California generated 10% of it's energy via solar in 2015

[SunEagle]

So we should continue to use coal and pollute the planet because people will lose their jobs?

How quickly do you see the coal industry disappearing from the United States?

It won't happen overnight. But it does need to happen.

The pollution from coal has been dropping in the US for a long time and will continue to drop if existing action plans are followed. Shutting down coal quickly will do worse then people just losing jobs but that is another story and discussion.

I would like to see more money and science put into keeping coal clean and finding other uses for it while also introducing more RE and Nuclear power plants. Reducing our dependence on coal is the right action but it should take more of a glide path and not a leap off a cliff.

Having a deep portfolio with multiple forms of power generation provides more stability and less dependency on any one source. Putting your eggs all in one basket can become an issue if your drop the basket.

Even Germany with all its RE still generates more than 50% of its power from coal which has actually increased lately due to them introducing more RE and less nuclear.

[J.P.M.]

I haven't seen much in this thread about improved end use efficiency. How about a shift in the conversation to the consequences, good, bad and perhaps neutral, of using all the generation, regardless of fuel source, more efficiently at the end use, thereby reducing, or slowing down the rate of increase of need for generation.

[DanKegel]

Improved end use efficiency is a great thing, and is surely a big part of our future, just as are load management incentives.
But the problems we're facing are very large, and no one approach suffices; we can't ignore the problems coal causes, no matter how efficiently we use energy.

SunEagle wants to see more money and science put into keeping coal clean, but I'm afraid that's a coal industry fantasy; coal is inherently dirty, and can't be cleaned up economically.
Even CCS advocates admit it'll be expensive;

https://web.archive.org/web/20130418165946/http://www.ico2n.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/ICO2N-Report_09_final2.pdf

estimated $50 to $125 per tonne of avoided CO2 emissions.
Figure 1 of http://www.catf.us/resources/factshe...comparison.pdf says retrofitting a coal power plant with CCS would cost $110 per tonne of avoided CO2 emissions... about the same as solar PV, and about twice as much as onshore wind.
That was in 2013. Since then, PV keeps falling in cost, but CCS remains hypothetical; nobody has actually ever done a serious CCS retrofit of a coal plant, have they?
And CCS only covers CO2 emissions, not mercury or fly ash, which regularly kill people and ruin rivers.

Wyoming can adapt to the loss of coal revenue a lot better than the world can adapt to the environmental damage being done by burning coal.

[SunEagle]

I guess we all have some type of fantasy about how to generate clean energy in the world.

Solar and Wind have their place and I support them but I believe that they should only be a part of the energy source. Relying on RE too much paints you into a corner. You still need a contingency plan to generate power when either the sun and wind isn't available.

Betting on natural gas as your backup to RE would be risky. There needs to be more types of sources of power regardless of what people feel is a good or bad end product.

I still believe that people will find a way to coup with those "bad products" better then going without any power at all.

I am tired of arguing about coal and would rather spend my time to help others understand solar better and get them to make the right choices getting it installed and not waste their money on pipe dreams.

That just my 2 cents. Take what you want and ignore what you don't.

[DanKegel]

Betting on natural gas as your backup to RE would be risky.

We have plenty of it; what's the risk? It only has to last 30 or so years, until energy storage is online.
Nuclear and wind are partial backups, too.

I still believe that people will find a way to coup with those "bad products" better then going without any power at all.

That's a false choice, IMHO; ramping down coal doesn't mean no power, we just have to ramp up other sources to take its place.

[SunEagle]

We have plenty of it; what's the risk? It only has to last 30 or so years, until energy storage is online.
Nuclear and wind are partial backups, too.




That's a false choice, IMHO; ramping down coal doesn't mean no power, we just have to ramp up other sources to take its place.

There is a risk of depending on natural gas because the price has varied greatly in the past and may again sky rocket without notice. When the POCO's know we are locked into using gas to generate electricity at night then prices will increase.

I agree that "ramping" down coal will not result in the lack of power. But shutting down coal fired generation too fast and before other sources are installed is not smart. Also without better transmission and distribution lines may result in brief power outages.

While a brief outage may not be a problem for some it can wreck havoc in commercial and industrial facilities that have no immediate backup power source. A single hour outage could cost in the millions of lost product or revenue. Even if energy storage gets cheaper the cost of covering an entire production facility would be cost prohibited.

[J.P.M.]

I think you both may have missed my point. Regardless of how the demand is met, seems this discussion is about energy use, and its cost, both to the wallet and the environment. To the degree that's correct, a discussion of how to use less of all sources before talking about how to meet a then reduced load would keep the cart before the horse.

If I have a boat with a leaky hull, I'd probably think about a little hull maintenance before arguing about which bigger pump I'd buy to keep up with the leaks.

Using less energy through efficiency improvements and attitude adjustments will, 1st and (in the eyes of the tree huggers anyway) foremost, probably result in less (perceived) environmental damage if done in an environmentally sensible and still cost effective fashion.

If the discussion is about meeting future energy needs, seems to me that lowering the energy requirements to meet a goal is usually the least expensive way to meet that energy requirement, that is - lower the requirement. That method can also lower everyone's energy bills which seems to be a worthwhile goal that is mostly self sustaining.

Bonus: Any new technologies or ways of doing things sparked by the need for innovation can be good for the economy.

Seems like less required generation from any/all sources might be a better topic of discussion than moot point rants where each/all sides cherry picks studies and projections (SWAGS for the most part if past performance/accuracy is any measure) based on personal preference.

