4 ms·

Your cost estimates are contradicted by a variety of sources. Almost everyone puts coal at a cheaper price than gas. That's why emerging economies like India ar

Your cost estimates are contradicted by a variety of sources. Almost everyone puts coal at a cheaper price than gas. That's why emerging economies like India are so heavily dependent on coal. Furthermore your estimates for nuclear are contradicted by real world performance. How is it that France's electricity is 20-25% cheaper than the EU average despite 70% of it coming from the purportedly more expensive nuclear power?

beat 7y ago
A variety of sources? Fine. Show your work. 2018-2019 vintage sources only, not something from twenty years ago. edit: Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source Feel free to offer rebuttals of the numbers in there, with sources.
- manfredo 7y ago
  https://www.lazard.com/media/450784/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-120-vfinal.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/450784/lazards-levelized-cost-o... https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/08/f25/LCOE.pdf https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/08/f25/LCOE.pdf https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.... <- Note that in this one, coal is only counted with carbon capture technology, which increases cost Coal is among the cheapest conventional source. Note that solar (other than solar thermal) and wind do not include cost of energy storage. Gas combined cycle (basically, a jet engine + a steam turbine heated by the jet exhaust) does beat coal in many of these estimates, but this is new technology that has only been deployed widely by first world countries. Generally, only countries with developed aerospace industries have that infrastructure to built thermally efficient gas turbines. Thermally efficient gas turbines need advanced materials and fabrication techniques like monocrystal casting. These figures are highly dependent on the kind of infrastructure available to a country. What's cheap for a country like the US with extensive gas turbine manufacturing is not going to be cheap for other countries. There's a reason why so many developing countries use coal: it's a much more low tech solution that does not require complex industry. If your claim about the lower cost of gas was limited in scope to the US and similarly developed countries, I'd agree, but I was talking in global terms. Many countries are sticking to coal because it's cheaper: https://www.economist.com/briefing/2018/08/02/india-shows-how-hard-it-is-to-move-beyond-fossil-fuels https://www.economist.com/briefing/2018/08/02/india-shows-ho... https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/08/22/asian-governments-are-the-biggest-backers-of-the-filthiest-fuel https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/08/22/asian-governmen... https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/natural-gas/100419-analysis-next-wave-of-asias-lng-demand-hinges-on-affordability-competing-fuels https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-ne... There are good reasons to move off of coal, regardless. Coal extraction is dirty, and it generates pollutants that are much worse than gas turbines. It'd probably be good policy to facilitate the export of gas turbines to developing countries.
- beerandt 7y ago
  From an unregulated, no subsidies, no externalities perspective, coal is still cheapest. It's no longer so because of regulation, or market uncertainty of future regulation.
  - beat 7y ago
    In the US, it's not the cheapest by a long shot, even excluding subsidies and externalities. I'd be perfectly happy to see new coal plant construction banned from a regulatory perspective, but right now there are ZERO new coal plants being built in the US. The rest of the world will not be far behind.
    - beerandt 7y ago
      Emissions controls counts as a regulation. That on it's own is a substantial cost. I think you're using a narrow definition of the word regulation. Not knowing what the next administration is going to change adds cost of uncertainty. If it weren't due to regulation, that would mean it's due to technology or raw cost. Both of which are ruled out by the fact that the US is the third largest coal exporter in the world, and exports have increased in the last 3 years. If our coal weren't cheap, it wouldn't be worth exporting. If coal power plants weren't cheap, developing countries would be switching to the cheaper technology.
kragen 7y ago
10 to 50 years ago you were right, and that's when most of the EU's and India's power plants were built. But that isn't true any more.
- manfredo 7y ago
  Incorrect, at least as far as Asia is concerned. Asia continues to expand its coal power plants: https://www.economist.com/briefing/2018/08/02/india-shows-how-hard-it-is-to-move-beyond-fossil-fuels https://www.economist.com/briefing/2018/08/02/india-shows-ho... https://thediplomat.com/2019/10/can-southeast-asia-ditch-coal/ https://thediplomat.com/2019/10/can-southeast-asia-ditch-coa... https://www.npr.org/2019/04/29/716347646/why-is-china-placing-a-global-bet-on-coal https://www.npr.org/2019/04/29/716347646/why-is-china-placin... As well as Africa: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/05/lamu-island-coal-plant-kenya-africa-climate/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/05/lamu-island-... South America, fortunately, is more mountainous and countries get by with more hydroelectric power. Countries with established gas turbine production can build gas combined cycle plants at a cheaper cost, but other countries without established aerospace industries (most countries other than Europe, and North America) would be looking at building up gas turbine production capacity largely from scratch. Response to the comment below, my work IP is getting rate limited: The articles definitely have a pro green energy stance, I don't deny that. But these articles' optimism is contradicted by the actions of the countries in question. They're building coal plants. The fact that the articles think this is a bad choice does not change this fact. Their claim that the region will see a decline in coal usage is speculative. Furthermore the fact that countries are continuing to build coal plants despite bank's reluctance to offer capital reinforces the fact that coal is the most accessible energy source for much of the world. > As for turbines, most poor countries buy their turbines (of whatever type) from rich countries Which costs more and makes them dependent on foreign countries for energy production. Hence why they choose coal.
  - kragen 7y ago
    Quoting from your link: > While the region “has been a laggard” on renewable energy he points to game-changing recent developments. “The finances are shifting to green globally. Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Thailand will all pivot over the next two years.” Vietnam, for instance, has seen a surge in solar power development in the last year alone. > “No-one forecast Vietnam can do that. That’s how quickly you can pivot markets,” [sic] said Buckley. Earlier this month an auction for a solar power project in Cambodia saw the lowest power purchase tariff for solar so far in Southeast Asia. The Asian Development Bank, which supports the scheme, described it as “a new era for renewable energy development in Cambodia and the region”. > In a survey of regional leaders last year, media platform Eco-Business found “the ever-increasing risk of stranded fossil fuel assets” was another factor that would drive Southeast Asia’s transition to a greener economy. A big sign of the shifting financial backing for coal regionally came in April as three top Singapore banks said they would stop financing new coal-fired power plants. And in a June meet of Asian coal leaders in Indonesia, they talked of the difficulties of securing finances for projects. Some experts believe that the majority of proposed coal plants won’t emerge. ... > It’s a “tipping point” in Southeast Asia, said Justin Guay, director for global climate strategy at The Sunrise Project, an environmental group. “It’s the last major region on earth where we are seeing the transformation” away from coal and “it’s a question of when not if.” > “In many ways Southeast Asia reminds me of where India was five years ago,” he added. “They built a significant number of coal plants, but now they’ve got stranded assets. It’s a big problem. Southeast Asia has the opportunity to avoid that.” ...this is your evidence for nuclear power being the cheapest source of energy and coal being second? That banks are increasingly refusing to lend money to finance plant construction because already-built plants in India have become stranded assets that can't compete with solar? The NPR link is equivalently pessimistic about the future of coal plants. As for turbines, most poor countries buy their turbines (of whatever type) from rich countries.

