Natural gas prices, not 'war on coal,' were key to coal power decline: study

May 3, 2018 by Matt Shipman, North Carolina State University
Credit: Ian Muttoo. Shared under a Creative Commons license

New research from North Carolina State University and the University of Colorado Boulder finds that steep declines in the use of coal for power generation over the past decade were caused largely by less expensive natural gas and the availability of wind energy – not by environmental regulations.

"From 2008 to 2013, coal dropped from about 50 percent of U.S. to around 30 percent," says Harrison Fell, an associate professor of resource economics at NC State and co-lead author of a paper on the work.

"Coal boosters blamed stiffer regulations, calling it a 'war on coal.' But that same time period saw a steep drop in the cost of natural gas and an increase in wind . We wanted to know how big a role each of these factors played in driving down the demand for coal."

To answer this question, the researchers looked at how much of their daily power generation were using in four power transmission regions from the beginning of 2008 to the end of 2013. The four power regions – the Electric Reliability Corporation of Texas (ERCOT), the Southwest Power Pool, the Midcontinent Independent System Operator and PJM Interconnection (PJM) – spread across more than 20 states.

Consistent with national declines, coal plants in all four regions used much less of their power capacity in 2013 than in 2008. Similarly, the price of natural gas dropped in all four regions, and the amount of available increased.

The researchers then created a model that accounted for an array of variables, such as daily power demand, and ran it to see how power use would have changed in 2008 if gas had been available at 2013 prices and wind power had been available at 2013 levels.

"This work uses the observed data – capacity factors, fuel prices, power demand and so on – to make predictions about how capacity factors are affected by different variables," Fell says. "In short, we can get a good idea of what influences the extent to which we use coal power generation."

And what the researchers found was that, if in 2008 had been available at 2013 prices and wind power had been available at 2013 levels, coal power use would have dropped significantly compared to what was observed in 2008. In fact, these predicted "counterfactual" 2008 capacity usages were similar to observed 2013 capacity usages. This suggests the so-called "war on coal" regulations were not the driver of the coal generation decline over this period.

"If the 'war on coal' was what drove down power generation, our econometric models would not have predicted a drop in coal use caused by changes in gas and ," Fell says. "But they did. It looks like the changes in production were actually driven largely by capitalism."

The paper, "The Fall of Coal: Joint Impacts of Fuel Prices and Renewables on Generation and Emissions," is published online in the American Economic Journal: Economic Policy.

Explore further: Why this summer might be a test for the Texas electric grid

More information: Harrison Fell et al. The Fall of Coal: Joint Impacts of Fuel Prices and Renewables on Generation and Emissions, American Economic Journal: Economic Policy (2018). DOI: 10.1257/pol.20150321

Related Stories

Why this summer might be a test for the Texas electric grid

April 30, 2018

Summer is fast approaching here in Texas, and even if it is a mild one, it will be hot. Once again we'll walk from our air-conditioned houses to our air-conditioned cars to our air-conditioned parking garages to our air-conditioned ...

European power plants boosting coal use

April 24, 2008

High oil and natural gas prices, coupled with increased demand, are driving Europe's return to coal-fired power plants, an industry official says.

Recommended for you

Printing microelectrode array sensors on gummi candy

June 22, 2018

Microelectrodes can be used for direct measurement of electrical signals in the brain or heart. These applications require soft materials, however. With existing methods, attaching electrodes to such materials poses significant ...

EU copyright law passes key hurdle

June 20, 2018

A highly disputed European copyright law that could force online platforms such as Google and Facebook to pay for links to news content passed a key hurdle in the European Parliament on Wednesday.

89 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

barakn
5 / 5 (8) May 03, 2018
It bears repeating:
It looks like the changes in coal power production were actually driven largely by capitalism.
WillieWard
2.1 / 5 (15) May 03, 2018
"...largely by less expensive natural gas and the availability of wind energy..."
"...steep drop in the cost of natural gas and an increase in wind generation..."
"...the price of natural gas dropped in all four regions, and the amount of available wind power increased..."
Natural gas(methane/fracking) can power whole states without wind/solar, but wind/solar cannot power even a small city without gas.
Conclusion: wind/solar are just to provide "greenwashing" for natural gas in order to displace coal, and carbon-free nuclear energy which is a crime in the face of Climate Change.

"If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?" - Apr 2018
https://www.forbe...pensive/
https://www.forbe...reasons/
mackita
2 / 5 (4) May 03, 2018
If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive
I'm explaining it here again and again. It's sorta embarrassing when guy from former socialistic country teaches western people born in capitalism how to think economically, but this is the situation which they're living in by now. BTW the way in which USA handled their Medicare reform wasn't any better: instead of making health care more accessible this reform has made it even more expensive than before. They're as naive in their introduction of socialism as we were naive in our re-introduction of capitalism.
mackita
1.5 / 5 (2) May 03, 2018
Has economics failed? It hasn't just failed - it became corrupted in similar way, like the science, politics or health care. In this context the reading of articles The era of expert failure by Arnold Kling, Why experts are usually wrong by David H. Freeman and Why the experts missed the crash by Phill Tetlock may be useful.
mackita
3 / 5 (2) May 03, 2018
According the simple and straightforward economy of Gaël Giraud (who dissents from widespread proponents of various governmental subsidizes from good reason) the price of goods or technology just expresses the amount of physical energy exerted into it. According to this paradigm it doesn't matter how smart you are and how clever and "clean" your energy technology looks like: until it's more expensive than fossil fuel energy, then it also consumes more energy on background and it must be subsidized by economy based on cheaper technology (guess which one it is) - which also means, it increases the consumption of fossil fuels on background. In similar way, it doesn't matter how advanced your electric car is: once its ownership and operation consumes more money that gasoline car, then it's electric car which wastes the natural resources and fossil fuels - not classical one. And so on..
humy
4.1 / 5 (14) May 03, 2018
Natural gas(methane/fracking) can power whole states without wind/solar, but wind/solar cannot power even a small city without gas.

