Can we get away from coal yet?

[DisgruntledVirus]

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/03/counting-the-cost-the-hidden-price-of-coal-power.ars

Suggests that coal has an cost that isn't factored in to the cost of it. They suggest that coal has an additional 9 cent/kwhr at minimum, but more likely closer to 17 cent/kwhr in addition to the current costs. That puts even the expensive nuclear into a cheaper alternative...

 

[Rubycon]

How ironic is this?
I clicked on that and Sting - We Work The Black Seam is playing on the house system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDYGlDV4ldo

:awe:

 

[NetWareHead]

I'm planning to heat my house and make all my hot water with coal so I couldn't disagree more. Mine more of it. Costs per ton of coal is excellent compared with price of heating oil per gallon.

 

[mmntech]

Coal is still relatively cheap, which is why it's used so much especially in developing countries like China.

It's renewable energy that has the highest hidden costs. Wind and solar are unreliable and have low return in investment. Mainly because you need massive facilities to produce enough usable electricity. Governments thus have to implement massive subsidies to get land owner to put up windmills and solar farms. IIRC, Ontario gives landowners 70 cents/kWh, and hydro rates have skyrocketed as a result. A lot of resource industries have left for Quebec and elsewhere as they rely on cheap and abundant electricity supplies. Especially for smelting. Renewable energy has been a disaster in a lot of European countries as well.

 

[calvinbiss]

There MUST be reliable generation to support the grids for renewables to even exist. Coal fired plants can be large, are very reliable and use a fuel source that is not used elsewhere (compared to natural gas or oil).
Cost to construct a new plant of similar size, highest to lowest: Nuclear, Coal, Gas
Cost to operate a plant of similar size, highest to lowest: Gas, Coal, Nuclear

Nuclear is a clear winner when it comes to clean, safe, reliable base load power for the grid but people have a irrational fear of it, primarily because it ends up in the news. Therefore building a nuclear plant is near impossible due to regs. Gas is too costly and the market is to volatile. Therefore coal is the best choice and a modern plant can be very clean.

How do you suggest we power this growing nation?

 

[lxskllr]

Coal is still relatively cheap, which is why it's used so much especially in developing countries like China.

It isn't "cheap", that's the point. It's only cheap if you don't care about your environment. Shitting in the corner of your house is "cheaper" than buying sewage service, but numerous costs will have to be paid at some point, and it's usually paid by a greater number of people, not just those directly involved.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Coal is still relatively cheap, which is why it's used so much especially in developing countries like China.

It's renewable energy that has the highest hidden costs. Wind and solar are unreliable and have low return in investment. Mainly because you need massive facilities to produce enough usable electricity. Governments thus have to implement massive subsidies to get land owner to put up windmills and solar farms. IIRC, Ontario gives landowners 70 cents/kWh, and hydro rates have skyrocketed as a result. A lot of resource industries have left for Quebec and elsewhere as they rely on cheap and abundant electricity supplies. Especially for smelting. Renewable energy has been a disaster in a lot of European countries as well.

No. Coal has some of the highest externalities in terms of harm done to the environment and people. The amount of pollutants, carcinogens, and radiation released into the environment by coal plants is basically unmatched by any other source of power.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Coal is getting cleaner when required. Countries like China are not interested in the cost added to have cleaner systems.

If people do not want nuclear; then you have natural gas or hydro that has to be used to support the base grid. Solar and wind are not consistent enough. Hydro is expensive now and the tree huggers worry about placing generators offshore.

 

[calvinbiss]

It isn't "cheap", that's the point. It's only cheap if you don't care about your environment. Shitting in the corner of your house is "cheaper" than buying sewage service, but numerous costs will have to be paid at some point, and it's usually paid by a greater number of people, not just those directly involved.

Un-accounted for costs for other power sources:
Wind - Kills birds/bats, can only be deployed in windy areas, real-estate required, needs reliable back-up power
Nuclear - mining of ore, refining of ore, storage of waste
Gas - Drilling, fracturing of geologic structures and the water use/pollution, refining, transporting (pipe lines)
Solar - habitat destruction, can only be deployed in sun-energy dense areas, real estate (a lot!!) required, needs reliable back-up power, battery costs (future)

Seriously, there is no real argument here. Obviously the destruction of habitat sucks, but what are you going to do, start rationing power?

 

[lxskllr]

Seriously, there is no real argument here. Obviously the destruction of habitat sucks, but what are you going to do, start rationing power?

No. you charge the real value of the energy, and people will self ration. I can't see stars at night because the local car dealership keeps every light they own turned on. It's so bright, I can read inside my house when it's snowing, with no lights on in the house. They're about 2,500' away from my house, and behind a stand of trees. If energy was billed at its true rate, they'd turn some lights off. When petrol prices go up, people don't drive as much, and the vehicles they do drive are more sensible.

There isn't any single replacement for energy. Several technologies need to be used, including fossil fuel, but they need to have the correct cost applied. $1.85 per gallon gasoline, and $10,000,000 to clean up the local water supply when a tank leaks. How much did that petrol really cost, and who paid for it?

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Un-accounted for costs for other power sources:
Wind - Kills birds/bats, can only be deployed in windy areas, real-estate required, needs reliable back-up power
Nuclear - mining of ore, refining of ore, storage of waste
Gas - Drilling, fracturing of geologic structures and the water use/pollution, refining, transporting (pipe lines)
Solar - habitat destruction, can only be deployed in sun-energy dense areas, real estate (a lot!!) required, needs reliable back-up power, battery costs (future)

Seriously, there is no real argument here. Obviously the destruction of habitat sucks, but what are you going to do, start rationing power?