beat 7y ago

A variety of sources? Fine. Show your work. 2018-2019 vintage sources only, not something from twenty years ago. edit: Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source Feel free to offer rebuttals of the numbers in there, with sources.

manfredo 7y ago
https://www.lazard.com/media/450784/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-120-vfinal.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/450784/lazards-levelized-cost-o... https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/08/f25/LCOE.pdf https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/08/f25/LCOE.pdf https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.... <- Note that in this one, coal is only counted with carbon capture technology, which increases cost Coal is among the cheapest conventional source. Note that solar (other than solar thermal) and wind do not include cost of energy storage. Gas combined cycle (basically, a jet engine + a steam turbine heated by the jet exhaust) does beat coal in many of these estimates, but this is new technology that has only been deployed widely by first world countries. Generally, only countries with developed aerospace industries have that infrastructure to built thermally efficient gas turbines. Thermally efficient gas turbines need advanced materials and fabrication techniques like monocrystal casting. These figures are highly dependent on the kind of infrastructure available to a country. What's cheap for a country like the US with extensive gas turbine manufacturing is not going to be cheap for other countries. There's a reason why so many developing countries use coal: it's a much more low tech solution that does not require complex industry. If your claim about the lower cost of gas was limited in scope to the US and similarly developed countries, I'd agree, but I was talking in global terms. Many countries are sticking to coal because it's cheaper: https://www.economist.com/briefing/2018/08/02/india-shows-how-hard-it-is-to-move-beyond-fossil-fuels https://www.economist.com/briefing/2018/08/02/india-shows-ho... https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/08/22/asian-governments-are-the-biggest-backers-of-the-filthiest-fuel https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/08/22/asian-governmen... https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/natural-gas/100419-analysis-next-wave-of-asias-lng-demand-hinges-on-affordability-competing-fuels https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-ne... There are good reasons to move off of coal, regardless. Coal extraction is dirty, and it generates pollutants that are much worse than gas turbines. It'd probably be good policy to facilitate the export of gas turbines to developing countries.
beerandt 7y ago
From an unregulated, no subsidies, no externalities perspective, coal is still cheapest. It's no longer so because of regulation, or market uncertainty of future regulation.
- beat 7y ago
  In the US, it's not the cheapest by a long shot, even excluding subsidies and externalities. I'd be perfectly happy to see new coal plant construction banned from a regulatory perspective, but right now there are ZERO new coal plants being built in the US. The rest of the world will not be far behind.
  - beerandt 7y ago
    Emissions controls counts as a regulation. That on it's own is a substantial cost. I think you're using a narrow definition of the word regulation. Not knowing what the next administration is going to change adds cost of uncertainty. If it weren't due to regulation, that would mean it's due to technology or raw cost. Both of which are ruled out by the fact that the US is the third largest coal exporter in the world, and exports have increased in the last 3 years. If our coal weren't cheap, it wouldn't be worth exporting. If coal power plants weren't cheap, developing countries would be switching to the cheaper technology.