WillieWard

Why not? Haven't you heard of energy storage and/or the supergrid?
Of course it MUST necessarily be possible to power whole states with wind/solar/nuclear/hydroeletric/etc !
There is no law of physics against it and no reason to think it is impossible. Please don't lie.
greenonions1
4.6 / 5 (9) May 03, 2018
Willie and by extension humy
but wind/solar cannot power even a small city without gas


Willie can't hardly read humy - let alone follow an argument. I can show Willie a small city -
making this city of 1,300 the first and only in the nation to run completely on wind power
That directly contradicts his above quote - https://abcnews.g...p;page=1 I can also show 5 cities in the U.S. that are run totally on renewables - https://edgylabs....y-cities
Or 100 cities globally that are run primarily on renewables - https://insidecli...olutions
Or a country (Scotland ) that is on track to be run 100% by renewables in 2 years - http://www.greenm...20-solar

None of that will make a dent in Willies religion (cont)
greenonions1
4.6 / 5 (9) May 03, 2018
cont - So Willie cannot show us one city or country that is run 100% on nuclear. So why this obsession with having to run 100% on wind? It is just a diversion - cuz the world does not fit Willie's religion. There is no reason to want a city to be run on 100% wind - that would be dumb. The idea is to run our world on 100% low carbon fuel sources. What is happening now is a transition. We are shutting down the worst offenders (coal) - and building out better. Gas is better than coal - and a legacy technology. Hydro is a legacy technology - but comes with many of its own issues - so will probably not expand much as we go forward.
Wind/solar/biomass/wave/tidal are all much newer technologies - and going through their own growth curves. I support nukes in theory - but they are currently hampered by cost issues. I think with the right investments - that MAY be surmountable. For now - wind and solar are winning on price - and for some reason - Willie hates reality...
Parsec
5 / 5 (6) May 03, 2018
Capitalism has always been the real hope for climate change mitigation. We simply need to make sure that all costs are borne by current customers equally, and realistically. For example, the health costs of mercury contamination from coal plants must be borne by the coal producer, not the public. Just a single example in true and realistic accounting of costs.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (9) May 03, 2018
So basically the fuelish lied again, and there wasn't any "war on coal." No surprise, I suppose; they lie every time they think they can get away with it. Just like @WillieWart.
rrwillsj
5 / 5 (4) May 03, 2018
Parsec, where that mythical capitalism fails? Is the depressing fact that the Wall Street Casino is a rigged game. Insuring that the Capitalists win and everybody else loses.

The moral imperative you desire? That the producers of poisonous pollutants accept financial responsibility for mitigating the damages they cause?

Is a lost cause! You are tilting against the windmills of politician's constant need for campaign contributions. Corruption speaks louder than all the rest of us.

greenonions1
3.9 / 5 (7) May 03, 2018
Parsec
Capitalism has always been the real hope for climate change mitigation
I can't agree with you premise Parsec. Yes - a decentralized system of resource allocation is certainly - in general - preferable to some centralized system like communism. These are not the only two choices. Capitalism has brought a lot of bad stuff with it - such as environmental devastation. Capitalism does not recognize problems like pollution, child labor, unfair labor practices, poverty, wealth inequality, an others. Some scientists believe it is already too late - https://www.natur...rol.html - while others think we have time to pull back from the brink. Capitalism is not going to pull us out of this nose dive - we need collective action. Paris is not even a half measure. But we take what we can get - and renewables being the cheapest energy source - is perhaps reason for hope.
mackita
3 / 5 (2) May 03, 2018
Capitalism has always been the real hope for climate change mitigation
I beg to disagree - the socialism is traditionally more rewarding platform for ad hoced large scale experiments. Not accidentally the "climate change mitigation" is mostly the matter of liberals and openly socialistic European Union. It's natural domain of state capitalism (aka Elon Musk and others), which profits mostly from governmental subsidizes which didn't pass the free market scrutiny and as such it's prone to ideological bias.
Ken_Fabian
4.3 / 5 (6) May 03, 2018
Renewables with gas backup is a step in the right direction, ie towards less reliance on fossil fuels and less emissions. A step, not the last step, but one we can take from where we are now rather than stepping out from a mythical place where whole-of-problem solutions - with full costings - hang out.

Where wind and solar are periodically the least cost energy that very intermittency can induce the de-facto carbon price on fossil fuel plants by accident that no-one could bring themselves to do on purpose. Other generation has to be commercially viable outside the windy and the sunny times whilst staking a loss during those periods. It makes the less energy they do supply more expensive overall and it means ultimately it is not wind and solar they have to compete directly with but with hydro, batteries/other storage and demand management. It will catch nuclear out too, just not on purpose - if low emissions is the purpose.
mackita
3 / 5 (4) May 03, 2018
Capitalism does not recognize problems like pollution, child labor, unfair labor practices, poverty, wealth inequality, an others.
That's right but socialism misaddresses them instead. We don't need more liberals or conservatives - but pragmatists who are really focused to solving of problems and not just to the ways how to profit and parasite on them. The people who are leading frog&mice battles about what's better are mislead: the actual solution is completely else - and it's ignored by all anchors of political compass from good reasons, because ideologists have a good reason to ignore them. The "socialistic" scientists payed from taxes from fear of lost their grants, the "conservative" capitalists due to protection of investments into fossil fuel infrastructure and the "progressive" state entrepreneurs from fear of lost new lucrative contracts in "renewable green" industry.
mackita
2.3 / 5 (3) May 03, 2018
Renewables with gas backup is a step in the right direction, ie towards less reliance on fossil fuels and less emissions
Except that the consumption of fossil fuels still grows in both absolute, but - what's worse - even in relative numbers. The people who are saying that renewables lead to less reliance on fossil fuel fuels forgot to validate their thesis by actual numbers. The problem of renewables simply is, they're more expensive because they're more demanding to raw sources and labor force, which in its consequence increases the consumption of fossil fuels again - just somewhere else, where it "evades" the attention of technocrats. And I'm not even talking about deforestation in the name of wood and palm oil fuels, which are accelerating devastation of nature even more.
greenonions1
4.6 / 5 (9) May 03, 2018
Except that the consumption of fossil fuels still grows in both absolute, but - what's worse - even in relative numbers
That is just not true. Oklahoma now gets more than 30% of its electricity from renewables (almost all from wind). 20 years ago that number was 0%. Obviously as a relative #, that is a change. Perhaps as an absolute #, coal and gas are still larger, but give it time damn it. If we just take all of our fossil fuels off line - we don't have enough power. If we take coal and gas plants off line before they have lived out their lives - we push the cost of power up - as we are unnecessarily having to build new generation. That is what Germany has done - and they were willing to accept the cost. This is America - the world of I want everything - now - as cheap as possible.
Ken_Fabian
4.6 / 5 (9) May 03, 2018
Once the costs of wind and solar crossed cost equivalence thresholds everything changed. No analyses based on historic costs - from when they were much more expensive - can tell us anything useful.

