5 ms·

I've been hearing this for decades. Yet somehow in 2022, peak coal is now in front of us again, and even at these unprecedented production levels, people are b

I've been hearing this for decades. Yet somehow in 2022, peak coal is now in front of us again, and even at these unprecedented production levels, people are buying it for over $400 per tonne. Despite the fact that solar and wind were alleged to have killed coal 10 years ago when it cost $50/tonne. Coal was completely uneconomical, they said. Coal is a stranded asset, they said. How did so many of the "experts" get it so wrong? At this point it's clear that we can't keep waiting for renewables. You think nuclear takes way longer to get online, non-hydro renewables haven't even matched existing nuclear electricity production yet. They haven't even been able to halt the rise in demand for coal, let alone kill it, 10 years after it was supposed to be dead. The best time to stop listening to anti nuclear / pro fossil fuel propaganda and save the climate was in the 70s. The second best time is now.

megaman821 4y ago
Nuclear projects aren't getting financed due to propaganda against them, it is because they are bad investments. When people are putting their own money on the line, they don't believe nuclear will be cheaper than renewables + batteries in 10 years.
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  Right, they're not getting financed because of things like government prohibitions (as in the case here) and unequal consideration making them bad or impossible investments. The propaganda is presumably to get the public to go along with it.
- PaulHoule 4y ago
  It is more that nuclear hasn't been competitive against natural gas in places that have natural gas since 1980. Betting on renewables + batteries in 2022 is like betting on the fast breeder reactor in 1955. There certainly is going to be development in batteries and other forms of storage in the next decade but we don't know where the minerals will come from, we'll have more grid scale batteries catch on fire, face more challenges siting solar farms because, as a major land use, they could affect endangered species, etc. There will be progress there but remember that decarbonization is not just replacing the current electricity grid but it also involves replacing gas appliances with electric appliances, using electricity for heat in buildings (probably with heat pumps), electric cars (that people will want to charge at night and thus require more grid storage as well as competing for battery materials), replacing industrial uses of energy, synthesizing e-fuels for aviation and other special applications, etc. Nuclear as we know it faces two problems: (1) the steam turbine and heat exchangers of the LWR are enormous such that an LWR would have a hard time competing even if the heat was free, (2) every country other than Russia has built LWRs sporadically and faced terrible project management problems; China is catching up with Russia with their Hualong One (4 completed in the past 2 years, 12 under construction now.) Long term the industry has to get rid of the water to get the temperature up so the powerset can be made more economical and you can use the heat for industrial applications such as thermochemical hydrogen, with the big plus that a reactor without a moderator can get roughly 50x the energy out of a pound of natural uranium than LWR.
- belorn 4y ago
  Grid stability is the real bad investment. In a free market we should have events where demand exceeds supply and when, and if the state didn't pump large amount of subsidies into grid stability we would see regular power outages. Those that would be hurt most by power outages would then invest into backup generators. Grid stability cost money and power companies do not want to carry that cost. It is a much better investment for them to let society carry those costs and simply produce as much energy when its most cost effective to do so.
  - kmeisthax 4y ago
    Great, except it's more expensive for everyone to run a backup generator than for power companies to overbuild capacity and bundle it into the cost of electricity. Making "society carry the costs" makes everyone poorer so that power utilities can have a thicker profit margin. There's also a related problem: once everyone is already paying the cost to purchase and operate backup power on a regular basis, they're not going to bother paying their power bills. They're just going to disconnect from the grid, because people aren't paying them for "power when its most profitable". They're paying for "power when they need it". Grid stability is the literal job of your power company, arguably moreso than power generation.