The externalities of the viable sources of power (wind, gas, nuclear) pale in comparison to coal. The sheer pollutant output of coal would shoot the real price of using coal 50 fold.

Combining many different technologies is the real preferable alternative. Wind for the midwest, nuclear for the easy and west, natural gas for general usage.

 

[Fausto]

Change laws pertaining to re-enrichment in the US.

Build more nuke plants (not near the shore, not near fault lines).

????

Profit.

 

[SP33Demon]

Considering the US is sitting on one of, if not the largest, coal reserve in the world it would make sense to find a way to harness such power. Unfortunately partisan legislation will never get it done.

 

[calvinbiss]

Electricity providers price their energy based on what it cost them to generate/purchase power, transmit the power and add some margin. Power generators monitor very closely what it costs them to generate power, and many are required to provide verifiable costs to the grid regulator. A portion of the cost to generate this power is obviously fuel and therefore is based on what the fuel providers cost is.

If the coal miners are willing to deliver coal to a plant at a cheap price, are you expecting the plant then to incorporate extra dollars into their selling price to account for these environmental costs? Of course not, because in a capitalist market, the plant would be pricing themselves out.
Do you expect the energy delivery company to incorporate extra dollars into their selling price to account for these environmental costs? Of course not, because in a deregulated market, the the customer would simply choose another provider.

As for the car dealership, its all about incentive. The dealership has an incentive to leave their lights on (for many reasons: discourage theft/vandalism, showcase their product, etc). I am willing to bet that the energy price would have to be 1000x greater for them to think differently. If that were the case, then the average citizen could never afford to power their house. What would you be saying then? I know, electricity prices are to high, we need to do something to bring them down.

 

[Ken g6]

Solar - habitat destruction, can only be deployed in sun-energy dense areas, real estate (a lot!!) required, needs reliable back-up power, battery costs (future)

You have to separate solar PV from solar thermal.

Solar PV:
habitat destruction: Not if deployed on existing structures.
can only be deployed in sun-energy dense areas: False. Many places that don't get a whole lot of sun use solar PV.
real estate (a lot!!) required: Not if deployed on existing structures.
needs reliable back-up power: True
battery costs (future): Only if not grid-connected. (Most systems are.)

Solar thermal:
habitat destruction: Possible.
can only be deployed in sun-energy dense areas: True.
real estate (a lot!!) required: True.
needs reliable back-up power: False! Solar thermal systems can store energy in molten salt for hours.
battery costs (future): False.

 

[ElFenix]

Un-accounted for costs for other power sources:
Wind - Kills birds/bats, can only be deployed in windy areas, real-estate required, needs reliable back-up power

being deployed in windy areas isn't a cost, it's a limitation. real estate is most certainly accounted for, and back up power is at least partly factored in.

Nuclear - mining of ore, refining of ore, storage of waste

we're already paying for all those. there may be additional externalities not accounted for buy you haven't listed them.

Gas - Drilling, fracturing of geologic structures and the water use/pollution, refining, transporting (pipe lines)

drilling, refining, and transporting direct costs are already accounted for.

Solar - habitat destruction, can only be deployed in sun-energy dense areas, real estate (a lot!!) required, needs reliable back-up power, battery costs (future)

see wind

Seriously, there is no real argument here. Obviously the destruction of habitat sucks, but what are you going to do, start rationing power?

power already is rationed by the market.

China are not interested in the cost added to have cleaner systems.

actually china is. clean technology push is a major feature of their current Five Year Plan. in part because they can sell it elsewhere of course. and they are, they have licensees in north america.

 

[calvinbiss]

You have to separate solar PV from solar thermal.

Solar PV:
habitat destruction: Not if deployed on existing structures.
can only be deployed in sun-energy dense areas: False. Many places that don't get a whole lot of sun use solar PV.
real estate (a lot!!) required: Not if deployed on existing structures.
needs reliable back-up power: True
battery costs (future): Only if not grid-connected. (Most systems are.)

Solar thermal:
habitat destruction: Possible.
can only be deployed in sun-energy dense areas: True.
real estate (a lot!!) required: True.
needs reliable back-up power: False! Solar thermal systems can store energy in molten salt for hours.
battery costs (future): False.

These are good points. However, PVs are very inefficient and it is difficult (although doable) to manage distributed generation such as PV deployment on multiple buildings throughout a city.

 

[calvinbiss]

power already is rationed by the market.

What do you mean?

And as far as windy areas - the additional cost based on this limitation is the transmission infrastructure, as most of these areas are sparsely inhabitant locales with no high capacity transmission.

 

[zinfamous]

It isn't "cheap", that's the point. It's only cheap if you don't care about your environment. Shitting in the corner of your house is "cheaper" than buying sewage service, but numerous costs will have to be paid at some point, and it's usually paid by a greater number of people, not just those directly involved.

:thumbsup:

 

[ElFenix]

What do you mean?

at its core, rationing is a way to distribute scarce goods. when government does it, it's a set allotment based on whatever factors the government chooses. when the market does it, the allotment is based on price. electricity is a scarce good and so the market rations it.

And as far as windy areas - the additional cost based on this limitation is the transmission infrastructure, as most of these areas are sparsely inhabitant locales with no high capacity transmission.

yes, and power customers get billed for that because building out infrastructure is a direct cost to the utility. therefore, it's not an externality. which is the discussion in the OP.

 

[Ken g6]

http://www.ieer.org/reports/renewableminnesota/

Looks like the answer to the OP's question is yes!