New solar capacity (even without wind) being built now exceeds new fossil fuel capacity and, given that costs are still going down, that isn't going to stop. The relative numbers are changing as we argue - further in favour of wind and solar; from slowing the growth of fossil fuels it will go on to displace them. I don't expect huge emissions gains early on but I do expect them in the longer run.

The broad willingness to use RE - which involves industry and resources at unprecedented scale - is evidence that we are not being led there by irrational "green" extremists.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (13) May 04, 2018
We are shutting down the worst offenders (coal) - and building out better. Gas is better than coal - and a legacy technology. Hydro is a legacy technology - but comes with many of its own issues - so will probably not expand much as we go forward. Hee...haww...hee..hawww - Willie hates reality...

The Onions jackass brays.
Here's some reality for you.
https://www.econo...-methane
HeloMenelo
4.6 / 5 (10) May 04, 2018
Aaah look who's showing his actual face instead of hiding behind his sockpuppets antigoracle in one of his original socks, (still wonder what happened to 'ol waterprophet and you other legacy socks though...

As usual he quotes from a dumb economic site,(ever being so clueless/ nor caring as to how his big oil is wasting out the world) now aren't we surprised ;) At least he's good advertisement for their stupidity. He's been swinging those trees barking high and low waking the neighborhood with his hilarious propaganda again :D
O my.... and here he is again !

https://phys.org/...ion.html
mackita
not rated yet May 04, 2018
Oklahoma now gets more than 30% of its electricity from renewables (almost all from wind)
Well, I seriously doubt it. In similar way, like instead high end prices of renewables these low distribution ones are presented, the raw production of renewable instead of their actual consumption is presented in biased media. The production of renewables is too unstable for to complement one third of electricity in grid. A way more probable is, the similar amount of electricity gets wasted.

We should realize, in winter are many days when the both solar, both wind electricity production gets completely suppressed. It means, that nominal capacity of coal/nuclear plants must substitute the demand (which gets highest just in winter). It also means, that this capacity is wasted, once renewable plants run at full power. But the installation cost of plants represent the highest portion of production cost of nuclear/coal plants.
mackita
not rated yet May 04, 2018
In particular, in nuclear plants only 1 - 3% of production cost accounts to the cost of fuel (yet the final cost of nuclear electricity is 2 - 3x higher, than the fossil one). Do you see, how wasteful the "renewable" scheme actually is? It wastes just the most expensive part of electricity: the capacity of grid and the installation cost of fossil and nuclear plants. In Germany the policy adopted by Germany-friendly EU for example leads to wasting of installation cost of coal and nuclear plants built in neighboring countries, because the surplus of "renewable" electricity is pushed right there - the grid of these countries serve as a obligatory buffer for German experiments with "renewable" electricity. This is just one of many examples, how eastern countries of EU get stolen by Germany on behalf of technocratic renewable hype.
mackita
not rated yet May 04, 2018
Of course with compare let say cold fusion research (which has still some fuzzy factor) all these connections were already well known well before implementation of renewable hype. Our corrupted economists were just quiet and with honest exception they didn't bother to calculate real economical impacts of "renewable" scheme - despite that these impacts can be predicted easily in advance.

All progress achieved so far (in the sense of stabilization of oil prices) isn't the credit of "renewables", but both subprime crisis (which started as a consequence of Iraq war and fossil fuel peak), both immense amount of another fossil fuels (in particular the Canadian tar sands oil and short-living reserves of shale gas), which were thrown into the market during it. I'm convinced, that implementation of "renewables" merely does the situation even worse due to their low effectiveness - no matter, how surprisingly it may sound for someone.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (2) May 04, 2018
goracle
The Onions jackass brays.
Thank you for those kind words - here is the kind of work I was basing my assertion that nat gas is better than coal on - https://www.smith...0949739/

https://www.sourc..._of_coal

But if potty mouth wants to advocate for doing away with coal and gas - that is fine with me - should be a boon for renewables. What is your time frame potty mouth? How quickly do you want to phase out coal and gas? Have you calculated the additional cost of all of that build out of new power plants?
mackita
3 / 5 (1) May 04, 2018
The natural gas (this one following the oil) may be really environmentally cleaner than the coal - but the shale gas isn't - with methane leaks or without them. The USA are net importer of energy - for Americans it would be strategically way more advantageous if they would wipe out Arabs and Russians with cold fusion rather than with futile effort to compete them with shale gas production. The problem is, the shale gas reserves are quite temporary with their lifetime - it just requires to drill-drill, explode and drill again.. And to pollute ground water of course...
MR166
3.4 / 5 (5) May 04, 2018
https://www.thegu...e-change

Oh how we rewrite history. They passed regulations than made coal uneconomical and then claim that cheaper natural gas was the reason for it's demise. The EPA even went as far as to classify CO2 as a pollutant in order to kill coal. The climate propaganda machine keeps working 24/7. There is no truth anymore since the facts are always slanted to prove that the AGW agenda is valid.
barakn
5 / 5 (4) May 04, 2018
MR166 - from your own source, "EPA rules will not come into force in all states until 2020" and the most ambitious parts of the rules were not to come into effect until 2030. Furthermore Obama's rules were announced in 2014, and yet coal prices had been declining since 2011. That's amazing. Not only did the rules kill coal before they took effect, they killed coal before they even existed. Some sort of time travel must be involved.
rrwillsj
5 / 5 (3) May 04, 2018
Well, MR666, evidently you've been huffing that 'nutritious' CO2 to replace all that nasty liberal Oxygen.

WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) May 04, 2018
Haven't you heard of energy storage and/or the supergrid?
Cheap wind/solar are causing electricity prices to skyrocket everywhere, worse yet including storage/supergrid.
"If climatechange solutions involving High renewable shares depend on storage solutions that don't exist, in what way are they solutions?"
https://uploads.d...7aea.jpg
"Storage systems are incredibly expensive in the case of batteries—and geographically limited in the case of pumped hydroelectric"
https://www.techn...-energy/
..possible to power whole states with wind/solar/nuclear/hydroeletric/etc !
There is no law of physics against it and no reason to think it is impossible
"In a world of limited hydro, solar and wind won't scale."
https://www.youtu...iSNhAJqU
Please don't lie.
Don't lie to yourself.
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) May 04, 2018
...5 cities in the U.S. that are run totally on renewables...Or 100 cities globally that are run primarily on renewables...
100% renewable ≠ 100% wind/solar
Wind/solar are parasites on other reliable forms of energy such as hydro, geothermal, biomass and fossil fuels. Hydro and geothermal are site-specific(geographically limited) and biomass is worse than coal in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and also compete with agriculture. So wind/solar are just an expensive form of providing "greenwashing" for the fossil fuels.
Wind/solar/biomass/wave/tidal are all much newer technologies
Windmills and sails have been around since ancient ages and were replaced by steam engines centuries ago.
- First battery 1749
- First solar cell 1877
- First windmill generator 1887
https://uploads.d...eac3.jpg
wind and solar are winning on price
Cheap wind/solar are causing electricity prices to skyrocket.
humy
3.4 / 5 (5) May 04, 2018
Haven't you heard of energy storage and/or the supergrid?
Cheap wind/solar are causing electricity prices to skyrocket everywhere,

WillieWard

That assertion makes no sense whatsoever. You apparently don't know the first thing about market forces.
When loads of a cheap alternative source of a commodity (such as electricity) is introduced to a market, if all else is kept equal, this would drive the prices of it down, not up. This is just very basic economics of supply and demand. If prices still go up, that wouldn't be because of the cheap alternative source but despite of it so the cause wouldn't be the cheap alternative source.
humy
3.9 / 5 (7) May 04, 2018
Wind/solar are parasites on other reliable forms of energy such as hydro, geothermal, biomass and fossil fuels.

WillieWard

What is that supposed to mean?
If that means something then how are "geothermal, biomass and fossil fuels" NOT "parasites" on "Wind/solar" ?
I take it here "parasite" just means something you have a political agenda against so you just unintelligently name-call it "parasite".
Eikka
3.3 / 5 (7) May 04, 2018
When loads of a cheap alternative source of a commodity (such as electricity) is introduced to a market, if all else is kept equal, this would drive the prices of it down, not up.


But things are not kept equal. First of all, these alternative sources are not cheap, but subsidized, so they can sell below market prices. Secondly, they have the right of way (legally enforced) into the market, so everybody else has to yield and prices can even go negative, and thirdly, because the renewables produce randomly and sporadically, they push the baseload power out of the market and the power prices rise because cheaper and more efficient capacity has to be replaced with under-utilized and inefficient (expensive) load following and peaking capacity. The faster the output changes, the more you pay.

What is that supposed to mean?

It means that the other forms of generation produce (almost) all the energy, while the renewables get all the profit through subsidies.
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (6) May 04, 2018
Willie said
but wind/solar cannot power even a small city without gas
And I gave a rebuttal that proves that statement to be false - https://abcnews.g...p;page=1

So when it is proven that you are wrong - it doesn't make any sense to keep trying to argue - as if you have any credibility. Then trotting out the same debunked arguments that have already been addressed - just shows you up for suffering massive level dunning krueger.
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (6) May 04, 2018
Eikka
because the renewables produce randomly and sporadically, they push the baseload power out of the market and the power prices rise
The issue being debated is Willies assertion -
Cheap wind/solar are causing electricity prices to skyrocket everywhere
The counter argument was given that Oklahoma now generates over 30% of their electricity from wind, and prices have actually dropped here. We have the cheapest commercial electricity rates in the country. All that has been proven with links.

Now Johny comes lately arrives - and the obfuscation begins. The point is proven - Willie just makes shit up - and every time his rubbish is proven false - he moves on to the next article - rinse and repeat.
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) May 04, 2018
...the cheap alternative source...
Wind and solar are not alternative to fossil fuels.
"Have fossil fuels been substituted by renewables? An empirical assessment for 10 European countries" - May 2018
"Wind Power Installation Amplifies The Growth Of Fossil Fuel Energies"
"The installed capacity of wind power preserves fossil fuel dependency."
"Electricity consumption intensity and its peaks have been satisfied by burning fossil fuels."
https://www.scien...18300983
http://notrickszo...eration/
"Without fossil fuels, there would be no solar panels / wind turbines."
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) May 04, 2018
And I gave a rebuttal that proves that statement to be false - https://abcnews.g...p;page=1
Another renewable scam. Rural Rock Port(Missouri), with about a thousand residents, is still connected to regional fossil-fueled grid, producing intermittent energy when it isn't needed but when energy is most needed, mainly during the Winter, it's fossil-fueled backup plants that prevent people from freezing in the dark.
"The population was 1,318 at the 2010 census."
"Excess power is sold to the Missouri Public Utility Alliance in Columbia, Missouri"
https://en.wikipe...Missouri
Renewable cultists are completely delusional, disconnected from reality, and dishonest.
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) May 04, 2018
The counter argument was given that Oklahoma...
It is still cheap because Oklahoma has a lot of gas/fracking.
"Oklahoma is one of the top natural gas-producing states in the nation, accounting for 7.6% of U.S. gross production and 8.7% of marketed production in 2016"
https://www.eia.g.../?sid=OK
"Together, coal- and natural gas-fired power plants produce almost three-fourths of the electric power generated in the state."
Texas is already getting the electricity prices to skyrocket, Oklahoma is the next.
"Oklahoma is at Risk to Pay $930 Million in Zero Emission Wind Tax Subsidies"
http://windwaste....bsidies/
A wind-powered state is almost 10x dirtier than a carbon-free nuclear-powered state:
- Oklahoma(wind): 270gCO₂/kWh
- Ontario(nuclear): 38gCO₂/kWh
https://www.electricitymap.org
MR166
2.6 / 5 (5) May 04, 2018
Renewables are also responsible for gas replacing coal. Gas plants can respond more quickly than coal plants to changes in demand.

The end result was that cheap sources of power that were already paid for were replaced by new and more expensive producers.
greenonions1
4 / 5 (4) May 04, 2018
It is still cheap because Oklahoma has a lot of gas/fracking
Still missing the point. You said -
Cheap wind/solar are causing electricity prices to skyrocket everywhere
And that assertion is disproved by the example of Oklahoma. Stay on topic Willie - stop obfuscating. If I can show you an example of a situation that has gained a significant amount of wind energy - and yet electricity prices have gone down - then your assertion is false. You are shown to not know what you are talking about. You have nothing left but to try tying us up in knots of obfuscation. Your argument has been disproven - as has Eikka's assertion that wind pushes baseload off the market - and causes prices to rise. Perhaps that happens sometimes - but Oklahoma proves that it does not have to happen. It proves that it can be done. Check mate.
humy
4.2 / 5 (5) May 05, 2018
When loads of a cheap alternative source of a commodity (such as electricity) is introduced to a market, if all else is kept equal, this would drive the prices of it down, not up.