    - belorn 4y ago
      It would indeed be a more expensive grid for everyone. However customers tend to pick which ever producer has the cheapest sticker price and a large number will not consider the cost associated with potential blackouts when going into contract. Those situations tend to result in a rush to the bottom if there is no other forces involved in the market. In a market where the government guaranties stability people think they are paying for the kw/h, not power when they need it. It only if they are somehow forced to to consider "power then they need it" that they consider such thing when deciding which power company is cheapest. Which returns back to investments. If consumers will reward companies based on the cost of kw/h, and they will assume that governments take care of balancing the grid, then companies that invest in technology that produce the cheapest kw/h and ignore grid stability. The only way out would be for governments to subsidize less economical ventures but which consider grid stability.
ikt 4y ago
This is a bit like saying mp3s will never take off after napster got shut down and cd sales briefly went back up You're using a black swan event (russian invasion of ukraine) like it's a baseline of what to expect in the future, ignoring that the world has invested more money into renewables this year than ever before The world is definitely moving on from coal and gas and I reckon this coal crisis will be the last, I expect to see a lot more articles like this coming up around the world: South Australia’s remarkable 100 per cent renewables run extends to over 10 days https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-australias-remarkable-100-per-cent-renewables-run-extends-to-over-10-days/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-australias-remarkable-100-...
- tokai 4y ago
  Autocratic countries with natural resources being dangerous and unreliable is not a black swan event. That's their normal mode of operating. Russia has always been behaving like they are now. The west could just ignore Chechnya, Dagestan, Georgia, and Ukraine (the first time). This time around the west woke up and pushed back. But we could have had an energy crisis and economic warfare from multiple of the other russian conflicts. If we had minded to intervene.
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  > You're using a black swan event (russian invasion of ukraine) like it's a baseline of what to expect in the future, ignoring that the world has invested more money into renewables this year than ever before No I'm not. Coal went to record highs almost a year before Ukraine was invaded and before any disruption to fossil fuel exports from the region, and many many years after renewables were said to have killed it. Do you really not remember? Stranded assets? Coal is not price competitive at $50/tonne? > The world is definitely moving on from coal and gas and I reckon this coal crisis will be the last, I expect to see a lot more articles like this coming up around the world: Not moving on, as record production and demand shows. Will one day in the future move on and won't move back, hopefully according to experts and random internet commentators who said it was definitely dead 10 years ago -- is not going to cut it for climate change though. We obviously need more baskets to put the eggs into. > South Australia’s remarkable 100 per cent renewables run extends to over 10 days One tiny state with almost unlimited solar and wind resources in one small country? That's great. Doesn't change the fact that we've run out of time waiting for wind and solar and they've still barely cracked 10% globally yet. That's it's also hilariously weasel worded -- obviously that state is still burning a lot of gas to generate electricity. Strange why they don't feel they can be honest and up front with the public, why are they still trying to fool people about those things? Doesn't really lend a lot of credibility or confidence to what they're selling.

