Climate News - The Good The Bad and The Ugly

[Paratus]

The Good:
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/04/new-era-of-solar-power-is-now-upon-us-iea-says.html
The IEA says solar installs increased 50% last year, was the number one energy source for new installments, and the cost has halved in the last 3 years and is expected to halve again in the next 3. Most new installs were in China, the US, and India.

The Bad:
https://slate.com/business/2017/10/...es-miami-another-taste-of-climate-change.html
Miami is back underwater and not from another hurricane but from Kingtide clear sky flooding. Every year now Miami floods during the highest tides of the year thanks in large part due to sea level rise.

They are currently trying to pass $0.5B in bonds and tax increase to pay for mitigation and adaption efforts.

The Ugly:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...ule-to-make-grid-managers-favor-coal-nuclear/
Ready to pay more for energy? Rick Perry hopes so. Based on a rule from the 70's he's asking FERC to allow power plants that have 90 days or more of fuel on hand to raise rates to be "profitable". This would allow coal and nuclear plants to charge more. Natural gas and renewables (and the consumers!) would be the losers in this situation. Needless to say the oil and gas industry and the renewable industry are pissed.

I'm sure though that everyone is on board with paying more to help out the coal industry. /s

 

[ivwshane]

I'm just curious if Republicans ever actually put people first before their party and before corporate profits. They sure talk a lot about it but their actions never match their rhetoric. I have no idea how your average informed citizen supports Republicans at all

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I'm certainly not a subject matter expert on this but wouldn't requiring 3 months worth of fuel supply be a good safety thing after a crisis and wouldn't it just average the overall rates to acquire the fuel?
Again I don't want to act like I'm an expert at this.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Ready to pay more for energy? Rick Perry hopes so. Based on a rule from the 70's he's asking FERC to allow power plants that have 90 days or more of fuel on hand to raise rates to be "profitable". This would allow coal and nuclear plants to charge more. Natural gas and renewables (and the consumers!) would be the losers in this situation. Needless to say the oil and gas industry and the renewable industry are pissed.

Beyond being extremely disingenuous of him, the courts should agree, and stipulate that the potential energy of the sun, and of the rivers/air currents give renewable sources this status in perpetuity.

 

[K1052]

I'm certainly not a subject matter expert on this but wouldn't requiring 3 months worth of fuel supply be a good safety thing after a crisis and wouldn't it just average the overall rates to acquire the fuel?
Again I don't want to act like I'm an expert at this.

I'm having trouble figuring out what crisis would leave such a fuel stockpile useful but not destroy the grid you need to get power from the plant to people.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I'm having trouble figuring out what crisis would leave such a fuel stockpile useful but not destroy the grid you need to get power from the plant to people.

I'm talking like a sea port gets messed up or more likely some kind of oil crisis again
*I know we produce a shit ton more oil because of fracking*

 

[K1052]

I'm talking like a sea port gets messed up or more likely some kind of oil crisis again
*I know we produce a shit ton more oil because of fracking*

That's why we have the strategic petroleum reserve.

Also very little oil is used to generate electricity.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

That's why we have the strategic petroleum reserve.

Also very little oil is used to generate electricity.

I know I'm being vague about a disaster because you don't know it happens until it happens.
I guess paying a little extra for electricity for a little extra reserve doesn't sound like a bad idea to me. Plus the extra cost will just accelerate solar.

 

[K1052]

I know I'm being vague about a disaster because you don't know it happens until it happens.
I guess paying a little extra for electricity for a little extra reserve doesn't sound like a bad idea to me. Plus the extra cost will just accelerate solar.

This is solely a move to prop up the nuclear and coal heavy utilities, a subsidy in the name of reliability which doesn't actually do anything to increase reliability in any conceivable scenario.

There is growing concern that these moves could actually collapse some of the wholesale power markets.

 

[Jaskalas]

I'm just curious if Republicans ever actually put people first before their party and before corporate profits. They sure talk a lot about it but their actions never match their rhetoric. I have no idea how your average informed citizen supports Republicans at all

God... Perry wants to "save coal" by raising the price of energy. Not only is that bad for people, it won't even work.

Automobile comes along, but it's okay... you can charge more for horses! Yay us?

 

[Paratus]

This is solely a move to prop up the nuclear and coal heavy utilities, a subsidy in the name of reliability which doesn't actually do anything to increase reliability in any conceivable scenario.

There is growing concern that these moves could actually collapse some of the wholesale power markets.

My guess is while this does prop up the nuclear industry it was the coal industry they were targeting and nuclear makes convent cover. Much like how Hawaii was added to Alaska in the last deal to end Obamacare.

 

[K1052]

My guess is while this does prop up the nuclear industry it was the coal industry they were targeting and nuclear makes convent cover. Much like how Hawaii was added to Alaska in the last deal to end Obamacare.

The nuke guys are also under pressure from increasing costs and flat/falling power prices, they've been working the states over more though to provide rate support than lobbying on the federal level. Having them next to the coal guys does improve the optics though.

 

[K1052]

God... Perry wants to "save coal" by raising the price of energy. Not only is that bad for people, it won't even work.

Automobile comes along, but it's okay... you can charge more for horses! Yay us?