But things are not kept equal.

yes, I know. That is why I just said "if all else is kept equal, ..". Get it now?
First of all, these alternative sources are not cheap

Actually, wind power is currently cheap and outcompetes gas/oil and that is WITHOUT 'subsidies'.
+ he (WillieWard) himself just said they are cheap and it is too HIM I was responding to with my comment.
Please follow the current argument.
What is that supposed to mean?

It means that the other forms of generation produce (almost) all the energy, while the renewables get all the profit through subsidies.

IF that is what he meant;
There are no plans to permanently subsidize wind/solar at the expense of hydroelectric/nuclear as he implied thus that would make no sense.
humy
3.9 / 5 (7) May 05, 2018
Wind and solar are not alternative to fossil fuels.

WillieWard

1, who said we must ONLY use JUST wind/solar at the alternative?
None of us here are rejecting other renewables such as hydroelectric etc (and personally I am also NOT rejecting nuclear).
Why not include ALL the alternatives as an alternative?
2, How can anyone take you seriously when you make stupid statements like that?
In some parts of the world, renewables have already replaced fossil fuels for electricity production.
mackita
2 / 5 (4) May 05, 2018
Nobody also attacks hydroelectric plants here - they're ideal for balancing the grids like integral member of PID regulator. Unfortunately their capacity is rather limited in most countries and it merely declines with droughts of climate change. The pros and cons of nuclear plants were discussed here.
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) May 05, 2018
None of us here are rejecting other renewables such as hydroelectric etc
"The IEA says that the world has already developed ~1/2 of its hydroelectric potential. And since that only services ~6% of total CURRENT energy demand"
renewables have already replaced fossil fuels for electricity production.
Only when included hydro/geothermal(site-specifics) or biomass(land-intensive).
You can power a whole region(off-the-grid) with hydro or geothermal or biomass without solar and wind, but you cannot power even a small city with solar and wind without hydro/geothermal/biomass or fossil fuels because "neither does the sun shine nor the wind blow all day long."
Conclusion: wind and solar are parasites on other reliable sources of energy, and worse yet, as hydro/geothermal is geographically limited and biomass competes with agriculture, intermittent RE are just an expensive form of providing "greenwashing" for oil/coal/gas, useless placebos in the fight against Climate Change.
mackita
1.7 / 5 (3) May 05, 2018
mackita
2.3 / 5 (3) May 05, 2018
Human-caused climate change: 97% scientific consensus? Try 99.94% instead
This optimistic perspective somewhat contradicts with recent finding, that A worrying number of science textbooks are missing an important topic: When researchers examined 16 of the leading undergraduate science textbooks published between 2013 and 2015, less than 4 percent were devoted to climate change or global warming.

So that actual opposition manifests in contemporary science rather at the Bayesian level in silence, where the normal voice should be expected. After all, in similar way, like at the case of another topics, which mainstream science disagrees with (taboos like the cold fusion or overunity). The openly negativistic opinion is simply considered risky, asocial and de mode.

mackita
1.5 / 5 (4) May 06, 2018
Believing in climate change, but not behaving sustainably: Evidence from a one-year longitudinal study The problem is, even scientists himself don't want to know, what the sustainable means: their neverending research is indeed sustainable until tax payer money are going - but it doesn't lead to sustainable solutions anyway, because it's embezzled for interests of scientists itself.
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (3) May 06, 2018
The IEA says that the world has already developed ~1/2 of its hydroelectric potential. And since that only services ~6% of total CURRENT energy demand
And if the IEA is correct - that means 12% of energy demand could be met with hydroelectric. So you pair that with wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, wave, tidal, and storage - and you will have a cheap, clean, energy system.
WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) May 06, 2018
...wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, wave, tidal, and storage...
Cognitive Dissonance:
Meanwhile, environuts are aboard a DIESEL-burning ship(with sails just for decoration) protesting against a carbon-free nuclear power plant that will prevent people from freezing in the dark at the Arctic.
https://pbs.twimg...9O8N.jpg
Intermittent renewables are a joke.
Ken_Fabian
2.5 / 5 (4) May 06, 2018
The only reason we even notice the 'environuts' is because mainstream people in positions of trust, responsibility refused to face this head on with eyes open - and chose to oppose rather than lead. The choice to NOT fix the climate problem by pro-nuclear conservative-rightists deprived nuclear-for-climate of it's largest base of support. Nothing 'environuts' could have done can ever equal the impact of that on nuclear.

It doesn't matter if captains of commerce and industry prefer nuclear over renewables (now questionable) when they support the continuing de-facto amnesty ie huge subsidy for FF's - the externalised climate and health costs. Their 'support' for nuclear is about as useful as decorative sails on a diesel ship.

Nuclear needs far more sustained unanimity of purpose and regulatory intervention than RE and until the political right gives up on denial and obstruction it won't have it. RE can and will grow despite it but nuclear cannot.
leetennant
3.7 / 5 (6) May 06, 2018
Mackita trying to prove just how many subjects he can be wrong about.
mackita
2.3 / 5 (3) May 07, 2018
Low-carbon energy transition requires more renewables than previously thought... Thought? You mean "calculated"? It never happened. Everything what alarmists ever calculated about "renewables" was only their profit.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) May 07, 2018
Wind and solar are not alternative to fossil fuels.

So lemme get this straight: Your plan is to use fossil fuels until they run out and then everyone dies - right?

That's total genius. Not.

Mackita trying to prove just how many subjects he can be wrong about.

Well, Zeph has been on here for very long in one guise or another...and so far he has been 100% wrong about everything, ever.

