

@Ledswinger: Look on the bright side

At least you have an Energy policy to joke about. I'm told all the time that our problem here in the US is we don't have an Energy policy.

0
0
Silver badge

@James

I am aware of what the article says later, read the first line, that is what I was refering to :-)

0
0
Silver badge

In other news ...

... one wonders how many of the "anti atmospheric carbon" set have stopped popping the tops on fizzy drinks ;-)

3
1
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: In other news ...

The CO2 in fizzy drinks comes directly from the atmosphere in the first place, so it's actually carbon-neutral (except for the energy required to make the drink in the first place).

3
7
Anonymous Coward

Fact check (Re: In other news ...)

"The CO2 in fizzy drinks comes directly from the atmosphere in the first place"

2/10 - see me.

According to Wikipedia (the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit) it's mainly made "as a side product of the industrial production of ammonia and hydrogen". You can also buy a CO2 production plant from Buze Gastek, for use in the beverage industry, that uses combustion of gas or oil.

Fractional condensation from air to extract a 0.04% trace component would probably be a bit expensive for something of quite low value (especially as the EU "Carbon" price has now tanked, tee hee).

8
0
Bronze badge

Re: Fact check (In other news ...)

Not to mention all that CO2 given off by brewing beer.....

1
0
Silver badge
Flame

Lunatics running the asylum

At least in Europe they are, with it's madcap attempts to destroy its own economy with hugely expensive and unproductive renewables, all funded by subsdies, then further "capacity payments" (more subsidies) to fossil fuel generators to keep their plant open during the long winter periods when renewables generate nothing. The clowns running Germany have written off billions of pounds worth of fully functional nuclear plant, which will require them to burn more coal and gas (although this does appear to have the support of the German plebs). And there's worse still for Britain. Not only is one eighth of our generating plant being switched off under the EU "large combustion plant directive (the biggest impact anywhere in Europe), but our government's idiotically conceived "carbon floor price" further increases the costs of UK fossil generation. But because the EU emissions trading scheme is pan European, any reduction in UK emissions will simply depress ETS carbon credit prices elsewhere. So British electricity customers and industry are paying higher power prices in order that Germany industry can enjoy lower prices due to the ETS prices coming down, even whilst German gears up to use more fossil fuels to replace the retired nuclear fleet.

Well done Ed Davey! A man so stupid he can't even see how his own department and its EU overlords are busy destroying the British economy, whilst they suckle enthusiastically on the warm public sector teat of "climate change".

13
2
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Lunatics running the asylum

Get off your hobbyhorse and get a clue.

All EU policy was sanctioned by democratically elected national governments. As you obviously disapprove of what the "plebs" have chosen, you might as well dust off your blackshirt and photo of your-dictator-of-choice.

For the record: Germany yesterday produced the equivalent of 26 nuclear power stations from wind and solar power. Such peak production causes problems all of its own but is still an impressive feat on the road to energy independence. Nothing has been written off from the power stations - the courts will rightly award the power companies the profits guaranteed to them by contract. Yes, that will be expensive and I'm not looking forward to paying my share of it but it is the law.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Lunatics running the asylum@Charlie Clark

"All EU policy was sanctioned by democratically elected national governments"

Sadly, that doesn't mean that the policies have the support of the voters, or that even where they do, that the policies make sense.

Regarding "dust off your blackshirt", another straight call on Godwin. If you can't see the vast hole that Europe is digging for itself, then more fool you. And as for Germany's "achievement" in renewables, I'd just remind you that by 2016 subsidies under the German Renewable Energy Act will be running at €24 billion a year. That is on top of the nuclear phase out compensation, EU carbon credit purchases, and the cost of all the thermal standby (which the German government is going to have to come up with capacity payments to support).

0
0
Gold badge
Unhappy

REminds me of a report in the 1970's "Coal Bridge to the Future."

Guess what.

It is.

While I don't know if an Indian or Chinese coal fired power station built in 2010 incorporates all that Flue Gas Desulpherisation tech developed to combat acid rain I do expect it to burn a lot less coal for the same leccy that such a station built in say the 1970's would have.

Bottom line without cooperation from the US, China and India on CO2 emissions it will remain at that level or rise.

0
0

Re: REminds me of a report in the 1970's "Coal Bridge to the Future."

" I do expect it to burn a lot less coal for the same leccy that such a station built in say the 1970's would have."

Why?

2
0
Silver badge

Re: REminds me of a report in the 1970's "Coal Bridge to the Future."

Why? Improvements in the efficiency of generation, that's why. You think generation technolog has been static since the 70s? It hadn't reached an efficiency peak back then so it's safe to assume that there have been improvements in the meantime.

That's why.

2
2

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.