Probably worse for the industry it will push populous states that want clean energy into more aggressive renewable standards/efforts to cut coal out of their generation portfolio and imports. A ham handed attempt to save the coal industry may in fact deliver the coupe de grace.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Ugly? Yes, because nuclear is such a horrible contributor to CO2 pollution. Fucking derp.

 

[brycejones]

Ugly? Yes, because nuclear is such a horrible contributor to CO2 pollution. Fucking derp.

Sums up your post nicely.

 

[Thebobo]

Ugly? Yes, because nuclear is such a horrible contributor to CO2 pollution. Fucking derp.

I know you are but what am I

 

[soulcougher73]

I'm just curious if Republicans ever actually put people first before their party and before corporate profits. They sure talk a lot about it but their actions never match their rhetoric. I have no idea how your average informed citizen supports Republicans at all

Don't forget they also are the family value/moral hypocrites on top of that as well. It seems on any topic its do as i say, not as i do.

 

[Zorba]

So if I understand it right, basically coal plants could charge more for wholesale power. But if they started charging more for wholesale power, it'd make it easier for gas turbines and renewables to undercut them. Over time grid operators would stop buying base power from them and they'd have to lower their rates again out go out of business.

I think acting like hydro would benefit is also disingenuous, considering almost all hydro is peaking, not base.

 

[K1052]

So if I understand it right, basically coal plants could charge more for wholesale power. But if they started charging more for wholesale power, it'd make it easier for gas turbines and renewables to undercut them. Over time grid operators would stop buying base power from them and they'd have to lower their rates again out go out of business.

I think acting like hydro would benefit is also disingenuous, considering almost all hydro is peaking, not base.

Basically yea. I think that this is a terrible idea for the coal industry since, unlike the quiet loosening of environmental regulations, this will hit utilities and their customers in the pocket where everybody is gonna notice. There will be little incentive to purchase power from an artificially more costly wholesale market when you can build or buy via agreement cheaper power from NG/renewable facilities.

 

[Thebobo]

Basically yea. I think that this is a terrible idea for the coal industry since, unlike the quiet loosening of environmental regulations, this will hit utilities and their customers in the pocket where everybody is gonna notice. There will be little incentive to purchase power from an artificially more costly wholesale market when you can build or buy via agreement cheaper power from NG/renewable facilities.

Rather it hit my wallet then my lungs. More lung disease means more health care costs means more bankrupt people and more money for the insurance corporations, it's a win win for Trump!

 

[ivwshane]

Basically yea. I think that this is a terrible idea for the coal industry since, unlike the quiet loosening of environmental regulations, this will hit utilities and their customers in the pocket where everybody is gonna notice. There will be little incentive to purchase power from an artificially more costly wholesale market when you can build or buy via agreement cheaper power from NG/renewable facilities.

Do people typically have more than one option for their power (other than personal power generation)?

 

[Zorba]

Basically yea. I think that this is a terrible idea for the coal industry since, unlike the quiet loosening of environmental regulations, this will hit utilities and their customers in the pocket where everybody is gonna notice. There will be little incentive to purchase power from an artificially more costly wholesale market when you can build or buy via agreement cheaper power from NG/renewable facilities.

Whats interesting, in Oklahoma, I am able to be on 100% wind power for less than no wind power. I am pretty my city's normal contract is with a coal plant. Basically the base rate is the same wind/coal but the "fuel surcharge" is higher for coal than wind. Its ironic that in the middle of Oil and Gas country, my utility has to limit the amount of wind power it sells because there isn't enough capacity to meet the demand.

So here coal already can't compete with wind, but they are going to make it worse. (To be fair, the "wind power" are wind credits)

 

[Zorba]

Do people typically have more than one option for their power (other than personal power generation)?

Utilities and grid operators do. They choose which plants they buy their power from and when to buy it. In de-regulated states, people can also choose their utility. So if one utility can charge less because they use NG generation vs coal, they'd steal more customers.

 

[K1052]

Whats interesting, in Oklahoma, I am able to be on 100% wind power for less than no wind power. I am pretty my city's normal contract is with a coal plant. Basically the base rate is the same wind/coal but the "fuel surcharge" is higher for coal than wind. Its ironic that in the middle of Oil and Gas country, my utility has to limit the amount of wind power it sells because there isn't enough capacity to meet the demand.

So here coal already can't compete with wind, but they are going to make it worse. (To be fair, the "wind power" are wind credits)

This is why nobody is building new coal plants, it's simply uneconomical. Even a large part of the current fleet looses money.

Yes wind gets the PTC but coal enjoys a lot of indirect subsidies like cheap government mine leases and lax oversight on waste products. Going to be interesting to watch the politics of this pay out. Not at all sure the Rs from gas and wind heavy areas are going to be cool with this. The PTC was supposed to phase out in a couple years but his could revive it as great plaines states look out for their interests.

 

[Moonbeam]

Ugly? Yes, because nuclear is such a horrible contributor to CO2 pollution. Fucking derp.

Find derp was’t very nice, but I think many liberals support nuclear because of the low CO2 thingi, but it is morally wrong to create machines that if they fail can leave waste that can kill for thousands of years. That kind of hubris is evil.