It's rather spooky if you think about it. Even if you threw random rocks at a keyboard you'd come up with more correct posts than him.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) May 09, 2018
Your plan is to use fossil fuels until they run out...
"We Don't Need Solar And Wind To Save The Climate -- And It's A Good Thing, Too" - May 2018
"Sunlight and wind are inherently unreliable and energy-dilute. As such, adding solar panels and wind turbines to the grid in large quantities increases the cost of generating electricity, locks in fossil fuels, and increases the environmental footprint of energy production."
"According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), public and private actors spent $1.1 trillion on solar and over $900 billion on wind between 2007 and 2016." with no meaningful CO₂ reduction.
"The dilute nature of water, sunlight & wind means that ~5,000 times more land & 10 - 15 times more concrete, cement, steel & glass, are required than for nuclear"
https://www.forbe...ing-too/
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) May 09, 2018
To reiterate:

Your plan is to use fossil fuels until they run out and then everyone dies - right?

Do you have an answer to that?

WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) May 09, 2018
Do you have an answer to that?
Carbon-free nuclear energy is the only answer.
Hydro and geothermal are site-specifics, biomass is worse than coal in terms of greenhouse effect and compete with agriculture, wind and solar are intermittent and only serve as "greenwashing" for coal/oil/gas.
"Solar & wind are parasites on reliable forms of energy: hydro, geothermal, nuclear, biomass, fossil fuels."
"So it's why parasitic people identify with unreliables."
"Renewables are like an employee that doesn't always come to work and when he does he works only for a few hours."
"Beeckmans: Energiewende, Germany's troubled energy policy" - May 4, 2018
http://lfpress.co...y-policy
"The Green religion is anti intellectual and fundamentalist . It has a set of beliefs that cannot be questioned exposing their antiscientific antirational instincts."
mackita
2 / 5 (2) May 09, 2018
Well, Zeph has been on here for very long in one guise or another...and so far he has been 100% wrong about everything, ever
LOL, for example whole this article is just about what I said here before three years (and got usual six/seven downvotes for it, before whole my comment had been deleted from here). I don't need any expensive research for to realize it immediately. You even cannot imagine, how correct actually I am (a Dunning-Krueger effect ensues).. ;-)
mackita
2 / 5 (2) May 09, 2018
Original article is here, all my posts (@docile) were deleted - note than only MINE posts, nobody's else. Because I'm the only one, who realized the truth.
mackita
3.7 / 5 (3) May 09, 2018
So you think we're reducing the use of coal? -- think again" This article summarizes it well. The so-called "renewables" just convert the fossil-fuel crisis into raw source crisis. A shift to "renewables" will only replace one non-renewable resource (fossil fuel) with another (metals and minerals). Right now wind and solar energy meet only about 1 percent of global demand; hydroelectricity about 7 percent. To match the power generated by fossil fuels, the construction of solar energy farms and wind turbines will gobble up 15 times more concrete, 90 times more aluminum and 50 times more iron, copper and glass.
mackita
3.7 / 5 (3) May 09, 2018
To put the things into simple perspective, just the production of cement for concrete production consumes about 2% of total energy consumption. 15-times more concrete would thus consume about 30% of fossil fuel energy, which we are consuming today - just for building pillars of wind plants. Another 2 percents of energy is consumed into production of aluminum. Well, for 100% replacement of fossils by "renewables" we would need 2 x 90 = 180% of energy consumption today - and we are already in the red numbers: the implementation of "renewables" would increase our fossil energy consumption two-fold once when we consider only the concrete and aluminium needed for it!

And who is responsible for this sh*t? Just the people, who cannot calculate - who actually don't want to calculate for not to threat their jobs, grants and profit.
humy
3.7 / 5 (3) May 09, 2018
Do you have an answer to that?
Carbon-free nuclear energy is the only answer.

No it isn't; at least not yet.
Currently nuclear energy is the most expensive and thus least cost effective alternative.
Maybe one day that will change. But until then, we have renewables as the main viable alternative.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) May 09, 2018
Mackita
So you think we're reducing the use of coal? -- think again
We are reducing the use of coal. http://www.mining...18-03-16

According to the IEA's 'Coal 2017' report, global coal consumption fell 1.9% to 5.357-billion tonnes last year, the second year of decline, because of lower gas prices, a surge in renewables and improvements in energy efficiency. Further, coal demand is down 4.2% over the last two years, nearly matching the two-year decline in the early 1990s.
If you don't know how to use google - and find current data - you join Willie Ward - in looking like the village fool - who only knows how to repeat the same lies over and over. Of course the real point is that every Mwh of power generated by renewables - is one Mwh that would otherwise have been generated by fossil fuels. So we know for sure that we have curtailed the use of fossil fuels - just at a slower rate than we would like.
mackita
3 / 5 (4) May 09, 2018
We are reducing the use of coal. http://www.mining...18-03-16
Who is "we"? The fossil fuel consumption rises steadily in both absolute, both relative numbers. Coal is just offset (very slightly) by huge increase of natural gas consumption - this is the only difference. Carbon dioxide levels rise accordingly with increasing rate - the current "strategy" simply doesn't work. Because it actually could never work - sorry...

I'm pointing to it here in effort to slow-down the fossil fuel depletion - not to accelerate it.
mackita
3.7 / 5 (3) May 09, 2018
Currently nuclear energy is the most expensive and thus least cost effective alternative.
Maybe one day that will change. But until then, we have renewables as the main viable alternative.
Renewables are even more expensive - the price of electricity in Denmark or Germany rises proportionally with their decommissions of nuclear plants. France has electricity cheaper than Germany and it utilizes the nuclear the most. The recent Forbes articles (1, 2) explain why it is so. Forbes is actually the only medium which maintains at least some contact with reality instead of ideology.
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (3) May 09, 2018
Renewables are even more expensive


Lazard says that a kwh of renewable energy is now 1/2 that of coal - https://electrek....ns-jobs/

And the cost is going to keep going down. Your major flaw is that you keep comparing legacy plants - with new build. Of course a 30 year old plant is going to be cheaper than a new one. The capitol cost has been amortized - and you are just paying for the fuel, and the maintenance. A new plant is built with today's dollars - and the capitol has to be paid off. You really keep making yourself look nutty. The cost of wind and solar have dropped every year. Power from Hinkley Point is going to cost 12 cents Kwh - in a 5 cent world. You keep using old data.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) May 09, 2018
Forbes is actually the only medium which maintains at least some contact with reality instead of ideology
All reality based. The four states here in the U.S. that have the most wind power (all over 1/3) - have electricity prices below the national average. Oklahoma has some of the cheapest electricity in the country - and over 1/3 coming from the wind.
mackita
3 / 5 (4) May 09, 2018
Congress bound to cut renewable energy funding, 10 millions jobs in green energy
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue with - of course that energy funding is bad, every job place in energy production increases its cost, because the people involved in it also consume energy.
Solar power now 50% cheaper than coal
At the distributors side? Because no one wants to buy it due to its nonreliability? And this is supposed to be another advantage? At any case, the atmosphere is shared globally. To make electricity cheap with using cheap panels from China brings no advantage for climate, until their manufacture increases coal consumption there.
greenonions1
2.6 / 5 (5) May 09, 2018
mackita
Because no one wants to buy it due to its nonreliability?