As usual, take what you want of the above. scrap the rest.

[SunEagle]

I think you both may have missed my point. Regardless of how the demand is met, seems this discussion is about energy use, and its cost, both to the wallet and the environment. To the degree that's correct, a discussion of how to use less of all sources before talking about how to meet a then reduced load would keep the cart before the horse.

If I have a boat with a leaky hull, I'd probably think about a little hull maintenance before arguing about which bigger pump I'd buy to keep up with the leaks.

Using less energy through efficiency improvements and attitude adjustments will, 1st and (in the eyes of the tree huggers anyway) foremost, probably result in less (perceived) environmental damage if done in an environmentally sensible and still cost effective fashion.

If the discussion is about meeting future energy needs, seems to me that lowering the energy requirements to meet a goal is usually the least expensive way to meet that energy requirement, that is - lower the requirement. That method can also lower everyone's energy bills which seems to be a worthwhile goal that is mostly self sustaining.

Bonus: Any new technologies or ways of doing things sparked by the need for innovation can be good for the economy.

Seems like less required generation from any/all sources might be a better topic of discussion than moot point rants where each/all sides cherry picks studies and projections (SWAGS for the most part if past performance/accuracy is any measure) based on personal preference.

As usual, take what you want of the above. scrap the rest.

+1.

[DanKegel]

There is a risk of depending on natural gas because the price has varied greatly in the past and may again sky rocket without notice. When the POCO's know we are locked into using gas to generate electricity at night then prices will increase.

I don't think the POCOs, or even their suppliers, control natural gas pricing. That's supply and demand, and with fracking, supply is through the roof. (Now, in northern europe, where they depend on Russia for gas, the story is different!)

Shutting down coal fired generation too fast and before other sources are installed is not smart.

Nobody's planning to do that. When a power company decides (or is told) to move off of coal, it will do so with all due caution, because POCOs are not stupid. LADWP got the memo to get out of coal several years ago, and is ramping down over a decade.

JPM is certainly right that we have lots to agree about on energy efficiency (although IIRC we still disagree on whether load management is a good idea).

[veritass]

I don't think the POCOs, or even their suppliers, control natural gas pricing. That's supply and demand, and with fracking, supply is through the roof. (Now, in northern europe, where they depend on Russia for gas, the story is different!)



Nobody's planning to do that. When a power company decides (or is told) to move off of coal, it will do so with all due caution, because POCOs are not stupid. LADWP got the memo to get out of coal several years ago, and is ramping down over a decade.

JPM is certainly right that we have lots to agree about on energy efficiency (although IIRC we still disagree on whether load management is a good idea).

Greater use of wind and solar means less demand for natural gas, hence a lower price for natural gas. The fall in natural gas prices have really hurt coal and slowed down the rise of renewables.

[compchat]

According to my Sunny Portal my plant has generated 586 KWh so far in January. That' s with an 11 Kw system. We've had a lot of clouds and rain in S. Calif this January so it's an unusal month for us. Non the less I think the system is generating properly. I expect that it will at least triple during summer months. I have the formal projections from the engineer and they show that January is one of the worst months of the year for solar generation.

[SunEagle]

According to my Sunny Portal my plant has generated 586 KWh so far in January. That' s with an 11 Kw system. We've had a lot of clouds and rain in S. Calif this January so it's an unusal month for us. Non the less I think the system is generating properly. I expect that it will at least triple during summer months. I have the formal projections from the engineer and they show that January is one of the worst months of the year for solar generation.

I agree you should see 3 times that amount for a monthly generation during the summer. While I understand S CA needs the rain hopefully it will come at night so your system can help offset your electric costs.

[DanKegel]

Greater use of wind and solar means less demand for natural gas, hence a lower price for natural gas.

You don't need wind and solar to explain the lower price for natural gas. Fracking suffices, and probably caused a much greater fall in prices than renewables did.
(See also http://www.investopedia.com/articles...gas-prices.asp )

Eventually, though, when the economy has mostly switched to renewables, natural gas prices will probably be pretty darn low, at least until the already-dug wells stop producing (and ignoring the carbon tax which will probably exist by then).

[veritass]

You don't need wind and solar to explain the lower price for natural gas. Fracking suffices, and probably caused a much greater fall in prices than renewables did.
(See also http://www.investopedia.com/articles...gas-prices.asp )

Eventually, though, when the economy has mostly switched to renewables, natural gas prices will probably be pretty darn low, at least until the already-dug wells stop producing (and ignoring the carbon tax which will probably exist by then).

I agree

[SunEagle]

You don't need wind and solar to explain the lower price for natural gas. Fracking suffices, and probably caused a much greater fall in prices than renewables did.
(See also http://www.investopedia.com/articles...gas-prices.asp )

Eventually, though, when the economy has mostly switched to renewables, natural gas prices will probably be pretty darn low, at least until the already-dug wells stop producing (and ignoring the carbon tax which will probably exist by then).

Unfortunately due to the low price of oil & natural gas and the expansion of energy usage in developing nations, fossil fuel power generation may still provide over 50% for the world's electrical needs for the next couple of decades.

Solar and Wind should keep increasing but even if RE triples it's footprint it will still be less than 25% of the total world power generation.

My question is if people are so worried about climate change due to the earths temperature rising then why isn't there more outrage pointed at the methane (which is many times worse than CO2) that is being released from farm animals as well as from other natural sources from the earth?