megaman821 4y ago

Nuclear projects aren't getting financed due to propaganda against them, it is because they are bad investments. When people are putting their own money on the line, they don't believe nuclear will be cheaper than renewables + batteries in 10 years.

throwawaylinux 4y ago
Right, they're not getting financed because of things like government prohibitions (as in the case here) and unequal consideration making them bad or impossible investments. The propaganda is presumably to get the public to go along with it.
PaulHoule 4y ago
It is more that nuclear hasn't been competitive against natural gas in places that have natural gas since 1980. Betting on renewables + batteries in 2022 is like betting on the fast breeder reactor in 1955. There certainly is going to be development in batteries and other forms of storage in the next decade but we don't know where the minerals will come from, we'll have more grid scale batteries catch on fire, face more challenges siting solar farms because, as a major land use, they could affect endangered species, etc. There will be progress there but remember that decarbonization is not just replacing the current electricity grid but it also involves replacing gas appliances with electric appliances, using electricity for heat in buildings (probably with heat pumps), electric cars (that people will want to charge at night and thus require more grid storage as well as competing for battery materials), replacing industrial uses of energy, synthesizing e-fuels for aviation and other special applications, etc. Nuclear as we know it faces two problems: (1) the steam turbine and heat exchangers of the LWR are enormous such that an LWR would have a hard time competing even if the heat was free, (2) every country other than Russia has built LWRs sporadically and faced terrible project management problems; China is catching up with Russia with their Hualong One (4 completed in the past 2 years, 12 under construction now.) Long term the industry has to get rid of the water to get the temperature up so the powerset can be made more economical and you can use the heat for industrial applications such as thermochemical hydrogen, with the big plus that a reactor without a moderator can get roughly 50x the energy out of a pound of natural uranium than LWR.
belorn 4y ago
Grid stability is the real bad investment. In a free market we should have events where demand exceeds supply and when, and if the state didn't pump large amount of subsidies into grid stability we would see regular power outages. Those that would be hurt most by power outages would then invest into backup generators. Grid stability cost money and power companies do not want to carry that cost. It is a much better investment for them to let society carry those costs and simply produce as much energy when its most cost effective to do so.
- kmeisthax 4y ago
  Great, except it's more expensive for everyone to run a backup generator than for power companies to overbuild capacity and bundle it into the cost of electricity. Making "society carry the costs" makes everyone poorer so that power utilities can have a thicker profit margin. There's also a related problem: once everyone is already paying the cost to purchase and operate backup power on a regular basis, they're not going to bother paying their power bills. They're just going to disconnect from the grid, because people aren't paying them for "power when its most profitable". They're paying for "power when they need it". Grid stability is the literal job of your power company, arguably moreso than power generation.
  - belorn 4y ago
    It would indeed be a more expensive grid for everyone. However customers tend to pick which ever producer has the cheapest sticker price and a large number will not consider the cost associated with potential blackouts when going into contract. Those situations tend to result in a rush to the bottom if there is no other forces involved in the market. In a market where the government guaranties stability people think they are paying for the kw/h, not power when they need it. It only if they are somehow forced to to consider "power then they need it" that they consider such thing when deciding which power company is cheapest. Which returns back to investments. If consumers will reward companies based on the cost of kw/h, and they will assume that governments take care of balancing the grid, then companies that invest in technology that produce the cheapest kw/h and ignore grid stability. The only way out would be for governments to subsidize less economical ventures but which consider grid stability.

ikt 4y ago

This is a bit like saying mp3s will never take off after napster got shut down and cd sales briefly went back up You're using a black swan event (russian invasion of ukraine) like it's a baseline of what to expect in the future, ignoring that the world has invested more money into renewables this year than ever before The world is definitely moving on from coal and gas and I reckon this coal crisis will be the last, I expect to see a lot more articles like this coming up around the world: South Australia’s remarkable 100 per cent renewables run extends to over 10 days https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-australias-remarkable-100-per-cent-renewables-run-extends-to-over-10-days/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-australias-remarkable-100-...

tokai 4y ago
Autocratic countries with natural resources being dangerous and unreliable is not a black swan event. That's their normal mode of operating. Russia has always been behaving like they are now. The west could just ignore Chechnya, Dagestan, Georgia, and Ukraine (the first time). This time around the west woke up and pushed back. But we could have had an energy crisis and economic warfare from multiple of the other russian conflicts. If we had minded to intervene.
throwawaylinux 4y ago
> You're using a black swan event (russian invasion of ukraine) like it's a baseline of what to expect in the future, ignoring that the world has invested more money into renewables this year than ever before No I'm not. Coal went to record highs almost a year before Ukraine was invaded and before any disruption to fossil fuel exports from the region, and many many years after renewables were said to have killed it. Do you really not remember? Stranded assets? Coal is not price competitive at $50/tonne? > The world is definitely moving on from coal and gas and I reckon this coal crisis will be the last, I expect to see a lot more articles like this coming up around the world: Not moving on, as record production and demand shows. Will one day in the future move on and won't move back, hopefully according to experts and random internet commentators who said it was definitely dead 10 years ago -- is not going to cut it for climate change though. We obviously need more baskets to put the eggs into. > South Australia’s remarkable 100 per cent renewables run extends to over 10 days One tiny state with almost unlimited solar and wind resources in one small country? That's great. Doesn't change the fact that we've run out of time waiting for wind and solar and they've still barely cracked 10% globally yet. That's it's also hilariously weasel worded -- obviously that state is still burning a lot of gas to generate electricity. Strange why they don't feel they can be honest and up front with the public, why are they still trying to fool people about those things? Doesn't really lend a lot of credibility or confidence to what they're selling.