You and Willie just make fools of yourself by not keeping up with reality.

https://cleantech...-panels/
https://cleantech...cturing/
https://cleantech...ekistan/
https://cleantech...f-april/
https://cleantech...in-2018/

I could go on all day.....
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) May 09, 2018
@macurinetherapy, nobody who's buying solar panels for their roof is worried about "nonreliability." They're connected to the grid and all they do is lay back and watch the money roll in. If it's not sunny right now it will be soon.
Anonym231395
1 / 5 (2) May 09, 2018
It's obvious some patient with HIV/AIDS OR CANCER are been enslaved to the antiviral and other supplementary Orthodox medicine just to help suppress the virus and not a cure. I have been with the virus for 5 yrs when i was introduced by a blogger who also narrated Her story online on how she was cured of Hepatitis B after using Dr MUNA Herbal Medicine. I took the same step to also get cure of HIV/AIDS, I made an order for DR MUNA Herbal Medicine and after taken for 2 weeks with a test result i was confirmed HIV FREE I have promise to keep telling good about this. You can Write him via his email: Marvelspelltemple@gmail.com and call or whatsapp him on +2348071660388
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) May 10, 2018
But until then, we have renewables as the main viable alternative.
Wind and solar are not alternative to fossil fuels, they are just an expensive form of providing "greenwashing" for coal/oil/gas which can be verified by real data: no meaningful CO2 reduction while electricity prices are skyrocketing everywhere.
Potentially viable alternatives: hydro and geothermal are site-specifics(geographically limited) and biomass is worse than coal in terms of greenhouse emissions and compete with agriculture.
The only viable alternative: carbon-free nuclear energy.
WillieWard
3.4 / 5 (5) May 10, 2018
Oklahoma has some of the cheapest electricity in the country - and over 1/3 coming from the wind.
You have only Oklahoma as showcase, a top US gas/fracking producer, with cheap gas "greenwashed" by intermittent renewable, what about Germany, Denmark, South Australia, Minnesota, and other wind/solar expensive fiascos?
The cost of wind and solar have dropped every year.
While electricity prices are skyrocketing.
Reasons: batteries not included, neither fossil-fueled backup plants nor integration costs.
Wind and solar are a scam after scam after scam.
greenonions1
4 / 5 (4) May 10, 2018
Willie
You have only Oklahoma as showcase,
you know that's not true. I could give you hundreds of examples of countries, cities etc. that are in the process of ramping up their renewable energy generation, and down their use of coal. We could look at Scotland, Costa Rica, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Denmark, etc. etc. etc. Of course you would try arguing each case - with your cherry picked rubbish - when the fact of the matter is that we are building out renewables all across the world. I have shown you that the 4 states with over 1/3 of their electricity coming from wind, all have below average electricity prices. The reason for that is cheap gas, and cheap renewables. The only viable alternative is not nuclear. So tell us again - when is Hinkley Point coming on line, and how much will the power cost? Now research how much wind and solar came on line in the U.S. last year, vs how much nuclear. See Willie - reality is hard to dismiss.
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) May 11, 2018
If solar/wind is so cheap, why does it need to be shoved down people's throats?
"California's Solar Roof Law Will Raise Housing And Energy Prices But Do Little To Reduce Emissions" -May 10, 2018
"California's top energy economists say the main driver of higher electricity prices is the state's heavy deployment of solar and other renewables."
"New Solar Roof Law Will Transfer Wealth from Poorer to Richer"
"...solar roofs are twice as expensive as solar farms."
"California's new solar roof mandate will make housing more expensive, increase electricity prices, and transfer wealth upwards. What it won't do is significantly reduce carbon emissions."
https://www.forbe...issions/
The reason for that is cheap gas, and cheap renewables.
"Renewables are a scam: they run on GAS."
antigoracle
3.7 / 5 (3) May 11, 2018
I could give you hundreds of examples of countries, cities etc. that are in the process of ramping up their renewable energy generation, and down their use of coal. We could look at HEE HAWWW, Germany, HEE HAWWW etc. etc. etc.


The Onion Jackass brays.
https://www.googl...oe=UTF-8

greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) May 11, 2018
Thank you for those kind words goracle. As usual great depth to your contribution to the conversation.
greenonions1
4 / 5 (4) May 11, 2018
If solar/wind is so cheap, why does it need to be shoved down people's throats?
You don't really clarify what you mean by 'shoved down peoples throats' - but yes there is good reason for the government to promote renewables. We know the impact that burning fossil fuels is having on our environment - and we understand in the light of that impact - that it is imperative that we stop burning carbon, digging up the boreal forest for tar sands, destroying whole ecosystems with mountain top mining etc. etc. So just as the government has put billions of dollars into developing the oil and gas industry - it is now time to promote the necessary shift to low carbon. I am fine with nukes - and support efforts such as iter - but based on the whole picture - clean, cheap, distributed renewables seem like the best bet. If you can build nukes cheaper, and sell that idea to the world - go for it Willie. Or are you comfortable with the status quo?
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) May 12, 2018
yes there is good reason for the government to promote renewables
The reason is to provide "greenwashing" for the natural gas(fracking) industry in order to displace carbon-free nuclear energy which is a crime in the face of Climate Change.
based on the whole picture - clean, cheap, distributed renewables seem like the best bet.
"According to business consulting firm Lazard, the net cost of energy from residential rooftop solar is twice that of solar panels on commercial and industrial roofs and as much as 10 times costlier than large solar farms."
http://www.sacbee...434.html
"California's rooftop solar rule is a pricey path to emissions reductions" - May 9, 2018
https://www.techn...uctions/
Solar/wind are endless scams.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) May 12, 2018
in order to displace carbon-free nuclear energy
Expensive nuclear energy. 12 cents a Kwh wholesale price from Hinkley Point - stuck to the British tax payer for the next 35 years. Yeah that makes sense (sarcasm). Any ways - no nukes were displaced in Oklahoma - as we have never had any. But we get 1/3 of our power from the wind.
Solar/wind are endless scams.
Just saying it - doesn't make it a fact. The 4 U.S. states that get over 1/3 of their electricity from the wind - have below average electricity costs. The costs are going to keep going down.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) May 12, 2018
The costs are going to keep going down.
Real data don't lie, electricity prices skyrocket with wind/solar penetration in the grid.
"Renewable energy's dirty little secret. As penetration increases specific emissions from fossil fuel back-up increase."
https://twitter.c...60107522
"Solar's economic value to the electricity grid declines by half when it reaches just 15 percent penetration, according to research by German economist Leon Hirth."
"Increasing solar penetration on a grid can actually cause emissions to go up"