kragen 7y ago

10 to 50 years ago you were right, and that's when most of the EU's and India's power plants were built. But that isn't true any more.

manfredo 7y ago
Incorrect, at least as far as Asia is concerned. Asia continues to expand its coal power plants: https://www.economist.com/briefing/2018/08/02/india-shows-how-hard-it-is-to-move-beyond-fossil-fuels https://www.economist.com/briefing/2018/08/02/india-shows-ho... https://thediplomat.com/2019/10/can-southeast-asia-ditch-coal/ https://thediplomat.com/2019/10/can-southeast-asia-ditch-coa... https://www.npr.org/2019/04/29/716347646/why-is-china-placing-a-global-bet-on-coal https://www.npr.org/2019/04/29/716347646/why-is-china-placin... As well as Africa: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/05/lamu-island-coal-plant-kenya-africa-climate/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/05/lamu-island-... South America, fortunately, is more mountainous and countries get by with more hydroelectric power. Countries with established gas turbine production can build gas combined cycle plants at a cheaper cost, but other countries without established aerospace industries (most countries other than Europe, and North America) would be looking at building up gas turbine production capacity largely from scratch. Response to the comment below, my work IP is getting rate limited: The articles definitely have a pro green energy stance, I don't deny that. But these articles' optimism is contradicted by the actions of the countries in question. They're building coal plants. The fact that the articles think this is a bad choice does not change this fact. Their claim that the region will see a decline in coal usage is speculative. Furthermore the fact that countries are continuing to build coal plants despite bank's reluctance to offer capital reinforces the fact that coal is the most accessible energy source for much of the world. > As for turbines, most poor countries buy their turbines (of whatever type) from rich countries Which costs more and makes them dependent on foreign countries for energy production. Hence why they choose coal.
- kragen 7y ago
  Quoting from your link: > While the region “has been a laggard” on renewable energy he points to game-changing recent developments. “The finances are shifting to green globally. Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Thailand will all pivot over the next two years.” Vietnam, for instance, has seen a surge in solar power development in the last year alone. > “No-one forecast Vietnam can do that. That’s how quickly you can pivot markets,” [sic] said Buckley. Earlier this month an auction for a solar power project in Cambodia saw the lowest power purchase tariff for solar so far in Southeast Asia. The Asian Development Bank, which supports the scheme, described it as “a new era for renewable energy development in Cambodia and the region”. > In a survey of regional leaders last year, media platform Eco-Business found “the ever-increasing risk of stranded fossil fuel assets” was another factor that would drive Southeast Asia’s transition to a greener economy. A big sign of the shifting financial backing for coal regionally came in April as three top Singapore banks said they would stop financing new coal-fired power plants. And in a June meet of Asian coal leaders in Indonesia, they talked of the difficulties of securing finances for projects. Some experts believe that the majority of proposed coal plants won’t emerge. ... > It’s a “tipping point” in Southeast Asia, said Justin Guay, director for global climate strategy at The Sunrise Project, an environmental group. “It’s the last major region on earth where we are seeing the transformation” away from coal and “it’s a question of when not if.” > “In many ways Southeast Asia reminds me of where India was five years ago,” he added. “They built a significant number of coal plants, but now they’ve got stranded assets. It’s a big problem. Southeast Asia has the opportunity to avoid that.” ...this is your evidence for nuclear power being the cheapest source of energy and coal being second? That banks are increasingly refusing to lend money to finance plant construction because already-built plants in India have become stranded assets that can't compete with solar? The NPR link is equivalently pessimistic about the future of coal plants. As for turbines, most poor countries buy their turbines (of whatever type) from rich countries.