Nuclear energy is the cheapest and the most ecologically friendly.
Nuclear: 10.1 ¥/kwh
Wind: 21.9 ¥/kwh
Solar: 24.3 ¥/kwh
https://pbs.twimg...v3Eg.jpg
https://www.bloom...m-within
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) May 12, 2018
Real data don't lie, electricity prices skyrocket with wind/solar penetration in the grid
Like the 4 states in the u.s. that get over 1/3 of their power from the wind - but have below average electricity rates. Oh right - you already knew that - just had to keep on lying though.

Nuclear energy is the cheapest and the most ecologically friendly
More lies. https://www.ewg.o...oAogvyM8

The plants can't compete with cheaper renewable energy and natural gas on the open market. This comes on the heels of the company announcing that it will close three nuclear plants by 2022
Shooting fish in a barrel Willie.....
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) May 13, 2018
Like the 4 states in the u.s.
Iowa: "coal is still the state's largest source of net electricity generation" >50% "Iowa wind farm generates more tax credits than electricity"
Kansas: "Coal is the largest single fuel source for electricity generation in Kansas" closely followed by gas.
Oklahoma: "Together, coal- and natural gas-fired power plants produce almost three-fourths of the electric power generated in the state."
South Dakota: "hydroelectric power provided more than two-fifths of South Dakota's net electricity generation", natural gas is one of major source.
The plants can't compete with cheaper renewable energy and natural gas...
Carbon-free nuclear energy can't compete with cheap natural gas "greenwashed" by intermittent renewables.
If the same regulations were also applied to gas/fracking and renewables, carbon-free nuclear power would have solved the Climate Change issue.
Fracking radioactive wastewater:
https://pbs.twimg...MWAAEO7P
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) May 13, 2018
Oklahoma has some of the cheapest electricity in the country...
Thanks to subsidies and cheap gas.
"Oklahoma cuts back on wind subsidies after finding them unsustainable." - March 2018
https://institute...bsidies/
"wind turbines blotting homeowners' views of the landscape to wind turbines causing sleepless nights due to the noise."
"The whooshing noise and vibration from the blades force them to close windows and blinds and use white noise to mask the mechanical sounds. Still other homeowners expect lower property values, as fewer people will want to buy a home overlooking a wind facility."
"Wind Mills are environmentally friendly?"
"Look at the FARKING destruction for 2 MW's of unrealiable electricity!"
https://pbs.twimg...9BdQ.jpg
"Farmers are not allowed to clear land for growing crops, but deforestation OK for solar panels and wind-turbines"
https://pbs.twimg...VhCk.jpg
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) May 13, 2018
Carbon-free nuclear energy can't compete with cheap natural gas
It's not carbon free - as the link I gave you made very clear. The other link shows that nuclear cannot compete against cheap gas, and renewables. Just saying something does not make it true Willie.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) May 14, 2018
It's not carbon free...
but it reduces emissions, e.g. France, Sweden, Ontario.
Unlike your cheap wind/solar placebos that are causing the electricity prices to skyrocket while failing miserably at reducing CO₂ emissions everywhere.
"European Renewables Are Up. So Are Carbon Emissions" - May 14, 2018
"A bumper year for renewable energy didn't stop Europe from increasing its emissions."
"European Union carbon emissions grew 1.8 percent in 2017 despite a 25 percent increase in wind power and 6 percent growth in solar, figures show."
https://www.green...missions
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) May 14, 2018
cannot compete against cheap gas, and renewables
"cheap" solar/wind is an expensive form of providing "greenwashing" for the gas/fracking industry.
"As renewable energy grows, so does interest from Big Oil"
"Experts believe wind and solar development will entice greater investment from traditional oil and gas firms" - May 10, 2018
"Shell, Total, BP and others — make billion-dollar investments in renewables."
"There's a role for natural gas because wind and solar are not available 24/7 and natural gas is a great partner in terms of offsetting those renewable sources when they're not there,"
http://www.cbc.ca....4656106

Wind and solar are a distraction, a farce in the fight against Climate Change.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) May 14, 2018
but it reduces emissions
But you said it was carbon free. You just keep lying. I am done now. In terms of going back and forth, and trying to actually make any head way. Reality is proving how little you know about the subject of energy.

A good article here on a possible route for small modular nukes. We should know in less than ten years - if there is any future for them. What will be fascinating - is looking at the price of renewables/storage vs nukes - in 10 years. If Nuscale gets their act together - perhaps they will have a future in the energy basket - it is great times watching things happen.

https://www.green....=4NPhrs
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) May 14, 2018
We should know in less than ten years
In less than 10 years, most of wind/solar farms in Europe will be a bunch of junk, it is already happening now.
"Germany spent trillions on wind and failed miserably. Back to coal."
"New subsidies for ageing European wind farms, or death spiral? "
https://tallbloke...-spiral/
In a decade or two, intermittent renewables will be remembered as the Scam of the Century, a trillion-dollar fiasco in terms of CO₂ reduction, a distraction, a farce, a fraud that has only served to favor the coal/oil/gas industries.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) May 16, 2018
...cannot compete against cheap gas,...
"Would you be surprised to learn that the oil and natural gas companies are perfectly aware that solar and wind lock-in their main product? That's why they are only all too happy to invest in and promote solar and wind."
"Solar and Wind Lock-In Fossil Fuels -- And That Makes Saving the Climate Harder & More Expensive" - May 15, 2018
https://pbs.twimg...lFMG.jpg
https://www.forbe...pensive/
Fracking radioactive wastewater:
https://pbs.twimg...O7Pl.jpg
"Nuclear power is the only large-scale energy-producing technology that takes full responsibility for all its waste and fully costs this into the product."

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.